Talk:Financial system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Split up[edit]

Financial system deserves its own article and should not be a redirect to finance. There are numerous types of financial systems, and as it has been seen, the finance article doesn't cover all of them.Smallman12q (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Look out for possible copyright violations in this article[edit]

This article has been found to be edited by students of the Wikipedia:India Education Program project as part of their (still ongoing) course-work. Unfortunately, many of the edits in this program so far have been identified as plain copy-jobs from books and online resources and therefore had to be reverted. See the India Education Program talk page for details. In order to maintain the WP standards and policies, let's all have a careful eye on this and other related articles to ensure that no material violating copyrights remains in here. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

NOTE I have reduced this article to a minimal stub. It consisted almost entirely of verbatim pastes from copyright publications and websites. However, while a small amount of this came from the IEP, the vast majority was long standing. The copied sources included:

For the two book sources, I retained a brief quotation from each, clearly marked them as quotations, and sourced them. The irony of it all was that the London Business School published an article, "Fixing the financial system", in its Business Strategy Review which said:

Even online reference tools, like Wikipedia, struggle to simplify what is a gargantuan labyrinth of money on the move: “... the financial system is a set of complex and closely interconnected financial institutions, markets, instruments, services, practices, and transactions.”

Unbeknownst to the LBS, Wikipedia had simply lifted that verbatim from Gurusamy (2008) without crediting the author. Voceditenore (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Voceditenore (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Note this latest removal pertains to material added after I had reduced the article to stub.[1] I also removed material which was written in poor English and was completely off-topic. Voceditenore (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2015[edit]

I have knocked this article back to a basic but reasonably accurate form after the overwriting and additions which happened in August 2015. I have removed the lengthy and poorly organized commentary and copied definitions, none of which were referenced. Much of the material was either inaccurate, confusing, irrelevant, or superfluous. The writing was also extremely poor—ungrammatical, poorly punctuated, incoherent, etc. Voceditenore (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Complete revision using existing content[edit]

I've removed most of the opinionated and misleading information and marked several sections as requiring expansion. I rewrote each section to be coherent and have acceptable grammar, but it is in need of revision and the addition of more content if it is to remain its own page. I kept much of the previous authors' work, so some content may still be a duplicate of another source. Northpilot (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)