Talk:Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Can't see the forest for the trees[edit]

I wonder if someone who really understands D-F could add to the introduction a few sentences which would clearly summarize what this law does so a non-expert can get a mental handle on it. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

See introduction of the article: It made changes in the American financial regulatory environment that affect all federal financial regulatory agencies and almost every part of the nation's financial services industry. That sums it up pretty decently.
I don't really understand American Law, but I do know that legislation is subject to a lot of deals between the representatives. That's why several points in that law are covering things like "conflict resource monitoring", although such topics have practically no relations to banking regulation. This Act has not been composed by one or two clever men for one purpose, but by an entire parliament where everyone could take a turn to edit his own purposes in. Add the lobbyists, too. I'm pretty sure that this article is not the perfect explanation for the law, but it's definitely shorter and probably easier to understand. --Enyavar (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess of an article[edit]

I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.93.233.246 (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the thread above: Blame the legislative system. This isn't a topic that everyone can understand. --Enyavar (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's ideas[edit]

Am I misinformed about Trump planning to get rid of the D-F Act, or at least do a reform on it? So far, there is nothing about that debate in the article. --Enyavar (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He has talked of removing the fiduciary responsibility for financial advisors, as well as other things I believe. Shaded0 (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Link: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-03/trump-to-halt-obama-fiduciary-rule-order-review-of-dodd-frank

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of citations to widely cited academic article by MrOllie based on Off-wiki personal attack; see wikipedia's page on reliable sources re: Mortgage Securitization[edit]

I wrote the following on MrOllie's talk page following his deletion of citations to a particular academic author. Mr. Ollie did not respond on substance but rather responded with ad hominem attacks. Please discuss so that we can reach consensus.

Dear MrOllie,

You recently reverted edits to articles about mortgage securitization, the GSEs, and the subprime mortgage crisis. I believe these revisions reduced the substantive quality of the wikipedia articles and the edits should be restored. My explanation is below. I look forward to working with you amicably to reach consensus. I believe that our goal should be to improve the article and cite to high quality, relevant sources whenever possible.

The edits you reverted included substantive improvements to the articles and cited an award-winning (see also here), widely-cited, widely-read academic journal article by a tenured professor at a leading research university with relevant expertise.

According to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources:

″Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. . . . Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. . . . One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.″

Thus, the source cited is among the most reliable sources under Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. You reverted it while suggesting that it might be reference-spamming, but given the relevance of the academic article to the wikipedia article, and the high quality of the academic article--demonstrated by its placement, its citations, its readership, its awards and the institutional affiliation and status of its author--it is not a form of spam but rather a legitimate effort to improve the article.

Please note that news articles in journals with an ideological valence, think tank reports and other materials are considered less reliable sources than academic research. See Biased or Opinionated Sources Many of the other sources in the article are editorials and think tank reports, not academic articles, and the inclusion of more high quality and up-to-date academic articles would therefore improve the article.

Many of the think tank reports cited in the article are written by organizations that receive financial sponsorship from private lenders and therefore have an interest in portraying the financial crisis as having been caused by government policies rather than by private financial institutions. One of the few academic reports cited is years out of date, claims to provide a "comprehensive" bibliography of articles, but was published in 2012. Much has been written in the ensuing 7 years--the article is no longer a comprehensive review, if it ever was. And indeed, the author claiming otherwise has a think-tank affiliation.

In addition, self-published material is generally considered an unreliable source, except when published by well-published academic experts. Per Wikipedia policy, self-published material:

″are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.″"

You cited to self-published blog by a self-employed blogger / part time document reviewer which contains an off-wikipedia criticism of a scholar with whom he disagrees about the benefits of legal education.

It may be helpful to understand the context of this post. The blogger apparently posted this criticism as a form of revenge for having been made to appear foolish for making substantive mistakes about legal education and student loans[1][2] --subjects about which the blogger purports to be an expert--even in a publication to which he has contributed.[3]

Citing to the post you cited violates wikipedia policies including Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and [[1]]. Indeed, the author of the post you cited acknowledged "that this post might be construed as an “off-wiki attack” ... that Wikipedians may perceive as harmful to their community."

Edits are supposed to be evaluated on substance based on established wikipedia policies about reliable sources, not based on snap decisions based on [[2]]

I recognize that my edits only added one source and that it would be better to include multiple sources. If you would like to add additional high quality academic sources rather than deleting the few high quality citations that are in the wikipedia article, I would encourage you to do so. I have reviewed Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policies and I am in compliance.

Mbs6446 (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Repetitive (and avoidable) mistakes". Brian Leiter's Law School Reports. July 28, 2013.
  2. ^ "Simkovic & McIntyre's "The Economic Value of a Law Degree"..." Brian Leiter's Law School Reports.
  3. ^ ""Million Dollar Degree" Authors Answer Harper, Leichter". The American Lawyer. August 30, 2013.

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion was not merged. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act into Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. I think that the content in the former article can easily be explained in the context of latter, and the latter article is of a reasonable size that the merging of the former will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. The latter article is also small enough enough to merit merging into a larger article with context. Phillip Samuel (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I would rather keep them separate, and encourage contribution to Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act. While it amends Dodd-Frank, which is its context, it's a pretty significant statute that is independently notable and ought to have its own article. The Congressional Research Service has a 50+ page paper on it,[1] and at least one entire book, a 295-page text (part of which is the bill itself, which no doubt bloats that page-count) has been published on it.[2]
I no longer have access to HeinOnline, but I bet there is some significant coverage of the 2018 law in law reviews. TJRC (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TJRC It would be more appropriate given the size of the pages to incoporate the source page into the destination page. No one has offered any substantive contribution to the source page besides maintenance for over a year,[3] and it is way too small (one paragraph and 8 sources) to merit being an article by itself. Having a CRS analysis and a book written on a law does not make a law notable or distinct enough to have its own Wikipedia page, particarlarly when it would be much more appropriate to merge it in the context of a much more notable law. Phillip Samuel (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to oppose for the reasons stated above. There is nothing wrong with a stub article on notable legislation. See WP:STUB.
Please make sure you actually get consensus before merging again. This is an opposed proposal. As the proponent, you need to get consensus to merge. Having the last word is not the same as obtaining consensus. TJRC (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TJRC Since we are the only two people that have responded to the merger proposal in months and no one else has responded to this, I don't think any more users are going to come with their opinions to achieve consensus. Should this discussion be closed and relisted to get more people involved according to WP:RELIST and WP:MERGECLOSE? Phillip Samuel (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be okay with that; we really ought to get more input. Did you leave any notice on, for example, WP:WikiProject Law? TJRC (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not leave a notice on the law project page. I've put a notice there and hopefully some will add their opinions. Phillip Samuel (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just left notes on WikiProjects Business, Finance & Investment, U.S. Congress and United States Government; hopefully we'll get some additional voices.

References

  1. ^ "Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 115-174) and Selected Policy Issues". Congressional Research Service. United States Congress. June 6, 2018. Retrieved July 28, 2021.
  2. ^ Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act : law, explanation and analysis. Riverwoods, Illinois: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. 2018. ISBN 9781543803303.
  3. ^ "Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Revision history", Wikipedia, retrieved 2021-08-01
  • Oppose. The case for merging these articles is extremely weak. The EGRRCPA was enacted eight years after the Dodd-Frank Act, and most of its provisions are unrelated to the Dodd-Frank Act. The argument for merger boils down to the fact that a small minority of the EGRRCPA's provisions amend provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. Those provisions probably should be referenced in the Dodd-Frank Act article (or in the related article on the DFA's provisions), but anything else about the EGRRCPA would be extraneous to the Dodd-Frank Act's article. The best argument for merger would be that the EGRRCPA is insufficiently notable to merit its own article, if that argument could be made. But that seems like a tough argument to make, in view of the existing references in the EGRRCPA article, which call it the biggest rollback of bank rules since the financial crisis. John M Baker (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Separate legislation, separate provisions. Simple as that. Davefelmer (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting proposal[edit]

SPLIT
Consensus reached to split. Phillip Samuel (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that section Provisions be split into a separate page called Provisions of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The section is 99 kB long (nearing 100 kB), and according to Wikipedia:SIZESPLIT it almost certainly should be divided. The section is large enough to make its own page and so I propose splitting it into a new article and summarzing the section in this article. Phillip Samuel (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support this proposed measure JLo-Watson (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act&oldid=1206996186"