Talk:Net settlement

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 September 2019. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Finance & Investment Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

These are some general comments about how this article can be improved. I started looking for this article as a section of the Set-off (law) article, where there is a section called Netting and a subsection called Settlement Netting. Some content from those sections could be moved here, and that article could link to this one. I also think that the article on Settlement (finance) needs some connection with this article. At risk of stating the obvious, this article is focused on net settlement in ACH, but most of the finance articles on settlement and netting in this encyclopedia are focused on trading/finance without respect to ACH. This article should also contain a blurb of information on gross settlement. There is not an article for gross settlement, but there is one for Real-time gross settlement, which is a specific type of gross settlement. The ACH system created by the Fed used gross settlement (the Fed ACH might still use gross settlement, but the source I read from 1994) and net settlement in ACH was developed later. As far as I know, there isn't much need for a general article on gross settlement unless it is to discuss the concept in general, which might be useful to understand the principle of set-off. The inclusion of gross settlement in this article would be to understand that net settlement was an improvement for ACH that allowed banks to hold less deposits. Lastly, the improvement of this article and all the articles mentioned above goes hand-in-hand. Many of the aforementioned articles are missing general information or discuss their topic from a single perspective. As for notability, I think this article is notable, albeit lacking important information. If you agree with any of these ideas and wish to improve this article, feel free to use them as a starting point. If you disagree or have comments, please share them.

I will make one final note, that I am not a finance expert. Most of my understanding of ACH comes from reading the sources of other articles. My understanding of gross settlement and net settlement comes from one source in particular, which is a 25 year old article. It's a good article, but I hesitate to develop this article without first finding additional sources.Wurtech (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia provides a set of citation and short footnote templates for implementing Harvard referencing correctly. These have been added to the article.

Mauls (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, templates exist but there is no prescription to use them. From WP:CITECONSENSUS, The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged: an article should not be switched between templated and non-templated citations without good reason and consensus. Citation styles should not be changed by drive-by editors to their own preferred formats, it interferes with editors who are putting actual content into the article. Since I have provided all the citations in this article and almost single-handedly saved it from deletion by expanding what was a two-sentence stub, I think I have the right to choose the citation style. SpinningSpark 11:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to believe you WP:OWN the article, I see. When I originally made the first changes, you had not provided all the citations, and you have since removed other citations. You also persist in undoing corrections I have made to your content, and additional elements I added ("See also"). It seems pretty clear you will not permit anyone else to contribute to this article. Mauls (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an OWN issue. Your changes to see also got reverted because you have insisted on inextricably mixing them with your edit war over citation style. Please stop doing that and then we can start to work together. In any case, I did take a brief look at what else you had done and top of th list was an addition to see also that is already linked in the aricle body, so I then stopped looking. I have not removed citations, I replaced ONE citation with a better book source which also made the page more consistent. SpinningSpark 12:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also sections can mentioned (and mostly do) articles that are Wikileaked in the article text. And my edits were distinct, yet you reverted all of them, not merely the one that templated the bibliography, and the one that templated the inline references. WP:OWN is a reasonable conclusion, especially when you explicitly state that you feel you have rights over the article because you "single-handedly saved it from deletion". You have shown no signs of wanting to work with anyone else at all. You demand discussion, but never discussed any of the changes you made to the article yourself, nor did you move to the talk page when you started reverting the additions of another editor. Mauls (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. See also items are routinely removed after they get embedded in the article body. MOS:SEEALSO says As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body and A "See also" section is not mandatory—some high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have one. I'm not exercising WP:OWN, I'm reverting stuff that's against guidelines. I'm sure you've been around long enough to have heard of WP:BRD. You boldy changed the referencing, I reverted it. If you don't accept the revert, the next step should be to go to talk, but you didn't do that. Instead you tried to force through your change. SpinningSpark 15:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"As a general rule" - yet you deleted an entire "See also" section because it contained one item that was used (piped to an abbreviation) in the body? And "I did take a brief look at what else you had done..." makes it sound as if you have such little respect for other editors' efforts – that they put time into creating – to not be bothered to check them properly before doing a drive-by prevention. As does the excuse that a manual edit would have been required to save them - I didn't undo your edits with the 'undo' function because it would have undo the later changes you made (such as adding the book reference), because I don't have contempt for other editors. So it still continues to look exactly like WP:OWN. Oh, and I did go to talk - see above - and only re-added my changes after doing that, which is entirely appropriate. Mauls (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I reverted your change to the referencing system. I wasn't really looking at anything else in those edits which all seemed to be very minor. I don't see why I should do the work of unpicking what was usable in that. By the same token, you chose not to respect CITEVAR and my edits, so can we please move on and talk about actual issues in the article rather than criticising each other. SpinningSpark 15:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article starts incorrectly. Net settlement is a method for handling settlement in a payment system. It is not a payment system itself "a net settlement".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauls (talk • contribs)

If it is my previous reversions that are holding you back from changing the lead sentence to Net settlement is a settlement process in payment system used for inter-bank transactions. don't let that stop you. I have no problem with it (other than the lack of an article in front of "payment system"). SpinningSpark 12:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, it was a distinct edit that you still reverted... and still haven't explained why. You clearly have a problem with any changed to anything you have contributed. Mauls (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It got reverted because it was embedded in your edit warring over citation style and was not possible to retain without a subsequent manual edit. I'm perfectly happy to put it back in myself if it makes you feel better. SpinningSpark 15:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mauls, where does it say on the BOJ-NET page you cited in your edit summary that BOJ-NET is a gross settlement system? I'm not seeing it. SpinningSpark 16:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This BOJ page says "Funds transfers between BOJ accounts are used to settle interbank money market transactions,...and net positions arising from private-sector clearing systems" (my emphasis). SpinningSpark 16:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That quotation is saying that the net positions are in the private sector clearing systems (an example would be the Zengin System), not in BOJ-NET. Mauls (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but that still doesn't say it is a gross settlement system. SpinningSpark 16:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It fairly clearly does in the part you cut, mentioning direct movements between the bank's reserve accounts at the central bank, but you might prefer [1] or http://www.boj.or.jp/en/paym/bojnet/index.htm/, where you can see that BOJ-NET transitioned to net settlement to RTGS 20 years ago (phase 1), and moved to a successor RTGS system in 2011. This is the problem with the book source used - it is chronically out of date. Mauls (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found much the same myself. This is what I was about to post:-

This (p. 152) says Japan used a deferred net settlement system until 2000. The BOJ site says they introduced RTGS in 2001. It would seem Humphrey's book (published 1995) is not unreliable, just out of date. SpinningSpark 16:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a source is out-of-date, that falls with the definition of an 'unreliable source'. It may have been a reliable source when originally published, but it isn't now. Mauls (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Humphreys continues to be an unreliable source, as it is also wrong on CHAPS. As there seems to be a determination to revert changes I make, I'm stepping away from this article - there is still a massive dose of WP:OWN going on in challenging and reverting any improvement I try to make. Mauls (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that doesn't make it unreliable. Out-of-date and unreliable are two very different things. An encyclopedia should cover historical, as well as current information. There is no evidence that anything Humphrey wrote in 1995 was not true in 1995. I didn't revert anything from you on this issue. All I did was add a more recent source (as discussed above) updated the text, and then removed the dubious tag which no longer applied because the information it was attached to had now been updated. Please leave off with the claims that I revert everything you add. The edit history shows I haven't. The only reverts I have made have been in connection with the citation style. Nothing you have done since has been reverted. You need to move on, but seem incapable of doing so. SpinningSpark 17:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my addition of an 'unreliable source' tag on Humphreys in the Bibliography without in any way addressing the issue in the reason (related to CHAPS). And WP:RS AGE does say that out of date material is a factor: "older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light". It is not being used as a source for a list of historical net-settlement payments systems from 25 years ago - it is not a suitable source for now.

Consistently reverting other editors efforts is a real disincentive to try to improve the article (which was in a pretty confused state). I have no confidence that you aren't about to take umbrage with some minor part of an edit, and apply another sweeping reversion to multiple parts because you don't want to take the time to single out the specific issue. And as statements go "The only reverts I have made have been in connection with the citation style." is plainly not true. You have reverted a lot more, and have reverted other changes (like the one just mentioned) since. It absolutely does look like and feel WP:OWN - trying to see off another editor because you feel you have the rights to this article having 'saved' it (your own words). Mauls (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]