Jump to content

Talk:Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weird article

[edit]

Most of the article reads like a corporate press release. I took off an advertising tag, but it's not too far off the mark. Meanwhile, right in the center is a section on naked shorting that takes an opposite tone. I've tried to fix that, but it still needs work. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?. Where does it say, that in this particular instance, that The Register is not a reliable source? The Register journalist, Cade Metz, is reporting it as a fact that an edit on Wikipedia promoting naked short selling was done by Gary Weiss on a DTCC computer. The DTCC then denied any involvement. Why don't you believe that that can be in the article? Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tabloid website, more a blog than an authoritative news source, and to make a derogatory claim concerning a BLP you need far better sourcing than this. I've seen discussions on this in the past, and I can fish it out but I think the general requirements of BLP are pretty clear. I think also that your choice of text from this article is strange, the cherrypicking of a "denied" allegation, when an "admitted" and far more serious matter - the hacking into Yahoo and user computers - is left out in both articles you've tried to insert this into. I can't see the Register as a source for either. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have to look far[1]. See note from Risker at the bottom of the section and from Cool Hand Luke. ("I think I can speak on some authority when I say that these sources are not up to WP:BLP standards.") You may be familiar with that discussion because you initiated it. This also involved the Register and also involving Weiss, apparently a subject about which you feel strongly. The DTCC is not a BLP, but WP:BLP applies to all articles and even non-article space.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think strong consideration needs to be given to undoing most or all of the changes you just made JohnnyB256, you've moved the article in the wrong direction. In particular, this removal of material cited from the WSJ seems problematic. It may be easier to roll the whole set back and start over instead of trying to restore that one. ++Lar: t/c 10:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that would involve reinstating a link to a comment letter to the SEC not mentioning the DTCC, a first paragraph that recites the media coverage and two close paraphrases of the Journal article. I'll reinsert the Journal reference, though. I thought I'd left that in. I also think the general tone of the section is not neutral. What else did you want re-inserted?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that the DTCC is more than just the naked short selling controversy and it is important not to overweight that section. We have a separate article on Naked short selling and only the DTCC specific material should be included in this article. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That was my concern too, and also I was about to say that there are links from RGM.com, an appparent copyright violation, and from something called "Financialwire." I've reinstated a reference to the WSJ article, but we need to be mindful of the DTCC's response (in the external links) and include that where appropriate.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reinstating the WSJ link and working it back into that section. ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue with the section: we're relying entirely on a press release to source the Waypoint lawsuit. The link points to press release in Marketwire. There has been no independent third-party coverage, according to Google News, and I think it should go.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't find any independent coverage, I'd tend to agree. Google News isn't perfect of course, I take it the generic Google search came up dry too? Or is that worth trying? ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ran a Google search [2]and I mainly came up with quotations from the Wiki article. I think also it's mentioned in naked short selling and should go from there too. I ran an SEC search and came up with this[3], a trading suspension for questionable press releases, and also references to the company allegedly participating in an email spam campaign. That's about all I can find on the company at all.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken it out of this article on naked short selling, as there is clearly no independent third party sourcing. I just noticed that there is an extensive section on the DTCC in naked short selling, with some of the same issues as here, but mainly I wonder if there needs to be two identical sections and whether there should be a merger.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And then we have the NASAA brief. Again, no third party coverage, and I'm wary about using a primary source in a legal case. I've retained it and quoted exactly, as what appears to be an endorsement of the plaintiff's factual claims was primarily in support of NASAA's longstanding policy of fighting federal preemption. I've kept it in, and actually made it longer to incorporate the nuance ("as it must on a motion to dismiss") but I have my doubts about this too, particularly since the suit was dismissed (which by the way is OR, but I've retained for neutrality's sake). --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC) No, strike that, it's mentioned in the Journal article. The original wording was a word-for-word copy from the Journal, in fact.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Or Not BLP?

[edit]

@JohnnyB256-You keep crying BLP, this article is not a BLP but about a very esoteric, secretive, powerful and dangerous financial institution. BLP "safeguards" do not, nor should not, apply here. As for The Register's' reliability, on technical and business issues, it most certainly is. The simple fact is, a lot of Wikipedians are biased against it because it is biased against Wikipedia...quid pro quo. But that has nothing to do with its reliability otherwise.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Wrong. BLP safeguards apply everywhere in Wikipedia. WP:BLP: "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." This is a re-publication of allegations that appeared in The Register in October 2008. When it first appeared its use was rejected. See discussion at [4]]. It has limited applicability to DTCC anyway, so there would be a WP:WEIGHT issue even if the Register were a reliable source, which it is not. Be mindful that BLP would require multiple reliable sources for contentious material of this kind. See WP:NPF. Your point about The Register's open bias is correct. I'd oppose use of this article even to source its central allegation, which reflects on a public figure and alleged cyberstalking.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Context is always important. In this case your public figure is a corrupt journalist who has been found guilty by Wikipedia's own processes of sockpuppetering and the evidence the Reg presents is rock solid. Of course we dare not mention it in Mistah Weiss' bio here either, because that would certainly violate sacred BLP policy. It is clear to me that you are either just another policy-pusher or have some hidden agenda in trying to protect the likes of Weiss, so I'm invoking my seniority and WP:IAR-R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd request that you reconsider doing so. Please be mindful of the three-revert rule, and that the 3RR does not apply to removal of contentious or poorly sourced material concerning BLPs. See WP:GRAPEVINE.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3RR also expires after 24 hours..which is why your bleach job is still there for the moment. So tell me, who are you and why are you so interested in this article and, specifically, Gary Weiss?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please address your comments to the text and not the editor, and please be mindful of the prohibition against personal attacks. Thanks. Also please tone down your talk page comments. WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer my questions, and stop using policy as a weapon. Also let's keep our discussion here and off my talkpage..k thx--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robinhood Phone App / Brokerage

[edit]

In the nature of Wikipedia, I think it would be worth adding an entry regarding the coming Robinhood Melvin / Citidel Capital saga (and potential turning point in history of the 2020's Wall St. Melt-up / Melt-down repeat of the 1920's). This could well be the Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. / Shoe-shine boy moment... My understanding that DTC has been instrumental strong-arming Robinhood to limit selling GameStop shares using 100% (clearance) capital requirements. I'm not a well versed stock investor, but have a fascination regarding the current evolution of the Wall St. Ponzi global collapse. This is surely (at least) another great turning point in financial history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.10.68 (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

     I second and agree with this. However we will need acceptable references.
           Pacificgov (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting changes to outdated information

[edit]
  • Specific text to be added or removed:

Please update final sentence of introduction to read, “In 2020, DTCC settled the vast majority of securities transactions in the United States and close more than to $2.3 quadrillion in value worldwide, making it by far the highest financial value processor in the world. DTCC operates facilities in 21 locations around the world.”

Slamarca (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: Not a reliable source. Also, a secondary source is needed for something which could be seen as promotional. It also doesn't seem to say that it is the "largest financial value processor in the world". 15 (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updating information

[edit]
 Not done: Procedural decline, User:15 declined above for WP:SPS {{ESp|rs}} Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Depository_Trust_%26_Clearing_Corporation&oldid=1206939298"