Talk:Rhode Island banking crisis

Recent "de-categorization"

The Category "Category:Credit unions" was removed earlier today. The words "banking crisis" are in the title but, according to three different cited sources, about 75% of the institutions were actually credit unions so I am restoring that Category. Discuss here if you disagree. Shearonink (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like it was removed because the category is for individual credit unions rather than for articles on the subject of credit unions. I'm not so sure that's true. The category does include e.g. credit union, history of credit unions, bond of association, and corporate credit union. It's true that most of the institutions involved were credit unions (I'm not sure of the legal aspects, but I believe most banks had to be federally insured already). The article is so named (with redirects like Rhode Island credit union crisis already in place) because it's the common name. I imagine that's because banking crisises are a known term/phenomenon. Credit unions, while not banks, are a forming of banking institution and would fall, unless I'm mistaken, under the larger umbrella of "banking" (i.e. it's not the Rhode Island bank crisis). This response is more than what you were looking for when you opened this section, I know. Figured I'd head off a question in the future. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: did you read WP:CATEGORIZATION, the part on set categories, as opposed to topic categories? Category:Credit unions is a set category, with nouns in plural in the title. Several of the parties in the RI banking crisis were credit unions, I give you that, but the crisis itself is/was not. It was a crisis. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Set categories and topic categories aren't always mutually exclusive. There is no "credit unioning" topic category for them to go in. Hence the articles I linked above are in the credit unions category despite not themselves being credit unions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@HandsomeFella: Yes I did, thanks for being so helpful. I see what you are saying with "set category" (as in singular members of a limited grouping) vs. "topic category" (as in subjects associated with the topic itself) but part of the problem could be is that there is not a topic category for Category:Credit union. But, still, it seems to me that out of the 45 institutions closed because of the crisis, 75% or approximately 33 institutions were credit unions, this article is a large part of the institutional and political history of credit unions in the US and I still think that the Cat is not being misused in this instance. If you think that only a named credit union belongs within this category then you should probably open an RFC since there are individuals, a museum, various legal entities that oversee credit unions, the articles Rhododendrite named above, etc., etc. in that particular category (+ various other entities including a school in the subcategories). If I am wrong (and maybe I am) then many other editors have also been wrong. Shearonink (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

They're not, Rhododendrites, but this categorization is just bonkers. According to the article lead, banks were also affected – and you wouldn't categorize the crisis as a bank, would you? The scam was perpetrated by one Joseph Mollicone, but you wouldn't categorize the crisis as "Americans of Italian descent", would you? We can't have categorization-by-association, if you catch my drift. If a category is WP:INCOMPATIBLE, create a new category that is compatible. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Category created. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the category, but googling "credit union crisis" returns hits almost entirely about RI (with a few exceptions, indeed), and it seems unclear that there is much coverage of the general subject called "credit union crisis" (as opposed to "banking crisis"). I see no problem with, as before, treating Category:Credit unions as both a set and topic category rather than creating a category of one. That said, this is not something I care all that much about so with my opinion stated will leave it to others. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Rhodendrites. Keeping in mind IAR is there any kind of rule/guideline against having a joint set/topic category? I think that would be more useful and more user-friendly to do so. Shearonink (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:SETCAT: Sometimes, for convenience, the two types can be combined, to create a set-and-topic category (such as Category:Voivodeships of Poland, which contains articles about particular voivodeships as well as articles relating to voivodeships in general). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That may be, but let me ask a simple question: would you think it proper to categorize this article in Category:Banks, following the same logic? After all, banks were affected too. HandsomeFella (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rhode Island banking crisis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 01:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Review

• Suggest listing Mollicone as bank President, not manager, given that the latter can mean overall in charger or a more mid-level person while President was his actual title  Done
• The location of Heritage Loan & Investment failure does not appear to be sourced  Done
• I really like the muffin quote Y :)
• When Mollicone realized authorities had caught on Sourcing seems to suggest that he was told authorities had been alerted by RISDIC not that he'd figured it out on his own  Done
• It continued to expand through the 1980s, enabled by more lax state and federal laws. This isn't directly sourced (and needn't be) but is presumably sourced to the New England Economic Review. Can you point to me where it draws this conclusion?

• Starts with the last paragraph of the left column on page 4, going through the decreased oversight, increased limits, etc. Does it not seem like a fair summary?

Ok that's what I figured but wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. I would say lax is a conclusion (one person's lax might be another person's stringent) and would suggest changing to loosening or the like to avoid the issue altogether (more lax is ostensibly true but a different word avoids any sort of imputed judgement) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)  Done

• Jefferson used up a great deal of RISDIC's resources, leaving them in particularly bad shape when the even more costly Heritage collapse came about. Should have an in-line cite  Done
• I'm curious about how you've chosen to organize. You start off with Heritage and it's failure and then go back in time to examine RISDIC.

• It's according to the way events played out in coverage of the subject. Heritage Loan failed then RISDIC failed. But explaining the latter benefits from additional context which requires reaching a little further back. Since those older accounts are less relevant to the banking crisis itself (and especially to coverage thereof), it didn't make sense to me to try to make it overall chronological. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• By state law, banks and credit unions cannot legally operate without insurance. needs an in-line cite since it's not clear which of the three cittaions which follow is the source for this fact.  Done
• Since we don't have an article on NCUA, suggest FDIC and NCUA be spelled out in first usage

• We do have one -- I just accidentally swapped association in for administration. FDIC is spelled out in first instance already, so I fixed the link and spelled out NCUA. Maybe slightly awkward to have one acronym and one spelled out but meh.  Done

• Would suggest moving the Whitehouse picture down to the hearing section where there is accompanying text for him  Done
• According to The New York Times, the banking crisis was the major catalyst in an "ethics movement" or even "citizen revolt" against corruption in Rhode Island. needs a cite to the NYT  Done
• Under resolution think it would be worth saying 25 of the 36  Done
• Is it helpful to move the first mention of DiPrete to the possible connections section (it doesn't seem strictly necessary to say who Sundlun was replacing)? The Wikilink to his name there feels more helpful. The note that he was later jailed for unrelated crimes also seems a bit of guilt by association which is why the link to his name there could allow a curious reader to more easily discover that.  Done
• Similar guilt by inference question about Cianci  Done

• I just removed the line about Cianci. It indeed didn't add much beyond implication.

• Most wanted fugitive needs in-line citation  Done

Discussion

• Taking review. @Rhododendrites: confirming you remain interested in doing a GA process? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Barkeep49: Confirmed! Thanks for taking it on! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I have completed my review of the article text above and have now completed checking other elements of GA (e.g. photos). Once the changes have been completed I'll do one more read through but think this is close to being ready. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Great! I think I addressed all of the above now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Notes for future development, with an eye towards FAC?

First and foremost, I need access to the Providence Journal archives. It's quite expensive, without even an option for a basic monthly/yearly plan -- all based on number of articles. Working on tracking down access through other means (libraries, etc.). Probably won't do much more work to the article until I get that.

@Barkeep49 and RexxS: Do you mind if I copy over your thoughts expressed in IRC here for use later? (making sure just because public logging isn't allowed) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to have the logs posted, but am happy to comment here. So I am no FA expert (I have a couple of my own articles I've thought of nominating but am a bit intimidated from doing so) but in thinking about that criteria I was surprised at the reliance on the New York Times and would think there are other good sources, like the Providence Journal archives. I would also expect that there are other peer reviewed work on this topic - perhaps not something else in its entirety like Pulkkinen & Rosengren but which would still have useful context/information. A quick Google Scholar search for "RISDIC" suggests this to very much be the case. I would also seriously consider trying to gain some permissions to resources through the Wikpedia Library which I have found invaluable in my own content creation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with you copying over my comments. Why not use the WP:Peer review process to collect more input? It may take a while, but it's worth it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

As per above, the following from RexxS:

• The lead looks a bit short for FAC
• check the main sections in the article and use them as overview
• each section should be summarised in the lead (unless there's good reason not to)
• keep the lead to 4 paragraphs max
• should the first 2 sections be level 2 or subsections of a parent section?
• 20 references may be considered short, but I see you've searched for more
• Is there anything that's not a newspaper article?
• is there any reason why the refs don't have access dates?
• you can always ask at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request for folks to look at other papers for you before you decide to spend

As I said, I'm probably not going to dive back in until I can get access to the Providence Journal. I do have access to a lot of academic resources. Every once in a while I come across something that's not covered by my own access or by TWL. This is one of those things. :/ — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Are there particular articles you're looking for from that journal? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for asking, but not exactly. This was an event that spanned a long period of time. When I searched the archives, several hundred hits came up. It's a newspaper, too, so they publish a lot more individual articles than a journal, which adds up on a $/article basis, unfortunately. Have you seen it come up in one of the databases? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I have some access through a library - not complete though. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I appreciate the offer. I'll get back in touch if I can't find full access somewhere. With contacts in RI, it should be doable, I think. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Coming back to this, so pinging the users above: @Barkeep49, RexxS, and Nikkimaria:. I've tried to implement some of the above feedback. A search for other academic sources returned one more good one, a couple meh, and not a ton else. I did get access to the Providence Journal from that time period ... on microfilm! First time in years I've used microfilm. :) I've added a couple articles I got that way and have a few more to go through. My sense is, however, that there's not a ton more to add that isn't already covered by the other sources. I've gone ahead and sent it on to PR, with an eye towards FAC. Any additional feedback appreciated, but this is just a ping to let you know I'm picking this thread back up. Thanks! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Rhododendrites I am getting close to nominating my first FAC as well, so I don't have any other comments other than good luck. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Can you give me an idea of your approach to searching for sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Basically started with a Google search and through an academic library for various search terms like '"rhode island" "credit union"' with restricted date, or just "RISDIC" or "Joseph Mollicone", etc. I did some searches of particular sources like the New York Times (which I have a subscription for). Finally, I went to the library and got the Providence Journal microfilm and started going through it, pulling mainly from the first month of coverage. There's a lot of other newspaper coverage, and some additional coverage in credit union/banking industry publications, but by the time I stopped the actual information they covered began to get very repetitive. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Davisville students

Just read a Providence Journal article about Davisville Middle School students who had formed their own "credit union". Their money was frozen, too, because their credit union was really a shared account in one of the closed credit unions, resulting in quotes like "[the governor] ticked me off good" from kids who e.g. couldn't buy the bike they intended to. Doesn't seem significant enough to add to the article at this time, but putting it here so I don't forget. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Parker, Paul Edward (January 3, 1991). "Davisville students 'ticked off' by governor's order to freeze deposits". Providence Journal. pp. A7.

Pre-FAC comments

On a first look, and speaking as someone who is not American: seems like there needs to be a bit more work to contextualize this story. I feel almost as though on reading the lead I've jumped in midway through a larger article: the lead is summary style as it should be, but I don't think it provides enough to situate the reader, particularly one who is not well-versed in the subject matter. (And while this may seem really really obvious, I do actually think we need to say somewhere in the lead that Rhode Island is in the US!). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I'll give some thought about how to do this and have a go in the next couple days. So I'm clear on process, since I suspect this is the first of several comments, should I plan to take action before the process goes to the next thing or are you planning to compile several comments here that I can/should respond to afterwards? Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Entirely up to you which you prefer. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• This source and its sources have some details not currently covered in the article - would probably be a good idea to page through to see what can be gleaned. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Is there currently a Wikipedia article that breaks down how bank insurance works that could be linked somewhere? Unfortunately bank insurance is a redlink. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• Deposit insurance seems most appropriate. Added links. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• In addition to the contextualization issue mentioned above, I wonder if there is any way to make the article as a whole more chronological. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• Organization is something I thought about quite a bit while developing the article, though that's not the say it's the best way. :) "Rhode Island Share and Deposit Indemnity Corporation" could be split up so that the "background" goes before "Heritage Loan & Investment failure" and "Failure" goes after. It seems like it makes sense to deal with the Mollicone trial as a single section, and the connections to organized crime and corruption is sort of an overarching sub-topic that seemed to make sense to deal with separately. Open to other ideas, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'm also adding some comments inline in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• For some reason I haven't been able to convince IABot to run on this page yet. Have checked images and licensing is fine, will hold off on source and MOS formatting until some of the content changes above have been made. I think the biggest barrier to a FAC at this point will be the density of the content - technical-type articles (which this isn't but it reads like one in some ways) have historically had a hard time attracting reviewers. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for all of this. I hope to set aside some time to process it and go through the additional source(s) in the next few days. Your concern about reviewers indeed played out in the lack of interest at PR (and part of the reason I tried to sell it a bit at WT:FAC. To what extent is it considered canvassing to request reviews from relevant WikiProject participants? Better to just let FAC regulars handle it (or not)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• As long as your message is stringently neutral, there should be no problem with posting review pointers at relevant WikiProjects. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Responding to some of the inline comments:

• "was this a random check? prompted by some complaint?"

• I've gone back to look at a few sources now and am yet to find a clear answer to this. It seems like there were some routine and some focused examinations over a period of time. part of the problem was that oversight was inconsistent or ineffective, so I wouldn't be surprised if documentation of such were missing. I'll keep an eye out for more information, though.

• "is this the same as the DBR investigation above, or something else? What's the relative timeline?"

• I'm not sure now. I regret now waiting for the GA review and PR, since it's been several months since I've been deep in the sources. I will ping (hopefully soon) when I can re-collect them and jump back in to sort this stuff out. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)