Talk:European Central Bank/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Meeting minutes

I think minutes of meetings aren't published (unlike for instance at the Bank of England) so that representatives from each country can make the decisions best for the Eurozone as a whole, and not be pressured into solely concentrating on the benefit for their country, rather than not to reveal internal splits. -- Joolz 14:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

central bank of the eurozone

The ECB is not the central bank of the whole European union, but just for the eurozone. — thewikipedian (talk • contribs) 09:58, May 21, 2004 (UTC).

The ECB is the Central Bank of the EU's offical currency and it is the head organization for the ESCB which is including all EU central banks. If a few member states maintain a special status in terms of the euro that doesnt make the ECB less the Central Bank of the European Union! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.161.113 (talk • contribs) 06:07, February 11, 2006 (UTC).
So you are telling me that the ECB is the central bank of the United Kingdom, if so you are going to need a definition of a central bank that excludes the control of monetary policy, which is set by the Bank of England. The definition used by wikipedia states precisely that, so you had better correct that page aswell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lukeski (talk • contribs) 11:41, October 10, 2006 (UTC).
All that can be said is that the ECB is the central bank of the Eurozone. That's not the same as 'the currency of the EU'. This isn't likely to change in the near future. Despite the best attempts by their governments to persuade them otherwise, Dutch and Swedish voters roundly rejected the Euro in 2003. The UK hasn't had a referendum on the Euro, arguably because of the high probability of rejection, and its economic success outside of the Eurozone. Countersubject 13:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Money Masters

I don't know much about economics (and don't, for example, understand why there has to be increases and decreases in money supply in the first place - one of the jobs of central banks), but this extreamly critical documents towards private central banks and their power over the economy, and thus the whole world, has got me on my toes. For sure there can be lots of ways politicians could use central banks harmfully, but at least politicians are democratically elected and thus, at least in priciple, serve the interest of the people. So i guess the question is this: how can we be sure, that the "experts" runing the central banks at the moment use their expertise to serve the interest of the people and not the interest of jewish bankers? If this documentary is to be believied, the history does not speak very highly of them, and i would assume that its the history of Bank of England and US Federal Reserve (both private), that has also led to private European central bank. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.230.6.237 (talk • contribs) 00:15, February 2, 2006 (UTC).

Can i politely suggest,that if you don't understand enough to know why there is a need to control the money supply, you are not really in a position to critically review money masters, and decide whether there is a bais for redistributing anti-semtic opinions. By the way i assure you having worked in banking, and now left, that money masters is not just wrong, it is gibberish, i.e. it doesnt make any sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lukeski (talk • contribs) 11:45, October 10, 2006 (UTC).

And for the one who do understand why it is necesary to control the money suply, could you enlighten us explaining why Money Master doesn´t make any sense?

Lukeski: Since the original poster has never expressed opinion that Jews are bad people, could you please restrain yourself from using low "mud throwing" arguments and explain why this is not legitimate concern? Also why isn't the question of bank ownership adressed in the entire article? Every commercial bank has its owners and so does the central bank like the Federal Reserve. Is ECB owned by the EU thus the European people or by private banks? What is the procedue in selecting chairmans and who influences it? Those are not necessairly conspiratorial questions, but merely basic ones reqired for transperancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.62.91 (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, who owns the ECB? Is the EURO backed by gold or silver? Does the ECB print the money and lend it to the other Central Banks with interest like the Fed? Where are the experts?!!

Fiscal policy?

The article mentions that the ECB is in charge of fiscal policy for the EU. As it doesn't explain at all how this is done I wanted to ask if that's really true. As far as I know local governments are in charge of fiscal policy. Can the EU increase/decrease public expenditures? Can it change taxes? Maybe the ECB has some influence on the common EU-budget? (but I thought the EU budget is decided by politicians, not by the central bank). Any clarification would be helpful. — SPW 17:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Every single language

The intro looks messy and is not needed, at least put it in a section not the lead. Skinnyweed 09:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sections Diluted buying power and Inflation and diverted resources

Does anyone else find these to be almost unmistakable essay-sections, or is it just me? Personally I don't think they should even be rewritten, I think they should be removed. They seem to be very POV as well (or are essays always like that? ;) ) Anyone else think they should be removed? - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 22:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they should be removed, and I have removed them. Not only are they relentlessly POV and absurdly argued (inflation hurts producers?!), they are copyvios from http: //workforall.net/ineffectiveness_of_monetary_policy_.html. The user 217.136.94.66 has copied and pasted this and other essays from that web site into several articles. (e.g., see this [1] addition to Euro.) — Mateo SA | talk | Contributions 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Seat distrubution

"Four of these six seats are reserved for the Eurozone's four big central banks of France, Germany, Italy and Spain"

I'd like a citation that this is official rather than an informal agreement (notice that France had no members on the board between the period Noyer left and Trichet joined). --Explendido Rocha 18:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion there is no basis for making this statement and it is not official policy at all. On the contrary the ECB goes out of its way to emphasize the board is not divided up along country lines. Encyclops 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Irish translation

There are two different Irish translations in the article? It should of course be among the earlier section, but whcih translation is correct? 惑乱 分からん 12:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Specialists

Anyone around here who is a specialist in this? I want to work on this to get it to GA at least but don't have the specific knowledge. Willing to work with someone on other details, sources etc. though. - J Logan t: 14:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Owners

Anyone has some information about the owners of the ecb? For instance we know the federal reserve -despite its name- is privately owned. When fiat currency is created out of thin air (in a growing econonmy) and lended with interest rates who gets the benefits of it? who receives these interest reimbursed? --Pweltz 14:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there are no owners, it is an institution of the EU rather an a private organisation with a public task. I may be wrong though, economics is not my area. - J Logan t: 19:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

new preferred url is www.ecb.europa.eu

Hi,

call them if you want to have it confirmed (++49+69/1344-7455), the new preferred URL is www.ecb.europa.eu not www.ecb.eu

Jstaerk 10:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

ecb.europa.eu is their email server. I have contacted them to have this confirmed. No one will ever type in www.ecb.europa.eu in their web browser, why would they?Matt83au (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ECB LOGO.svg

Image:ECB LOGO.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Writtenright has cut out the tumour

I apologise to the person who added the paragraph about the mentally-ill German, the stolen motorised glider, and the American female astronaut, but this is an encyclopedia article about the European Central Bank! Writtenright 23:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

I think this is incorrect

"However, the policy of independence has come under some criticism. In 2001, a UK treasury official argued that problems could be caused by the ECB setting its own interest rates due to concern about disagreement between the 12 finance ministers. In comparison, in the UK system rates are set by the government.[4] "

The BoE set uk interest rates and it independent of the government. Link 4 is also incorrect in this context —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.25.198 (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is incorrect. Since this is wikipedia, you should DEFINITELY just change anything you think is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

European microstates, Montenegro and Kosovo

Andorra , Kosovo and the Vatican City don't have central banks. However Montenegro and San Marino do. Shouldn't they be included in the infobox as countries were the ECB is de facto the central bank. Thewikipedian (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Preceding banks

The list of preceding banks in the infobox puts the Central Bank of Ireland (Banc Ceannais na hÉireann) as the "Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland". The article Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland states clearly, that the CBFSA of Ireland name was adopted after the Central Bank of Ireland has yielded its duties to the ECB. So technically, the preceding bank must be the Central Bank of Ireland. Also, the first official language of Ireland is Gaelic, so the name should appear in Gaelic instead of English, like it does with all the other member states. I recommend changing the infobox entry to Banc Ceannais na hÉireann, with a link redirecting to the CBFSA of Ireland article.George Adam Horváth (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Credit crisis and dollar liquidity

Added a line concerning the decision of the ECB to offer dollar liquidity to the eurozone because of the crisis. This was done in conjunction with the FED and a program called Term auction facility. Placed it in the powers and objectives section, after the line about the credit crisis.--84.29.111.226 (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Deutsch:"Amerikanisches Verfahren?"

  • "26.02.2008 15:40
  • EZB schreibt 91-tägigen Refi-Tender über 50 Mrd Euro aus
  • FRANKFURT (Dow Jones)--Die Europäische Zentralbank (EZB) hat am Dienstag ein 91-tägiges Refinanzierungsgeschäft mit einem beabsichtigten Zuteilungsvolumen von 50,0 Mrd Euro ausgeschrieben. Wie die EZB weiter mitteilte, erfolgt die Zuteilung nach amerikanischem Verfahren am 27. Februar. Valutiert wird am 28. Februar, an dem ein altes Geschäft über ebenfalls 50,0 Mrd Euro ausläuft. Der neue Langfristtender wird am 29. Mai 2008 fällig.


  • DJG/apo


  • (END) Dow Jones Newswires
  • February 26, 2008 09:40 ET (14:40 GMT)

Frage: Was passiert, wenn Sie die Europäische Zentralbank den Leitzins zum 1.5.2008 auf 0,5 Prozent senken?

report

Report on the ECB over at the FT here if someone wants to use it in the article, some useful info but I don't have time to start writing it myself yet.- J Logan t: 19:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "ENA Pow" :
    • {{cite web|last= |first= |title=Powers and responsibilities of the European Central Bank|publisher=[[European NAvigator]]|date= |url=http://www.ena.lu?lang=2&doc=8037|format= |accessdate=2007-10-15 }}
    • {{cite web|last= |first= |title=Treasury doubts on the euro|publisher=[[BBC News]]|date=[[2001-07-05]]|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1423946.stm|format= |accessdate=2007-10-15 }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Language spoken

Am I right in thinking the main language spoken within the ECB is English? This being, I understood, because the French can't speak German and the Germans won't speak French. As the British are not in the Euro they will be unaffected by this but they might be interested. Clarification, anyone, please?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 19:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland speaks English too you know. Though English was used in the EEC from the start, it is an international language everyone speaks and in particular it is the language of business. By de facto it is probably English, though with most institutions there is probably diversity among staff who speak the same language. I wouldn't want to apply definite reasons like "Germans won't speak French", don't forget there are 23 languages in all, not three.- J.Logan`t: 20:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"In einer solchen Lage wäre es am besten, eher früher als später zu handeln"

Ich warte immer noch auf eine Antwort der EZB, warum es nicht richtig ist/war, dass im Maerz 2008 der Sogenannte Leitzins auf 0,5 Prozent gesenkt wird/wurde. Es ist/war doch schon Aufgrund der Rezession in den USA Dezember 2007 und dem Handeln der FED klar, dass allein die Notenbank(en) diese Kapitalismusschuldenkrise nicht bewaeltigen koennen. Die EZB bewegt sich, wenn auch im Kriechgang eines Schneckenrennens. Wie hat die EZB eigentlich den "Schnelltender" in Hoehe von 95.000.000.000 Euro am 9. August 2007 analysiert?

Profit?

To its very nature, a central bank always makes profit. It can create its own money, and then lend them out to interest. Therefor an importante question is; where does that money go? Do they return to EU:s budget, or will they end up in the hands of private owners? Perhaps this information is already in the article even though I did not see it. If it is not, please add it if you know the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.74.59 (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Britain and the executive board of the European central bank (E.C.B.)

Curious how the British Government first tried to avoid the creation of the European Central Bank....but once it was created they tried to be part of its Executive Board. Very funny. Probably their only intention was participating in the Executive Board trying to undermine both the Euro and the European Central Bank.

It seems we have a troll! --Île_flottant~Floating island (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Language labels

would someone kindly label all the languages? my knowledge of european languages is limited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoWay555 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

French translation; copyvio

As I began translating text from the French Wikipedia article (fr:Banque Centrale Européenne), I soon realized that the French article is copy-and-paste from the ECB's website. :*( I did check the ECB copyright, and it does seem fine to reproduce the material. Still, I would rather insert more original, translated materials. – Guppy (talk • contribs) 17:39, November 12, 2006 (UTC).

Totalitarian?

Making a reference to totalitarian institutions such as the Nazi regime or the Franco regime is inappropriate and out of all proportions. Therefore I removed this phase. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.126.128.2 (talk • contribs) 11:16, December 1, 2003 (UTC).

Criticism

Forgive my bad English and fix my additions with a more proper English. Anyway I came here to say... what is happening in European Union pages? I see too many "point of view", to be exact, British point of view, ehich usually is quite euroesciptic (this is not bad, but it can be for the wikipedia if it falls in the POV).

I study economy, so i dont see many sense in the criticism about the independence of the eurobank. For an economist should not be doubt that a central bank should be independent for a better management. And antidemocratic? Well, so antidemocratic as the judicial power, we dont vote the judges... (well, I think in USA they do...).


And the low rates. Well of course is a bad thing when the economy is growing too fast, and actually it happens in some countries of the eurozone, as for example Ireland and Spain. So it can happen the bubble stuff (although the low rates is not the only guilty factor). So the criticism should be about in a region so big and diverse, all countries with the same currency has to use the same macroeconomic tools, so what it is necessary in one country is bad in another. Thats the real problem. But it can also happen inside of a country, for example if Minnesota is not growing and California is doing it fast, the suitable interest rate in Min is different than in Cal, so eurozone is not the first one having this problem. You must say that there are less advantadges than disavantadges for other economic reasons than "bubbles". And Japan and USA had a lower interest rate, so you cant neither say eurobank was doing weird stuff with so lowe rate... at least not more weird that the most important economies of the world. And there is economic reason that is an advantadge to say you only care inflation to get ride of that, because it changes teh expects of teh economy, and doing "this trick" you can have a better result in social meanings that saying you care social stuff...


Difficult to explain myself in English, sorry. But please, if you write a paragraph of criticism in the Wikipedia, explain more of 1 POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkmaiki (talk • contribs) 23:17, December 7, 2005 (UTC).

---

Hello! Not an English native myself - still I found the term criticism in-appropriate: economic culture I believe is more neutral to whatevereverybody in here wants to add.

I would also like to see (that is to say: read) a bit more of the Bundesbank spirit - in terms of definition of the bank and our perception (to me pro-European as the institute). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.161.113 (talk • contribs) 06:02, February 11, 2006 (UTC).

Another viewpoint

The reason that the ECB was designed to be independant of political influence is to protect against the tendancy of governments to engage in competitive devaluations, such as those common in the run up to the ERM and EMU. This is when a government decreases interest rates below the appropriate level, stimulating short-term economic growth but ultimately leading to higher inflation and devaluation of the currency. The idea at the time was that governments would be tempted to do this around election times and, if they won, deal with the consequences later or, if they lost, sabotage the opposition taking power.

The reason for the secrecy of the ECB is to do with the financial markets and the vast amounts of money that are made or lost by companies and funds based on interest rate desicions. It is inevitable, in every economy, for companies and individuals to be exposed to interest rate risk. The level of risk people are willing to take depends, to a large extent on the accuracy with which rates can be predicted. If the ECB is too explicit about its moves, firms will take on more risk which, in turn, increases the consequences of any unexpected rate moves by the bank & ultimately hampers thier ability to pursue thier stated goals. If the bank is a little more coy, then companies and individuals will be a lot more reluctant to make large, leveraged bets on currency & interest rate moves, which is ultimately better for themselves, the bank and the economy generally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.40.131.195 (talk • contribs) 10:07, December 29, 2005 (UTC).

Legal environment

I certainly cannot contribute text, it seems to me that an important feature of the ECB is that it exists and operates according to the laws of one particular nation. The EU has not created an extrastate, as Canberra and Washington DC. Would an expert like to include a small comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reg nim (talk • contribs) 22:03, March 13, 2006 (UTC).

By virtue of EU law and a headquarters agreement, the ECB has privileges and immunities from German law similar to diplomatic immunities, so this is not really an issue. SchnitteUK (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Reserve facts

The page claims ECB having reserves of €4 billion, while a correct value should be a magnitude of thousands times larger. The incorrect figure should either be removed or corrected, preferably supplemented by a definition what assets are included in the figure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.221.119.86 (talk • contribs) 17:39, November 12, 2006 (UTC).

Corrected. Sdnegel 00:10, March 29, 2007 (UTC)


General condition of the ECB article

I fear that this article is in need of almost complete revision; it contains several erroneous pieces of information and rather too much opinion sourced from the world press which reflect the opinion of the relevant journalist and should therefore be highlighted as such if they are left in. The key source on the history, role and functions of the ECB is the book of (almost) this title referenced under the fourth point of the external links. This authoritative and authorised work was written by Hanspeter K. Scheller, former Secretary General of the European Monetary Institute and first Director General administration of the ECB, under close review from his colleagues, including the undersigned. It is an official publication of the ECB and fully "neutral".

It confirms inter alia that (a) the ECB was the de jure (not de facto) successor of the EMI; (b) that the "real" shareholders of the ECB are the National Central Banks comprising the ESCB (and not the governments that hold the bulk of the shres in the NCBs) - full members of the Eurozone pay up their capital subscriptions in full, whereas the remaining members pay up a "minimal percentage" (currently 7%) of their subscription (full details of subscriptions and amounts paid up are shown on the ECB's web site www.ecb.europa.eu, which also shows that currently the ECB has paid-up capital of just under EUR 6,000,000,000, i.e. EUR 6 billion); that the NCBS of the Eurozone have additionally transferred foreign reserve assets of approximately the same amount to the ECB; that the ECB also held (at at end-2008)no reserves, but a risk provision of some EUR 4 billion to cover foreign exchange and interest rate exposures. (D) The ECB sets its own annual budget, which it funds out of its own income, and not from contributions by the National Central Banks. (It is this financial setup that provides the ECB with its financial independence, which in turn underpins it insitutional independence.) (E) The Governing Council takes most, but not all, decisions by simple majority vote; some, covered by Article 10.3 of its Statute require a weighted majority (viz. by virtue of shareholding), and a very few require even a qualified majority (combination of number of votes and sharefholding). I could go on....Furthermore, whoever does the re-write should pay closer attention to the detail of the reference cited from the ECB's official web site; this alone would have removed a lot of the blemishes.

--Ingramip (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Ian Ingram, Director Internal Finance, European Central Bank (retd.)

Condition of the ECB article (continued)

I fear I must now correct myself! (One should desist from writing comments late on Christmas Eve, as they can be affected by excessive "good cheer". I apologise also for the typographical errors.) The amount of "just under EUR 6 billion" is the subscribed capital of the ECB. The amount actually paid-up is a little over EUR 4 billion (due to the fact that NCBs of member States that have not adopted the euro do not pay up their capital subscriptions in full). In cleaning up this article, reference should also be made to the much more accurate linked Wikipedia articles on the European System of Central Banks (of which the ECB is one), and on European economic and monetary union. --Ingramip (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Central bank purchase of a European version of U.S. Treasury Bills

This sentence was recently added: "In response to the crisis of 2010, some proposals have surfaced for a collective European bond issue that would allow the central bank to purchase a European version of U.S. Treasury Bills". The reference given talks about fiscal union and fiscal transfers, but there is no mention of the ECB buying anything like tresaury bills. Other sources, and the footnotes provided for the following sentences also explain a number of issues, but not the purchase of treasury bills. So I find that the sources do not support the statement. I have a feeling that solvency and liquidity are being confused. If no reference can be provided that talks about the purchase of treasury bills, I think this sentence neeeds to go. The following footnote also seems unnecessary; it seems to explain something for an American audience, but it is not the point that needs explanation. What is the whole paragraph trying to explain?

  • Proposals for fiscal union?
  • Proposals for issuing European bonds?
  • Proposals for purchasing (something like) treasury bills?

As it is, it seems to me that various issues are being conflated.--Boson (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Where to change German marks into euros (off topic)

i have german marks where i can change them into euro? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.121.136 (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC) you can still trade True European currencies in both paper and coinage in various places in Israel, a country in the Middle-East (very far from Europe), but don`t tell them the goys might find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.235.216 (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Deutsche Mark banknotes will be exchanged into Euro (I think free of charge) either at the Deutsche Bundesbank headquarters in Frankfurt am Main or at a Landeszentralbank in Germany (or alternatively at a branch of the Bundesbank) for an unlimited period. See the web page of the Bundesbank for further information. Ingramip (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mechanisms for Monetization and currency creation, sovereign debt

Since the ECB is really representing international jewish banking interests, why do they not lobby for a no-fly zone to protect the residents of Gaza and stabilize their economy with the euro-shekel? They might be forced to topple the dictator Netenyahu, and disarm the 1000+ Israeli nuclear projectiles. UNfeasible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.235.216 (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I've asked a published author on the ECB working at the Federal Reserve to look over the material.Gn842 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Shareholders, member banks?

According to the Powers and Objectives section, "The use of capital to offset a loss transfers the loss to the bank's shareholders: the member banks." According to the Organization section, shareholders are central banks of member states. Who's right? --Chealer (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain where you see a conflict? --Boson (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Right... according to "Powers and objectives" again, "Member banks, of which there are several thousand, bid for short term repo contracts of two weeks' to three months' duration." But there aren't thousands of central banks. So the two versions point to different numbers of shareholders. --Chealer (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, I hadn't noticed that. I have changed "member banks" to "eligible banks" where I think it is appropriate and provided a source that compares operations by the Eurosystem, the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England. I also changed "several thousand" to 1500, assuming that the original editor was referring to the eligible banks mentioned in the ECB source. Hope that helps. --Boson (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Slant towards current events

The usage stats show that when the ECB is in the news regarding the Euro crisis we get readership spikes approaching 2000 hits a day. (Goes down to 300 to 400 on slower days)

Under these conditions and given the gravity of the topic I think a bit of present-history bias is warranted. We are going to have opportunities down the road to shorten things up--for example, if Greece leaves the EU we can delete all the discussion about how it might happen. Furthermore the whole Euro might unravel.

In the meantime, this article is a resource for people trying to get a picture of how the euro and the ECB and the European project are all intertwined. Since I own several Britannica hardcover editions I understand the idea of historical perspective, but on the other hand the advantage of electronic format is that we can give the present a bit more weight and remove it as it shifts into the past--after all, central banking is usually boring, and when the crisis is past the need for updates will markedly decline.

Gn842 (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)GN842

I don't think the recentism tag is even appropriate here. The crisis is the single most important event in the history of the ECB, and is likely to remain so, even if the crisis blows over. -- Walt Pohl (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:European Central Bank/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Abhilasha369 (talk · contribs) 02:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This article would certainly pass as a good article. The only issue is the so called charge of "recentism" in the "crisis of 2011" section. Done Maybe in the introduction section, a sentence can be mentioned about the price stability duty of the ECB. Though this is a subset of "administering monetary policy", it would be nice to categorically mention it. Apart from these two things, everything seems good.  Done Abhilasha369 (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Detailed review

  1. Well Written: There are typos and grammatical errors in the article. Example: "Eligible banks, of which there are about 1500 may bid for short term repo contracts of two weeks' to three months' duration." Basically, s' is used to show plural possession. Here there is no possession.  Done. Another example: "On 9 May 2010, the 27 member states[17] of the European Union agreed to incorporate the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) a special purpose vehicle (SPV) off balance sheet of European Central Bank (ECB) placing bonds to raise money to financing the Deficit spending that European Governments used to replace a share of banking system losses. " - I don't know what the meaning of this is.. Please paraphrase to make the point clear. Done More examples - "This fact give serious problems to liquidity of Interbank lending market involving trust that banks have each other and forcing ECB to use unconventional measures about Monetary policy." Done  Done!
  2. MOS: Formatting is needed in certain areas. Example: "This preference has typically led the ECB to argue that the weaker member countries must (a) allocate considerable national income to servicing debts and (b) scale back a wide range of national expenditures (such as education, infrastructure, and welfare transfer payments) in order to make their payments." It would be better if you used bullets for these points. A break from the text is required here.  Done
  3. Neutrality is an issue. For example, a statement like "Although "unthinkable," a collapse of the euro (with a reversion to individual national currencies) became, at the end of 2010, a topic of speculation in the financial press." is highly opinionated, unless it's a quote.  Done
  4. Verifiable: Citation is inadequate for the size of the article. Every fact/statistic has to be cited. Every opinion/analysis has to be cited. For example, "These tools are also used by the United States Federal Reserve Bank, but the Fed does more direct purchasing of financial assets than its European counterpart." must be cited. There are many many sentences like this.  Done
  5. I'm sorry if you felt my first comment was unsatisfactory. I was hoping you would take care and answer the issues I raised. That way I could promote the article to GA status after your edits. But you did not address the issues at hand so I was wondering what happened. Anyway, I would love to give the article GA status but the above concerns need to be addressed first, according to WP:WIAGA, as you rightly mentioned. All the best with the edits.

Regards Abhilasha369 (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Grammar - see detailed review
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Lead section - see review
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Citation is inadequate
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Refer to my review.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    There are some unsolved issues.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Abhilasha369 (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

My comments regarding your review
  1. Please consult a mentor at WP:GAN#M, if possible.
  2. Use the 3rd level or 4th level headers (=== ===; ==== ====)
  3. If stating an issue, please state where and as in No.5 of the review, when...
  4. In number 2 of the review, amount of resources is in point a, and point b is reliable sources...
  5. But I agree with inadequate sources...

– Plarem (User talk contribs) 15:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a mentor is a great idea. I've already spoken to someone about it. Awaiting response. Till then, maybe you can work on improving the article with more citations. Abhilasha369 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

But, how come you put Stability at Neutral? – Plarem (User talk contribs) 17:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been asked to take a look at this article. I'll leave some comments later tonight or tomorrow. Protonk (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Protonk's comments

  • I'll take a look at the original review comments in a moment. For now I want to make some general comments about the article itself to help it along to GA status. Apologies if I repeat some comments from above.
  • The lede of this article is too short. Remember that a lede is there to both generate interest in the article and also to provide a relatively complete summary of its contents. For an article of this length you can have a lead of 2-4 paragraphs before really running into length issues.  Done
  • The "Power and Objectives" section is better off split between authority and mandates. What channels the bank acts through are interesting independent of the goal of the actions.  Done
  • I agree with the tag on Sovereign debt crises. The section is much too long and better off written in summary style. Done
  • Independence and future may be better off split by putting the "indpendence" content in a subsection of power and objectives and the "future" content in a subsection of history  Done
  • You should (though this isn't a GA requirement) split your explanatory notes and references as described in WP:REFGROUP.
  • Images check out.
  • The description of US open market operations isn't 100% correct. See Open_market_operations#USA (and not the atrocious Monetary Policy of the USA article). The vast majority of day to day open market operations in the US occur through repo and reverse repo transactions, not outright purchases. There are many salient differences between the Fed and the ECB, but both use repo transactions.

Sourcing/specific comments

  • "Tensions were abated by a gentleman's agreement in which Duisenberg would stand down before the end of his mandate, to be replaced by Trichet, an event which occurred in November 2003." Is there a source for this claim?  Done, referenced and the wording a bit tweaked.
  • "The primary objective of the ECB is to maintain..." This paragraph is awkwardly worded. The primary objective is price stability, so say that, then transition to the ECB definition for price stability, then compare to the US and (maybe) other large central banks (China, Japan, England?). Then include a little sidebar explaining how price stability and inflation are basically the same thing. You can even reference this working paper.  Done, tweaked the wording, but trying to keep it as simple as possible.
  • "It is interesting that all four countries are located geographically on the periphery of the Eurozone." interesting to whom?  Done, removed.
  • the fourth and fifth paragraphs in Power and Objectives start to see sourcing thin out and claims become broader and more discursive. I can see two solutions. First, reorganizing and shrinking the sovereign debt crises section will allow you to simply edit out claims in disparate sections regarding the recent crisis. Second, there are a number of great articles (both in newspapers and in journals) looking at how the debt crises directly implicate the mandate and model of the ECB (and there are counterclaims as well). Find those and use them to anchor those sections in reliable source material so readers know they aren't being lead astray.  Done
  • I won't make too many comments on the debt crises section as I think a lot of the sourcing and focus problems there would be solved by trimming. the trimming. However despite my suggestion that this section be smaller it does represent a fairly good account of book value problems and the (semi) unique problem of sovereign bonds as collateral in the ECB.  Done the referencing.

Overall and comments on original review

  • First off, the comments I made are merely suggestions. The decision to pass or not pass the article rests w/ the original GA reviewer unless they ask for a second opinion. While I feel some of the comments I made above will help the authors get to featured status it is neither a requirement nor a full peer review.
  • I haven't looked at the page history for the GA review but merely reading the current revision leads me to believe that this review is within our expectations for how an editor should conduct a GA review. The template with positive/negative/neutral isn't a requirement of the GAN process, but it can sometimes help. I don't use it on my reviews.
  • Sometimes GA reviews can be very general. This does not impugn the reviewer as they may not feel comfortable writing a laundry list of small complaints (each which could be fixed be the reviewer) and instead want to ask editors to take a closer look at the article on a few key dimensions.
  • As a GA reviewer, remember that your job is to:
    • Be a gatekeeper.
    • Be a resource for help. If you know something (anything) about the topic, suggest sources. If you don't, suggest alternate wording where you see problems. Link to helpful tools or templates where needed.
    • Be honest. Don't worry too much about whether or not you are out of your depth or providing dumb suggestions. If something feels off, do your best to articulate it and help the editors. If you don't see a claim in a cited source, bring that up.
  • I don't know how best to review an article with specific pointers. Sometimes reviewers go by citation numbers, but as an article gets edited those numbers change (e.g. if you removed a section wholesale) and that can be confusing. I provide quotes for specific passages or go by section headers (easier if there are more sections). Just try and get a feel for how best to communicate where you are in an article. It helps editors reading your review tremendously.

I hope all this helps. Protonk (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Collated assessment

Clearly, the following aspects need to be improved:

  1. Citations
  2. Grammar/Paraphrasing
  3. Layout (to make the article easier to read in terms of flow)
  4. Time sensitive sections need to be clubbed together in an appropriate section

So once the "On Hold" time expires, I will read the article again hoping the above problems have been sorted out. Thank you Protonk, you're an awesome mentor! All the best, Plarem. You've got some edits to make.

Regards - Abhilasha369 (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

  • One more thing. The "on hold" time is a suggestion more than a bright line. What I do in GA reviews is mention the on-hold time and simply say that if the article is being worked on that time limit is less important. So if I review C++ and no one makes material changes or comments in 7 days I'll fail it. However if I review another article and people are responding or editing enough that I don't forget about the article completely, I'll just check back later. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, subheadings in GA reviews need to be lvl 3 or above. The GA review lives on a subpage and is transcluded onto the talk page. If you use lvl 2 headers (two equal sings) you will confuse the parser and the page won't transclude properly. Protonk (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Follow up

Hi, I have noticed that you've made a few edits and added some references. However, the references are still inadequate for an article of this importance! For example, the European sovereign debt crisis section is anyway a contentious issue and it has (on an average) one reference per paragraph, whereas every sentence should be referenced. And besides, there are so many news references to this subject, so it's not as if its an obscure topic.

  1. All about the Euro Debit Crisis
  2. european-problems-get-more-complicated
  3. Debt-crisis archive
  4. Working paper on Euro Debt

Abhilasha369 (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that every sentence should be referenced. Every contentious claim or potentially dubious claim should be referenced. I'm happy with the article right now (so long as someone takes out the tags on the crisis section, if they are no longer warranted), but the decision to pass is up to you. Protonk (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Is the comparison to the ECB's conterpart, the U.S. Fed Reserve necessary in this article? Sure, anyone can just go onto the United States Federal Reserve article on Wikipedia. Is this necessary? – Plarem (User talk contribs) 20:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be interesting to have a compare/contrast are, but that can also be created into a seperate page.Meatsgains (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Can it be okay top add copyrighted photos to the article? --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  • There are several free photos in the article already. If you think you have a photo which would meet out non-free content criteria for this article you can probably suggest it on the talk page for the article itself (and not the review page), but I doubt it needs one. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Final assessment

I think this article meets the GA criteria now. It should be passed. Best Abhilasha369 (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you for reviewing it. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 10:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You do realise that you need to change the template on the top of the talk page and place {{Good article}} on top of the talk page as described on WP:GAN. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 10:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nvm, I'll do it myself... – Plarem (User talk contribs) 11:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation requirements

I'm reading in the GA section review that the article must have one citation per sentence. The notion that every sentence "must" have a citation is simply wrong. I've been writing academic stuff for thirty years. A single citation can "govern" a paragraph if the entire paragraph is abstracting or summarizing from that one citation. Otherwise you end up with a single citation being repeated over and over. This generally is not done in academic articles and it is not done in encyclopedias either; in fact, the norm in print encyclopedias is not to have citations at all, although the Britannica often included extensive "works cited" that were not however referenced on a line by line or even paragraph basis.

In any case I think I've made my point. The article has at this writing over forty citations which is heap big plenty and it will accumulate more going forward. Some citations which remain relevant were annihilated in the recent shortening of the article.

That's the nature of a wiki project I suppose. However, I stand by the statement that one citation per sentence is not necessary. It is not even customary in some of the most densely documented scholarly works around (e.g. Wallerstein's Modern World System v. III, a book which is 40% bibliography in terms of pages).

However, I have made a point not to argue too much with editors, so I'll let it go. GN842. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gn842 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that one citation per sentence is not required (though I'm not sure that's exactly what the reviewer said). I believe the relevant part of the good article criteria is this: "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". The Wikipedia:Featured article criteria refer to the explanatory essay WP:When to cite, which states "If you write a multi-sentence paragraph that draws on material from one source, the source need not be cited after every single sentence unless the material is particularly contentious. When different sources are used within a paragraph, these can be bundled at the end if desired, so long as the footnote makes clear which source supports which point in the text." I think, though, that any comparison with academic work or print encyclopaedias needs to be treated with some caution, since Wikipedia has different expectations, regarding citations and credentials. Another peculiarity of Wikipedia is that a paragraph with a citation may later be edited by someone else; this is less of a problem when more liberal use is made of citations. --Boson (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I've made a lot of contributions to this page some without signing in first, but I'm trying to be better about that. I will say that if it is up for "good article" status that this promotion depends to a non-trivial degree on my signed and unsigned contributions. I don't mind working with editors on content and form and have done so in the past (for articles and books). The wiki format gives me pause. One can put in a lot of time and have it all disappear. It's nice to have several hundred, even two thousand readers a day. Then s.o. flies in and says: "Oh dear! This is covering a current event!" Well duh, that's why we have readers. However, it might be time to leave this to others. My personal issues aside, I find the mark up language citation format system to be remarkably cumbersome.

--Gn842|

Yes, sorry for the ambiguity. I didn't mean that every sentence needs to be referenced. I simply meant that all the contentious claims need to be referenced along with all the secondary sources of data. Exactly what Boson said. Abhilasha369 (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


The sheer amount of citations cannot mask the fact that Section 4 -Euro Sovereign debt crisis- is quite disorganized and incomplete, particularly 4.1. Adequate editing is needed. Pep marfran (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox: Duplication of name in header

In the Infobox (upper right of page) the ECB name appears twice in en.wiki and also twice in German in de.wiki. I don't know the mechanics but it would be nice to remove one of the two. It has to do with I presume the automatic pickup of the article name, first, then the "EU-institution in official languages" template, the second time. Any ideas? Thanks. Swliv (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I put out a call for help here. Swliv (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the editor visited here: s/he sure took the issue in hand here, completely eliminating all the other-language renditions of the Bank's name as "unnecessary". No further comment by him/r 'r me for now. Swliv (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"Monetary policy", primary objective of keeping inflation near yet below a legislatively defined value.

I understand the central banks are allowed to print/stamp new euro's when government bonds are made. If someone else does this, it is legally viewed as counterfeit.

While new goods are produced and europe gets wealthier in material/technological/... terms by means of a working population which has net production larger than consumption, the value of euro's would increase if no new coins were made (deflation).

My question: is the ECB (or by delegation the "national" central banks) allowed to print/stamp new euro's (for themselves) as long as they do not pass the inflation limit, i.e. euro's not intended to replace damaged coins or notes, nor for exchange of government bonds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.145.6 (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

5.1 Causes

The initial paragraphs of 5.1 read like an academic explanation of activities of the ECB, which may have added fuel to the crisis, but there is no appropriate context to confront this "cause" with other possible hypotheses.

Therefore, the title is misleading and the info is also incomplete. The article on European sovereign debt crisis reads much better, even though it does deal with more issues other than the ECB's role.

Pep marfran (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC) edited

More issues re this page. Help needed

"Section 2) Powers and objectives" is OK, until one finds way too much stuff about the recent crisis, and some totally unrelated to point 2 (tasks). Even if someone believes the ECB may have gone beyond its mandate this is no place to put it, and less in such an academic and perhaps chaotic way. All this should go to Point 5) EU Crisis.

"Section 3)" is in my opinion incomplete. Look at the German wikipedia page for example. I will do section 3 myself when I have time as it is not as important as the other. Done

"Section 5)" on the crisis should be reorganized and take part of "Section 2)". I would need some help on this one (though I am an economist, I can't reorganize all this stuff in such an important article by myself. Part of it should be deleted. Or so I believe as it is duplicated or contained in other articles re EU crisis).

Cheers Pep marfran (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Does this article still justify the good article assessment?

How can this be a good article if for starters the introduction (which has almost 600 words) doesn't have a single source citation?

Also the information regarding the selection process of the members of both the governing council and the executive board are poor. The governing council simply states that it's composed of the executive board plus the presidents of the national bank but fails to mention or provide link to anything about how the presidents of the national banks are selected. And the executive board just has a unclear citation (IE it mentions a council but doesn't specify which council, the governing council of the ECB? the European council?) with no source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonyRijo (talk • contribs) 18:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Just one point: according to WP:CITELEAD the introduction does not necessarily require citations. If you look at the {{Citation needed (lead)}} template, you will see that it should be used only where the summary in the lead is not verified in the body. Citations are, of course, needed for direct quotations, contentious material, etc. Having said that, the lead is probably too long; in particular it has too many paragraphs. --Boson (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
As regards the points mentioned above, I'm not sure what can be said about the governors of the national banks, since each country is different. Perhaps requirements concerning independence of central banks should be mentioned.
Although there is a brief mention in the history section, there should, perhaps, be more discussion of the role of the governing council and the general council. The representation or non-representation of the major financial centres or the EU might not be clear to the inadvertent reader, which may be significant in the light of the increased role of the ECB. The boundary between history and news is fluid, but I'm not sure what the threshold is for inclusion in the history section. For instance, Stark's resignation gets a mention, but Draghi's promise to do everything it takes doesn't.
As it stands, I don't think that the article would survive a good article reassessment. I think it should be reviewed with the Good article criteria in mind. I see some problems with criteria 1a, 1b, and 3b.
I think the introduction should be edited to make it shorter and better conform to WP:LEAD. In particular, it should summarize the body of the article better. I would suggest four paragraphs:
  • Definition, salient data, incl. location
  • Organization
  • Powers and objectives, incl. independence
  • History
As regards the body:
  • This is an article about the institution, not recent events, so the text on the European sovereign debt crisis should be made significantly shorter and should be checked to ensure that it is a summary of the main article.
  • The other templated issues also need dealing with.
  • I think it could also do with a copy-edit to remove the odd style problem and to create a better flow (a general problem with collaborative editing). Longer paragraphs might help; some of it seems somewhat "bitty".
  • All in all, I think the time may be ripe for a general pruning, re-ordering and copy-edit.
--Boson (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The article's lead is currently at 10 paragraphs, I have tagged it for cleanup. C679 18:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I am addressing that issue, but from its reading it does not meet NPOV even in the lead. Perhaps this is just someone sneaking it in, or the lead becoming a dumping ground, but the issues need to be addressed promptly while on the main page. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I cleaned the lead, but the problems are far too deep with loads of questionable insertions and a lack of citations, terribly redundant and ineffectual prose, and an array of other problems that suggest some editors are going to have to go through this with a fine-toothed comb before even considering it as a "Good Article". 209.255.230.32 (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Privileges and immunities

I suggest to add some information to this article concerning the Privileges and Immuninities of the European Central Bank, which would also have the advantage that the contents of this article would be more clearly consistent with related information that is provided about the ECB in: International Organizations Immunities Act#Privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the act.

The ECB has been granted certain privileges and immunities as an international organization, in particular vis-à-vis the member states of the European Community (see page 7 of Legal Working Paper Series No 4, June 2007). Privileges and immunities also apply vis-à-vis the United States since the amendment of the U.S. International Organizations Immunities Act to cover the ECB ("The US International Organizations Immunities Act has been amended in order to extend that Act to the ECB (Executive Order of President Bush of 29 May 2003)", Footnote 10 on page 7 of Legal Working Paper Series No 4, June 2007, and 22 USC Chapter 7, Subchapter XVIII, more specifically 288f-5).

Could someone review this suggestion and please then add this information to the article? Thanks! --145.64.134.240 (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added a reference to this under the bit about "personal independence" in this section. Best, Stanjourdan (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Working language

Does anybody know in what language (or languages) the ECB conducts its meetings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.77.172 (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Internal meetings at working level are in English. At official meetings of the Governing Council, interpreters are present for all official languages of the EU. SchnitteUK (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section

The article doesn't have any section for criticism against the European Central Bank. It would be a more balanced and objective article to also view those points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.138.210 (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:CSECTION. --Boson (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely agree! I'm listing below some of the controversial stuff that happened over the last decade. Hopefully people who read this can feel free to elaborate upon them (google will help you find out what it's about):
  • The Irish crisis management and ECB secret letters to the Irish governments
  • The role of the ECB in the Troika and especially under the Greek crisis: SMP bonds, ELA waiver, secret legal consultancy on the greek crisis
  • Draghi's letters to the Italian government leading to Berlusconi fall
  • Lack of transparency and diversity in the ECB advisory groups
  • Potential side effects of the ECB's corporate bond purchases on climate
  • Internal issues of ECB staff burnout, stress, and lack of democratic management of the ECB's in-house social security system
  • Mismanagement of some Italian banks resolutions
  • Mario Draghi's role in the G30 (complain by the Ombudsmann)

That's for a start... there must be a lot more to say!Stanjourdan (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European Central Bank. 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) 23:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Section on the European debt crisis => needs major revamp!

This section is vastly unfocused, as it covers the overall EU response to the euro crisis (bailout funds etc) and remains vague and disorganized on the actual response by the ECB to this crisis (SMP programme, LTROS, QE etc). I suggest a major revamp of this section to really focus on what matters here. All the stuff about 'Reforms due to fiscal bailouts" are already well covered here so they should be removed.

The revamped section could be articulated in a an historical perspective, for example:

  1. Policy response in the early stage of the financial crisis (2008-2011): unlimited refinancing, rate cuts etc..
  2. Policy response to the euro debt crisis (2011-2014): inaction until SMP purchases etc. + banking supervision and role in Troika.
  3. Policy response under Mario Draghi (2014 until now): LTROs, OMT, QE, negative interest rates etc.

Does it make sense? I'm happy to contribute but any help is welcome :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanjourdan (talk • contribs) 15:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

bundestag.de Plenarprotokoll Pages 7727... 1.140.000.000.000 Euro in 19 Monaten

Bei der aktuellen Stunde im Bundestag zum Handeln des EZB-Rats sind von den Parteien CDU und CSU nur 15 Bundestagsabgeordnete anwesend, auf der Regierungsbank gibt es 7 Personen. Das Video 28.01.2015 (bundestag.de) zeigt die Anwesenheit des Bundestages um 15:33 Uhr (Videotime) 2:33:30/03;45:24
Kernsatz des EZB Draghi war der, er muss 60 Milliarden Euro pro Monat ausgeben, damit die Inflation in der Eurozone (und der EU-28) auf knapp 2 Prozent steigt. 143.97.213.134 (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

POV

This article is thick with unsupported and naked opinion and heavily biased POV pronouncements. Large tracts of it should be deleted. 78.18.138.219 (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Governing Council of the European Central Bank

Governing Council of the European Central Bank redirects here but has substantial text after the #REDIRECT directive. Please can an editor familiar with the subject un-redirect, merge, delete or otherwise deal with the content? Pinging the author of the redirect, Stanjourdan. Thanks, Certes (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Central_Bank/Archive_1&oldid=1171278061"