Talk:Bank run

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this happened recently in Argantina.

[edit] Northern Rock section - possible inaccuracies

Two possible queries:

First: "...arranged (but did not use)...": I recall reading an article in a British newspaper during w/c 17 September 2007 which claimed that Northern Rock eventually did use the emergency loan facility, to the tune of approx. £2.5bn. I can't find it in a quick Google search, though.

Second: "...liquidity problems (stemming from over-exposure to the failing US sub-prime mortgage market). A run...": The government claimed that NR's liquidity problems were purely due to US sub-prime, but other reports suggest that potential investors were afraid that Northern Rock itself had done a lot of risky lending within the UK mortgage market, and therefore has its own, home-grown sub-prime issue. Suggest change to: "...liquidity problems, which NR's defenders claimed were the result of over-exposure to the failing US sub-prime mortgage market, and its critics argued were the result of NR's own careless lending practices." —Preceding unsigned comment added by LDGE (talk • contribs) 19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for generalizing article title

It seems financial institution isn't the only one with withdrawl rush. In 1997, there was a case of run of bakery in Hong Kong, where a rush of customers redeeming their cake cards from Saint Honore Cake Shop.[1][2] Considering it can and have happened to places outside financial institution, I believe it is time for the article title to be replaced with withdrawl rush to better reflect the nature of the activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Poon (talk • contribs) 00:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For the obligatory English links:

Jacob Poon 00:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but "bank run" is the standard term. Google Scholar cites about 3,500 articles on bank runs. Only one article (a bank-run article) has the phrase "withdrawal rush". Wikipedia is not supposed to invent terms. Eubulides (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It isn't really inventing terms, it is a literal description of the events. It is no more inventing than specifying hypothetical chemical element using systematic element name or chemical using IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry. Besides, if there were indeed an article using "withdrawal rush", then it is just using existing term, isn't it? Jacob Poon 03:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Poon (talk • contribs)
The article in question prefers the term "bank run". Even if it didn't, it's one article against 3500. Just one article is not notable and would not qualify under WP:NOTABLE. And Wikipedia generalizing the term would run afoul of WP:OR. Sorry. Eubulides (talk) 06:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove the trivia section

I propose that the section Bank run#In fiction be removed, as per WP:TRIVIA guidelines. Comments? Eubulides (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I would suggest, however, that the "It's a Wonderful Life" reference be integrated somehow - this is often referred to in serious discussions (as an illustration of how they work).--Gregalton (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I did that. Eubulides (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you - well-written and artfully integrated, and all that cruft removed. Well done!--Gregalton (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)