Wikipedia

Talk:Chapter 9, Title 11, United States Code

Latest comment: 6 years ago by 184.183.163.59 in topic Bolding Vallejo Bankruptcy
Learn more about this page

Orange County

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article talks about Orange County, but there are 8 Orange Coounties in America. Which one is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electromagnetron (talk • contribs) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good point. It's been specified.LH (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Notable Bankruptcies

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

The notable Chapter 9 bankruptcies are appropriate for some large municipalities simply because Chapter 9 is relatively rare among the bankruptcies. However the proliferation of references to every Chapter 9 filing someone comes across is inappropriate here. Perhaps it should be split into a separate article (but then it risks becoming a list). In any case, I would like to hear comments on this.

If there is no objection I will remove the hospital organization bankruptcy section after a reasonable time has passed. LH (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

  • Chapter 9 is relatively rare among the bankruptcies. Do you sell municipal bonds for a living? That is the one liner they like to throw around. If you think about the number of people involved in the OC mess it is easily millions. This year there is Vallejo and Jefferson Co Al will likely declare too.Geo8rge (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • As far as the list of smaller bankruptcies, I included a breif explanation for each and they have wikipages already. I think mention should be made that entities other than formal municipalities declare as chapter 9, evidently including Amusement park operators. If you can come up with a better way to explain it why don't you.Geo8rge (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
11 U.S.C. § 109(c)(1) specifies that only municipalities may be debtors under the Code.
The no list rule is a wikipedia rule, not one specific to this article.
Additionally, although a single Chapter 9 may affect many people, the statement that Chapter 9 is the rarest is verifiable (and by no small margin). Chapter 9 is by far the least frequently used bankruptcy provision. In 2007 there were six Chapter 9 bankruptcies. In comparison there were 850,912 total bankruptcy filings over the same period.
I believe additional input is warranted on this topic from others too. LH (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • The municipality list needs to 1) have some criteria for entry other than that the municipality filed chapter 9, or 2) be moved to another article. A list of 500 is unmanageable and inappropriate for an article that currently is one paragraph of substance (See WP:LC--open-ended list violates #6, plus notability). If it is to include every filing, it needs to be a separate article. If it stays here then its entries need to be notable. LH (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
    • "A list of 500 is unmanageable and inappropriate for an article that currently is one paragraph" I suspect that at most there are 30 or so Chapter 9 bankruptcies. As to the 500 number, do you know something? As to the one paragraph, there is definately more material if someone wants to write it. Seems like there will be more action in 09, if Vallejo cancels their pensions obligations there will be a flood, at that point maybe the list will get unmanagable. As to the actual entries in the list, just listing the bankruptcies was easier than finding a study describing the bankruptcies and then writing it up. With so few bankruptcies it is more informative to just list them. In a few years, I agree, the list could explode and need its own article. Geo8rge (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply



(((from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:46.142.6.41#Complete_list_of_all_US_municipalities_that_officially_went_bankrupt_.28.22Chapter_9_bankruptcies.22.3F.29 :)))
Hello,
I came to this topic via the Detroit bankruptcy news, and after first fast-reading of some articles, it seemed to me that not all bankrupt municipalities are a "Chapter9-case", but as I read more carefully this article, obviously really all bankrupt municipalities are always a "Chapter9-case".
However, as some here on this talk page above me some time ago discussed, instead of / additionally to the "partial list" here in this article, there (also) have to be a complete listing of all US municipalities, which ever went technically/formally-declared/officially bankrupt, and also including the bankruptcy year, the timespan the unit was bankrupt (year of "recovery" (--> which one of units which went bankrupt are still today and which (if there are some?) did when recover/regain normal/"not-bankrupt" status?)) and other notes (cause/description of the bankruptcy case), in form of a sortable table altogether, to have a complete picture.
I understand, that a (600+)-entries-list cannot normally fit into this article. But if you wouldn't want it in a normally-collapsed tabulary in this article (under the staying actual "partial notable list"), than this article here should stay as it is, but next to this "partial notable list" (for a first quick overview of the most important cases), there should be a link a la "for a complete list of US municipalities went bankrupt / US Chapter 9 municipality bankruptcy cases see 'List of US municipalities which went bankrupt' " [meaning all cases: both former and actual ones]
As an article of its own, there wouldn't be any problem, as pointed out by someone before, as there are way longer list articles easily managed on wikipedia (e.g. wiki US county data articles) and also it is clear that it is up to the data: to compare the data, they have to be all in one table, and the table has to fit the data's length (as it would be generally nonsense to edit/cut the data to a "partial selection", just for formal size purposes; if the US would have 500 states instead of 50, would you make only a partial list here and leave 90% out? Surely not. (form follows function))
(
Additionally, in a passage from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_bankruptcy#Background , the words "60 other Chapter 9 bankruptcies" are blue-lined, linking to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Government_units_that_have_filed_for_Chapter_9_bankruptcy , but for a pity, there are not about 60 entries, but much fewer (I haven't totally checked whether the entries in that category do or do not match the "partial list" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_9,_Title_11,_United_States_Code#Notable_Chapter_9_bankruptcies or vice versa) - if there once is a complete list, all the concerned municipalities' articles should be tagged with this category, so that if they appear on the list, they also appear in this category herein, logically (the chapter 9 article and the complete list article should be featured on this category page also ("the main articles for this category are..."))
)
So, to have a(n own) complete list (article), where are the single data entries and even the names of that (600+) bankrupt municipality cases?
46.142.51.148 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Technical Errors re Bankruptcy Law

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

There are indeed significant errors in this article concerning the applicable bankruptcy law. For example, there is confusion between the concepts of permission to file and eligibility to file. Several of the cases in these subcategories have been misclassified in this article. Pechmerle (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've made some changes that make the article more accurate and better technically. Still needs further improvement. --Pechmerle (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chapter 9, Title 11, United States Code. 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 06:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chapter 9, Title 11, United States Code. 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) 08:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Chapter 9, Title 11, United States Code. 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) 16:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Bolding Vallejo Bankruptcy

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As a Vallejo resident who became a sociologist interviewing people in San Bernadino and Stockton about their bankruptcies, I feel that the Vallejo bankruptcy is significant enough to be bolded because of its longevity. Vallejo has still been in the 2008 Recession for close to 10 years because of their bankruptcy. To this day, the city is not recovered from its bankruptcy.[1]

184.183.163.59 (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ https://wallethub.com/edu/most-least-recession-recovered-cities/5219/
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chapter_9,_Title_11,_United_States_Code&oldid=1200788877"