Jump to content

Talk:Black Thursday (2020)

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

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose to merge Black Thursday (2020) into Black Monday (2020), and renaming it to something like '2020 Stock Market Crash'. There are two reasons we should do this: Firstly, although Monday and Thursday were the two largest dips in the stock market (around -7% both days), there have been multiple other days of large market drops (-5% on 3/11, -4% on 3/5). Secondly, there is little evidence that these events are known as "Black Monday" or "Black Thursday" in the media or in the financial industry, the cited sources (Philipine Daily Inquirer and The New Indian Express) do not represent the way most people are referring to this market downturn. ThoseArentMuskets (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Monday is notable on its own. If the markets recover by the close of today, I suggest merging this article into Black Monday (2020)#Aftermath. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is are either of these days notable on their own? There are some days with larger downturns than either Monday or Today (2008-10-15, 2008-12-01, 2008-09-29, 2008-10-09) that don't have separate articles. Also, do you feel strongly that the name 'Black Thursday' is appropriate? The media has not yet coalesced around a specific name for either Monday or Thursday. ThoseArentMuskets (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with merging this article and renaming it to more thoroughly encompass ongoing events. This is not a one-off crash, it's a series of crashes over the past month due to the effects of the coronavirus. Separate articles for each crash are inefficient and probably not notable. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 18:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support merging into a single article on the ongoing stock market crash. Massive volatility is expected in the days ahead (see VIX) and I don't see why we need new articles for each new swing of the market. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 19:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A single article with a fairly generic name seems like a good path to follow. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with merging this article and coming up with a generic title to use as a stand-in until a more widely known name is used. It's likely there is going to be more crashes in the market in the coming days ahead. It seems unnecessary to come up with a page every day the stock market falls. Bortcycle (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and move to 2020 bear market? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We already have 2020 stock market crash. XOR'easter (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This crash just happened today! It's impossible to know what will happen tomorrow or next week. I think we need to allow some time to see whether this is a longer lasting stock market adjustment and whether these articles should be merged. There is no rush to merge articles today or tomorrow. Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but let's wait for couple of more days. Supporting Liz's point of view. Hatchens (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have never heard this event referred to as black either of these days, though discussion of it the events is rampant (i.e. many talking about it, nobody calling it this). I asked a few others including in financial roles (anecdotal, I know) and these do not seem to be common terms in Canada and we are heavily influenced by international English language media so I do wonder how common they are. I think here is not for coining the term for too many people, more documenting only if clearly already coined. Moreover, more market action in progress and its all very clearly related as one event... good chance we will have many related articles with either overlap or lacking context without merge. Revr J (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – They are clearly part of the same event, and most of what could be said about one could also be said about the other. Smyth (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Liz, Too Soon to know the best article structure. Status quo works for the moment. Feoffer (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Keep Black Monday, Black Thursday, and the 2020 stock market crash as separate articles. Both Black Monday and Thursday are record-setting events. The rest of these crashes can be covered in the main article with a broader scope. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 12:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that these are record setting events, as a percentage change in the market (see 2008-10-15, 2008-12-01, 2008-09-29, 2008-10-09). It's a record change in Dow Jones Points, but that measure is very biased by the fact that the Dow is an all time high number of points. ThoseArentMuskets (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit of an aside, but the Dow is also a relatively poor indicator of the stock market as a whole. I know people quote it a lot, but it's whole operation is very old-fashioned - it has only 30 stocks, of all the thousands in the US, and set by a committee rather than on truly objective grounds. And it's a price-weighted index, which means the weighting of the stocks is down to the vagaries of their individual absolute share prices, rather than the much more objective capitalization-weighted index. For a representative index, you should look at something like MSCI World for global performance, and the S&P 500 for US-specific.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • per Liz Let's wait there is no reason to rush a decision. FlalfTalk 15:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – These drops aren't being called "black*" by very many people. These names should only be given if there's strong consensus. It took a few years for the recession caused by the financial crisis to be called the Great Recession, for example. We should merge into into a general article on the 2020 crash. This allows us to properly contextualize the events. Prad Nelluru (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Merging both into 2020 stock market crash seems sensible, or moving one into the other and moving to a new title maybe. The two days are clearly linked, and the names themselves are dubious - although obviously appearing in some sources, I haven't seen huge numbers of outlets talking about "Black Monday" and "Black Thursday" specifically. Also I see no reason at all to "wait", either. This merge something that needs to be done, and people are watching these articles right now. So to avoid having three pages on the same topic (and more, if drops continue next week) assuming this continues as a clear consensus to merge, let's just get on and do it ASAP.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Liz -- We are still watching this unfold. Maybe it should be its own article. Maybe merged in the one mentioned. Or maybe in some other article which will be obvious given a little more time. Until then, continue to add content here so we will be ready to decide. -- llywrch (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger. These events aren't independently notable of one another, and not enough time has passed to support particular titling of these days. The article naming itself is cited to a bunch of financial industry trade press. I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia prefers to take the trade press with a grain of salt. Cf. WP:ORGIND's warning about the use of trade publications to support the notability of articles about corporations or products. What we need to look for to support these events as requiring separate coverage is discussion in the academic press. I agree with Amakuru that there's no reason to wait—the onus is on those demanding separate coverage to demonstrate that said coverage is consistent with Wikipedia policies and content guidelines. What we have here is a textbook case of WP:RECENTISM and clickbait titling. When and if this specific stock market slump has lasting notability in the eyes of the economic academia, then let's talk about having a "Black Thursday" article or a "Bloody Thursday" article or a "You Won't Believe These 2300 Crazy Points The Dow Jones Industrial Index Lost!" article. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think like an encyclopedic version of "March 2020 market instability" would be the best. 2601:602:9200:1310:1133:BBC3:D24A:4F1 (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Black Monday & Black Thursday are notable as record-breaking days as part of the notable 2020 crash. It's often the case that events within a larger notable event or sequence of events are also notable. Examples include individual matches within a sports tournament & individual military operations within a conflict. Jim Michael (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OSE is a pretty obvious counter-argument. In addition, we just don't know what the lasting significance of this or any of the other "record breaking" days we've had recently (as others have rightly argued, basing the significance merely on an absolute number of points changed is not really appropriate—it's a bit like arguing that we should have an article on every millionaire because millionaires were once uncommon). Follow the guidelines. There's no lasting significance of these days yet. And Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Let's come back to this when the academic economist coverage demonstrates that these days actually mattered. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I agree with the statement of Feoffer (talk · contribs) and Liz (talk · contribs). It is too soon to tell how reliable sources will document these two days, whether it will be viewed as a single larger event, or each one specifically as unique and separate. One thing is for sure, the reactions to the infections of people by the convid19 virus (and whatever other associated names it may have which one might prefer to use instead) are the root cause of what is being discussed; perhaps these articles should be listed in that article, if it hasn't been done already.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is too soon to tell how reliable sources will document these two days, whether it will be viewed as a single larger event, or each one specifically as unique and separate. I see this as the conclusive argument that a merger should be performed. Unless there is evidence that the consensus among the reliable sources—and I mean actual reliable sources, not the business trade press and churnalist sources that tend to get cited in this sort of discussion—that this day is a unique, separate event that requires independent coverage. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: If and when the time comes that there's sufficient evidence of lasting significance in the reliable sources, then we should have a separate article. Until then, merge and redirect these articles to the general article on the March 2020 economic downturn. This strikes me as a no-brainer that follows per Liz. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The larger topic here is definitely notable, and this article will make a fine two-paragraph section (max) in the merged article, if you actually look at what is unique to this article (i.e., not "background"). Outriggr (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These two market crash were very notable, and it is worth it to have separate articles on these two crashes. Seafoxlrt616 (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Last week was incredibly volatile in world markets and while new records are being set with each day, the specific independent day movements are not sufficiently notable enough to have standalone articles. There were many major falls during the 1929-1933 collapse, but they do not all have their own WP articles. We are going to have a few more of these days in the next few weeks, so they should all be merged. Britishfinance (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As merge has already occurred. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's only half true...

[edit]

Right now, the article correctly notes that the four largest Dow daily losses up to Black Thursday were all linked to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Maybe it would be a valuable and more neutral way to reflect the situation if we also mentioned that the four largest daily gains were also all linked to the pandemic. What is exceptional is the volatilty of the market, more so than the idea that stocks are just falling. Renerpho (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The crash is the big story. Some days with very large increases also occurred during the Great Recession. I agree that the record increases as well as the record falls should be included in the article. Jim Michael (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central Bank Intervention

[edit]

Hi, this is thechitowncubs. I wonder if we should link to past failures of central bank intervention, like the Federal reserve during the Great Depression, the Federal reserve manipulation of interest rates in business cyclecollapses in America. Are there facts for those collapses and central bank involvement? Or just opinions?

The dates are wrong

[edit]

Right now, the article doesn't really make much sense:

On March 9, 2020, the stock market hit its lowest close during the Great Recession.

Quite a few edits have been made to the article to change bits and pieces like this. The most recent edit is definitely wrong, but I don't know enough to know which version to revert to. wizzwizz4 (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Thursday_(2020)&oldid=1210739109"