Talk:Black Monday (1987)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black Monday (1987) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
Black Monday (1987) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 19, 2005, October 19, 2006, October 19, 2007, October 19, 2008, October 19, 2011, October 19, 2017, and October 19, 2021. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Small error
[edit]"In fact it was not the largest one-day percentage decline in recorded stock market history. That occured on December 12, 1914, when the DJIA fell 24.39%."
This is somewhat correct however there was no trading between 7/30/1914 and 12/14/1914 due to WWI. Due to this lapse in time 1987 is considered to largest single day decline.
Causes...
[edit]As I recall, some supply siders attributed the crash to the Senate repealing some of Reagan's tax cuts, such a bill passed committe day prior???
Inconsistent referencing style
[edit]- The referencing style is inconsistent. Will straighten out w/in the next 2 days or so. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Will try to add new info, one source at a time
[edit]I've got some sources. The standard way to add info might be to gather facts from many sources on one section or subtopic, and add a summary of those, then move to a new subtopic. However, to me that seems to be more work. I think I'll just grab a source, add as much as seems useful from that source, then move to another. That may temporarily make it seem like the whole article is too heavily written from one source... Moreover, some sources I get around to using later may modify info from ones used earlier. That's OK too, in the long run. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Passing on what has passed unto you is not a crime Ta Seven (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
GA/FAC push (slow and steady, maybe three months?)
[edit]OK, I'm declaring an official GA/FAC push for this article. :-) It will almost certainly take at least two or three months before it's even ready to go into a Content Review process (PR, GA, FAC), so there's no three-alarm rush or anything. I will be working slow and steady. Any and all who wish to do so are welcome to join in. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Making progress. Adding global perspective; should add 3 or 4 more countries. The "Background" section is relatively pathetic. I haven't done much of anything there yet. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well I put it up for GA. After 345 edits we've gone from this to this. We'll see what happens... or whoever is around will see. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Black Monday (1987)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 01:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
- Lead: There is some information that is in the lead but not the body, such as that the Dow fell 508 points. This info should be repeated in the body.
- Extent of the crash: List of largest daily changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average indicates that the crash was the largest percentage drop in a single day in the exchange's history, but this article says "This was one of the largest one-day percentage drops." If it was really the largest, I recommend mentioning that in the article.
- Aftermath: You cover the regulatory changes due to the crash, could you add something on the long-term impact? Did the market recover immediately or was there lasting economic damage?
- Worldwide view: The article focuses on the US, which I think is acceptable since the crash started there. We don't need a section for every country but I think some kind of "other countries" or "worldwide impact" section would be appropriate. The lead says that Hong Kong, Singapore, and Australia's markets fell 40%, but I didn't see that info in the article body. Would be interested to hear why those countries were hit so hard.
- References: Referencing is thorough, but please add a source for the first paragraph of "background", I tend to think that GA's should have at least one citation per paragraph.
- Spot checks: Checked references #4, 32, 74. Information checks out.
- Images: Appropriate graphs and a timeline are included, I don't think you need anything else.
- External links: I couldn't get the "CBC Reports on Black Monday" external link to work.
The information you have is presented lucidly and comprehensively, I just think the article needs to be expanded a bit to cover the aftermath and world-wide impact. I'll place the article on hold for seven days. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- No change after seven days, unfortunately I'll have to fail the article. Please renominate when ready! --Cerebellum (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Additional comments
[edit]Two specific comments about the lead and a more general comment echoing above.
- reverse images in the lede, DJIA at top, since FTSE not mentioned.
- "The Reserve Bank of New Zealand's refusal to loosen monetary policy in response to the crisis, however, had sharply negative and relatively long-term consequences for both financial markets and the real economy." I presume this is in reference to the country on its own, but the current phrasing and context is ambiguous, should be clarified by replacing "both" with "the country's" and dropping "the" before "real economy".
- General: There's a great deal of US microeconomic focus to the article, but it lacks a larger macroeconomic picture. Given how much of the background to Black Monday lay in issues related to currency markets and interest rates, it seems to me a great absence that neither the Plaza nor Lourve Accords are discussed. Using Shiller's 1988 work in the background is dated and suffers from recentism. Most economic history points to the toxic mix of US deficit spending from the early 1980s, over-valued dollar (to the Plaza accord), trade deficits with Japan and West Germany, rising interest rates and tight money supply. Lourve accord starts to unravel when Germany moves to lift rates, US asset managers see a combination in the threat of a falling dollar, rising US interest rates and continuing rise in the trade deficit and run! There's also no sense of probably the most significant larger marcoeconomic consequence of Black Monday: the end of (US-led) attempts at international currency coordination.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, Martin Feldstein saying more or less the same thing 30+ years before I did[1] and Soros' version out of interest.[2]
References
- ^ Feldstein, Martin; Modigliani, Franco; Sinai, Allen; Solow, Robert (1988). "Black Monday in Retrospect and Prospect: A Roundtable". Eastern Economic Journal. 14 (4): 337–348. ISSN 0094-5056.
- ^ Soros, George (1988). "After Black Monday". Foreign Policy (70): 65–82. doi:10.2307/1148616. ISSN 0015-7228.
- --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the additional comments! --Cerebellum (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Infobox "Cause" section not verified by WP:RS. Does it match body text?
[edit]Infoboxes are a bit of a problem in many articles. This one may or may not be. The "Causes" bullet points are not supported by WP:RS. Far worse, do they even match the body text? If not, then delete as WP:OR. OneOffUserName (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
"Probable causes" section added by blocked IP, some poor sources
[edit]I really, really need to look into this edit by a [blocked IP]. It escaped my notice because of an innocuous and HIGHLY MISLEADING edit summary, and because it only seemed to add 10kb text.. but it seems it actually added far more than 10kb while subtracting a lot to balance the total... I may not have time soon, will get to it sometime...OneOffUserName (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Countries affected
[edit]The first introductory paragraph mentions "twenty-three major world markets" (third sentence) and "twenty-three major industrial countries" (sixth sentence); however, footnote [A] lists the following "markets": Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States - there are only 22. Which is the 23rd? The UK isn't listed ... should it be? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in History
- C-Class vital articles in History
- C-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of High-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class WikiProject Business articles
- High-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- C-Class Economics articles
- Low-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- C-Class Finance & Investment articles
- High-importance Finance & Investment articles
- WikiProject Finance & Investment articles