Talk:Black Wednesday

message: Which treasury concluded that cost was £3.4 billion; the labour or the conservative one? Can there be a bias in whatever govt makes this figure? --82.153.98.248 (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Estimated cost

message: "...Black Wednesday (or 'White Wednesday' in euro-sceptic parlance)..."
I'm curious, is the term 'white Wednesday' in wide enough use to merit a mention in the opening line of the article?  Should it be moved further down the article, if not moved entirely? Jamestplunkett 21:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eurosceptic Parlance

message: "Most notably George Soros who earned over $1 billion in doing so. The event is estimated to have cost the people of Britain £4 billion in reserves, spent trying to prop up the pound." This could use some more accurate explanation and data. - Jerryseinfeld 20:44, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for update

message: This article is about one specific event in British history - surely a separate disambig page is needed? SatuSuro 12:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs to be separated

message: Footnote 1 : This is a matter of some debate.  Former Prime Minister Edward Heath referred to this as a "one club golf" policy.  Interest rates are a blunt instrument that affects all aspects of the economy equally.  They should be supplemented by selective fiscal policies.  However, to do so was contrary to the prevailing monetarist views at the time.
If it's a "matter of some debate", is it appropriate for an encyclopedia to use such a prescriptive words as "should" and "hence"? Particularly without sourcing the note? JiHymas@himivest.com 01:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV / Original Research 

message: The article currently states:
The ensuing devaluation resulted to a major transfer of wealth from the government (whose foreign currency reserves which it had to sell would have gained in value) to the carry traders (who additionally to the interest rate differential between the pound and the DM also gained from the devaluation of their borrowing).
According to the Bundesbank's time series ST0101: Money market rates reported by Frankfurt banks / Overnight money / Daily quotations, overnight rates in Germany never exceeded 9.73.  Meanwhile, according to the Bank of England, the Daily sterling overnight interbank average lending rate was never less than 10% .  The article implies borrowing was in pounds.  As UK interest rates were at all times higher that those in Germany, this would not make a profitable carry trade.  Unless a reference or explanation is provided, I will delete this claim. - Crosbiesmith 09:10,  12 May 2007 (UTC)
:I have removed that passage for the time being. - Crosbiesmith 19:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for my late answer, I was busy and haven't logged in to Wikipedia for quite a while. It was me who added the carry trade claim, as I heard the story from a professor of mine in that way. I checked the rate histories too, and it seems that the interest rates in Germany were higher neither in nominal nor in real terms (as inflation was higher in Germany at the time as well). So I must admit that I was in error claiming it as a profitable carry trade as well. -- Marcika 14:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The carry trade

message: There needs to be more details of Soros hand in Black Wednesday. Until then the article is incomplete.--Redblossom (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.Historian932 (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also I agree. Urbanus Secundus (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirded. MudskipperMarkII (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious about the reference to George Soros, and why his activities are related/relevant to the article. At the moment, the brief mention seems to be something that would be better down in the body of the article, not in the opening paragraph. Could somebody please expand on why this is important --I've no doubt it is, but it's not presented in any way that makes it seem anything other than a random fact thrown in out of context. 146.129.249.2 (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The activities of George Soros served to reduce the friction in the forex markets, if you will, but would have been inconsequential if the economic pressures described above had not already built up. He was pushing at an open door.  There needs to be more discussion of general forex flows, not just a high-profile hedge fund.  The writing was on the wall when everyone else decided to sell - Soros was just the harbinger.
He was just one of many many currency traders that day, simply following the crowd. No more no less. Dan100 (Talk) 09:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Article seem to underplay the involvment of George Soros on Black Wednesday. 

message: "By the October poll, following Black Wednesday, their share of the intended vote in the poll had plunged from 43% to 29%,[10] while Labour jumped into a lead which they held almost continuously (except for several brief periods such as during the 2000 Fuel Protests) for the next 14 years, during which time they won three consecutive general elections under the leadership of Tony Blair (who became party leader in 1994 following the death of his predecessor John Smith)."
This sentence is much too long and not clear.
What is the relevance of John Smith dying and Tony Blair taking over?
Tony Blair did not follow John Smith as leader of the Labour Party - what about Margaret Beckett ? Whileworth (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final paragraph - Tony Blair 

message: Is it worth mentioning that Bank Negara was on the other side from Soros - long GBP - and lost $3.6 billion when the peg broke? (Reference - the last paragraph here)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.80.2.66 (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bank Negara involvement on the other side of the trade 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Black Wednesday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111016063730/http://www.number10.gov.uk:80/history-and-tour/john-major-2/ to http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/john-major-2/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This long article is extremely poor in numbers.  It does not even say how much the exchange rates fell during that day. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers, please? 

message: In Aftermath section, second to last sentence of first paragraph:
The info in parentheses is not backed up by the source provided, nor is it backed up by real world data.  Removing.
Eleutheria Sleuth (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Qualification Regarding Inflation Prior to 1992 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Black Wednesday. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091013232132/http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~pnorris/datafiles/Gallup.xls to http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~pnorris/datafiles/Gallup.xls
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: It's unrelated to the market crash and the movement has nothing to do with 'black' anything. Or else we need to make every colored Wednesday redirect to this market crash. White Wednesday should have its own stub or redirect to the 'movement' page which already exists (a better idea) and the redirect should be completely removed. It's not a good habit to be whatsing and whosing on here. That isn't what this place is for. Is it?  -- Unable to log in at the moment (04:45, 05 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This (White Wednesday -> Black Wednesday) redirect should be removed. 

message: An anonymous editor has repeated made the following edit, which I have repeatedly reverted. 
*in the years prior to the financial crisis of 2007–08
to
*in the years prior to the Financial crisis of 2007–2008
I can see no good reason to capitalise 'financial'. It is not capitalised in the article Financial crisis of 2007–2008, other than in its title. I am neutral on how we should give the date range, MOS:YEARRANGE indicates that either form is acceptable for consecutive years. Please discuss the capitalisation here or I will continue to restore the uncapitalised form. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted again. If the reason for the edits is to match the title of the linked article then please see WP:NOTBROKEN. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation