Talk:Wall Street Crash of 1929/Archive 1

message: ----------
There are interesting other opinions related to the causes of Black Tuesday. One is given on this page. It is written by Dr. D.J.C. Smant, of the monetarian department of the economic faculty of the Erasmus University of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 
He points out that the stock market was not severly overpriced at that instant and that the market just followed a logical decline in price level and economical activity.
If the Great Depression was not caused by the stock market crash, he argues, it must be caused by the failure of monetarian policy.
Since the official site also makes this remark, I guess we should at least mention that there are other opinions.
Dolf 13:19, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
I think there's too much emphasis on the number of stocks being sold on this entry -- I mean, exactly as many were bought. Selling, in and of itself, therefore did not cause the crash. Markonen 23:35, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

message: There are about 7000 Google hits for "Black Thursday" as referring to the 1929 Crash. "Wall Street Crash" gets about 19,000 hits. So I'm moving the article. Rd232 21:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Black Thursday refers to just one day (when the decline was worst), though the crash as such took a bit longer to die down, and is sometimes considered to have started on 21 October. I'm renaming this "Stock Market Crash of 1929", as markets across the world were affected. It also gets many more Google hits  vs . Oh, and I'll clean up the links... DocendoDiscimus 18:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying a slightly sticky situation. I think I'd stick with "Wall Street Crash 1929" over "Stock Market Crash 1929" though; for one thing, the Google search may be deceptive here as many of the references to "Wall Street Crash" as a name for the event are likely to include the phrase "stock market crash" as a description of the event. If you do want to move the article, maybe it's worth getting more input at Wikipedia:requested moves. Rd232 22:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Doesn't anyone think we ought to include the total decline between opening bell Thursday and closing bell Tuesday? Anyone have that figure? Marskell 12:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total decline 

message: Stating that stocks didn't return to 1929 levels until 1955 is quite misleading.  This excludes dividends, which make up around half of total returns on stocks.  Focusing on price alone does not reflect the gains that actual investors experience.
:I wonder whether companies were able to pay dividends during that time.  Does anyone have figures and sources for dividends during this period? 64.231.45.185 04:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return to pre-crash levels 

message: The "timeline" section of this page could really use some cleanup and additional information: it is somewhat uninformative and devoted almost entirely to the anecdote about bankers trying to stop the crash on Black Thursday. I will work on doing this, but if anyone else feels like doing it too, please go ahead. SparhawkWiki 16:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: It seems to me there would be a lot of people, eg. economics students, professors, etc, that
could give guidance on this subject. I have a couple old economics books, that I could use
as resources, but I'm a layperson on this subject, and there are probably vast resources out there to draw on, but I'm not familiar with them. Can anyone help with this? Richiar 18:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need qualified expertise 

message: This article needs a graph of the crash. 100 years of DOW data can be found here:
http://www.analyzeindices.com/dowhistory/djia-100.txt
The file is a too big for my computer, can someone make this into a nice graph please?
(It would be nice to show the graph in relation to the tech boom and bust, anyone got a source with more recent data?) futurebird 19:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs a graph

message: I created a new template for notable stock market crashes and I thought I would post it for discussion before adding it to the page.  Here it is. Remember 22:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  template 

message: What does "The low for the move occurred on November 13" from the timeline section of the article mean? Feels like something could be clearer here ... Keesiewonder talk 23:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the low for the move? 

message: I have removed the "Impact" section as much of it was copy-pasted from another website that I would not immediately call reputable when some of its information is downright wrong. If someone would like to rewrite this section using one of the many reputable sources out there that examine the impact of the crash on the overall economy without making outlandish claims about a national welfare system and what effects it would have had had it been in place. The paragraph as it was was hardly close to the difficult macroeconomic issues that arised from this crash. JHMM13 (T | C)   03:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just done a rewrite of the section, focusing on economic theory and some academic debate. In terms of impact on the great depression etc, I will try and locate some references from a few books in the near future. Unlike the previous contributor, I havent written any outlandish claims about a welfare system! LordHarris 23:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot. It looks very good. I think you're a great writer and I'm sure you know your stuff, but naturally the section would be better with some inline citations. :-D JHMM13 (T | C)   02:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact 

message: Hey guys. I've just reviewed the article for Good Article status and it looks pretty good. No one can deny the importance of the subject and it should've been nominated a long time ago. However, I did find some issues which should be resolved before I'd confirm it as a good article. Take your time to review and work on them.
* Introduction should be shortened, it contains much more information than a brief description of the article. Certain information on the intro could be placed in a new “Background” or “Prelude” section before the “Timeline” section.
* There are important assertions made in the introduction, such as the importance, the effects, and the legacy of the crash on american economics and history. Although these assertions are widely accepted, they should nonetheless be referenced with outside sources in order to avoid NPOV disputes from other users.
* Quotations should be presented using the proper templates. Browse through them and choose the most appropriate.
* The introduction section should not include advanced wording, such as impetus or nadir. Casual readers may not understand them, especially if they aren’t wiki-linked, and may be discouraged from continuing to read the article.
: I removed them, impetus seemed overly wordy, but perhaps nadir should be put in and wiki-linked; though it is a stub and a relatively unused term. Whilding87 00:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. There's a HUGE backlog of Good Article candidates just waiting for review. When your finished with this article, take some time to review some others. Your help is greatly appreciated. And remember, BE BOLD! - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 19:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Nom 

message: I'm sorry guys, I.ve given this GA Nom process a whole 13 days, but I'm not satisfied with a few citation and NPOV issues as per my original suggestions above. However, I do think the article is close to good and with a few more edits, could pass the GA criteria. Here's a summary of my conclusions:
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
If someone does manage to improve these issues, nominate it again and post a message in my talkpage. I'd be glad to re-review it and pass it as a good article. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 18:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article Failed

message: The high levels of 'IP-vandalism' over the last month seem to occur due to some uncertainty as to whether this phenomenon is best known as Black Thursday or Black Tuesday. (Black Friday via a dab-page also leads here, btw.) Does the IP have a point, should this be discussed? The anon user is welcome to present reasons for their reversions here. --DorisHノート 11:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not vandalism.  People are getting confused over whether the article is referring to the initial crash of Black Thursday or the subsequent generalized panic that occurred five days later, on Black Tuesday. Better differentiation in the opening paragraph is necessary to stop the changearounds...  --Hiddekel 22:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Thursday, Friday, Monday, Tuesday

message: Section 2.1, "Official Investigation of the Crash" contains the following statement regarding the stock market crash of 1987: "On so-called Black Monday of 1987, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell a full 22.6% (the markets quickly recovered, posting the largest one-day increase since 1932 only two days later)." Does anyone else think that this statement regarding the recovery is misleading, as it suggests that the markets made a full recovery within two days? While it is true that there was a large rally two days after the crash, the DJIA didn't recover to pre-crash levels until the early 1990s (see graph). Rosscadogan 09:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Black Monday, 1987 

message: The decline then accelerated into the so-called "Black Thursday", October 24, 1929. A record number of 12.9 million shares were traded on that day.
"Black Tuesday", October 29, 1929, 12.4 million shares were traded, a number that broke the record set five days earlier and that was not exceeded until 1969.
12.4 million is obviously less than 12.9 million so the record would not have been broken. Are the figures mixed up, should it be 13.4million or is it just a mistake? [[Guest9999 18:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: I think it needs to be made clear, especially for non-Americans and for youngsters, the exact date that is considered to be The Day The Stock Market Crashed. Now, we all know that's October 29 -- but nowhere in this article is that clarified or stated. I think it should be stated clearly and early on, and without mentioning day of the week. Then later on in the article (or additionally), the timeline and buildup and blow-by-blow can also be detailed. But for someone coming to Wikipedia looking to find out The Day The Stock Market Crashed, this article strikes out. Anyway, thanks in advance to those who can remedy this situation. Softlavender 11:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DATE