Talk:2015–2016 stock market selloff

Concerns that led to the crash

We need a new section that lists concerns that led to the crash. these include: (1) China's devaluation of the Yuen [1] (2) China's economic slowdown [2] (3) uncertainty over the US Federal reserve's rate adjustment [3] (3) low oil prices [4] (4)other things? Peace MPS (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC) OK, ddoing that. Kernosky talk2me! 08:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge with 2015 Chinese stock market crash

Suggest speedy removal of merger proposal tag

Since this article focuses on the wider global implications of the current "upheaval" as the New York Times terms it, it is highly unlikely to be merged into a Wikipedia article with China as the focus. It is perhaps somewhat more likely to merge that article here, but that act opens up a new can of worms as far as balance is concerned. I propose we speedily reject the idea of merging and remove the tag. Jusdafax 01:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Merge -- this article is getting worse, not better, it should be merged with the China article and be expanded to a worldwide scope, or renamed the 2015 US stock market correction and then be AfD'ed. μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Do Not Merge -- Black Monday in the US was caused by more than just Yuen devaluation... it was also caused by low gas prices and uncertainty over Fed interest rate hikes. Peace, MPS (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Do Not Merge -- These events are very recent. Leave separate for now, one has global focus, the other a focus on China. Maybe in a year's time we can say whether it is better to have one or two articles on these related event/s.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Do Not Merge -- This focuses on the world, not just China And there were other reasons, low price of oil, Fed rate hike, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernosky (talk • contribs) 06:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Do Not Merge - I think it would be OR to merge at this point. Do we have sources saying that the Chinese crash is actually simply part of the larger global event, without its own separate influencing factors and outcomes? The sources seem to say that they are connected events, but not the same event. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Merger tags pulled - Since there has been no movement here in two weeks, and the consensus is clear, I have pulled the article tags. Jusdafax 03:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Should this article be upgraded to Start-class? Comment Suggestion

It has okay sources decent information and whatnot. Is this possible and if so let me know. Kernosky talk2me! 08:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• I will happily agree. We are way beyond a "stub." Jusdafax 10:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of the "Reactions" section

I have restored the sourced section and feel strongly that it should be expanded, not deleted. Suggest discussing that here. Thanks. Jusdafax 19:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Update: have added reactions from the French and German Heads of State. Other sourced reactions are, of course, welcome. Jusdafax 20:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The "reactions" of a state governor and a real estate mogul have as much relevance here as the reactions of the Minister-President of Saxony and the owner of Sky News; none. I will probably vote for one of the two candidates listed for President, and have indeed voted for the other as governor--but the politics is irrelevant. These are not central bankers, prize winning economists or heads of state and they are at least 21 months away from possibly being sworn in as president. This is an encyclopedia, not a random collection of one-offs by politicians. I have no problem with the Merkel and Hollande statements as such, but they are much less relevant than statements from China and the US. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for joining the discussion. Since you noted at WP:ITN that your time constraints preclude WP:SOFIXIT participation, I won't ask you to do the grunt work of actually working on the section. I propose to add further reactions, including if possible noted economists. I don't pretend to be an expert and while I perhaps know a bit more than the average U.S. or world citizen regarding the interlinked and highly complex global economy, I welcome advice. I have tried Googling various combinations of words but have yet to find solid material that is WP:RS. Perhaps you have some brief but concrete suggestions regarding authorities and recent statements we could use to build the section with? Again, thanks. Jusdafax 23:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• I rearranged the paragraph so that Hollande's statements are summarized in one sentence, because I agree that his unelaborated reassurances are maybe not the most notable standalone lines. However, I'm not sure I agree that the statements of well-known Heads of State in general are not relevant. Their views are presumably informed by the analyses of their economic advisers, and will probably influence their respective countries' economic responses to the situation. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree with your comment. I welcome additions to this section or the article as a whole, as I say above. It is not yet clear that the turmoil, or selloff, is over, and if it resumes this article can be further updated. Jusdafax 07:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The selloff is NOT over because the world is still having economic struggles, causing global markets to throw away what they worked so hard for.--OfficerAPC (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to Rename Article

2015 stock market selloff should be renamed to 2015-16 stock market selloffs because the economic struggles around the world continue to persist, which has had serious drawbacks on global markets. We can then include necessary details as more information comes into play with these selloffs.--OfficerAPC (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I found it a bit jarring to have a reference to the jan 2016 events, followed by a section on reactions to the 2015 (the main subject material) - it seems that 2016 is either an aftershock or will eventually deserve a page of its own. So rather than rename the article, perhaps we should keep jan 2016 as a side note until we see what happens after the election :) BTW - it's delightful to be able to find such concise synopses of these events on wikipedia... thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.249.223 (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I'd move the "2016" section myself (to after the "reactions" section), but it seems that every time I try to improve or clarify something the wikibots revert it. Now disgusted, so I no longer bother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.249.223 (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion to rename or start new article

Given the recent financial turmoil around Brexit it seems quite possible that when the markets open on Monday, in just a few hours, there may be a serious sell off. We should either rename this one, or start a new one. Jusdafax 21:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Since world markets have yet to fully recover from last year's massive selloff, we should rename the article.--OfficerAPC (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)