Talk:2020 stock market crash/Archive 1

a

Archive 1

Far left wing.

Why is the article being used to promote the far leftist view of the Crash?

“The fall was due to recession fears, a lack of investor confidence in President Donald Trump, and the ban the US Government enacted on foreign nationals traveling to the country from the Schengen Area.”

No mention of the coronavirus just about how orange man is bad.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I've removed that sentence, since it's quite biased and worse, unreferenced. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Merging Black Monday (2020) and Black Thursday (2020) into 2020 stock market crash

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Pages redirected to this one. Clear consensus there should not be separate articles that are exact duplicates. Further edits/merging from page history is welcome, but we don't need later edits to be made to one but not the other resulting in nearly-identical but diverging content. Reywas92^Talk 08:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

---

attempted SNOW close
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{Discussion top|result=Merging per [[WP:Snow]]. No one believes we need separate articles for this. [[User:Benica11|Benica11]] ([[User talk:Benica11|talk]]) 14:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)}}

I propose to merge Black Thursday (2020) and Black Monday (2020) into this article. There are two reasons:

• Both days are part of an overall decrease in the stock market due to Coronavirus, and neither day stands out as significant on its own. There have been days in the history of the stock market which have had bigger moves which don't have their own pages. Furthermore, this week there have been days of large upswings in the market, as well as large dislocations in other markets such as bonds and international stocks.
• There isn't substantial evidence that people have coalesced to call these events "Black Monday" or "Black Thursday".

There are discussions on the talk page for both Black Thursday and Black Monday. Some users have expressed support: @TropicalAnalystwx13, Prad Nelluru, XOR'easter, Renerpho, Revr J, Amakuru, and Juxlos:, and @Nice4What: has expressed position to merging, so I'm pinging everybody involved. ThoseArentMuskets (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support, yes. Renerpho (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support, in the light of how closely related the two events were, and the close temporal proximity of the two crashes, it would be wiser to consider them to be parts of the same situation. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 20:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Both relate to the current stock market crash and hardly any sources use those terms; the former of which is reserved for the largest daily point loss. 9March2019 (talk)
• Support Since that both happened in the same week, it should be merged into one article. As well, the confusion of Black Thursday happening twice might create future confusion. As well, I think that having two different pages about similar events happening because of the same thing on the same week cause it to be redundant. TheKaloo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support As per above stated arguments. FranciscoMMartins (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Black Thursday was only one event in the ongoing crisis Kay girl 97 (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - not sure why we're restarting the conversation, but sure. As before, I support this - the "Black Monday" and "Black Thursday" monikers haven't really taken hold, and it's largely the stockmarket crash as a whole that's gaining the headlines .  — Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support, would reduce clutter and confusion greatly. ShadowCyclone talk 22:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support – They are part of the same overall stock market drop and would function as subsections of this article. It would also allow for us to cull any redundancies. Master of Time (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support, makes sense to merge these articles into one coherent one. Foxterria (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support As of right now this article does not provide a ton of information and forces one to go to the other two articles for anything useful, would make sense to have all the relevant information in one place. SwordofStorms (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support – it makes no sense to leave the actual "Crash" section of this article with nothing but links to these two other articles, when both of them can easily be incorporated into this one. They're not too big, and the similar information in each can be combined to give readers a better understanding of the context behind these two crashes. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – recommending a speedy closure per the snowball clause. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per proposer. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per nominator. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Conditional support A split has also been proposed the Stock market section of the Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article and I have argued in Talk:Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Split proposed that this article, that section, the Oil prices and Bond market sections of the Socio-economic impact article, the Black Monday (2020), the Black Thursday (2020), and the 2020 Russia–Saudi Arabia oil price war should all be merged. I would support merging if merged with all other articles and if the article is renamed "2019–20 Coronavirus pandemic bear market" as at least 7 benchmark stock market indices in G20 countries are in official bear markets. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support per above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. It's much easier to navigate. Pacingpal (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment @Feoffer, Elijahandskip, MPS, Juxlos, Nizolan, Chief of Staff, 9March2019, Acalycine, Lochglasgowstrathyre, DominusVilicus, Kirbanzo, BanditTheManedWolf, Temeku, Jim Michael, and Vida0007: Pinging participants in the other discussion that resulted in a SNOW keep when another merge was attempted at Talk:Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Black_Monday_(2020). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support. While the Talk:Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Black_Monday_(2020) merge attempt did not apply since the coronavirus pandemic did not fully cover the causes of the crash(es), I support the merger into the 2020 stock market crash article to reduce clutter, and maintain consistency with Wall Street Crash of 1929. BanditTheManedWolf (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support as the two events are closely related and occurred within the same week. Had Black Thursday did not happen I would have said otherwise, but because it happened, I think both that and Black Monday must be merged to this article, despite the ongoing pandemic being their only commonality (the Black Monday was also an effect of the oil price war while Black Thursday is linked to what Trump and the EU states did, if my memory serves me right). Vida0007 (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Having separate articles on each market swing makes it harder to treat the crash synoptically and at this stage we don't know if there are more "black" days still ahead. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 09:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support, I went back and forth on this, and while I think it's a bit soon to start merging them all since this is all still playing out, I also know this is a wiki and if things change we can go back to a separate article later if the sources merit it. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support, following my support that I articulated previously at the Black Thursday talk page:

  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)

  I see no need to otherwise edit my previous post. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Black Monday"

I've done some cleanup after a sloppy merge. In that work, I noticed that the term "Black Monday" is used ambiguously in this article. It might mean the Black Monday of 1987, or the Black Monay of 2020. Is there concensus on how these Mondays should be identified? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

From what I can see, IMO, the references in the article to this term are all pretty clear in their contexts. Benica11 (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple black mondays. Examples include Black Monday (1894) and Black Monday (2011). The term is not reserved for a single day. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Both 9 March and 16 March 2020 are now widely called "Black Monday", so I have disambiguated by adding the exact dates to the section names. Renerpho (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yield curve inversion

Towards the end of 2019 I remember significant discussions around the inverted yield curve predicting another recession, is this relevant? Faissaloo (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Faissaloo: The New York Federal Reserve uses the inversion of the yield curve on the benchmark U.S. Treasury security as a six-month lead indicator of a recession. However, as of the last three days of trading (including today), the yield curve has remained normal. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, these are two independent events with the 2019 yield curve inversion having different reasons than the current crash (Coronavirus). The yield curve inversion is a long-term indicator and the current crash is a short term event. --hroest 01:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

But this article is not about the Coronavirus crash, it's about the stock market crash of 2020. As discussed elsewhere on this talk page, there is no reason to assume a single cause even when one appears as obvious as here. This crash is not caused by the coronavirus alone. If a recession had been predicted last year then that's potentially relevant as a contributing factor/ as backstory. Renerpho (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, that is likely the case and as often, these events are multi-factorial. However, to include that in the article we would require a credible WP:SOURCE that makes these connections. It is likely that such analyses will be published in the aftermath, maybe its just WP:TOOEARLY for this to make the connection between short and long term, especially as these events are so recent and a long-term view is not yet possible. --hroest 02:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Black Monday II

Merging them is fine, but I think Black Monday II (March 16) at least deserves a bold headline. After all it was the second greatest one-day crash ever!

Black Monday II was just created. Should probably be merged here as the other articles were. Pinging @LordParsifal: who created the new article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it should be merged. Inventing names for these events is technically original research, and we don't need a new article for every day. XOR'easter (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Because all the content there is already in this article, I went ahead and made that page into a redirect. I don't think there is yet a need to spin out sub-pages from this article. XOR'easter (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR. 16 March has been called Black Monday by many news outlets as early as 16 hours ago. Like by The Straights Times (referring to crash in Asia before it hit Europe and the US hours later), FXStreet, Asia Times, and others in multiple languages, like German erneuter schwarzer Montag ("another black monday") from Deutschlandfunk.[1] Renerpho (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This and the section We're looking at another 'Black Monday are basically the same discussion, so I am boldly merging them to ease discussion. Renerpho (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

We're looking at another 'Black Monday'

With Futures crashing in Wall Street today, and Europe set for the same fate, we may be looking at another 'Black Monday' within the same month. That crash is due to the Fed cutting rates to 0%, which hasn't being done since 2008 thus deepening recession fears. Wiki users need to use other names to describe these significant downturns as the market crashes multiple times throughout the month of March, maybe even calling the month "Black March" or something and describing each significant fall? Share your thoughts and any sources describing names for Black Monday and Thursday. Foxterria (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Foxterria: I think just shows why the Black Monday (2020) & Black Thursday (2020) need to be deleted since all of the content is now in this article. I will update the 2020 stock market crash article, just as I had been updating the Socio-economic impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic article every day since 2 March, at the closing bell at NYSE in the US at 4PM tomorrow. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@CommonKnowledgeCreator: I agree entirely, the seperate days of crashing is apart of a larger ongoing crash, the Market's aren't being as romantic as they have being in the past by giving us one unique day of a crash. These articles need to be deleted, another crash on Monday should hopefully convince other wiki users to do so. Foxterria (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

They don't need to be deleted as the names were used in our sources. They will very likely exist as redirects. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The sources are themselves questionable at best in terms of reliability for this sort of thing. As I've said elsewhere, Wikipedia already disfavors industry trade press when it comes to corporate and product articles. Just because you can find some publication out there using a polemical name for an event doesn't mean we should use it. We avoid "-gate" and other scandal-phrases like these except where there's widespread, enduring usage. Because we have merges underway for the existing articles, those redirects will likely persist, but we shouldn't be creating "Black Monday (16 March 2020)" anytime soon, at least until the academic press actually uses it. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a very nice strawman you've made there. I like what you did with the hair. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Needlessly rude. Surprised you aren’t still on an editing restriction. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You'll get over it. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's job to come up with either the name or the analysis by itself. If "Black March" becomes a common name in reliable sources it might be usable, and if it doesn't then it's not. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 13:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nizolan:It isn't, but we seem to have already done so with "black monday" and "black thursday". We should refer to them as the "Crash of X date" to avoid the term of "Black", considering there aren't many news agencies or reliable sources using those terms. I was simply using 'Black March' as a possible overarch, or calling for other people to provide sources which describe their names. Foxterria (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Could be globalized

The Black Thursday section (maybe the entire article) could be globalized somewhat. Right now, it focuses too much on the situation in the United States, in particular on the Dow Jones. Even though the text gives due weight to other countries, the article lead image and all the tables feature the Dow Jones' motion only, which may not be representative. Among the large indices, its loss over the whole week was one of the lowest (only 10%). Japan's Nikkei lost 16%; the UK's FTSE 17%; Germany's DAX and the Euro Stoxx 50 both lost 20%. Italy's FTSE MIB has lost 30%; Austria 31%. I am not saying that we need tables for all of those, but right now, a reader who just glances over the article may focus on the tables only without reading the text, and that will only tell them about the Dow Jones, not about the global event. Renerpho (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Edited Renerpho (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Renerpho: If you could help me find refs for declines in at least one benchmark stock market index for each of the G20 countries, I will more than gladly summarize them in the text. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@CommonKnowledgeCreator:Here are the G20 countries with their benchmark stock indices and losses over the Mar 9-13 week, with references:

• Australia - S&P/ASX 200 - 12%
• Argentina - MERVAL - 24%
• Brazil - IBOVESPA - 19%
• Canada - S&P/TSX Composite Index - 17%
• China - Shanghai Composite - 5%
• France - CAC 40 - 25%
• Germany - DAX - 25%
• India - BSE SENSEX - 10%
• Indonesia - IDX Composite - 12%
• Italy - FTSE MIB - 30%
• Japan - Nikkei 225 - 19%
• Mexico - S&P/BMV IPC - 9%
• Russia - RTSI - 27%
• Saudi Arabia - TASI - 17%
• South Africa - South Africa Top 40 - 18%
• South Korea - KOSPI - 15%
• Turkey - XU100 - 15%
• United Kingdom - FTSE 100 - 20%
• United States - S&P 500 - 10%

Losses would be about double that for many when counted from the January/February 2020 highs, which in most cases represented all-time highs. Counting from March 9th seems somewhat arbitrary to be, as it's not really the beginning of the crash. It worked when the table was just about the Black Monday and Black Thursday events, before the articles were merged, but that practice may have to be adopted to the new scope of the article. The data in the cited references generally covers all of 2020 and before. The available sources I could find that cover the South African and South Korean indices are blacklisted by Wikipedia (investing.com, tradingeconomics.com), hence why there is no reference for these.Renerpho (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, this article, which only focuses on the United States for now, should be globalized. And if the pandemic ends up being a carbon copy of the Financial crisis of 2007–08, it can be renamed to 2020 coronavirus pandemic crisis. 9March2019 (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Also absolutely agree this article should be globalised. What it most notable about the last few weeks is the unprecedented synchronisation between all global stock markets. Individual records are being set all over the place (e.g. largest drop for the Eurostoxx market in its history, as it wasn't around in 1987). Should be the 2020 global stock market crash. Britishfinance (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2020

"The People's Bank of China announced that it would reduce is reserve requirement"

Please change "is" to "its" 2601:5C6:8080:100:AC6B:A0E0:1FBB:1032 (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done —Locke Cole • t • c 03:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2020

Withdrawn - please remove.

68.13.105.211 (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 Note: Closed as request seems to be withdrawn by requester Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 20:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit for grammatical proposes

Hello,

Section 24–28 February has grammatical error:

> On 28 February, stock markets worldwide reported their largest single-week declines since the 2008 financial crisis,[65][66][67] while oil futures saw

>> their largest single week decline in since >> 2009

Since I do not have edit privileges, I'm raising this to the attention of anyone else that does.

Yamenu2013 (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yamenu2013:  Done -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: clear consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 09:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

---

2020 stock market crash → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic bear market – I propose changing the title of this article to "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic bear market" because at least 7 benchmark stock market indices in Asia-Pacific, Europe, the U.S., and emerging markets have been declared to be in bear markets. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• @CommonKnowledgeCreator: I have taken the liberty to convert this proposal into a Requested Move. BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@BegbertBiggs: Thanks. Not very familiar with the bureaucracy of this website. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think "2020 stock market crash" is very broad (we have a lot of time left to run in 2020 and it could cover many markets), so I would tighten it to a more specific period. The key here is to think what a reader would put into the search bar in looking for this specific article. I would say that is should at least be something like: March 2020 global stock market crash. I would omit the "coronavirus" part in the title as the oil shock was part of it (it is linked to the virus, but not exclusively so). It would also allow the article to focus specifically on the last crazy week in markets, and still fit as a "carve-out" of the broader: "Financial impact of the 2020-2019 corona pandemic", which is going to have even more material (as we go along) about the resulting global economic recessions that will/are occuring, and the potential melt-downs in specific industries like Cruises and Airlines. Britishfinance (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: I would argue that the "coronavirus" should be included in the title simply because that's what initiated the decline. The oil price war punctuated it but the decline began on 20 February, not 9 March. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: I would add that in the United States the yield curve on the benchmark U.S. Treasury security has been normal for two days now and was normal minus the 3-month security the day prior, so recession concerns in the United States at present are off. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title sums up the situation using WP:RECOGNIZEable words ("bear market" is a bit of a technical term, that might not be accessible to everyone). Also matches language in use in sources, about crashes: [2][3] There is also no need to add March 2020,this is the only crash in the year so far, so WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE policies dictate that 2020 is fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I disagree; "bear market" is not too technical as it has been used for the titles of other articles (such as United States bear market of 2007–2009 and has a definition in the article about Market trends). And since a bear market has been what has been occurring, it seems to me that the title I have proposed would actually be even more precise. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - It is not necessary to be overly specific with the title (at this point), for comparison Financial crisis of 2007–08 has a similar name based on just the timeframe and not the cause(s). - Indefensible (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Simplicity and common sense apply here I think. "Bear market" is (almost) just stating that a stock market crash happened anyway, and the bear market did not begin in 2019 as the proposed title might imply. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 18:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, there are more factors than the pandemic here (e.g. oil price crash, central banking mis-steps etc.); too POV to attribute the crash solely to the pandemic. I would support adding the term "global" to this (e.g. 2020 global stock market crash), to clarify that it was a global event (e.g. almost every index from US, Europe, FTSE, and Nikkei are down +20%; for the Eurostoxx 600, it has its largest one-day crash in its history). Britishfinance (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind "global" but I'm not sure it's necessary since without a location people will assume it's global anyway—see Indefensible's Financial crisis of 2007–08 comparison above. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 18:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: If we're not going to change the title to my proposal, I think at a minimum including "global" in the current title is necessary. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should have "global" in the name. The [[Financial crisis of 2007–08 was fine, but by then, the event had been labelled the "Financial crisis", and thus didn't need the term "global" attached. This period of global synchronised stock market crashes has, as yet, no real label, so global can help capture that a unique aspect (more than any other period of stock market crashes in history) is the extraordinary level of synchronised movements in global markets (e.g. they are all crashing). Britishfinance (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed change, as the current title is more concise and more recognizable. I'm fine with adding global though, as per the above. Renerpho (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support The coronavirus pandemic has been recognized as the primary cause of the global bear markets, fueled by anxiety over fears this could result in recessions in affected countries. And just to be clear, bear market status was accrued last month when stock markets were at record highs prior to the mayhem, but became official this week after declines exceeded 20% (typical threshold for a bear market). 9March2019 (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  Comment (I know this is WP:CRYSTALBALL, but still): We are only talking about the COVID-19 pandemic at the moment, but there might be other things that we may want to add in the future. I don't have a crystal ball, but who knows what effect things like Brexit have on this stock market crash (the EU and UK would have to get their deal fixed by the end of 2020). I don't want to lock the title to the cause. There is rarely a single cause to something as complex as this. Leaving the proposed cause (the pandemic) out of the title may save us pain later on. Renerpho (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, but just because I disagree with the proposed title, largely per my support of the merge request from the Black Thursday article. We're too soon after this event to really have a consensus among reliable sources of what this incident represents. I think calling it a "bear market" or "crash" both may run afoul of WP:NDESC and WP:LABEL at least until there's better support for those terms within the proper reliable sources. I should note that we should exercise caution when using financial industry trade press rather than academic sources. 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. In that same vein, I think we need to look for discussion in the academic press that uses these specific terms to describe these specific events. All told I do agree with Britishfinance that it's probably inappropriate to fully or even largely attribute the stock market movements to the coronavirus pandemic. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, as the market may not always stay as a bear market, and the coronavirus is not the only cause. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. Firstly the issue is with the "2019-20" part, as the market has only being in a bear market during the year 2020. Secondly, the Coronavirus is not the single cause for the market crash. There were predictions when the yield curve became inverted during 2019 that a stock market crash accompanied by a reccession was on it's way. As the situation continues to unfold, it could simply be that coronavirus has 'sped up' the 'innevitable' crash rather then being the central cause for it. Thirdly, from what I can tell, there aren't many news outlets calling this the "coronavirus bear market", but rather the "2020 stock market crash" or "global stock market crash". For those reasons, I strongly oppose. Foxterria (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for brevity and understandability. "Stock market crash" is a sufficiently descriptive term that is much easier to comprehend. Juxlos (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because the proposed title is non-standard, too long & makes it wrongly sound like coronavirus is the only reason for the crash. The 2020 Russia-Saudi Arabia oil price war is also a major factor. The huge fall in the price of oil pulled stock markets down further. Oil companies are some of the largest constituents of major indices. Jim Michael (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The title works as it is. Jusdafax (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, but add coronavirus in parenthesis Most people know what a stock market crash is but not what a bear market is (or confuse it with a bull market). On the other hand stock market crash is very generic title, and the name change suggestion makes a good point to include coronavirus in the title!TPape (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: In general, trying to attribute a clear cause-and-effect relationship for a market crash is a bad idea. This seems like making the title more complicated in order to try to explain why the market crashed. The subject of the article is the crash itself, and speculations about why it crashed belong in the article body. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Large, clunky, and hard to remember. No plausible benefits to such a page move. Master of Time (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Disambiguation may be needed if there are several stock market crashes this year, but for now, the current title is concise and recognizable. - MrX 🖋 23:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose most sources indicate it as stock market crash rather than calling it a bear market. We should also focus on readers who lack financial literacy who might not know what is bull market and what is bear market. It is better to stay with the existing heading. Abishe (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Title question

Should the title have Coronavirus in it? The pandemic is the direct cause of the incident. Such as 2020 coronavirus pandemic stock market crash? AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed recently, see Talk:2020_stock_market_crash#Requested_move_14_March_2020. Useight (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: No, it wouldn't be a good idea. There is a global consensus in stock brokers that the pandemic isn't the direct cause, but an accelerant of a market that was already slowing down and (potentially) about to crash (inverted curve yield). Coronavirus is one of the main causes, but as the situation unfolds, it's becoming clear that liquidity, high housing prices, consumer halt in growth (even before the pandemic, this was occurring), collapse of interest rates, trade wars and debt bubbles are all factors in the crash. It's too variable to simply blame it on COVID-19, and doing so would gloss over other important factors of the crash. Foxterria (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Black Monday 3.0

Okay, we're probably in for a Black Monday 3.0. Pacific stocks are already down 8% and it's quite likely that this Black Monday will be worse then Black Monday I, and plausible it'll be worse then Black Monday II as unemployment rates are expected to skyrocket the most in the history of the United States (According to Goldman Sach's predictions, 2.25 million will lose their jobs this week). Same affects being felt vibrating across Europe, Asia and Oceania. We need better names, come on - 3 "Black Monday's" in one month is kinda ridiculous, and though it's possible we're about to reach the bottom of this crash no one knows whether or not there's gonna be ANOTHER crash on top of that. We need to change the names, maybe the "Crash of X date" would be more suiting in this situation? Considering there are so many global crashes occurring right now. Foxterria (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Unserious suggestions: son of Black Monday? Black Monday's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate? XOR'easter (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Foxterria and XOR'easter: I have placed a request with the administrator (the honorable RegentsPark) who placed the semi-protection status for this past week to extend the protection so that hopefully we don't get more vandalism this week. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I've made it indefinite. Hopefully, that will make your life easier! --regentspark (comment) 13:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to put in a request for an updated graph at the top of the page. This one is weeks out of date. Ditto for the table graphs throughoout. The topic is important and current, and graphs help readers understand it. Thanks. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

As I've maintained File:Stock market crash (2020).svg for about a week, it's usually updated whenever the market closes lower (my intention is to "freeze" it once the market goes back up, unless consensus emerges to continue updating the image). That being said, it was updated just yesterday, and unless something changes Monday, will likely be updated again after the market closes Monday. Which graph is "weeks out of date"? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand. I get your point that the Dow Jones graph will be frozen once there is a turnaround. I also see below that folks are asking for the removal of other tables, which were lagging. For what it's worth, i support globalization of the article because modern markets operate around the world. Thanks for all you do. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@CommonKnowledgeCreator, Foxterria, XOR'easter, and 75.101.104.17: Per this discussion: The term "Black March" has now been thrown around on this page, and I think it may be worthwhile to bring it up here. Wikipedia has three "Black" articles on the subject already (all redirects), which brings home the point, in my opinion, to need to use a more general article. I think Black March is okay, as so long as everyone is calling it that. Otherwise, I would make a Black Monday 3.0 section in 2020 stock market crash. What do you think? Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 18:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Are people calling it "Black March", though? I haven't seen that term actually used in the wild (and a news search just now turns up basically nothing). XOR'easter (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@XOR'easter:, Apparently it was a band at some point. I think what I'm trying to say is not right away. Let's wait until at least April, see if the media and the public latches onto the term. I would almost encourage the term to the media outlets because it summarizes better than having three different terms going around. On the note, maybe we should consider a more neutral name. What do you think? Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 19:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Table Summaries

Can we get rid of the table summaries in the article? They only focus on the Dow Jones Industrial Average, when the crash has affected global stock market indices (Japan's Nikkei Average, Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index, etc.). 9March2019 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that we should remove the table summaries, and instead convert them possibly to 2020 Stock Market Crash in the United States, and make various sub-articles to globalize this article. Foxterria (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this article should focus on causes and effects of the global stock market crash; subarticles are necessary for country-specific perspectives and to satisfy Wikipedia:SIZE standards. 9March2019 (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

If I create table summaries not only Dow, but ASX, Nikkei225, HSI, SENSEX, Tadawul, FTSE, DAX, CAC, MIB, RTS, TSX & BOVESPA or WTI, Brent, Gold & Bonds yields, Can I re-added them in this article? LibraFM (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Problem is, including those tables will make the article far Wikipedia:TOOBIG; it's better to have separate articles for those. And as for the table summaries themselves, they should only include five key dates for each stock market index: (1) peak, (2) 20% decline from peak, (3) trough, (4) 20% growth from trough, and (5) new high. 9March2019 (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Each stock market index would have a table like this, where cumulative changes are calculated from the peak (first three rows) and then from the trough (last two rows).

Milestone	Date Achieved	Cumulative Point Change	Cumulative % Change	Significance
Peak	TBD	TBD	TBD	Accrual of bear market status
20% decline from peak	TBD	TBD	TBD	Bear market recognized
Trough	TBD	TBD	TBD	Turning point in market momentum
20% growth from trough	TBD	TBD	TBD	Common threshold to regain bull market status
New high	TBD	TBD	TBD	Full recovery of losses for new bull market

The last column may or may not be needed, but is provided here to explain why each of the five milestones are important. 9March2019 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

GAN?

I think this page can be a good article.Thingofme (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content from 10–11 March & 13 March

@Foxterria, 9March2019, LibraFM, Zanygenius, XOR'easter, Locke Cole, Renerpho, Britishfinance, and Faissaloo: Why has the content from these specific days been removed from the article? It needs to be restored so the article remains complete. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@CommonKnowledgeCreator: It appears much of it was excised by @Foxterria: in this edit about four days ago. The edit summary said future edits would make the article take on a more international tone, however ironically it appears some of the international information from March 13 was removed.. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: It wasn't removed, actually I didn't edit any of the text at all, I just re-arranged it to format it for later edits. From what I can tell, 10-11 March and 13 March are still in the article. Foxterria (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Foxterria: Actually, that information was restored by @CommonKnowledgeCreator: in these three edits. Your removal was made in this edit (which I already linked to above). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Globalizing this article

As of just now, it's being quite obvious that this article has being somewhat focused on the United States. I've done a complete overhaul of the layout to make the article more globalized, with response pages linked under the tab 'Response' for now, though this can be change to something like 'Impact by Region'. This is to make sure that the article is not centered on one stock market in particular, as it has being with the Dow Jones. Help me continue to work to clean up the article (We really don't have to mention every day), and globalize the article even more so with it's content. If you want be specific on the impacts regionally, create a page for the provided country or use the page currently made. Please use this section to discuss further globalization of the article and detailing changes made to the article. Foxterria (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Content pertaining to daily stock market performances should also be moved to respective sub-articles (country-specific) so as to conform to Wikipedia:Article size standards. 9March2019 (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Foxterria and 9March2019: If there appears to be a bias towards the United States, it is only an unintended side effect of the fact the U.S. economy alone accounts for one-fourth of the gross international product, but I do not believe that it would be correct to say that the article has a U.S. bias. There is a bias towards the G20 countries, but that's only because they cumulatively account for nine-tenths of the gross international product. I would like to make an effort to include as much news about non-G20 countries but I cannot possibly be informed about the economies of all 200 countries in the world and there may not be English-language news without paywalls about all of them. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate line comparing 2008 market crash to todays market

The below line in paragraph 2 should be changed as it is not accurate (line in bold):

Line in question: "Despite a temporary rally on 13 March (with markets posting their best day since 2008), all three Wall Street indexes fell more than 12% when markets re-opened on 16 March.[16][17]"

The markets did not post their best day since 2008. This should be removed. Krisb1220 (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done As far as I can see this has been removed. Goldsztajn (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Graph

I've been maintaining File:Stock market crash (2020).svg (which is used at the top of the article), however I'd decided that I'd only update it when it hit new overall lows. With that limitation in mind, it's been some time since the graph has been updated, so I was wondering if anyone felt the graph should be updated so long as there are still periods where we have big drops, or if I should stick to only updating when it's hits new lows. Feel free to !vote below, or add new choices if you have a better idea, but here are the two choices I can think of:

• Update only on new lows – only update when we hit new lows deeper than any already recorded
• Update for weeks with volatility – update during volatile weeks where we see drops (1% or more?) and increases

I'm leaning towards the 2nd choice, which means I'd update it through this week. Thank you for your input! —Locke Cole • t • c 04:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: I concur with the latter option. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless we get some opinions to the contrary, I'll go with that. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 20:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The second choice sounds good to me, too. XOR'easter (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• I prefer the second choice too - bounces should also be shown. Juxlos (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

New "Black Wednesday" or "April Fools Crash" (or April's Folly?) section?

Greetings, some things. Today, after European markets closed mostly down, many American markets noted some of their worst drops since March 20 of this year or even since the Great Recession of 2007-09. For example, the Dow Jones reported down 970 points, and the S&P Down over 110 points since March 31st's close.. Although some stocks started the day high, all of them were down by the 6PM close, as part of a larger 3 day trend starting March 30th. Should we add this in to the article? If so, should there be a section name? Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 22:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the 30_March–1_April section can cover this. I don't think we need to introduce names unless they become well established, and I'm not so sure that people are really naming the individual days of ups and downs any longer. XOR'easter (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be "just" 4% or so? Didn't even trigger circuit breakers, not really comparable to the previous crashes which gets the Black moniker. Juxlos (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@XOR'easter:, Thank you for the input. I think a note about it under April first will be fine. Per this, today's stocks have rebounded for the most part. However the recent 3 day slide did put stocks under for the week. Thank you, Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 15:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

References

References in scroll box

Could anyone put the references in a scrollbox ? As things currently stand, the reference sections represents more than half of the page length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoidOutput (talk • contribs) 09:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@VoidOutput:  Not done Yeah that was getting long. I'm not sure it's correct to scroll-box it, but something had to be done. Let me know if there are any more questions. Per this. What I can do in the meantime is ask to split out the article. Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 18:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"Trump crash" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Trump crash. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thanks for letting me know. Honestly, this is definitely not WP:NPOV so I think it needs deleted and maintain just "2020 stock market crash". Assuming people will start widely using the term, we can revisit it then. Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 22:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

FDIC Reports Bank Failure in West Virginia

According to the FDIC's website for the list of bank failures, the most recent bank that failed is The First State Bank based in Barboursville, West Virginia.

From what was issued on the website, MVB Bank, Inc. of Fairmont, West Virginia had acquired all deposit accounts. Operations will continue nominally and all money was insured by the FDIC resulting in customers retaining their money.

Would this be of some importance to the current situation, or were they already going under prior to the COVID-19 situation and market turmoil?

AlphaSerpentis (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Need help

@Foxterria, 9March2019, LibraFM, Zanygenius, XOR'easter, Locke Cole, Renerpho, Britishfinance, and Faissaloo: I can't keep up with the 24-hour news cycle for financial news of the entire world by myself. I have set up Google Alerts for my Gmail inbox for all G20 members, European Union members, Commonwealth of Nations members, and other major non-NATO U.S. allies for any English-language news about fiscal stimulus or central bank actions in all of those countries, but I need help as I am now getting overwhelmed with alerts. Would anyone be willing to set up alerts for themselves for those countries and summarize them in the article going forward? I will summarize the news for this past week, as well as try to find any other fiscal stimulus package announcements or central bank actions prior to this past week. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@CommonKnowledgeCreator: I'm willing to help relieve the pressure. However I tend to be dormant for quite some time between Wikipedia edits (sorry). How do you set up the alerts? Also, I recommend taking only a glance at each alert, and summarize. It may help lessen the load a little bit. Thank you for the post, Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 23:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I am very busy in RL and have a list of GAN's I am addressing. However, be careful here of creating a newsfeed of events in stock markets (e.g. WP:NOTNEWS). There is a lot of text in this article about daily price movements. Ultimately, in 2 years time, all a reader will want is the dates of the movements and any records set (in % or "points" terms), and a short(er) description of the events that set off that days movement. We are here to catalogue/record the most notable facts, most other stuff gets deleted away over time imho. Best of luck with it. Britishfinance (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: Sorry to take you away what's most important (i.e. real life), but what content in the current revision of the article do you anticipate being deleted for lack of notability and thus can also afford to be ignored going forward? I can't imagine all of the central bank actions (e.g. FX auctions) are going to be that relevant in the future, though I would imagine that the rate cuts and QE probably will be (since they're being used to counteract the liquidity issues in the markets right now) as well as the fiscal stimulus announcements for at least the G20 countries. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance and CommonKnowledgeCreator: Agreed. Wikipedia is not a repository for every single movement on planet Earth. That's a blog for you. (Ha ha) If it stands out amongst the many, and is notable, than feel free to add it. Otherwise, leave it be. For now, if you wish, you could have a user page to help organize and keep track of information. By the way, individual days, as well as lone rallies and falls will likely be forgotten. This is in contrast to, per-say, Black Tuesday in 1929, which started a mass panic around the US, or Black Monday in 2020, which achieved the same effect, and is noted for putting the economy in a bear market. Even though I recently tried to make a case for "Black Wednesday", it is actually not as notable as Black Monday, for example. Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 14:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel bad saying this, but I've never really been a good writer. :( I'm sorry, but I hope you get the assistance you need! =) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Title: the “Great Lockdownturn”

Hello,

Thanks for the work in documenting this important time.

I propose titling this crash as the “Great Lockdownturn” based on a piece I wrote on this: https://medium.com/@lightdev/return-from-the-great-lockdownturn-b16b87f2e7be

Thank You, Prakash

--Lightdev (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose* - COVID-19 wasn't the only cause of the recent stock market crash, oil price plunge and economic fears/uncertainty played a part without any influence to the coronavirus pandemic. 9March2019 (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose that is a literal blog post. Juxlos (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Should we add an end date?

How are the world stock markets doing? It seems like the last date is April 1. Since then the Dow Jones has rebounded over 3000 points.Rayduece (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)rayduece

Proposal: Consolidate into "Timeline" section

We should consolidate all the dates into a "Timeline" section so that we can have other sections, some of which could include: • Causes • Responses by Country • Similarities to other crashes etc... Mapmaker345 (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Add Investor who predicted the crash

I wrote an article on an investor who seems to have predicted the stock market crash that is under review here: Draft:Dan_Niles. If you check the draft I included news articles and sources. Figured it would fit with the theme of Michael Burry who called the crash in 2007-2008 (Financial crisis of 2007–08). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander2357 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

Change: "In April 2019, the U.S yield curve inverted, which sparked fears of a 2020 recession across the world.[37] The inverted yield curve and trade war fears prompted a sell-off in global stock markets during March 2019, which prompted more fears that a recession was imminent.[38] Rising debt levels in the European Union and the United States had always being a concern for economists. However, in 2019, that concern was heightened during the economic slowdown, and economists began warning of a 'debt bomb' occurring during the next economic crisis. Debt in 2019 was 50% higher than that during the height of the Great Financial Crisis.[39] Economists[who?] have argued that this increased debt is what led to debt defaults in economies and businesses across the world during the recession.[40][41] In September 2019, the Federal Reserve began intervening in the role of investor to provide funds in the repo markets, which would play a crucial factor in triggering the events leading up to the crash; the repo rate spiked above 8% during that time."

To:

In April 2019, the U.S yield curve inverted, which sparked fears of a 2020 recession across the world.[37] The inverted yield curve and trade war fears prompted a sell-off in global stock markets during March 2019, which prompted more fears that a recession was imminent.[38]

Rising debt levels in the European Union and the United States had always being a concern for economists. However, in 2019, that concern was heightened during the economic slowdown, and economists began warning of a 'debt bomb' occurring during the next economic crisis. Debt in 2019 was 50% higher than that during the height of the Great Financial Crisis.[39] Economists[who?] have argued that this increased debt is what led to debt defaults in economies and businesses across the world during the recession.[40][41]

In September 2019, the Federal Reserve began intervening in the role of investor to provide funds in the repo markets, which would play a crucial factor in triggering the events leading up to the crash; the repo rate spiked above 8% during that time."

• There's no chain of causation between these points (see sources), and therefore do not grammatically belong in the same paragraph.

• There is no evidence within the source material that these points are "causes" of the subject of the article, though they are considered as such, and should probably be relegated to a different section. Simmm84 (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Ignore my previous comment; I was confused by the layout of your request (see WP:INDENT - I though somebody had already replied to it). Anyway, in my opinion, the paragraph is proper because all of these events are closely linked in time; separating them does not appear necessary. They're also clearly a part of the background of the situation, even if they're not the immediate cause (maybe a simple solution for this would be to simply remove the "Cause" subheading from the "Background" section. @Simmm84: Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a good compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmm84 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove "Causes" Subheading from Background Section

The sources for the information under the background heading do no indicate that the provided information is a cause for the stock market crash, and therefore should strictly be considered background Simmm84 (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

April - May????

Why is this an ongoing crisis if there is no information on April or May? Could that be because the Market has recovered significantly, i.e. back above 25,000? That Bull market sure didn't last long. As the President said it wouldn't. Subman758 (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Subman758: This is usually a typical pattern in stock market crashes. Most stock market crashes take around 200 to 500 days to run it's course, and through that period the stock market goes up and down as it continues to crash. Sometimes, it can be refferred to as a "bear market trap". In the next year or two it'll be obvious when the stock market stopepd crashing. Foxterria (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Foxterria: Get the gang together from February and March. We need to be proactive if a bear market trap does occur. I'm more than willing to write summaries of the daily price movements for the main benchmark stock market indices of the G20, as well as any monetary/fiscal stimulus policies announced in those same countries, any central government credit rating downgrades and so on if a subsequent downward market trend occurs. However, during the market downturn in February and March, I got burnt out and I'm still exhausted because there are any number of other topics that I record information about on Wikipedia. I'm drowning in info.

I remember that some people last time asked about how to set up Google Alerts. If you just type "Google Alert" in the Google search engine, the first result is a link that will take you to the Google web page for setting up email alerts to your Gmail account. The ones I was using were "[Name of country] fiscal stimulus", "[Name of central bank]", "[Name of country] central bank", "[Finance minister name]", and "[Central bank executive name]". "[Name of benchmark stock market index] bear market" probably would be the most efficient one for articles recording that a benchmark stock market index has been declared to be in a bear market. If people just leave the links on the talk page, I'll more than gladly summarize them in the article. Countries other than the G20 are of course more than welcome but preferably limit them to articles recording a macroeconomic policy shift, a central government credit rating downgrade, or articles that summarize the entire market trend because we don't want the article to get even more overloaded than it already is. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, references without paywalls preferred (e.g. CNBC, Reuters). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Although if there is a choice between a CNBC or Reuters article and a local English-language daily newspaper without paywalls, give it to the local. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

71.248.161.3 (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The markets recovered and continued to climb.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Gains are subject to verification though. 9March2019 (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2020

change "is" to "was" in the first sentence. It might still be 2020, but the article is talking about something that happened...

In the very first sentence: "The 2020 stock market crash is a global stock market crash that began on 20 February 2020.", shouldn't it be "The 2020 stock market crash was a global stock market crash that began on 20 February 2020."

The rest of the first paragraphs are written in past tense. ErikWG (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Keeping this one in present tense as no indication that the crashes are over, as coronavirus is still ongoing. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Ending

The S&P 500 index just closed at a new high today. 68.134.239.246 (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The crash has already ended, but this article talks about it as if it is still ongoing.

The stock market has greatly recovered since the crash earlier this year. The S&P 500 is currently at its all-time high. This article is outdated, and it should be updated to include accurate information about the market. Momo824 (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Previous similar proposals such as this has been shot down by editors mentioning bull traps, but I agree - the crash should be represented in past tense when every reputable source describe them as such. If it crashes again we can just flip it back. Juxlos (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Temporary downturns

As corrections/reversals/etc. seem to have been documented here, would it be worthwhile to document the recent worldwide market movement since the beginning of September? Echonioni (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Echonioni: Yes, I believe that it would be a great addition to this article. Momo824 (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)