Misplaced Pages

Talk:Everything bubble: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:56, 23 February 2021 editFeydHuxtable (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,615 edits →POV and OR city: comment← Previous edit Revision as of 08:47, 11 March 2021 edit undoFeydHuxtable (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,615 edits →POV and OR city: commentNext edit →
Line 34: Line 34:
Accordingly, I'll go ahead and retore the article to a redirect until someone either rewrites the article or establishes consensus to keep the POV/OR mess that's there right now. ] (]) 15:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Accordingly, I'll go ahead and retore the article to a redirect until someone either rewrites the article or establishes consensus to keep the POV/OR mess that's there right now. ] (]) 15:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
: I added a good to the Greenspan put article that's specifically about the "everything bubble", and nicely reflects the mainstream view. If any want to re-establish this article, the WSJ source should be used. No harm in reflecting other perspectives or even mentioning the various record valuations in 2021, but we should avoid presenting just the pro "everything bubble" POV. ] (]) 18:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC) : I added a good to the Greenspan put article that's specifically about the "everything bubble", and nicely reflects the mainstream view. If any want to re-establish this article, the WSJ source should be used. No harm in reflecting other perspectives or even mentioning the various record valuations in 2021, but we should avoid presenting just the pro "everything bubble" POV. ] (]) 18:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
:: I'm sorry for being so forceful in the opening comment above. It was a bit shocking to hear this article was being discussed on Bloomberg chat & then see it was redefining the term. I've had enough of my RL time wated due to a good faith re-defining of an (at the time) little known term back in 2018; by the time I discovered it, it was too late to do anything about it as recent sources has overwhelmingly switched to the wikipedia definition.
:: Anyhow, I see the article creator had been highly active, but hasn't edited since the opening comment. Look - while it's undeniable that there was some WP:OR going on, this is no big deal. While most mainstream folk with good insight into the Fed & fellow CBs support consider it a net +ve, there's lots of good faith reasons to be sceptical - clearly it has -ve effects on savers, some investors, and isn't doing much for inequality. When researching for a large scope article I often read up to 10x as many sources as I cite, to make sure I can comply with due weight etc. I'd guess that the clear majority of even GA & FA writers sometimes add something to an article that they got from uncited sources or inside knowledge. At least I know I've done this at least twice, I recall reviewing what I'd written & then realising it wasn't supported by the cited source.
:: So it's definitely no biggie to have an occasional non-compliance with WP:OR. I would still happily support the article creator even if I saw them up for amidship at RfA, and hope to see them return to editing. ] (]) 08:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:47, 11 March 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Everything bubble 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: 12 months 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFinance & Investment Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEconomics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconNumismatics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Government Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Everything bubble 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: 12 months 

POV and OR city

This article is attracting attention by financial market players for all the wrong reasons. It's a dangerous POV nightmare.For example, the first para asserts the term "everything bubble" is most associated with Powell and the 2020-21 period. Actually it's near equally associated with each years market action back to 2007, especially since 2017, where mickey mouse hedge funds have attempted shorts, sometimes directly citing "everything bubble" in their marketing, sometimes successful, other times crushed by the big players or even the man in the street as just happened to Melvin.

I'm leaning on personal knowledge here rather than a RS, as no one serious has bothered to refute the false claim that everything bubble is most associated with 2020-21. Why? As the statement is fucking made up. There's absolutely nothing in the two refs used to that talks about the term "everything bubble" at all (though they are about the subject.). This article is being used to support those seeking to build momentum for their short positions, which if successful in creating a downturn, could benefit a few wealthy position takers while causing increased hardship to the earths billions of economically vulnerable people.

Other issues include the one sided definition of everything bubble use in the first sentence. Early sources that re-introduced the term "everything bubble" didn't credit it fully on central bank action, they suggested the pheonomena was also a result of the savings glut.

Then there's the overly long sentence forming the second para which starts of with "The everything bubble was" An unwarranted use of past tense as if to imply the bull market is over. (Tiny chance that it is, but it's way too early to say, it's quite possible it will go on for years) There's no problem in us having an article on this topic. It obviously meets WP:GNG and the view that asset prices may be over inflated has been recently asserted by several well respected mainstream commentators like John Auhters. But I'd suggest it would need to be rewritten from scratch without the OR, without undue emphases on 2021, and with much less anti central bank POV. Im sure some hedge funds would love the current article. But about 90% of serious players in industry and politics have a more mixed or positive view on how CBs have been supporting the economy. As it says in one of the [ sources used in the article: "Central banks know what they are doing— .... you know a bubble might appear, but the cost of not doing anything is probably even higher."

Accordingly, I'll go ahead and retore the article to a redirect until someone either rewrites the article or establishes consensus to keep the POV/OR mess that's there right now. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I added a good WSJ source to the Greenspan put article that's specifically about the "everything bubble", and nicely reflects the mainstream view. If any want to re-establish this article, the WSJ source should be used. No harm in reflecting other perspectives or even mentioning the various record valuations in 2021, but we should avoid presenting just the pro "everything bubble" POV. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry for being so forceful in the opening comment above. It was a bit shocking to hear this article was being discussed on Bloomberg chat & then see it was redefining the term. I've had enough of my RL time wated due to a good faith re-defining of an (at the time) little known term back in 2018; by the time I discovered it, it was too late to do anything about it as recent sources has overwhelmingly switched to the wikipedia definition.
Anyhow, I see the article creator had been highly active, but hasn't edited since the opening comment. Look - while it's undeniable that there was some WP:OR going on, this is no big deal. While most mainstream folk with good insight into the Fed & fellow CBs support consider it a net +ve, there's lots of good faith reasons to be sceptical - clearly it has -ve effects on savers, some investors, and isn't doing much for inequality. When researching for a large scope article I often read up to 10x as many sources as I cite, to make sure I can comply with due weight etc. I'd guess that the clear majority of even GA & FA writers sometimes add something to an article that they got from uncited sources or inside knowledge. At least I know I've done this at least twice, I recall reviewing what I'd written & then realising it wasn't supported by the cited source.
So it's definitely no biggie to have an occasional non-compliance with WP:OR. I would still happily support the article creator even if I saw them up for amidship at RfA, and hope to see them return to editing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Categories: