Talk:US stocks plummet

Latest comment: 17 years ago by Clinevol98

mrm is not so comunicative other than with develop and tags. The sourses need to be fixed and categorys also. But I can help you if you take it easy with the 'publishbutton' international 22:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I was little taunty here but you should be more helpfull when new(?) editors do mistakes. Just explain why you unpublish is a good way of teach newbees.international 22:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is going on here? BTW, I'm the same person who started the article, I just wasn't logged in. Also, why isn't this article being published? It's comprehensive and explains why the market fell. It's also a pretty major event; this is the biggest fall on the Dow in 3 years. Clinevol98 22:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasnt realy ready (source and cats) but its ok in my eyes now, feel free to publish. international 22:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, thanks. Clinevol98 22:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clinevol98 23:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is unsourced? The higher interest rates reducing economic growth part? That's common sense to anyone who has taken Economics 101. There is also no unverified information in this article. All the statistics were taken straight from the source article. The source article is fully comprehensive and it doesn't need more sources in my opinion. Clinevol98 23:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Market breadth was extremely negative"
  • "Of the 30 stocks that make up the Dow Jones Industrials, 29 of them closed down for the day."
  • "That rally was built on hopes that the Federal Reserve was close to ending its interest rate hike campaign."
  • "Since that time the Dow has experienced 3 double-digit point losses."
  • "was due for a short-term correction."
  • "Today's inflation report suggests that the Fed will have to tighten interest rates further to combat inflation and slow economic growth to a more sustainable pace."
There are one or two of these which are interpetive, and one or two which are common opinions which should be ascribed to someone who expresses that opinion. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I know, the 29 non-positive DJI stocks were down or unchanged; I don't have a source which states they were all negative. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Source - "Many traders were betting that the central bank would pause its two-year streak of rate hikes, and catapulted the major indexes to fresh multiyear highs." - "
My article - "That rally was built on hopes that the Federal Reserve was close to ending its interest rate hike campaign." My article and the source article say the same thing in different words.
Hewlett-Packard was the only Dow stock on the upside today; here's further proof. Both articles make that clear. I never said they were all negative.
Source - "HP was the Dow's sole winner after saying improved sales boosted its profit by 51 percent last quarter. The company also announced plans to consolidate its global data centers in an effort to trim $1 billion of expenses. HP climbed $1.05 to $32.16."
My article - ""Of the 30 stocks that make up the Dow Jones Industrials, 29 of them closed down for the day." - do I really need to find a source that says there are 30 stocks in the DJIA? C'mon. That's considered common knowledge.
Source - "As the Dow came within 80 points of its best-ever close of 11,722.98 last week, many analysts felt the market was overbought and would soon see a correction. But Tower said stocks are now oversold after several days of steep losses, suggesting that investors may start looking for positive signs to spur buying." - Ken Tower, Chief Market Strategist at Charles Schwab's CyberTrader, said that, not me. It is "ascribed to someone who expresses that opinion."
My article - "...was due for a short-term correction."
Source - "Declining issues led advancers by nearly 5 to 1 on the New York Stock Exchange, where preliminary consolidated volume of 2.95 billion shares topped the 2.44 billion that changed hands Tuesday." -
My article - "Market breadth was extremely negative." - 5 times more falling stocks than rising stocks is extremely negative market breadth. That's common sense.
Source - "The Fed boosted rates to 5 percent and left flexibility to pause its rate tightening. However, the Fed cautioned that soaring oil and gold prices pose a threat to inflation and could warrant higher interest rates to stifle demand and keep prices from escalating. The CPI report and Tuesday's producer price index reading reinforced that warning."
My article - "Today's inflation report suggests that the Fed will have to tighten interest rates further to combat inflation and slow economic growth to a more sustainable pace." The 2 articles say the same thing in a different way.
You do have a point about the 3 double-digit point losses since nearly reaching the all-time high. Check here to see them DJIA historical prices, May 5-May 16.

So can it be published now? There's no reason why it shouldn't be. The other articles added by International further elaborate on points that my source article made. Eh, who cares anyway. If someone really wanted to read about today's stock market selloff, they would watch CNBC or a nightly news program or go straight to ABC or Yahoo! Finance and read the source article(s), not straight to Wikinews.

Clinevol98 23:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uhm, no. Your article does not exist. This is Wikinews's article. I don't intend to be critical of your collaboration, but it appears you are not interested in the feedback of your fellow contributors.
Many of your statements say different things than the source article does, and thus are not sourced. Similar is not equal. For example, If declining issues led advancing at 5 to 1, that means 4 issues on the DJI remained unchanged; 25 down not 29. But we don't even have that information - all we have is that HP advanced. For all we know, the other 29 remained unchanged. I had similar issues with the other statements I raised above. Where an opinion is expressed on Wikinews it must be ascribed; see the neutral point of view policy. But it also has to be accurate: The source did not say the Fed will raise rates - you did. Ken Tower did not say this was a temporary correction - you did. 5:1 decliner ratio is not extremely negative at 1.5%; most of us have seen 3% declines at lower and higher ratios - find someone who says this is extreme before reporting it as such.
The benefit of aggregation articles (the ones which do not include original reporting) is to collect multiple points of view and to have corroboration of verifiable facts. Many of the "facts" you reported turn out to be incorrect, or at least not verifiable from the source you had cited. And what you reported did not provide any information which was not already in the original article; it did not add other points of view and it did not present additional information not available in that original article. It didn't even provide background available from Wikipedia which might have placed this event in further context. So, in this case, I can understand why you say "who cares anyway." - Amgine | talk en.WN 06:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's market breadth on the New York Stock Exchange, not the DJIA. The source article explicitly states that and I explicitly stated that in the Wikinews' article. Again, having 5 times more declining stocks than advancing stocks is extremely negative market breadth; that's common sense. That's like writing a Wikinews article about the weather and saying "temperatures were hot as they were around 100 degrees F." Then you come along and say "Well, the source article never said that temperatures were hot, and you inferred that the temperatures were hot and you didn't cite it." Would I need to cite the fact that the sky is blue if I were to write an article about the sky?

I don't think I expressed any of my own opinions in this article either. The only point you have of merit is the fact that the source article said "...could warrant higher interest rates to stifle demand and keep prices from escalating" and I said in the Wikinews article "...will have to tighten interest rates further to combat inflation..." None of my personal opinions are in this article. There is a difference of meaning between "could" and "will," but it's not like I totally made up the fact that the Fed will have to continue to monitor inflation.

I also state the fact that Hewlett-Packard advanced in the context of it being in the DJIA. I wrote: "Of the 30 stocks that make up the Dow Jones Industrials, 29 of them closed down for the day. The only stock in positive territory was Hewlett-Packard, which closed up $1.05 (+3.38%) to $32.16/share after reporting quarterly earnings after the close Tuesday." The source article states that "HP was the Dow's sole winner..." An unchanged stock isn't a winner or a loser, so if HP was the Dow's sole winner, then it is common sense that the other 29 stocks were losers and closed down.

I am interested in the feedback of other contributors. Notice I did make some changes to the article. I just don't understand why you picked the article apart when the facts in the article were backed up by the source article. And the article is essentially "my article," as no one besides me actually contributed to the text of the article (International did add some sources). Clinevol98 21:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"What is unsourced? ... Clinevol98 23:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)" You asked, I replied. I still feel some of the statements in this article inappropriately sensationalistic, but I'm not insisting they be moderated to realistic levels. You seem to be taking an insistence that articles be accurate to sources very personally, which it was not at all intended to be. I was simply pointing out where your hyperbole diverged from that of the single source as is required of someone who has tagged an article. When the NYSE has a +1.5% day are you going to insist on headlines "NYSE rockets into orbit"? - Amgine | talk en.WN 21:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, a new criticism. The article is not sensationalistic or unrealistic at all. All the article is is a restatement of the facts in the source article; how is that sensationalistic/unrealistic? If it was, I would have said that the "market had crashed and burned" or called the situation a "tragedy". Are you incinuating the title is sensationalistic? An over 200 point drop in the Dow is quite significant - the biggest drop in 3 years - so that title is appropriate. If you want sensationalism, watch CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News.

No, if the Dow/NYSE Composite was up 1.5%, I would not say "...rockets into orbit." "Rally strongly" would be a more appropriate term an up day that would be not as drastic as yesterday's down day. Also, a 1.5% gain the the stock market wouldn't register on a historical level as yesterday's selloff did. Heck, the word "plummet" is even used in the source article! Call up Christopher Wang and tell him to stop his sensationalistic journalism. "Rockets into orbit" just sounds stupid anyway. Clinevol98 22:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<sighs> Take my comments however you wish. The NYSE is nearly unchanged from the point prior to the rumour the Fed would not increase rates - April 17. - Amgine | talk en.WN 04:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, not to get argumentative, but the market has actually been in an overall uptrend since early November 2005, when hopes that the Fed was close to being done raising interest rates Note this chart began to arise. People had actually been forecasting the Fed to soon stop back in May 2005. The Dow was around 10,150 at that point, so the market is not at all unchanged since these hopes began; its up around 10% (other indicies, such as the Dow Transports and Russell 2000, are up much more than that). The Fed meetings in January, March, and May all left the market disappointed, as the Fed raised rates 25 basis points each time. However, the market still kept its hopes up after the minutes to the March meeting discussed how most FOMC members thought that the end of policy tightening was near and some expressed the dangers of tightening too much 7 paragraphs from the bottom of the page. The latest rally within this uptrend (starting on April 18) began when some weaker (yes, weaker) than expected economic data came across, indicating that the economy is slowing and the Fed may not have to raise rates much more.
However, the market is really suffering as inflation is the biggest worry on investors' minds. I personally think some people were just looking for a reason to sell, since we have been in an uptrend for 7 months. Clinevol98 18:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to "US stocks plummet" page.