![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Here is the start of a data set about the amount of GME shares shorted, as size and change are critical factors in this event.
Please add values.
Day | Price | Short Interest (millions of shares) |
---|---|---|
January 15, 2020 | 4.02 | 65.16 [2] |
January 31, 2020 | 63.37 | |
February 13, 2020 | 66.32 | |
February 28, 2020 | 68.13 | |
March 12, 2020 | 62.51 [3] | |
March 31, 2020 | 55.99 | |
April 15, 2020 | 58.84 | |
April 30, 2020 | 57.02 | |
May 15, 2020 | 55.59 | |
May 29, 2020 | 56.34 | |
June 15, 2020 | 59.99 | |
June 30, 2020 | 54.56 | |
July 15, 2020 | 53.50 | |
July 31, 2020 | 54.52 | |
August 13, 2020 | 7.65 | 55.69 [4] |
August 31, 2020 | 6.07 | 57.86 |
September 15, 2020 | 10.02 | 66.41 |
September 30, 2020 | 11.88 | 68.63 |
October 15, 2020 | 12.69 | 70.34 |
October 30, 2020 | 11.01 | 66.81 |
November 15, 2020 | 16.56 | 67.45 |
November 30, 2020 | 15.63 | 67.98 |
December 14, 2020 | 17.37 | 68.13 [5] |
December 30, 2020 | 19.94 | 71.2 [6] |
January 14, 2021 | 61.78 [7] | |
January 29, 2021 |
Share price was roughly the same during the first half of 2020, and Short Interest was steady between 53 and 68 million shares. When share price increased by August, Short Interest also increased. The 2020 chart is here, more estimates available here from industry analyst.
Please notice that "Float" also varies - not clear why or how. It may be added a few places. It is important that the references are marked as "Dead" to retain the original values, otherwise the reference shows the recent values instead. The values are the same in each source, although the dates are slightly different. TGCP ( talk) 23:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
NYSE
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Doesn't he have enough coverage to warrant his own article? Please forgive the poor formatting, I'm on mobile at the moment and not very familiar with manual markup.
Example coverage:
https://nypost.com/2021/01/29/meet-the-redditor-who-led-the-gamestop-stock-market-frenzy/amp/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/technology/roaring-kitty-reddit-gamestop-markets.html
DrGvago ( talk) 07:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I have started an article Keith Gill (Reddit user) (which was a redirect), mostly copied from this article. If anyone wants to contribute to it and clean it up, feel free to do so. He does have a ton of references, but I am not sure if he is WP:BLP1E. Natg 19 ( talk) 19:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Can we please add the South Sea Company?
/info/en/?search=South_Sea_Company
66.207.125.110 ( talk) 04:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
GME stock sharply fell due to the restrictions placed by brokerage firms and by those who originally held stock cashed in their prize. Adding content here would be appreciated. Not sure whether "Decline and selling of stock purchases" is the right phrase. It definitely did decline due to a multitude of factors, such as restrictions, holders selling to cash in, etc. Unsure whether to rename it to "Selling", "Decline", "Fall", or something else. Phillip Samuel ( talk) 22:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I think all sources cited should be independent, rather than tweets, to make sure that the subjects we mention are given WP:DUEWEIGHT. As this is a major incident, many people have given their takes on it, but we should only include the most important of those, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 18:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
JBchrch Hi, it has come to my attention that I have been adding reactions from independent reliable secondary sources that demonstrate notability under WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:DUEWEIGHT which keep getting reverted. I don't see much need for a consensus on my edit citing reliable and notable sources and thus aim to add my edits back. If a consensus is reached or explanation is given, then I will reconsider. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=GameStop_short_squeeze&oldid=1004228450 Phillip Samuel ( talk) 18:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Phillip Samuel, on Bernie, I think editors followed "subconsciously" the rule of thumb I have mentioned about reactions to reactions. I did not necessarily agree with other editors regarding the deletion of the "capitol mob" comment. I think you were just a little early with your edit, and various additional reliable sources "proved" the notability of this comment only after it was reverted. Maybe you could add a new section to this talk page to gather everyone's opinion on the matter. And you really should not be afraid of talk pages. Full blown arguments rarely occur as most issues are solved through consensus. If the community disagrees with you, you can just stop arguing with people/participating in the discussion, accept their opinion and start working on something else. Cheers.-- JBchrch ( talk) 01:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC) Let me just add that consensus often means that everyone gives their opinion individually, no one really argues with one another, and the majority view is accepted as consensus.-- JBchrch ( talk) 01:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
This article has been amended [1] to reflect that an article on DeepFuckingValue has been created. This may continue to happen over the next few days. However, the article on DeepFuckingValue may be deleted momentarily for various reasons ( [2] [3] [4]), in which case I think that such edits will have to be reverted. Also, we might have to create a subsection here on DeepFuckingValue, but let's wait and see whether the article is actually deleted. Any comments are welcome.-- JBchrch ( talk) 18:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I will add the other edits that I see here: [5]-- JBchrch ( talk) 18:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The fact that there is an article about DeepFuckingValue does not mean that relevant information about that person should be removed from this article. On the contrary, that person and their relationship to the GameStop short squeeze should be adequately described in this article without readers needing to go read some other article. — BarrelProof ( talk) 18:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hopefully we are getting at a stage where we see what this might portend. The following notes that Robinhood got a huge cash infusion yesterday, so looks fine. Bubble crises averted? but what about down the road? "None of the moves had much to do with underlying economic fundamentals. Instead, fevered trading of the last week shows all the markings of a market mania that historically ends in big losses for small traders, sharp pull-backs by big investors and regulatory investigations . . . Wall Street already has been defying gravity for the last year, soaring to record highs and lofty valuations in the face of a brutal global pandemic that still poses considerable economic risks as virus variants spread before vaccines can take hold . . . " ...“Anyone can go on these platforms and tout a stock or a commodity they own and get a big following and then dump it. It’s pump and dump in a totally new, viral format and there are huge risks that need to be looked at right now or we could be in very serious trouble.” [6]. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 14:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
UserTwoSix, I have reverted your structural edits on the following grounds:
-- JBchrch ( talk) 00:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Some of Wall Street's largest asset managers were able to realize gains because of this situation, and company executives made huge profits on selling their shares. I was thinking it would be good to summarize that in the lead, to show who gained from this situation, and who lost. BeŻet ( talk) 11:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
linked to from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Mentioning_of_antisemitic_conspiracy_theories_at_GameStop_short_squeeze to gain input ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 00:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I would like to add a section under responses called "Conspiracy Theorists" to explain the phenomenon of conspiracy theories that are circulating in relation to the GameStop short squeeze. This is the text I would like to add: According the Anti-Defamation League, as the GameStop event played out, a small segment of social media users blamed Jews for supposedly rigging the system and manipulating the global economy through control of finance, government and media. This includes Andrew Anglin, founder of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer, who called the GameStop short squeeze “fantastic stuff”. He wrote, “It is the epitome of the way Jews operate in Western, white countries, simply looting us all”. He continued, “beating them at their own game like this, costing them billions of dollars...is one of the funniest things anyone could ever do – even if the government is just going to tax you with inflation to get them all their money back”. Other similar conspiracy theories echoing harmful, centuries-old, antisemitc tropes circulated on platforms such as Reddit, Twitter, and Telegram. I would like to cite this ADL article: https://www.adl.org/blog/gamestop-stock-spike-awakens-classic-antisemitic-conspiracy-theories Please note: I work for the ADL. If you take a look at the article, I believe it is well-researched and fairly presented. I am open to other thoughts on where this content would fit most suitably. OceanicFeeling123 ( talk) 18:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
ADL is not a news organization put an organization representing a particular political viewpoint. I think groups like ADL were originally used as sources for fringe racist groups, but it ends up being a slippery slope so that they're being used on any page now. ADL alone doesn't denote any notability to this topic at all. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 06:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems surprising that there's no mention of the situation of those who joined the rush late and bought Gamestop at or near the top of the market. They must surely be sitting on large paper losses, or (depending how they financed their purchases) have taken large losses already. This is the classic bubble position, as seen in the 1929 crash and other market disruptions, and the effects can be severe and lasting, particularly on those who invested their savings or borrowed to invest. I would therefore dispute the neutrality of this section, since it appears to be acting as a cheerleader for those who chase stock market bubbles, to their own cost and to the benefit of more savvy players. Chrismorey ( talk) 11:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I have removed some highly speculative content about Janet Yellen ("some reporters raised concern over a potential conflict of interest in regards to Yellen"). Putting aside the weasel wording here, I think that this content, which is BLP-implicating, is far too speculative to include. It also goes beyond what the (decent) sources say. The good sources do not indicate that Yellen has been involved directly in this matter at all, and in fact suggest the opposite - see, e.g., Reuters ("The Treasury secretary normally does not get involved in matters involving individual stocks and concentrates instead on broad systemic risks to the financial system, which the department monitors through daily market surveillance. 'Secretary Yellen of course will abide by her ethics agreement and ethics pledge in all instances,' Treasury spokesman Calvin Mitchell said. He did not indicate how she would approach the specific Citadel issue."). Neutrality talk 01:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"Arguably the last thing new U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen wants to take up during her first days in office is a financial market imbroglio involving one of her last private sector business relationships. But as hedge fund Citadel LLC emerges as one of the key actors in the trading frenzy last week involving GameStop Corp - and questions arise over whether the activity exposes deeper risks for the financial system - Yellen could find herself pulled into the fray... A sticking point for her to clear, though, may be $700,000 in speaking fees she accepted from Citadel, as recently as last fall... After ethics violations dogged the Trump administration, some groups are urging Yellen to pre-emptively seek a waiver, and set a precedent."AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 02:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"GameStop saga may provide early test of Biden administration ethics pledges". AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 02:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
References
"The point of ethics rules—and of concepts like "conflict of interest" and "appearance of conflict of interest"—is that no one can know for sure what's in a decision-maker's heart as they make decisions. Possibly even the decision-maker doesn't know! But it’s easier to be neutral toward someone if they haven't given you six or seven figures' worth of money for talking to them a few times."AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 03:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"the question last week for the new press secretary was this: would Janet Yellen, now Treasury secretary, recuse herself from the matter given the hundreds of thousands of dollars she'd collected in speaking fees from Citadel?"), and the fact that Painter is being asked directly whether or not this was a conflict of interest, and even further, that Psaki and a Treasury spokesman are being asked whether Yellen will recuse herself, should prove at a bare minimum that there are newsworthy allegations of conflict of interest. And with regard to columns, what are you talking about? If a New York Times columnist published a column headlined "Janet Yellen has a conflict of interest," could we not take that to be proof of a serious allegation? Slate is generally considered reliable, and this article literally uses the term "conflict of interest." Seriously, at what point do you not think we still need more? AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 15:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
some reporters.-- JBchrch ( talk) 16:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Yellen was involved in any specific action as to Gamestop or Citadel? Again, once more, there are concerns, that she is in a situation of conflict of interest. -- JBchrch ( talk) 16:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"some groups are urging Yellen to pre-emptively seek a waiver, and set a precedent", and the Slate article, which literally says that in the view of the author, Yellen cannot be neutral as she has taken thousands of dollars from Citadel. If there was not an existing allegation, why else would reporters be asking the question? And to address your other point, here's WP:RSOPINION, to the letter:
"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact."From that article, we know it is at least one person's opinion that Yellen has a conflict of interest. Isn't that what we were trying to prove? AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 16:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
On January 27, 2021, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and others in the Biden administration were monitoring the situation [...]. Yellen has received $810,000 from Citadel after the end of her term as Chair of the Federal Reserve, as well as $7 million in total from various firms for public speaking appearances. A spokesman U.S. Treasury stated that Yellen "will of course will abide by her ethics agreement and ethics pledge in all instances.However, stating this information plainly, without qualifying it as a "report of conflict of interest", and simply juxtaposing these facts one after the other is clearly implying that Yellen is corrupt and the Treasury doesn't care. Surely, this can not be what you intend. RE: WP:WEASEL, the policy states that
Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source.. But we could also write "News medias have reported [...]" or "News outlets have raised concerns [...]". Anyway, it seems to me like there is some consensus that my edit was acceptable, but I will let other editors confirm or suggest another way to proceed.-- JBchrch ( talk) 10:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Neutrality, you are WP:STONEWALLING this discussion and I think that it's time for you to suggest how we should move forward to achieve consensus. My proposition is to revert this , since the paragraph in question seems to reflect the broad consensus on the issue.-- JBchrch ( talk) 17:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality, let's put this thing to bed once and for all. In view of the consensus, I propose we cut the bureaucracy short and add to the article Between 2018 and 2020, Yellen had received over $700,000 in speaking fees from Citadel. Yellen received and ethics waiver before attending a meeting with financial regulators to discuss the volatility surrounding the short squeeze.
[1]
[2] This language is inspired directly from the
Janet Yellen article. Sources are reliable, in-context, and no "own words" has been added to them. I hope we can agree that it's unnecessary to bother people with an RfC about this.
References
-- JBchrch ( talk) 00:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Yellen convened a meeting of financial regulators, including the heads of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to discuss the volatility surrounding the short squeeze. Because Yellen had received speaking fees from Citadel before becoming treasury secretary, she sought and received permission from Treasury Department ethics lawyers before convening the meeting. [1] [2] The regulators were not seen as likely to view the volatility as creating any systemic risks. [3]
References
Hi. I want to add Michael Burry in the article. The current edit was reverted:
Investor Michael Burry, who paved the way for the short squeeze by investing significantly in GameStop since 2019, owned 1.7 million shares by late September and exited at around $169, making a profit of approximately $250 million. [1]
Maybe I'm reading it wrong? The article says and goes on to explain how Burry paved the way for everything that followed including DFV buys. It also says Scion had 1.7 million shared and exited on the Monday so just before the price reached 169. Can you please explain what is it I misunderstood? There are other sources by the way echoing the same statements. Julia Domna Ba'al ( talk) 11:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Still, if he sold Scion's entire stake at Monday's high of $159, he made more than $250 million in profit. The only reliables sources on Michael Burry I could find are this Bloomberg article and this Washington Post article, that only state that Burry invested in GameStop in 2019, but don't confirm when he sold the stock or how much profit he made. The Bloomberg article cites an interesting, and pretty unique, critical comment. So the only additions that I thought were appropriate for this article are this edit and this edit. Maybe we could add that as of January 27, 2021, Burry is "neither long nor short" on the stock? Not sure that this would be extremely useful given that it means "we have no info".-- JBchrch ( talk) 11:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
helped lay the foundations for an epic retail-investor frenzy, which is far removed from stating something notable BTW I have the feeling that the original version was "laid the foundation" and that it was struck down by editors. Similarly, it seems like the Washington Post article intentionally avoids making any sort of causal connection between Burry and the squeeze:
But his letter was the first public indication that the smart guys on Wall Street were missing something about GameStop. He wasn’t the only one who saw it. Weeks earlier, an anonymous figure, whose views, aired on a Reddit message board, would ultimately.... Finally, there was already some WP:BLP-related dispute on this talk page, so I want to be careful about statements implicating BLPs. But let's see if other editors think differently.-- JBchrch ( talk) 12:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Here is the start of a data set about the amount of GME shares shorted, as size and change are critical factors in this event.
Please add values.
Day | Price | Short Interest (millions of shares) |
---|---|---|
January 15, 2020 | 4.02 | 65.16 [2] |
January 31, 2020 | 63.37 | |
February 13, 2020 | 66.32 | |
February 28, 2020 | 68.13 | |
March 12, 2020 | 62.51 [3] | |
March 31, 2020 | 55.99 | |
April 15, 2020 | 58.84 | |
April 30, 2020 | 57.02 | |
May 15, 2020 | 55.59 | |
May 29, 2020 | 56.34 | |
June 15, 2020 | 59.99 | |
June 30, 2020 | 54.56 | |
July 15, 2020 | 53.50 | |
July 31, 2020 | 54.52 | |
August 13, 2020 | 7.65 | 55.69 [4] |
August 31, 2020 | 6.07 | 57.86 |
September 15, 2020 | 10.02 | 66.41 |
September 30, 2020 | 11.88 | 68.63 |
October 15, 2020 | 12.69 | 70.34 |
October 30, 2020 | 11.01 | 66.81 |
November 15, 2020 | 16.56 | 67.45 |
November 30, 2020 | 15.63 | 67.98 |
December 14, 2020 | 17.37 | 68.13 [5] |
December 30, 2020 | 19.94 | 71.2 [6] |
January 14, 2021 | 61.78 [7] | |
January 29, 2021 |
Share price was roughly the same during the first half of 2020, and Short Interest was steady between 53 and 68 million shares. When share price increased by August, Short Interest also increased. The 2020 chart is here, more estimates available here from industry analyst.
Please notice that "Float" also varies - not clear why or how. It may be added a few places. It is important that the references are marked as "Dead" to retain the original values, otherwise the reference shows the recent values instead. The values are the same in each source, although the dates are slightly different. TGCP ( talk) 23:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
NYSE
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Doesn't he have enough coverage to warrant his own article? Please forgive the poor formatting, I'm on mobile at the moment and not very familiar with manual markup.
Example coverage:
https://nypost.com/2021/01/29/meet-the-redditor-who-led-the-gamestop-stock-market-frenzy/amp/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/technology/roaring-kitty-reddit-gamestop-markets.html
DrGvago ( talk) 07:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I have started an article Keith Gill (Reddit user) (which was a redirect), mostly copied from this article. If anyone wants to contribute to it and clean it up, feel free to do so. He does have a ton of references, but I am not sure if he is WP:BLP1E. Natg 19 ( talk) 19:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Can we please add the South Sea Company?
/info/en/?search=South_Sea_Company
66.207.125.110 ( talk) 04:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
GME stock sharply fell due to the restrictions placed by brokerage firms and by those who originally held stock cashed in their prize. Adding content here would be appreciated. Not sure whether "Decline and selling of stock purchases" is the right phrase. It definitely did decline due to a multitude of factors, such as restrictions, holders selling to cash in, etc. Unsure whether to rename it to "Selling", "Decline", "Fall", or something else. Phillip Samuel ( talk) 22:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I think all sources cited should be independent, rather than tweets, to make sure that the subjects we mention are given WP:DUEWEIGHT. As this is a major incident, many people have given their takes on it, but we should only include the most important of those, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 18:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
JBchrch Hi, it has come to my attention that I have been adding reactions from independent reliable secondary sources that demonstrate notability under WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:DUEWEIGHT which keep getting reverted. I don't see much need for a consensus on my edit citing reliable and notable sources and thus aim to add my edits back. If a consensus is reached or explanation is given, then I will reconsider. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=GameStop_short_squeeze&oldid=1004228450 Phillip Samuel ( talk) 18:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Phillip Samuel, on Bernie, I think editors followed "subconsciously" the rule of thumb I have mentioned about reactions to reactions. I did not necessarily agree with other editors regarding the deletion of the "capitol mob" comment. I think you were just a little early with your edit, and various additional reliable sources "proved" the notability of this comment only after it was reverted. Maybe you could add a new section to this talk page to gather everyone's opinion on the matter. And you really should not be afraid of talk pages. Full blown arguments rarely occur as most issues are solved through consensus. If the community disagrees with you, you can just stop arguing with people/participating in the discussion, accept their opinion and start working on something else. Cheers.-- JBchrch ( talk) 01:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC) Let me just add that consensus often means that everyone gives their opinion individually, no one really argues with one another, and the majority view is accepted as consensus.-- JBchrch ( talk) 01:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
This article has been amended [1] to reflect that an article on DeepFuckingValue has been created. This may continue to happen over the next few days. However, the article on DeepFuckingValue may be deleted momentarily for various reasons ( [2] [3] [4]), in which case I think that such edits will have to be reverted. Also, we might have to create a subsection here on DeepFuckingValue, but let's wait and see whether the article is actually deleted. Any comments are welcome.-- JBchrch ( talk) 18:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I will add the other edits that I see here: [5]-- JBchrch ( talk) 18:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The fact that there is an article about DeepFuckingValue does not mean that relevant information about that person should be removed from this article. On the contrary, that person and their relationship to the GameStop short squeeze should be adequately described in this article without readers needing to go read some other article. — BarrelProof ( talk) 18:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hopefully we are getting at a stage where we see what this might portend. The following notes that Robinhood got a huge cash infusion yesterday, so looks fine. Bubble crises averted? but what about down the road? "None of the moves had much to do with underlying economic fundamentals. Instead, fevered trading of the last week shows all the markings of a market mania that historically ends in big losses for small traders, sharp pull-backs by big investors and regulatory investigations . . . Wall Street already has been defying gravity for the last year, soaring to record highs and lofty valuations in the face of a brutal global pandemic that still poses considerable economic risks as virus variants spread before vaccines can take hold . . . " ...“Anyone can go on these platforms and tout a stock or a commodity they own and get a big following and then dump it. It’s pump and dump in a totally new, viral format and there are huge risks that need to be looked at right now or we could be in very serious trouble.” [6]. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 14:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
UserTwoSix, I have reverted your structural edits on the following grounds:
-- JBchrch ( talk) 00:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Some of Wall Street's largest asset managers were able to realize gains because of this situation, and company executives made huge profits on selling their shares. I was thinking it would be good to summarize that in the lead, to show who gained from this situation, and who lost. BeŻet ( talk) 11:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
linked to from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Mentioning_of_antisemitic_conspiracy_theories_at_GameStop_short_squeeze to gain input ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 00:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I would like to add a section under responses called "Conspiracy Theorists" to explain the phenomenon of conspiracy theories that are circulating in relation to the GameStop short squeeze. This is the text I would like to add: According the Anti-Defamation League, as the GameStop event played out, a small segment of social media users blamed Jews for supposedly rigging the system and manipulating the global economy through control of finance, government and media. This includes Andrew Anglin, founder of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer, who called the GameStop short squeeze “fantastic stuff”. He wrote, “It is the epitome of the way Jews operate in Western, white countries, simply looting us all”. He continued, “beating them at their own game like this, costing them billions of dollars...is one of the funniest things anyone could ever do – even if the government is just going to tax you with inflation to get them all their money back”. Other similar conspiracy theories echoing harmful, centuries-old, antisemitc tropes circulated on platforms such as Reddit, Twitter, and Telegram. I would like to cite this ADL article: https://www.adl.org/blog/gamestop-stock-spike-awakens-classic-antisemitic-conspiracy-theories Please note: I work for the ADL. If you take a look at the article, I believe it is well-researched and fairly presented. I am open to other thoughts on where this content would fit most suitably. OceanicFeeling123 ( talk) 18:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
ADL is not a news organization put an organization representing a particular political viewpoint. I think groups like ADL were originally used as sources for fringe racist groups, but it ends up being a slippery slope so that they're being used on any page now. ADL alone doesn't denote any notability to this topic at all. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 06:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems surprising that there's no mention of the situation of those who joined the rush late and bought Gamestop at or near the top of the market. They must surely be sitting on large paper losses, or (depending how they financed their purchases) have taken large losses already. This is the classic bubble position, as seen in the 1929 crash and other market disruptions, and the effects can be severe and lasting, particularly on those who invested their savings or borrowed to invest. I would therefore dispute the neutrality of this section, since it appears to be acting as a cheerleader for those who chase stock market bubbles, to their own cost and to the benefit of more savvy players. Chrismorey ( talk) 11:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I have removed some highly speculative content about Janet Yellen ("some reporters raised concern over a potential conflict of interest in regards to Yellen"). Putting aside the weasel wording here, I think that this content, which is BLP-implicating, is far too speculative to include. It also goes beyond what the (decent) sources say. The good sources do not indicate that Yellen has been involved directly in this matter at all, and in fact suggest the opposite - see, e.g., Reuters ("The Treasury secretary normally does not get involved in matters involving individual stocks and concentrates instead on broad systemic risks to the financial system, which the department monitors through daily market surveillance. 'Secretary Yellen of course will abide by her ethics agreement and ethics pledge in all instances,' Treasury spokesman Calvin Mitchell said. He did not indicate how she would approach the specific Citadel issue."). Neutrality talk 01:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"Arguably the last thing new U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen wants to take up during her first days in office is a financial market imbroglio involving one of her last private sector business relationships. But as hedge fund Citadel LLC emerges as one of the key actors in the trading frenzy last week involving GameStop Corp - and questions arise over whether the activity exposes deeper risks for the financial system - Yellen could find herself pulled into the fray... A sticking point for her to clear, though, may be $700,000 in speaking fees she accepted from Citadel, as recently as last fall... After ethics violations dogged the Trump administration, some groups are urging Yellen to pre-emptively seek a waiver, and set a precedent."AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 02:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"GameStop saga may provide early test of Biden administration ethics pledges". AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 02:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
References
"The point of ethics rules—and of concepts like "conflict of interest" and "appearance of conflict of interest"—is that no one can know for sure what's in a decision-maker's heart as they make decisions. Possibly even the decision-maker doesn't know! But it’s easier to be neutral toward someone if they haven't given you six or seven figures' worth of money for talking to them a few times."AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 03:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"the question last week for the new press secretary was this: would Janet Yellen, now Treasury secretary, recuse herself from the matter given the hundreds of thousands of dollars she'd collected in speaking fees from Citadel?"), and the fact that Painter is being asked directly whether or not this was a conflict of interest, and even further, that Psaki and a Treasury spokesman are being asked whether Yellen will recuse herself, should prove at a bare minimum that there are newsworthy allegations of conflict of interest. And with regard to columns, what are you talking about? If a New York Times columnist published a column headlined "Janet Yellen has a conflict of interest," could we not take that to be proof of a serious allegation? Slate is generally considered reliable, and this article literally uses the term "conflict of interest." Seriously, at what point do you not think we still need more? AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 15:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
some reporters.-- JBchrch ( talk) 16:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Yellen was involved in any specific action as to Gamestop or Citadel? Again, once more, there are concerns, that she is in a situation of conflict of interest. -- JBchrch ( talk) 16:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"some groups are urging Yellen to pre-emptively seek a waiver, and set a precedent", and the Slate article, which literally says that in the view of the author, Yellen cannot be neutral as she has taken thousands of dollars from Citadel. If there was not an existing allegation, why else would reporters be asking the question? And to address your other point, here's WP:RSOPINION, to the letter:
"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact."From that article, we know it is at least one person's opinion that Yellen has a conflict of interest. Isn't that what we were trying to prove? AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 16:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
On January 27, 2021, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and others in the Biden administration were monitoring the situation [...]. Yellen has received $810,000 from Citadel after the end of her term as Chair of the Federal Reserve, as well as $7 million in total from various firms for public speaking appearances. A spokesman U.S. Treasury stated that Yellen "will of course will abide by her ethics agreement and ethics pledge in all instances.However, stating this information plainly, without qualifying it as a "report of conflict of interest", and simply juxtaposing these facts one after the other is clearly implying that Yellen is corrupt and the Treasury doesn't care. Surely, this can not be what you intend. RE: WP:WEASEL, the policy states that
Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source.. But we could also write "News medias have reported [...]" or "News outlets have raised concerns [...]". Anyway, it seems to me like there is some consensus that my edit was acceptable, but I will let other editors confirm or suggest another way to proceed.-- JBchrch ( talk) 10:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Neutrality, you are WP:STONEWALLING this discussion and I think that it's time for you to suggest how we should move forward to achieve consensus. My proposition is to revert this , since the paragraph in question seems to reflect the broad consensus on the issue.-- JBchrch ( talk) 17:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality, let's put this thing to bed once and for all. In view of the consensus, I propose we cut the bureaucracy short and add to the article Between 2018 and 2020, Yellen had received over $700,000 in speaking fees from Citadel. Yellen received and ethics waiver before attending a meeting with financial regulators to discuss the volatility surrounding the short squeeze.
[1]
[2] This language is inspired directly from the
Janet Yellen article. Sources are reliable, in-context, and no "own words" has been added to them. I hope we can agree that it's unnecessary to bother people with an RfC about this.
References
-- JBchrch ( talk) 00:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Yellen convened a meeting of financial regulators, including the heads of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to discuss the volatility surrounding the short squeeze. Because Yellen had received speaking fees from Citadel before becoming treasury secretary, she sought and received permission from Treasury Department ethics lawyers before convening the meeting. [1] [2] The regulators were not seen as likely to view the volatility as creating any systemic risks. [3]
References
Hi. I want to add Michael Burry in the article. The current edit was reverted:
Investor Michael Burry, who paved the way for the short squeeze by investing significantly in GameStop since 2019, owned 1.7 million shares by late September and exited at around $169, making a profit of approximately $250 million. [1]
Maybe I'm reading it wrong? The article says and goes on to explain how Burry paved the way for everything that followed including DFV buys. It also says Scion had 1.7 million shared and exited on the Monday so just before the price reached 169. Can you please explain what is it I misunderstood? There are other sources by the way echoing the same statements. Julia Domna Ba'al ( talk) 11:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Still, if he sold Scion's entire stake at Monday's high of $159, he made more than $250 million in profit. The only reliables sources on Michael Burry I could find are this Bloomberg article and this Washington Post article, that only state that Burry invested in GameStop in 2019, but don't confirm when he sold the stock or how much profit he made. The Bloomberg article cites an interesting, and pretty unique, critical comment. So the only additions that I thought were appropriate for this article are this edit and this edit. Maybe we could add that as of January 27, 2021, Burry is "neither long nor short" on the stock? Not sure that this would be extremely useful given that it means "we have no info".-- JBchrch ( talk) 11:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
helped lay the foundations for an epic retail-investor frenzy, which is far removed from stating something notable BTW I have the feeling that the original version was "laid the foundation" and that it was struck down by editors. Similarly, it seems like the Washington Post article intentionally avoids making any sort of causal connection between Burry and the squeeze:
But his letter was the first public indication that the smart guys on Wall Street were missing something about GameStop. He wasn’t the only one who saw it. Weeks earlier, an anonymous figure, whose views, aired on a Reddit message board, would ultimately.... Finally, there was already some WP:BLP-related dispute on this talk page, so I want to be careful about statements implicating BLPs. But let's see if other editors think differently.-- JBchrch ( talk) 12:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)