| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
GameStop short squeeze 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:
1,
2,
3,
4Auto-archiving period: 14 days
 |
 | GameStop short squeeze was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on January 28, 2021. | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | |||||||||||||
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about the GameStop short squeeze. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the GameStop short squeeze at the Reference desk. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Why is this written in such a way as to create a narrative that doesn't exist? The squeeze was stopped short and has not yet concluded. This is still an ongoing event, why does the article read like it was written by an underpaid CNBC / Citadel / Motley Fool employee trying to get a shill bonus? Not that I expect anything reflecting integrity from Wikipedia, the moderation here was bought a long time ago... This article is far from neutral, and is pushing a specific narrative. Honestly I'd argue for DELETION until the hedge funds have closed their naked short positions and the actual short squeeze has at least BEGUN. Until then, this is trying to claim an ongoing situation has concluded in a situation where the media (yes, including Wikipedia) can manipulate the public perception of the situation, which could influence how it plays out. I'm assuming that no action will ever be taken against this outright disregard for the law until the public is outraged, and pseudo-articles like these claiming the event was in the past and not in the present only serves to bury the truth. Yes, I'm saying having no article would be better than having these lies literally influence the event the article is supposed to have an unbiased view on. Not a single reference to the subreddits at the center of this or any of what actually transpired outside of the small price movement that occurred and a tweet from AOC. Wikipedia needs to work on this complete lack of integrity, I lost trust in this site years ago, but this one takes the cake. In fact $50 says I find an IP address in the edit history belonging to one of the parties who stands to lose it all on their illegally executed bad bet. If you can't even be bothered to do 10 minutes of research before OKing this nonsense, you have no business editing/moderating Wikipedia, period. 2600:1005:B028:20FA:B9AC:79B1:85DD:567E ( talk) 16:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please provide sources for your claims, as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Cheesybullet ( talk) 01:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Although not speaking on the specifics of the bet you have proposed, I do think that this article is in direct defiance to the SEC statements on the matter, and the short interest that has not lowered since the event.
- According to the SEC, https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf.
- In their 44 page report at the end of page 30, into page 31, "While a short squeeze did not appear to be the main driver of events, and a gamma squeeze less likely, the episode highlights the role and potential impact of short selling and short covering."
- And on page 26: "Figure 6 shows that the run-up in GME stock price coincided with buying by those with short positions. However, it also shows that such buying was a small fraction of overall buy volume, and that GME share prices continued to be high after the direct effects of covering short positions would have waned."
- It would be insane to deny that anything happened, but to call it a short squeeze also appears to go against the evidence presented by the event. EpochOfErra ( talk) 18:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, not Reddit - there is no place here for your bizarre and easily disproved conspiracy theories. Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.29.204 ( talk) 03:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Someone from wikipedia actually responded to a readers comment like that? If you work for Wiki, what is your name or what do you go by? 2600:8805:195D:7200:DD3F:8008:6E3B:A0D7 ( talk) 03:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Lack of citations in opening paragraph claiming the "Squeeze" was "initially and primarily triggered by users of the subreddit r/wallstreetbets". The paragraph acknowledges that "some hedge funds" were involved in the "Squeeze" but fails to present evidence of the trading volume mostly coming from retail investors.
The claim of the "Squeeze" being "primarily triggered" implies that the volume of trading from retail investors was the driving force for the price changes, which requires a higher burden of proof than an alternative claim such as "the initial awareness of the $GME situation brought up by users of the subreddit ... etc". 2601:189:4201:8710:B819:97F0:3E2A:2474 ( talk) 22:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have copied from my posting elsewhere as I think this is a great comment you have written, and I want to expand on the logistical leaps that current are listed without backing.
- According to the SEC, https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf.
- In their 44 page report at the end of page 30, into page 31, "While a short squeeze did not appear to be the main driver of events, and a gamma squeeze less likely, the episode highlights the role and potential impact of short selling and short covering."
- And on page 26: "Figure 6 shows that the run-up in GME stock price coincided with buying by those with short positions. However, it also shows that such buying was a small fraction of overall buy volume, and that GME share prices continued to be high after the direct effects of covering short positions would have waned."
- This would appear to mean that the SEC does not see this as a short squeeze, but as driven by market sentiment. To call it a short squeeze and to have a full page on it under that name feels disingenuous.
- I feel like we could use this report to give a better understanding of what has actually occurred (and what has not). EpochOfErra ( talk) 18:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
" Reddit mania" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect
Reddit mania has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 26 § Reddit mania until a consensus is reached. –
CopperyMarrow15 (
talk |
edits) Feel free to ping me! 19:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
The last word in GameStop short squeeze#Online discussion links to Lemmy but it should link to Lemmy (social network) instead. Shardulm ( talk) 11:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Despite labelled as a "Short Squeeze" on both this page and the dedicated page, the SEC has said that no such squeeze happened.
According to the SEC, https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf. In their 44 page report at the end of page 30, into page 31, "While a short squeeze did not appear to be the main driver of events, and a gamma squeeze less likely, the episode highlights the role and potential impact of short selling and short covering." And on page 26: "Figure 6 shows that the run-up in GME stock price coincided with buying by those with short positions. However, it also shows that such buying was a small fraction of overall buy volume, and that GME share prices continued to be high after the direct effects of covering short positions would have waned."
This would appear to mean that the SEC does not see this as a short squeeze, but as driven by market sentiment. To call it a short squeeze and to have a full page on it under that name feels disingenuous. EpochOfErra ( talk) 18:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
GameStop short squeeze 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:
1,
2,
3,
4Auto-archiving period: 14 days
|
|
| GameStop short squeeze was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
|
| A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on January 28, 2021. | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | |||||||||||||
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about the GameStop short squeeze. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the GameStop short squeeze at the Reference desk. |
|
| This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Why is this written in such a way as to create a narrative that doesn't exist? The squeeze was stopped short and has not yet concluded. This is still an ongoing event, why does the article read like it was written by an underpaid CNBC / Citadel / Motley Fool employee trying to get a shill bonus? Not that I expect anything reflecting integrity from Wikipedia, the moderation here was bought a long time ago... This article is far from neutral, and is pushing a specific narrative. Honestly I'd argue for DELETION until the hedge funds have closed their naked short positions and the actual short squeeze has at least BEGUN. Until then, this is trying to claim an ongoing situation has concluded in a situation where the media (yes, including Wikipedia) can manipulate the public perception of the situation, which could influence how it plays out. I'm assuming that no action will ever be taken against this outright disregard for the law until the public is outraged, and pseudo-articles like these claiming the event was in the past and not in the present only serves to bury the truth. Yes, I'm saying having no article would be better than having these lies literally influence the event the article is supposed to have an unbiased view on. Not a single reference to the subreddits at the center of this or any of what actually transpired outside of the small price movement that occurred and a tweet from AOC. Wikipedia needs to work on this complete lack of integrity, I lost trust in this site years ago, but this one takes the cake. In fact $50 says I find an IP address in the edit history belonging to one of the parties who stands to lose it all on their illegally executed bad bet. If you can't even be bothered to do 10 minutes of research before OKing this nonsense, you have no business editing/moderating Wikipedia, period. 2600:1005:B028:20FA:B9AC:79B1:85DD:567E ( talk) 16:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please provide sources for your claims, as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Cheesybullet ( talk) 01:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Although not speaking on the specifics of the bet you have proposed, I do think that this article is in direct defiance to the SEC statements on the matter, and the short interest that has not lowered since the event.
- According to the SEC, https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf.
- In their 44 page report at the end of page 30, into page 31, "While a short squeeze did not appear to be the main driver of events, and a gamma squeeze less likely, the episode highlights the role and potential impact of short selling and short covering."
- And on page 26: "Figure 6 shows that the run-up in GME stock price coincided with buying by those with short positions. However, it also shows that such buying was a small fraction of overall buy volume, and that GME share prices continued to be high after the direct effects of covering short positions would have waned."
- It would be insane to deny that anything happened, but to call it a short squeeze also appears to go against the evidence presented by the event. EpochOfErra ( talk) 18:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, not Reddit - there is no place here for your bizarre and easily disproved conspiracy theories. Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.29.204 ( talk) 03:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Someone from wikipedia actually responded to a readers comment like that? If you work for Wiki, what is your name or what do you go by? 2600:8805:195D:7200:DD3F:8008:6E3B:A0D7 ( talk) 03:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Lack of citations in opening paragraph claiming the "Squeeze" was "initially and primarily triggered by users of the subreddit r/wallstreetbets". The paragraph acknowledges that "some hedge funds" were involved in the "Squeeze" but fails to present evidence of the trading volume mostly coming from retail investors.
The claim of the "Squeeze" being "primarily triggered" implies that the volume of trading from retail investors was the driving force for the price changes, which requires a higher burden of proof than an alternative claim such as "the initial awareness of the $GME situation brought up by users of the subreddit ... etc". 2601:189:4201:8710:B819:97F0:3E2A:2474 ( talk) 22:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have copied from my posting elsewhere as I think this is a great comment you have written, and I want to expand on the logistical leaps that current are listed without backing.
- According to the SEC, https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf.
- In their 44 page report at the end of page 30, into page 31, "While a short squeeze did not appear to be the main driver of events, and a gamma squeeze less likely, the episode highlights the role and potential impact of short selling and short covering."
- And on page 26: "Figure 6 shows that the run-up in GME stock price coincided with buying by those with short positions. However, it also shows that such buying was a small fraction of overall buy volume, and that GME share prices continued to be high after the direct effects of covering short positions would have waned."
- This would appear to mean that the SEC does not see this as a short squeeze, but as driven by market sentiment. To call it a short squeeze and to have a full page on it under that name feels disingenuous.
- I feel like we could use this report to give a better understanding of what has actually occurred (and what has not). EpochOfErra ( talk) 18:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
" Reddit mania" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect
Reddit mania has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 26 § Reddit mania until a consensus is reached. –
CopperyMarrow15 (
talk |
edits) Feel free to ping me! 19:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
The last word in GameStop short squeeze#Online discussion links to Lemmy but it should link to Lemmy (social network) instead. Shardulm ( talk) 11:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Despite labelled as a "Short Squeeze" on both this page and the dedicated page, the SEC has said that no such squeeze happened.
According to the SEC, https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf. In their 44 page report at the end of page 30, into page 31, "While a short squeeze did not appear to be the main driver of events, and a gamma squeeze less likely, the episode highlights the role and potential impact of short selling and short covering." And on page 26: "Figure 6 shows that the run-up in GME stock price coincided with buying by those with short positions. However, it also shows that such buying was a small fraction of overall buy volume, and that GME share prices continued to be high after the direct effects of covering short positions would have waned."
This would appear to mean that the SEC does not see this as a short squeeze, but as driven by market sentiment. To call it a short squeeze and to have a full page on it under that name feels disingenuous. EpochOfErra ( talk) 18:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)