This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wall Street Crash of 1929 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 |
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 24, 2005, October 24, 2006, October 24, 2007, October 29, 2008, October 29, 2009, October 29, 2010, October 29, 2011, and October 29, 2014. | |
This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of January 31, 2007. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Wall Street Crash of 1929:
|
not very long for one of the biggest events of the 20th century... or is that more effects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.202.213 ( talk) 01:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems no one has cited the root cause of all this, without which the bubble, and therefore, the subsequent crash, couldn't have happened, or at least not been so severe: The creation of the Federal Reserve Board in 1913, which allowed artificial manipulation (almost always upward) of the money supply, leading to the "Roaring 20s", and to the inevitable bursting of the balloon. Sorry I don't have time to find the citations and edit the article, but here it is on the talk pages, so anyone who's truly interested in fundamental causes and cause/effect can research it for themselves, and maybe edit the article. We continue to suffer from this mistake to this day (*literally* to this day), as another Fed-induced boom crashes. Unimaginative Username ( talk) 09:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Saying something is a fact does not make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.218.138 ( talk) 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
As to the crash itself, however, "Niall Ferguson, professor of history at Harvard University says 'Everybody assumes that 1929 was the big one, but 1914 was far, far worse.'"
Is there a way to work this quote in? Please do not delete my requests for help. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/article552371.ece Johndoeemail ( talk) 16:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of the references that have been added by JohnDoe above are internet-available newspaper articles from sources like the FT & NYT that offer substantiation for the more serious aspects of the crash and its aftermath.
For a topic such as this one, however, those are simply too lightweight and insubstantial to be considered serious references. The encyclopedic treatment of this topic in other sources (Britannica, Economic History, etc...) would not permit such material and neither should we.
Now, the impulse to provide references is an excellent one, of course, and kudos to Johndoe for taking the time and effort to provide at least something to what was a hideously unsourced article - even unscholarly journalistic rehash is better than nothing.
Ultimately, if one wants to undertake a serious sourcing of the article, you would need to consult the scholarly material available. This is accessible on the web via Google Scholar and Google books - subscription access to any of the main scholarly journals would help. There is a standard literature on the subject of the Great Depression (of which this is a subset in the literature) and in order for this article to be considered as authoritative, it will need to be cited and the main arguments articulated. Let me hasten to add, this is not a criticism of any effort to provide references to an article. But if editors are serious about wishing to improve the overall quality, then much better material needs to be adduced. Encyclopedia articles on well known topics are not sourced from the New York Times. (I have refactored this discussion to make it easier to read.) Eusebeus ( talk) 15:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The last paragraph cites a Washington Times article for the proposition that the depression was caused by a lack of lending to bail out Wall Street. Many people, both liberal and conservative, view the Washington Times as a conservative news source and I believe this to be a conservative view point. I believe the liberal view point is that the crash and the ensuing depression were caused by the income disparity. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression#Inequality_of_wealth_and_income
Thanks, 66.31.203.141 ( talk) 00:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Jeff
My name is Sara Moore. I am an economic historian.
After the second paragraph under 'Impact and academic debate' I would like to insert two further paragraphs as follows
My latest book 'How Hitler came to Power' (2006) is endorsed by Professor Capie, at present writing the latest volume of the History of the Bank of England. I have also had two articles published by the European Foundation's 'European Journal', one of which was called 'Germany - an emerging superpower? Comparisons with the 1930s'
My latest article 'Germany Saint or Villain? the 1930s revisisted' is being considered for publication by the 'Spectator'
[[Image:--
86.155.225.172 (
talk) 07:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Example.jpg--
86.155.225.172 (
talk) 07:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)]]
I think there may not be enough nicknames for the 1929 Wall Street Great October Crash (my preferred name, which is not in the article) listed in the first sentence of the article. Can we consider adding more? Ideally, we should include every combination of the words "Wall Street," "1929," "Crash," "Great," and "October." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.156.189 ( talk) 20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Was there ever a movie made based on the wall street crash because if there is i would like to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 ( talk) 00:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence of this article reads as follows (I've left out the citations):
If you want to catalog all of the names that people have used (meeting notability requirements) for the Great Depression, you will get a very long list -- much longer than the list in the aforewritten sentence. The article names seven of the undoubted dozens of alternate names for the '29 Crash that have been used in publications over the last 75+ years. Doesn't this seems like a bit much to anyone? It sure does to me. Why stop at just seven? One could easily name fifteen alternate names with citations on each of them to boot. The bottom line is that having each of these seven names listed in the first sentence of the lede makes the sentence sound muddled and, well, ridiculous. Yes, it is true that other articles do list multiple names that the given subject goes by. But these articles usually limit the number of alternate names to two or three at most. Perhaps some editors who are invested in this article can pick out the two or three most common of alternate names and keep them in the article, deleting the remaining ones. If not, the lede will continue to sound messy and absurd. ask123 ( talk) 22:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If there's no further input I suggest we make an edit here...any final comments? -- Robertknyc ( talk) 22:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it a bad idea to state the actual date, October 29, in the very first paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.163.195 ( talk) 23:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
In the second paragraph of the Effects and academic debate section, the fourth sentence has an error. It says: The main question is: Did the "'29 Crash spark The Depression?", or did it merely coincide with the bursting of a credit-inspired economic bubble? I think that the quotation marks should only be around '29 Crash, or around the whole question (Did the "'29 Crash spark The Depression?", or did it merely coincide with the bursting of a credit-inspired economic bubble?). JoshE3 ( talk) 00:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Would someone please make a section on how the crash impacted the rest of the world and not just America? JoshE3 ( talk) 01:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The article stated that 1987's crash was "Even more severe" than that of 1929. I'm sure almost all of you understand that this is incorrect, indeed nonsensically so. I replaced the text with "Although much less significant (since it wasn't part of a multi-day trend) the one-day crash of Black Monday, October 19, 1987, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 22.6% was worse in percentage terms than any single day of the 1929 crash."
I thought that would be the end of it, but someone reverted to the old version. I reverted back to mine. Glad to help. Jamesdowallen ( talk) 08:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The article has "The October 1929 crash came during a period of declining real estate values in the United States (which peaked in 1925)".
Did the real estate values peak in 1925? Or was that the peak of "declining values"? I can *guess* the correct answer from context ... but I'm not supposed to need to guess. Jamesdowallen ( talk) 08:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I've fixed the dead link to the initial statement, but it seems, that as before, it states that it was the 'most savage bear market' of all time - not just in the history of the US. Pestergaines ( talk) 10:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The statement in the first paragraph that the Depression "did not end in the United States until the onset of American mobilization for World War II at the end of 1941," is inaccurate. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average unemployment rate in 1941 was 9.9%. American mobilization for World War II began in December of 1941 after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I do not know exactly what unemployment rate constitutes a "depression" but we can safely say it is substantially above 10%. Therefore the Depression was over before Pearl Harbor and the American mobilization.
The link for the BLS page is: http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar03p1.htm
AsFields ( talk) 05:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
I noticed that the section Effects and academic debate contains what look like waay too many quotations. Did someone vandalize the page? If not, can someone fix it so that it contains more paraphrases?
Thanks,
The Doctahedron, 00:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The edit Black Tuesday by User:David.moreno72 does not hit the mark, as Tuesday October 24, 1929 (Black Tuesday) was just one of the days to follow the "Big Crash". Eponymous was the Big Stock Market Crash of 1929 of October 24, 1929 (Black Thursday). Other days just followed: October 28, 1929 (Black Monday), October 29, 1929 (Black Tuesday) ... — See also: . . . As a result of this the stock-market crashed, a day that would go down in history as, “Black Thursday.” -- Gerhardvalentin ( talk) 22:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
There has been a spate of vandalism and/or edit war on the common name for the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Although the start of the crash started on "Black Thursday", and continued on "Black Monday", most historians agree that it is more famously known as "Black Tuesday", as this was the day of a record breaking volume and is considered as the day that the stock market crashed and the start of the Great Depression. I provided a link to a reputable source in the hope that the vandalism would stop. It hasn't. I have therefore provided a citation to a government source in the hope that it will stop. Also, a search for "Black Thursday" at the Library of Congress has only 1 relevant result, whereas a search for "Black Tuesday" returns 9 relevant results, a clear indication that "Black Tuesday" is the more famous name — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.moreno72 ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Paragraph four of the Timeline section suggests that the London Stock Exchange crashed as a result of the conviction of Clarence Hatry for fraud and the freezing of his company's shares. I have found references to a "drop", but nothing that describes it as a "crash". Perhaps it should be altered? Cwbr77 ( talk) 17:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I assumed that the name of the article was based on the metonym of "Wall Street" referring to the entire U.S. financial sector, as didn't the crash affect the entire United States and even help to precipitate the Great Depression? I know that the area considered in New York when referring to the Great Crash would literally have been Wall Street, but a lot more than Wall Street in New York went down. With that being said, why is every single image in the United States just of New York's Wall Street? There were certainly gatherings in places other than New York during the Stock Market Crash and the Great Depression. Dustin (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello? I don't know how to draw attention to my inquiry, so if anyone sees this, please take the time to respond. Dustin (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Does this make any sense:
If it was two days, the 'alone' portion should be 'which included 16 billion on October 28th alone'. However, since the amounts are basically the same, the thing really does not make much sense to me.
Should it maybe just simply read:
DeepNorth ( talk) 16:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Did the crash happen on Tuesday or Thursday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:4200:1D10:10BE:B1DE:E653:DFEB ( talk) 07:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wall Street Crash of 1929. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
What does this sentence in "Economic Fundamentals" even mean: For the economist John Kenneth Galbraith, this exuberance also resulted in a large number of people placing their savings and money in leverage investment products like Goldman Sachs' "Blue ridge trust" and "Shenandoah trust". Why is this "For John Kenneth Galbraith"? Does this mean, instead, "According to economist John Kenneth Galbraith..."? rowley ( talk) 20:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The stock market crash ended on October 29'th 1929. HistorianL ( talk) 05:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The Crash was notable in folk memory for the suicides allegedly triggered, eg bankrupt individuals throwing themselves off buildings. It would be interesting to know to what extent it was true, the article would benefit with a discussion of this as there have surely been studies by those who had access to news and statistics. According to the book by Robert Pilpel, Churchill in America, 1895-1961: An Affectionate Portrait, Winston Churchill who had shares in Wall Street and was visiting NYC during the days of the crash recalled a man being 'dashed to pieces' dropping himself into the street while traffic was held up when people who noticed a building worker seen alone on top of a girder mistook him for 'a ruined capitalist' about to end his life, so there was a sense of suicide panic out and about at the time. Cloptonson ( talk) 07:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
In the crash section of the article, there are two citations that are needed and I think I found them. However, there is a problem. I am not sure this is a reliable source because I think it is a study guide. The source is called United States Academic Decathlon Curriculum by Pedia Press, and its editors are Wikipedians. Link: http://pediapress.com/books/show/united-states-academic-decathlon-curricul/
Contribiter423 ( talk) 17:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I see problems in these 2 paragraphs. Take a look at the mention of which day, and the percentage drop on that day:
Here's what I see. There was a 12.82% drop on Black Monday, no mention of the percentage drop on Tuesday, but an 11.73% drop on "the next day" which would be Wednesday. It calls this a total drop of…23.05% in two days. Was this a three day drop? Or (more likely) does "the next day" still refer to Tuesday? I had always heard that the crash took place over two days, so that's probably what it's supposed to say, but it's worded very poorly. It looks to me like "The next day" should be removed. This makes sense because the drop of 38.33 points on Monday, plus the drop of 30.57 points on "the next day" adds up to the 68.90 points over two days. I removed "The next day." I'm pretty sure this is now correct. — MiguelMunoz ( talk) 23:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Since May 2020 this article has had an infobox which describes the cause of the crash as "Fears of excessive speculation by the Federal Reserve". I won't try to comment on the accuracy of that claim, but it is both uncited and, more importantly, not supported by the text of the article. I'm going to revert the infobox in its entirety for now; it is preserved below if anyone wants to attempt a better summary.
Date | 4 September 1929–13 November 1929 |
---|---|
Type | Stock market crash |
Cause | Fears of excessive speculation by the Federal Reserve |
LetsEditConstructively ( talk) 02:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
By standards of consumer spending and social conditions, the quality of life in America was better in early 1939 (before WWII) than in 1939. Americans had more of the expensive goodies (cars, stoves, refrigerators, radios, and phonographs) than in 1929. More people had electricity. During World War II the federal government strongly discouraged economic speculation of any kind. Not until 1952 did stock market prices reach the nominal values of the 1929 peak, and then such ignores significant inflation.Tax policies (high rates on 'unearned' income) may have kept stock prices depressed long after the general recovery of the economy. Pbrower2a ( talk) 21:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wall Street Crash of 1929 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 |
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 24, 2005, October 24, 2006, October 24, 2007, October 29, 2008, October 29, 2009, October 29, 2010, October 29, 2011, and October 29, 2014. | |
This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of January 31, 2007. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Wall Street Crash of 1929:
|
not very long for one of the biggest events of the 20th century... or is that more effects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.202.213 ( talk) 01:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems no one has cited the root cause of all this, without which the bubble, and therefore, the subsequent crash, couldn't have happened, or at least not been so severe: The creation of the Federal Reserve Board in 1913, which allowed artificial manipulation (almost always upward) of the money supply, leading to the "Roaring 20s", and to the inevitable bursting of the balloon. Sorry I don't have time to find the citations and edit the article, but here it is on the talk pages, so anyone who's truly interested in fundamental causes and cause/effect can research it for themselves, and maybe edit the article. We continue to suffer from this mistake to this day (*literally* to this day), as another Fed-induced boom crashes. Unimaginative Username ( talk) 09:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Saying something is a fact does not make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.218.138 ( talk) 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
As to the crash itself, however, "Niall Ferguson, professor of history at Harvard University says 'Everybody assumes that 1929 was the big one, but 1914 was far, far worse.'"
Is there a way to work this quote in? Please do not delete my requests for help. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/article552371.ece Johndoeemail ( talk) 16:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of the references that have been added by JohnDoe above are internet-available newspaper articles from sources like the FT & NYT that offer substantiation for the more serious aspects of the crash and its aftermath.
For a topic such as this one, however, those are simply too lightweight and insubstantial to be considered serious references. The encyclopedic treatment of this topic in other sources (Britannica, Economic History, etc...) would not permit such material and neither should we.
Now, the impulse to provide references is an excellent one, of course, and kudos to Johndoe for taking the time and effort to provide at least something to what was a hideously unsourced article - even unscholarly journalistic rehash is better than nothing.
Ultimately, if one wants to undertake a serious sourcing of the article, you would need to consult the scholarly material available. This is accessible on the web via Google Scholar and Google books - subscription access to any of the main scholarly journals would help. There is a standard literature on the subject of the Great Depression (of which this is a subset in the literature) and in order for this article to be considered as authoritative, it will need to be cited and the main arguments articulated. Let me hasten to add, this is not a criticism of any effort to provide references to an article. But if editors are serious about wishing to improve the overall quality, then much better material needs to be adduced. Encyclopedia articles on well known topics are not sourced from the New York Times. (I have refactored this discussion to make it easier to read.) Eusebeus ( talk) 15:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The last paragraph cites a Washington Times article for the proposition that the depression was caused by a lack of lending to bail out Wall Street. Many people, both liberal and conservative, view the Washington Times as a conservative news source and I believe this to be a conservative view point. I believe the liberal view point is that the crash and the ensuing depression were caused by the income disparity. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression#Inequality_of_wealth_and_income
Thanks, 66.31.203.141 ( talk) 00:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Jeff
My name is Sara Moore. I am an economic historian.
After the second paragraph under 'Impact and academic debate' I would like to insert two further paragraphs as follows
My latest book 'How Hitler came to Power' (2006) is endorsed by Professor Capie, at present writing the latest volume of the History of the Bank of England. I have also had two articles published by the European Foundation's 'European Journal', one of which was called 'Germany - an emerging superpower? Comparisons with the 1930s'
My latest article 'Germany Saint or Villain? the 1930s revisisted' is being considered for publication by the 'Spectator'
[[Image:--
86.155.225.172 (
talk) 07:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Example.jpg--
86.155.225.172 (
talk) 07:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)]]
I think there may not be enough nicknames for the 1929 Wall Street Great October Crash (my preferred name, which is not in the article) listed in the first sentence of the article. Can we consider adding more? Ideally, we should include every combination of the words "Wall Street," "1929," "Crash," "Great," and "October." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.156.189 ( talk) 20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Was there ever a movie made based on the wall street crash because if there is i would like to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 ( talk) 00:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence of this article reads as follows (I've left out the citations):
If you want to catalog all of the names that people have used (meeting notability requirements) for the Great Depression, you will get a very long list -- much longer than the list in the aforewritten sentence. The article names seven of the undoubted dozens of alternate names for the '29 Crash that have been used in publications over the last 75+ years. Doesn't this seems like a bit much to anyone? It sure does to me. Why stop at just seven? One could easily name fifteen alternate names with citations on each of them to boot. The bottom line is that having each of these seven names listed in the first sentence of the lede makes the sentence sound muddled and, well, ridiculous. Yes, it is true that other articles do list multiple names that the given subject goes by. But these articles usually limit the number of alternate names to two or three at most. Perhaps some editors who are invested in this article can pick out the two or three most common of alternate names and keep them in the article, deleting the remaining ones. If not, the lede will continue to sound messy and absurd. ask123 ( talk) 22:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If there's no further input I suggest we make an edit here...any final comments? -- Robertknyc ( talk) 22:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it a bad idea to state the actual date, October 29, in the very first paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.163.195 ( talk) 23:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
In the second paragraph of the Effects and academic debate section, the fourth sentence has an error. It says: The main question is: Did the "'29 Crash spark The Depression?", or did it merely coincide with the bursting of a credit-inspired economic bubble? I think that the quotation marks should only be around '29 Crash, or around the whole question (Did the "'29 Crash spark The Depression?", or did it merely coincide with the bursting of a credit-inspired economic bubble?). JoshE3 ( talk) 00:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Would someone please make a section on how the crash impacted the rest of the world and not just America? JoshE3 ( talk) 01:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The article stated that 1987's crash was "Even more severe" than that of 1929. I'm sure almost all of you understand that this is incorrect, indeed nonsensically so. I replaced the text with "Although much less significant (since it wasn't part of a multi-day trend) the one-day crash of Black Monday, October 19, 1987, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 22.6% was worse in percentage terms than any single day of the 1929 crash."
I thought that would be the end of it, but someone reverted to the old version. I reverted back to mine. Glad to help. Jamesdowallen ( talk) 08:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The article has "The October 1929 crash came during a period of declining real estate values in the United States (which peaked in 1925)".
Did the real estate values peak in 1925? Or was that the peak of "declining values"? I can *guess* the correct answer from context ... but I'm not supposed to need to guess. Jamesdowallen ( talk) 08:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I've fixed the dead link to the initial statement, but it seems, that as before, it states that it was the 'most savage bear market' of all time - not just in the history of the US. Pestergaines ( talk) 10:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The statement in the first paragraph that the Depression "did not end in the United States until the onset of American mobilization for World War II at the end of 1941," is inaccurate. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average unemployment rate in 1941 was 9.9%. American mobilization for World War II began in December of 1941 after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I do not know exactly what unemployment rate constitutes a "depression" but we can safely say it is substantially above 10%. Therefore the Depression was over before Pearl Harbor and the American mobilization.
The link for the BLS page is: http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar03p1.htm
AsFields ( talk) 05:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
I noticed that the section Effects and academic debate contains what look like waay too many quotations. Did someone vandalize the page? If not, can someone fix it so that it contains more paraphrases?
Thanks,
The Doctahedron, 00:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The edit Black Tuesday by User:David.moreno72 does not hit the mark, as Tuesday October 24, 1929 (Black Tuesday) was just one of the days to follow the "Big Crash". Eponymous was the Big Stock Market Crash of 1929 of October 24, 1929 (Black Thursday). Other days just followed: October 28, 1929 (Black Monday), October 29, 1929 (Black Tuesday) ... — See also: . . . As a result of this the stock-market crashed, a day that would go down in history as, “Black Thursday.” -- Gerhardvalentin ( talk) 22:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
There has been a spate of vandalism and/or edit war on the common name for the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Although the start of the crash started on "Black Thursday", and continued on "Black Monday", most historians agree that it is more famously known as "Black Tuesday", as this was the day of a record breaking volume and is considered as the day that the stock market crashed and the start of the Great Depression. I provided a link to a reputable source in the hope that the vandalism would stop. It hasn't. I have therefore provided a citation to a government source in the hope that it will stop. Also, a search for "Black Thursday" at the Library of Congress has only 1 relevant result, whereas a search for "Black Tuesday" returns 9 relevant results, a clear indication that "Black Tuesday" is the more famous name — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.moreno72 ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Paragraph four of the Timeline section suggests that the London Stock Exchange crashed as a result of the conviction of Clarence Hatry for fraud and the freezing of his company's shares. I have found references to a "drop", but nothing that describes it as a "crash". Perhaps it should be altered? Cwbr77 ( talk) 17:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I assumed that the name of the article was based on the metonym of "Wall Street" referring to the entire U.S. financial sector, as didn't the crash affect the entire United States and even help to precipitate the Great Depression? I know that the area considered in New York when referring to the Great Crash would literally have been Wall Street, but a lot more than Wall Street in New York went down. With that being said, why is every single image in the United States just of New York's Wall Street? There were certainly gatherings in places other than New York during the Stock Market Crash and the Great Depression. Dustin (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello? I don't know how to draw attention to my inquiry, so if anyone sees this, please take the time to respond. Dustin (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Does this make any sense:
If it was two days, the 'alone' portion should be 'which included 16 billion on October 28th alone'. However, since the amounts are basically the same, the thing really does not make much sense to me.
Should it maybe just simply read:
DeepNorth ( talk) 16:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Did the crash happen on Tuesday or Thursday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:4200:1D10:10BE:B1DE:E653:DFEB ( talk) 07:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wall Street Crash of 1929. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
What does this sentence in "Economic Fundamentals" even mean: For the economist John Kenneth Galbraith, this exuberance also resulted in a large number of people placing their savings and money in leverage investment products like Goldman Sachs' "Blue ridge trust" and "Shenandoah trust". Why is this "For John Kenneth Galbraith"? Does this mean, instead, "According to economist John Kenneth Galbraith..."? rowley ( talk) 20:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The stock market crash ended on October 29'th 1929. HistorianL ( talk) 05:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The Crash was notable in folk memory for the suicides allegedly triggered, eg bankrupt individuals throwing themselves off buildings. It would be interesting to know to what extent it was true, the article would benefit with a discussion of this as there have surely been studies by those who had access to news and statistics. According to the book by Robert Pilpel, Churchill in America, 1895-1961: An Affectionate Portrait, Winston Churchill who had shares in Wall Street and was visiting NYC during the days of the crash recalled a man being 'dashed to pieces' dropping himself into the street while traffic was held up when people who noticed a building worker seen alone on top of a girder mistook him for 'a ruined capitalist' about to end his life, so there was a sense of suicide panic out and about at the time. Cloptonson ( talk) 07:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
In the crash section of the article, there are two citations that are needed and I think I found them. However, there is a problem. I am not sure this is a reliable source because I think it is a study guide. The source is called United States Academic Decathlon Curriculum by Pedia Press, and its editors are Wikipedians. Link: http://pediapress.com/books/show/united-states-academic-decathlon-curricul/
Contribiter423 ( talk) 17:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I see problems in these 2 paragraphs. Take a look at the mention of which day, and the percentage drop on that day:
Here's what I see. There was a 12.82% drop on Black Monday, no mention of the percentage drop on Tuesday, but an 11.73% drop on "the next day" which would be Wednesday. It calls this a total drop of…23.05% in two days. Was this a three day drop? Or (more likely) does "the next day" still refer to Tuesday? I had always heard that the crash took place over two days, so that's probably what it's supposed to say, but it's worded very poorly. It looks to me like "The next day" should be removed. This makes sense because the drop of 38.33 points on Monday, plus the drop of 30.57 points on "the next day" adds up to the 68.90 points over two days. I removed "The next day." I'm pretty sure this is now correct. — MiguelMunoz ( talk) 23:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Since May 2020 this article has had an infobox which describes the cause of the crash as "Fears of excessive speculation by the Federal Reserve". I won't try to comment on the accuracy of that claim, but it is both uncited and, more importantly, not supported by the text of the article. I'm going to revert the infobox in its entirety for now; it is preserved below if anyone wants to attempt a better summary.
Date | 4 September 1929–13 November 1929 |
---|---|
Type | Stock market crash |
Cause | Fears of excessive speculation by the Federal Reserve |
LetsEditConstructively ( talk) 02:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
By standards of consumer spending and social conditions, the quality of life in America was better in early 1939 (before WWII) than in 1939. Americans had more of the expensive goodies (cars, stoves, refrigerators, radios, and phonographs) than in 1929. More people had electricity. During World War II the federal government strongly discouraged economic speculation of any kind. Not until 1952 did stock market prices reach the nominal values of the 1929 peak, and then such ignores significant inflation.Tax policies (high rates on 'unearned' income) may have kept stock prices depressed long after the general recovery of the economy. Pbrower2a ( talk) 21:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)