This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Support rename '2015 Chinese stock market crash', or 'Chinese stock market crash 2015', not sure on convention for year at end or beginning of title.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reorganized and tried to distribute the text into relevant sections, so it may be a bit paltry looking for the moment and the sections might not have very good coverage of the things they're supposed to, but it should help with organization as it expands. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
American government builds too many homes (to keep the economy going); needs to sell these homes (via bad loans); loans default and the bubble pops.
Chinese government's economy plateaus; loosens loan regulations so people can "invest" in stocks (like Americans "invested" in homes); the rising stock value bubble pops.
In short, bad loans are used to artificially inflate the economy. The people take on the debt & are blinded the sky-rocketing value-bubble. Chinese & American government are way too similar. Allen750 (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not the government who builds homes in the American economy, but I think I see your overall point. Is there some specific change you'd like to see in the article? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article 2015 stock market selloff focuses on the wider global implications of the current "upheaval" as the New York Times terms it, it is highly unlikely to be merged into this Wikipedia article which has China as the focus. It is perhaps somewhat more likely to merge this article into the newer one, but that act opens up a new can of worms as far as balance is concerned. And this article is fine as it is, a part of the bigger global picture. I propose we speedily reject the idea of merging the two articles and remove the tag. Jusdafax02:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little support for a merge at the Talk page of the other article as well. If someone would pull the tags I would be grateful, thanks. The tags disfigure both articles, and have been up long enough. Jusdafax08:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To make sure, I waited a couple weeks longer, and seeing zero support, have pulled the merger proposal tag from the top of the articles. Jusdafax03:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, China's stock market crash is hurting the economy of some countries, including the United States. You have to consider the effects one country's stock market crash will have on another.--OfficerAPC (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, proceed with the changes because what was initially recognized as a correction in some world markets has actually become a bear market. This cites the accounting concept of conservatism, in which the worst-case scenario must be anticipated and prepared for.--OfficerAPC (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the 2016 events are in the line for 2015 ones. With market shaking downward, and government setting up various temporary measures. -- Yug11:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the proposed name change in light of today's automatic shut down at the 7% drop level, China's second of the year so far. This selloff is clearly continuing, and may be gaining momentum. Jusdafax04:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as renaming the article, the new name should be Chinese stock market crashes of 2015-16 or perhaps the Mid-2010s Chinese stock market crashes.--OfficerAPC (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to rename this article "Mid-2010s Chinese finance-quake" because many can relate this crash to a typical earthquake.--OfficerAPC (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The circumstances of the Chinese stock market crash from 2015 appear to be comparable to a typical earthquake. When stock markets make their reports, they tend to be creative instead of the ordinary terms (up, down, bubble, crash, etc.).--OfficerAPC (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support (speedy move) – the present title is ridiculous WP:OR as no one seems to call it that. I can't undo the page move on my end (it should be undone). I'm going to ping Admin Jenks24 on this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put it this way: searching The South China Morning News for "finance-quake" turned up zero hits. Bottom line: The page move needs to be reverted ASAP – then we can discuss if there's a better title than the (previous) title... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The title no longer reflects the content. There is a crash this month. Lingzhi wants the title to stay as "2015 Chinese stock market crash". However, if the January 2016 incident doesn't count, why including it? --George Ho (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't specifically want the title to stay as it currently is. I don't oppose any name change, if that change is supported by WP:CONSENSUS. Let the title rest as it is for a week or three, until several people have chimed in. Then if people agree to move the page and agree on a title, a move is the correct way to go. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)03:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have no objection to "Chinese stock market crash (2015–present)". But I kind of agree with Lingzhi that the article should probably stay at the original title until a new consensus title can be hashed out... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason Present is unacceptable is that this article will probably exist for years. I'm sure there's an essay about time somewhere or other. Maybe I'll look for it... Anyhow, even if you and he both like it, it won't work, consensus or no. (Aha, found it: WP:REALTIME) Lingzhi ♦ (talk)06:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But we still need a more accurate title than the one we've got. OR, we need to "split" the article, and cover the 2015 crash, and the 2016 crash, separately... Also, note that WP:REALTIME refers specifically to article text (and use of the word "presently") – there are in fact a number of article titles on Wikipedia that use『([year]–present)』in the title to signify an ongoing and continuing event with an undefined endpoint. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is hilarious. You can't think of an appropriate name for this article because it ought to be nominated for deletion. Why is a stock market plummet/fall considered a "crisis"? It should only be considered a crisis when it affects the real economy in some profound way and not just hurts speculators' investment portfolios. The event is ONGOING, and the people pushing this "crisis" idea are financial alarmists who make a living writing shocking headlines. There's never going to be an end date because volatility in the stock market is in its very nature and a defining characteristic of stock markets. I want to know what's the threshold for a stock index drop before it deserves it's own article. Do we go by daily stock price movements, quarterly, or year-on-year? If we keep the article, you might as well get rid of the date on it and put every single stock drop on the Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges on here in some chart. Then, you ought to consider whether to make another article listing all the sharp rises for the sake of neutrality. 71.114.194.138 (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the accounting concept of conservatism, it would be legit to call it a crisis so investors are prepared for the worst-case scenario.--OfficerAPC (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just reached this article from the RfC and I strongly agree that the name should be changed to Chinese stock market crash (2015–present). Wykx 22:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
My mistake; there should be an "External links" section below "References". I don't favor adding a daily basis of it in prose. --George Ho (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than renaming the article, maybe we can create a separate article about the January 2016 stock market meltdown. It appears the article is slanted towards January 2016.--OfficerAPC (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC) I have a strong inclination that a page named 2016 Chinese stock market crash will be created here real soon. But I agree, there should be a new page rather than renaming and expanded this one. Meatsgains (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC was closed because consensus was reached to add 2016 in the title. Wykx (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2016 (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.
The Chinese stock market crashed last year and then this year. Shall two events be explained in one conjoined article (i.e. this article) or two separate articles (i.e. this article and proposed article)? --George Ho (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same article for both years: For the time being, I don't see the article as too long to explain both events together. Moreover they are related to the same causes, then it is better to share the context on the same page. Wykx 22:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I suppose the same article can be used for both years, but a separate article would be needed to discuss the scenario from a different perspective (i.e. global as supposed to just the Chinese).--OfficerAPC (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support splitting the 2015 and 2016 crashes into two separate articles. I realize keeping the events on the same page would not create too long of a page, but it would make sense to split because of the differing details behind each crash. Meatsgains (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same article for both years - I agree with keeping both crashes in the same article, as long as we are clear in differentiating between the two. I support changing the title to whatever is appropriate, as well. Cheers, ComatmebroUser talk:Comatmebro22:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same article for both years change title to Chinese stock market crashes (2015, 2016). Plural "crashes" and two separate years, not year range, to emphasize differentiation of events. Jojalozzo (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Neutral We should answer the following question before making further page moves. Are the Chinese stock market crashes in 2015 and 2016 dealing with the same circumstances? If so, keep the title as it is or rename it to Chinese stock market crash (2015-16); otherwise, rename the title as 2015-16 Chinese stock market crashes.--OfficerAPC (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 2015–16 Chinese stock market turbulence - "crash" is misleading as it implies a one-way decline in stock price, which is not the case. As the article noted, the market rose sharply in Spring 2015, before the bubble blew in summer. It then recovered somewhat and was actually up 12.6% for 2015 as a whole. Then it went down again at the beginning of 2016. Turbulence (or fluctuations) is a more accurate description of the events. -Zanhe (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well it depends since how long you look at it. If you start from June 2015 (which is the case for this article), the index has lost 40% until September and 47% until January which is a crash. Wykx (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. However, since the article does cover the bubble period, which also occurred in 2015, right before the bubble burst in June, it makes more sense to describe the entire period as turbulence rather than crash. -Zanhe (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that assessment, but should the scope of this article purposefully exclude the bubble period, and should that (eventually) be the subject of a separate article? Or is there not likely enough RS to form a decent article on the topic? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Then I suppose if we're including that entire period of time in this article, calling it "turbulence" may be most WP:PRECISE. Though we should note that there seems to be many more Google results from this time period for "crash" rather than "turbulence", as recommended by WP:COMMONNAME. So it's a bit of a push in that way, but I'd argue that being precise is more important here. I.e., Chinese stock market turbulence (2015-16), leaving the title with "crash" as a redirect. Could be changed to "(2015-Present)" if it extends longer. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well the usage of the term is not without precedent: (1, 2, 3, 4, 5.) Certainly not a majority of the sources refer to it this way, but I think most of the news stories either focus on the crash or the bubble, rather than covering both as we've decided to do with this article. Perhaps it's more descriptive of this article's scope? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support - I meant to reopen this discussion but got sidetracked, thanks to George Ho for taking the initiative. "China stock market turbulence" is the more appropriate term to describe the scope of the article (which includes a bubble followed by a crash). It is used by tens of thousands of web pages, including BBC and The Guardian. -Zanhe (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Additional background info for the market bubble's formation
In the "Stock market bubble" section of this article, there is very little information given to explain the various factors that resulted in such a significant market bubble. I would like to add some of these factors and explain their significance. They include...
The 2008 global recession: in response, the govt. implemented a nation-wide stimulus package that resulted in massive debt
The trading population is heavily comprised of retail traders, many of whom are inexperienced, versus institutional trading (led to huge momentum swings)
In March, 2010, the Chinese Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) started to loosen marginal trading and short selling regulations
The CSRC also kept companies listed on the exchange despite failing to perform for three consecutive quarters
All of these factors will tie of course, but this is the general gist. I welcome all thoughts, comments and recommendations. Amyoung15 (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These seem like reasonable recommendations for additional content. Any particular sources that you think are important to reference? Amyc29 (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amy -- some of the sources I plan on referencing include the Journal of Banking and Finance, the Cato Journal, the Journal of Contemporary China, Modern Economy, and CNBC Amyoung15 (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence where you talk about rushing to Shanghai makes it sound as if they are actually going to Shanghai and not just the stocks.
When using the word "however" in the middle of a sentence you want to semicolon before it and comma after it.
There were also a few sentences that a comma would help if added, let me know if you would like specifics.
In general I think you did a very good ob of explaining in depth what happened as well as keeping it basic and simple to understand, as someone who knows nothing about stocks it made for a fairly easy to understand read. Katethomas6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Jonpatterns (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
