You're not supposed to delete articles that have the "under construction" tag unless they haven't been edited for at least a feww days. Please read the giant box at the beginning of the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that since the article is still there, it's probably not been deleted. Please remain civil and assume good faith. Further details on your talkpage! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what "speedy deletion means." It means very soon. Last month, I started the Titanoboa article, and then someone put up the "speedy deletion" tag, and then the article was gone a few minutes later. So I started the article again, and guess what? The wikipedia administrators liked it so much that they put it in the "in the news" section of the main page. So, someone suggested that I use the "under contruction" tag to prevent the "speedy deletion" tag from being placed in the future. I start out my articles small, and make lots of additions to them. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to write an article about the current bear market, and I wasn't sure what to call it. If someone wants to change the name of the article to something better, that might help. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the title. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check please. On June 27, 2008, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) fell 20 percent from its October 2007 high, the definition of a bear market. The title should be "Bear Market of 2008".Kgrr (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a different bear market, and you can start an article on it if you want. This current bear market is especially noteworthy because this kind of thing hasn't happened this quickly after a new President was inaugurated in over 90 years. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One indication of a bear market is a price decline of 20% from the peak. A bull market is indicated by a rise in value of the market of at least 20%. The bear market started in 2008 and has not ended by a bull market.Kgrr (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems highly non-neutral POV, probably because the term itself is non-neutral. The current article only discusses the DJIA slide from 20 January to date, and does not cover the bear market's origins in mid-2008. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have since added sources to cite people's opinions. The stock market is forward looking. Obama has repeatedly said that he wanted to raise the capital gains tax, and income taxes on people making more than $250,000. Whatever you tax, you get less of. The stock market is reacting to Obama's current and future economic policies. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except your sources are cherry-picked to be very anti-Obama. Many people feel that the current situation is like the previous adminstration did a dine and run. Obama just sat down at the table and is left to pay the bill. This article needs some serious NPOV cleanup. This article needs to be balanced with a wider range of opinions.

Furthermore, I disagree with the redirects that have been created to this article: Obama Bear Market and Obama's Bear Market.Kgrr (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Obama Bear Market" is an artifact of the page move. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those two redirects should be removed.Kgrr (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. They would appear to be legitimate search terms someone might use to find this topic. I'm not arguing either way about the truthfulness of the term...just that it's currently being used and people might come here looking for information about what people are calling Obama's bear market. --Onorem♠Dil 17:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People need to see the facts. The right-wing media might be labeling this as Obama's Bear Market. However, it started way before Obama was even nominated.Kgrr (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with whether or not those are possible search terms people will use? --Onorem♠Dil 23:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Closing milestones of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the high-water mark was October 2007, which means that the decline began before Obama overtook H. Clinton in the Democratic campaign. I urge better balancing of the article, and better references about the term. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.Kgrr (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stock market is forward looking. Whatever you tax, you get less of. While campaigning, Obama said he would raise taxes on capital gains, and on people earning more than $250,000. These play major roles in the stock market and job creation. When polls showed that Obama was likely to win the election, the stock market took that into account. If you think the article is biased, then please feel free to add whatever sourced opinions you can find. I added a section heading to state that these are opinions. Please feel free to add more to the section. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to discuss the subject matter, but the article itself. The few lines that you have written so far for the article have been cherry-picked to match your opinion. This violates WP:NPOV. Editorials and blogs are not admissible sources for Wikipedia.Kgrr (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added an opposing point of view from Robert Reich. Opinions are allowable as long as the the article says that they are opinions. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a start. The article still gives undue weight to the right-wing media opinion.Kgrr (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found Global financial crisis of 2008–2009, which appears to be the primary article for the overall economic downturn. I will update this article to refer to that one. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to nominate this article for deletion then since none of the material is really relevant.Kgrr (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's already up for deletion; the link is in the AfD box on the article. Feel free to join the discussion. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The huge drop since Obama took office is noteworthy enough to deserve its own article, and is well cited in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your references are dated in 2008, before Obama's inauguration.Kgrr (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many? No. Not many. The one and only reference that I added from before Obama's inauguration was where the Wall St. Journal accuratley predicted what would happen after Obama's inauguration. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the big crash happened in October 2008, before the election.Kgrr (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stock market is forward looking. During Obama's campaign, he said he would raise the capital gains tax, and taxes on the richest 5%. Whatever you tax, you get less of. When it became apparent that Obama was likely to win the election, the stock market started to take that into account. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on the Wall Street Crash of 1929, which is seperate from the article on The Great Depression. Seperate time periods for noteworthy, well sourced financial crises deserve seperate articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. They did not divide it into Herbert Hoover's Bear Market and Franklin D. Roosevelt's Bear Market. This article should be named the Bear Market of 2008.Kgrr (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Market of 2008 could be a seperate article. The media has given a lot of coverage to the specific bear market that happened after Obama's inauguration. It is notable because it's the biggest bear market after a newly inaugurated President in at least 90 years. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is disinformation. Please quit distorting how bull and bear markets have been defined. The bear market starts when the market is 20% down from its peak. The bull market starts when the market is 20% up from its bottom. Clearly we are still in the Bear Market of 2008.Kgrr (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you write the Bear Market of 2008 article like the Stock market downturn of 2002 article. They don't have a whole section trying to blame Bush for it, although it happened completely on his watch.Kgrr (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. It's nice to have another article on a very similar topic to look at. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grundle - this is the last warning. Please do not undo my work again. There is no Bear Market of 2009. The Bear Market of 2008 was declared by five separate financial sources in June of 2008 after a peak in October of 2007. There has not been a bull market since to separate the Bear Market of 2008 from your "Obama Bear Market", "Obama's Bear Market", or "Bear Market of 2009". Please quit your POV pushing. I won't tolerate it.Kgrr (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added mutiple soures that use the phrase, including one that says investors are using the phrase. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

link Grundle2600 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Obama Bear Market" with the name "Howard Kurtz", the right-leaning Washington Times columnist who used the term, gets more than 625 of those hits. The phrase with "Dan Veru," the stock picker quoted in the Bloomberg column, gets more than 425 of those hits. Each of the few opinion pieces which use the phrase are being widely mirrored, even more widely quoted on blogs, and it isn't even remotely 12,000 citable usages of the term. By naming this article, we'd be adding several hundred more mirror hits.

Regardless of the number of hits, an encyclopedia isn't supposed to be ahead of curves like this by legitimizing such newly-coined but specious, loaded terms in naming whole articles after them. To the degree Wikipedia uses this term, it should be to explain that some Wall Street types and business media editorialists seek to shift blame for this long-snowballing catastrophe, enabled in part by the effects of decades of deregulation and failures in investment ratings agencies, insurance companies, banks & credit agencies, not to mention soaring debt and deficits and dishonest budgets, to the seven-week-old presidency of Barack Obama.

Bottom line: a bear market isn't segmented, it's a continuum. One bear market does not begin until the previous one has ended. Nobody ever ended the Bear Market of 2007-2008. It's as simple as that. Could Geithner and Obama be a little more helpful? Probably. But to yank one president out after 8 years and shove a new one in and then blame him for the avalanche that began months and months and months ago is pure partisanship. Are "investors" disinterested, nonpartisan observers? Nice try. We don't create articles every time Limbaugh sneezes either, regardless of how many people goo their tissues over it. Abrazame (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]