Talk:GameStop short squeeze/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Nominated for ITN

Just a notice that the article has been nominated on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates on January 27, 2021. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

AMC vs AMCX

Eyesnore, I see the reference earlier regarding AMCX. The previously cited statement also refers to AMC (properly). AMCX is down almost 20% today. It may have been impacted, but AMC Theaters is clearly the contextually appropriate stock for this section of this article. AMC is up about 300%. So yes, AMCX may have seen some temporary increases that citation is referring to; however, the far more appropriate stock is AMC. Previous citations also make it clear that AMC Theaters was the security targeted in the topic of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velojareal (talk • contribs) 21:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Other affected securities

Eyesnore, where did you get the data for GameStop short squeeze § Affected securities? Securities such as Vir Biotechnology and Koss Corporation aren't in the two you provided. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elliot321: References have been added so that they are not original research. Eyesnore 21:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

How about percent rise from January 20th to peak and market cap on Jan 20th instead of price of one share, which imo means nothing? 84.248.213.109 (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Bipartisan criticism of Robinhood freezing GME

This seems relevant but I'm not sure how to format it or how much to include from the original article.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/gamestop-cruz-ocasio-cortez-blast-robinhood-over-trade-freeze.html

Also:

“While retail trading in some cases, like on Robinhood, blocked the purchasing of GameStop, hedge funds were still allowed to trade the stock,” Khanna said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.161.116.7 (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Note for reference - Mentions on Portal:Current events

Making a note for article history and reference that the article was mentioned in the Portal:Current events on January 27, 2021 & January 28, 2021. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

video games wikiproject

I honestly do not think this article falls under video games wikiproject. It is only that the subject of this incident is in video game retail business (and which they have no control in this incident). SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

SYSS Mouse, Done CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Class Action Lawsuit

Relatively new to wikipedia, but it seems like this lawsuit would be relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccartneyac (talk • contribs) 18:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Mccartneyac, Do you have any WP:RS that are covering it? We can't just add the lawsuit by its lonesome as that is a primary source. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I added it citing The Hill. Username6892 19:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

insofar as you trust [1] daily beast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccartneyac (talk • contribs) 19:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Mccartneyac daily beast is generally considered a reliable source for facts per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, so yes, it would be acceptable. Feel free to write-up something and add it to a relevant section of the article (just make sure it's in your own words). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Got a mention by CNN at https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/wallstreetbets-reddit-vs-wall-street/h_4f2aeccd71962c141ab3f83b7ad735b2 (no permalink sadly), should definitely be added. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Should we add a little explanation of what shorting is?

This article will be mostly read by non-technical people and the Short (finance) article may be too technical. I'm sure we can find some RS explaining what this practice is, in short terms (no pun intended) and non-technical. Loganmac (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure some relevant content used to be in the article, but was removed. Adding it as a paragraph in the background section would probably be fine, especially if RS have covered what short selling is in the context of this. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

An entire business model has been blown up by a meme. Try explaining that! kencf0618 (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Loganmac, I agree the first graf of this article is not very friendly to the average reader. The fact that the second sentence starts exactly like the first one with "The GameStop short squeeze ..." makes it poor prose. Instead, it should emphasize that the root of the phenomenon was massive buying by individuals coordinating on the internet. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Just went ahead and added a paragraph in Background, sourced by https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-you-could-lose-everything-by-short-selling-stocks-whether-its-betting-against-gamestop-or-tesla-11611669028 --Loganmac (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio-Revdel template deletion

@Reywas92: Im kind of confused why you removed the Template:Copyvio-revdel template? The revision wasnt reverted and an explanation would be helpfull. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GameStop_short_squeeze&diff=prev&oldid=1003388899&diffmode=visual Nithin^talk 19:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Nithin, RD'd, so all is well. I think Reywas assumed it was from another RD that was needed :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek Sounds good 👍🏼 Nithin^talk 19:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That was an error with a an edit conflict, my apologies. But why did you revert my copyedits that were more than the copyvio template? Reywas92^Talk 20:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to, I believe they were added back though. Nithin🚀 ^talk 21:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Use of the word redditor

Many people probably don't know that redditor means a Reddit user. Should redditor just be replaced with reddit user or is it fine as is? --All the usernames I wanted (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

All the usernames I wanted, that's a pretty small change, feel free to just make the edit. If others disagree, they may edit it back, edit it back with a Wikilink to the Reddit article, etc. But to me it sounds fine. And in general you can be bold with small changes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Editor, redditor. People know what an affix is. kencf0618 (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You could explain it in the first mention. For example "Reddit users, or redditors..." Loganmac (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. Both numbers and arguments are overwhelmingly against the move and it doesn't do anyone any favours prolonging the agony.(non-admin closure) StAnselm (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

---

GameStop short squeeze → 2021 GameStop short squeeze – Year should be included per WP:NCE. I don't think this is WP:NOYEAR-worthy yet.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose RS's generally refer to this as the "GameStop short squeeze" which should be used per WP:COMMONNAME. There are no other potentially confused short squeezes. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree. This is the GME squeeze. There's nothing else. « Ryūkotsusei » 19:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• SupportStrong Support While this is undoubtedly one for the history books, it's for the stock market history books. Stock market history is somewhat esoteric when put in perspective. Bowler the Carmine (they/them | talk | contribs) 20:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support WP:NOYEAR is the most applicable WP in this instance. It says: "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it."[emphasis added] It is logical to conclude that, we cannot give it a historic perspective, and we cannot know if when looked at from a historical perspective, it would be able to be described without a year. We should err on the side of caution, in this case adding a year. Nithin🚀 ^talk 20:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCE. @Elliot321: WP:UCRN is about recognizability, not how common the name is. The shortcut WP:COMMONNAME is something of a misnomer. Both naming alternatives are equally recognizable. UCRN is only one part of the naming criteria, and disambiguation from other short squeezes is not the relevant reason the year is to be included here. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  VQuakr I guess, but if not for disambiguation, I think it would be a bad idea to add the "2021" to the name. Per WP:NOYEAR, "The date is not needed when the article pertains to events that are unlikely to recur". A notable short squeeze on this particular stock is indeed unlikely to recur. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unnecessary disambiguation. Have there been other GameStop short squeezes in other years? I think WP:NOYEAR is met, as there are no other GameStop short sells to confuse it with. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – many other financial controversies are not named by year, such as State Reserves Bureau copper scandal and Wells Fargo account fraud scandal. (See examples here.) Given that another GameStop squeeze is unlikely, I see no reason to break precedent by clarifying the year. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - this can't be confused with something else, so by WP:COMMONNAME it should be left as what RS's say. If, in the future, a similar event arises, there's a renaming discussion. Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this is the only GameStop short, so no need to add the year. I doubt this could be confused with any other event. Jonmaxras (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose As everyone else has said, this is the only GameStop short squeeze there has been that is even remotely notable. Sewageboy (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Was thinking of requesting the move last night. The title of 'GameStop short squeeze' seems vague imo. SWinxy (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless there is another short squeeze in the future, the inclusion of the year does not make sense. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:NOYEAR which I think is met here. — Czello 21:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't understand how WP:NOYEAR applies here.? My understanding is that "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it." how do we look at it from historical perspective...? Nithin🚀 ^talk 21:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose until another GameStop short squeeze happens. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: The examples given in WP:NOYEAR for articles where a year isn't required are Tenerife airport disaster, Chernobyl disaster, Virginia Tech shooting, and Charlie Hebdo shooting. I don't believe this has the same historical significance. Also, per WP:NCE, article titles should have "When, Where, and What". They example used is 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. It even says When: 2011. There are no other "Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami" articles in Wikipedia, but the year is a useful identifier. Also, "GameStop short squeeze" is not the WP:COMMONNAME. Reliable sources do not have a consensus term for the event. NYTimes: "GameStop squeeze", "GameStop Insanity", mentions of "short squeeze", but no "GameStop short squeeze". NYTimes: "GameStop Reckoning". The Verge: "Reddit GameStop squeeze", no "GameStop short squeeze". CNN: "frenzied runup of GameStop", "GameStop surge". CNN: "GameStop mania". Financial Times: no mention of "GameStop short squeeze". Financial Times: again no mention of "GameStop short squeeze". Nikkei: No mention of "GameStop short squeeze". The Straits Times: no mention of "GameStop short squeeze". Toronto Star: No mention of "GameStop short squeeze". Sydney Morning Herald: again no mention. The Times: "GameStop mania", not "GameStop short squeeze". The Times: another article from The Times, no mention of "GameStop short squeeze". New Zealand Herald: no specific name, but they referred to it as a "speculative frenzy", no mention of "GameStop short squeeze". Ars Technica: no mention of "GameStop short squeeze". Bloomberg: no mention of "short squeeze". BuzzFeed News: No mention of "GameStop short squeeze". Wall Street Journal: They called it "GameStop short squeeze".  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 22:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe that's because short squeeze is a technical economic term, unknown to many readers, and news companies strive for getting people to read. All of those names sound very sensationalistic, and besides, the move request is not for the "short squeeze" aspect: it's for the year. If such an event has never happened before, the year is not needed in an encyclopedia, and if it has, it is. I also don't think newspapers are a good source for that anyway. In nations where a civil war is going on, for example, a newspaper, written for the present, wouldn't need to specify which one it is. Also, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose and WP:SNOW closure. Is there a need to specify 2021? No. So don't add it. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for now: There may be another short squeeze with this exact stock, etc., later, but, for now, this is the only one (WP:CRYSTALBALL and all that). — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and WP:SNOW close There is no way this move will gain consensus. If a notable GME short squeeze happens again in another year, we would disambiguate it at that time. For now, there is no reason to gum up the article title with extraneous dates. Jehochman ^Talk 22:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOYEAR and WP:CRYSTAL. From now it is the only Gamestop short squeezes that happened. Lets wait until another Gamestop short squeezes happens, whenever in another year or in another month. 110.137.185.201 (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per WP:NOYEAR and WP:COMMONNAME. No reason to include a year when nothing like this has ever happened with GameStop's stock before. Debatable whether it would happen again (WP:CRYSTAL). AlexKitfox (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Why would we do this for an event that only happened once. This is ridiculously unnecessary. Colin dm (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: there is no other GameStop squeeze, this is the only one. No need to differentiate with this year title. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Tangent
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Discussion about template on article page This article is currently featured on the home page. I have removed the announcement of this move discussion from the article page because it's a severe distraction and annoyance to readers of Wikipedia. As for the merits of the move, that will be sorted out a week from now. Plenty of eyes are on this page. In this specific instance the article template is superfluous. Sometimes it may not be. Jehochman Talk 20:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC) That is not a valid reason to remove the template. The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol had the same template while it was featured on the home page and that request ended up having 200 people participate. How else are people supposed to be aware that there is a requested move happening? JayJayWhat did I do? 21:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC) That's a good argument. I will look at that discussion. Jehochman Talk 21:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Strongly Oppose I am very confused how you came to that conclusion, the article template is far from superfluous, it informs people of a discussion taking place. I fail to see how it is a sever distraction or annoyance to readers. An article featured on the home page does not mean it can't have discussion templates. An example of this is the COVID19 articles, before the name was decided, while being on the main page, they did have page move discussion templates. I can get the exact page revisions if you would like. Nithin🚀 talk 21:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

Use inline tags instead of hidden comments

Thanks to whoever is leaving the hidden comments, they're super helpful to oldies like me, but a lot of new editors (especially readers who might become editors) use the WYSIWYG editor rather than source so they might not notice. Plus, it hides the request from people who might be able to help (i.e., readers) since you have to click the edit button first to know what needs work. It's better to use inline cleanup tags like {{citation needed}}, {{according to whom?}}, and {{when?}}. This way readers and other editors can see what still needs work and encourages them to click the edit button rather than waiting for them to do so. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

First sentence is too convoluted

@Irish Birdcatcher and Hakken: You've both reverted me so I'm bringing it here to discuss. This is the text currently in place as the first sentence: In January 2021, a short squeeze of GameStop, a video-game retailer, and of numerous other securities traded on various stock exchanges took place. My problem with the first sentence is that it only make sense if you know what a short squeeze is while most readers coming here probably don't. What's a "short squeeze of GameStop"? It makes it sound like GameStop was victimized when the actors primarily affected were hedge funds---GME was just the conduit. That phrasing makes sense if you're writing in Forbes, but to most readers it won't make sense. Similarly "A video game retailer" is completely useless in the first sentence. Them selling video games has almost nothing to do with the content of this article. It's also hard to read as the main verb comes at the end with 21 words and three tangential clauses come before it. By the time readers get to the action, they've probably lost track of who did what to whom. I'm obviously biased, but I think the text I suggested is more accessible to non-expert readers: In January 2021, a short squeeze took place as investors, primarily Reddit users, drove up the price of GameStop stock and other securities traded on various stock exchanges. I think we should reconsider the current phrasing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree 100% with your reasoning. My main issue is to not improperly credit the entirety of reddit with what was primarily done by r/wallstreetbets, but delaying mentioning who specifically caused the short at all is a good idea. Irish Birdcatcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irish Birdcatcher (talk • contribs) 02:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. I thought the sentence was simply to understand but after reading your approach, it would make sense to edit it. Hakken (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I built off Irish Birdcatcher's edits and think we've got to a good state, thanks for your work and willingness to talk it out! — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I altered the title to make it more accessible and moved the description of GameStop as a videogame retailer to the second line. Irish Birdcatcher

Looks good, thanks! --Loganmac (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Reddit posts as citations?

New here - Can I use a reddit post as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tickery (talk • contribs) 16:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Tickery, welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for checking on this first. As a rule, no, one shouldn't use Reddit as a source. There's community consensus that, as it's self-published, it can't be guaranteed to be reliable, which is a requirement for Wikipedia sources. See the Reddit section on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

The only exception might be what's detailed at WP:SOCIALMEDIA under "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves". There are generally only limited cases where this applies, and any use must adhere to the policy on primary sources.

Hope that helps! Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added a sentance at the bottom of the "Market Manipulation" section citing a hill article. First time trying that. Does it look good? (Sentance reads: "Many users were furious, and called for class-action lawsuits in multiple popular reddit posts. [28]") - Tickery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tickery (talk • contribs) 17:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Tickery. Citing a reliable source like The Hill reporting on Reddit is totally OK, and definitely preferable to citing Reddit directly. I would edit out your statement that "many users were furious" as this seems like an additional interpretation on top what The Hill actually reports, ie. "Several other popular submissions call for a class-action lawsuit against Robinhood".

BTW, you can "sign" your posts on talk pages by using four tildes in a row :) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Also did most of the third paragraph under background. User:Tickery — Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tickery I would stick to statements made by what we call WP:RELIABLESOURCES, meaning mainstream media. Also be prepared for your edits to be potentially changed, specially in high traffic articles like this. For a higher chance this doesn't happen, stay neutral, and stick to what these sources say. Good luck! --Loganmac (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2021

Overview, change "While short-sellers have experiences huge losses," to "While short-sellers have experienced huge losses," 170.55.101.3 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Already done: The typo was fixed, then the whole paragraph was edited out. Either way, nothing to be done anymore. Volteer1 (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the controversy/Citadel Securities section off topic?

Lay person here without much finance background. I read the article and got to the Controversy section. The section starts talking a lot about the history of a company called Citadel Securities, but in my opinion fails to link Citadel Securities and its history of being fined to the rest of the article. Do we need to copy edit this section to explain how it's related to the controversy? Do we need to delete it for being off topic? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, it is pretty off-topic and interestingly not covered in the Citadel Securities article itself. It is related to the controversy due to a perceived conflict of interest - Citadel and Robinhood users have competing aims and Robinhood has limited trading GME on its platform, allegedly because Citadel is its biggest customer. I'll trim it and move the rest to the Citadel article. Caius G. (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Caius G., sounds good, thanks. Feel free to leave a sentence or two in about the connection between Citadel Securities, Robinhood, and the conflict of interest. The "conflict of interest" part was the missing part for me, with that explicitly said it should make more sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Citadel has been linked to this controversy in a lot of RS, I don't think it's out of place. This article explains it https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjpnz5/robinhoods-customers-are-hedge-funds-like-citadel-its-users-are-the-product Loganmac (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Loganmac, I've shortened it (probably by a bit too much) and moved the original section to the Citadel Securities article, with a note in this one. Caius G. (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Caius G.The current article does not explain well that Citadel Securities is related with Citadel LLC, which invested 2.75 billion in Melvin Capital. SYSS Mouse (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

SYSS Mouse, I have expanded it a bit and moved the section under the Impact on hedge funds one, it should hopefully be clearer now. Caius G. (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"In the news" headline regarding this article

I have added an Main page error report regarding this article, as I claim that the current headline (A coordinated short squeeze targeting American hedge funds causes GameStop's stock price to spike ) is misleading.--JBchrch (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Dogecoin

I disagree with the point made by another editor about this edit being "trivia" that is "barely related to the short squeezes in this section." While I acknowledge that Dogecoin is the only cryptocurrency listed, its rise is unmistakably is connected to the GameStop short squeeze; see this source. Given the section title, "Other affected assets," I really don't see how Dogecoin doesn't fit. Willing to discuss. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi AllegedlyHuman, the CNBC article explicitly states that The situation with dogecoin appears different from GameStop, however [...] But there is no such shorting dynamic from hedge funds at play with dogecoin. Instead, it appears a group of people are just trying to push the cryptocurrency higher to make money. One of the early posts on SatoshiStreetBets read: “Let’s make DOGECOIN a thing. That’s it, that’s the post.” Such activity is not new in the cryptocurrency space and has been going on for several years.. I maintain that the dogecoin news are unrelated. Let's see what the consensus is.--JBchrch (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. Sure its different but its clearly related as dogecoin has seen an unprecedented rise over the same timespan of the gamestop stocks being short squeezed. Without the gamestop event the other groups wouldn't have come up with the idea. To quote the article: "a digital coin originally founded as a joke, has soared over 800% after a Reddit board talked about making it the cryptocurrency equivalent of GameStop." Clearly the gamestop short squeeze was a key motive here. 2001:1970:564B:4700:C434:D3E7:4D55:4838 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

People have been conducting pumps-and-dumps of cryptocurrencies for years. The reference to Gamestop is clearly a joke.--JBchrch (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Here are some more sources which may be relevant to the discussion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

AllegedlyHuman, I see that there is a growing number of RSes linking the jump of the Dogecoin price to the Gamestop short squeeze, so I retract my opposition to your edit. However, do you agree that the Bitcoin part of this diff [2] is not relevant to this article?--JBchrch (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm kind of indifferent, though having another source that more clearly demonstrates a link between Bitcoin and GameStop would be appreciated. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Stock price chart

Since this phenomenon has produced rapid intra-day fluctuation in the stock price, it would probably be a good idea to include intra-day prices in the chart. To avoid clutter, it might also be good to start the chart a little later in time – e.g., Jan 1 or Jan 7. Today is not yet included, and the price today has jumped back up, much higher than the closing price of yesterday. The current chart might give the impression that the phenomenon is over and things have calmed down. That would be a false impression. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The x axis of the chart also has some strange gaps in the dates. The casual reader would probably assume that the axis is linear from day to day, which is not the case. After discovering that the chart is a transclusion, I plan to continue this discussion at Template talk:GameStop stock price graph. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, the rise in stock price spans multiple orders of magnitude. Could we maybe use a logarithmic chart instead? 19:33 , 29 January 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.86.119 (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Using a logarithmic scale would make it hard for most people to understand the chart. The huge variation is the whole point, and that would be less evident with a logarithmic scale. I suggest moving the further discussion of the chart to Template talk:GameStop stock price graph. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Expanded premise

This article should probably cover the entire phenomenon, not only its impact on short sellers. — Mainly 18:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

As in "impact of options trades on GameStop stock price" or "2021 GameStop stock price increase" or w/e. — Mainly 18:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

MainlyTwelve I agree, the title is just what I thought the current WP:COMMONNAME is. We can still cover the other impacts here. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, hadn't seen that, sounds good. — Mainly 20:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you reffering to short squeezes in general? There already exists an article for that. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, my apologies. I understand the premise of your suggestion now. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Ja Rule quote - not vandalism

Ja Rule’s original tweet and most sources quoting it put CRIME in all uppercase https://mobile.twitter.com/jarule/status/1354812123080138759 this was reverted as vandalism but I argue it is not Irish Birdcatcher (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization (see MOS:CAPS). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

But the capping of a single word is a clear indication of emphasis, and in my opinion, removing it makes the quote less accurate. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe it should be considered vandalism either. MMKevinc (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It's emphasis. --Loganmac (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

u/DeepFuckingValue

I believe that at some point it would be worthwhile to add in a bit more about how this started back with one Reddit user who goes by the name of u/DeepFuckingValue and has a YouTube account under the name Roaring Kitty. He invested $50K back in August 2019 (which currently is worth around $50 Million now, however that will of course change with the current volatility) and would regularly post on Reddit about this investment, providing monthly updates on the status of the investment since September. He also would do livestreams on YouTube explaining all of his reasons behind the investment and why he felt that it was worthwhile, providing the information to anyone who cared to look and he was the catalyst that alerted Redditors to the massive short-selling that was happening and how he felt that it provided a good investment opportunity. I'm not sure where this would best fit in the article currently and so it might need a bit of restructuring (and unfortunately I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor), however I feel that it helps to explain that this squeeze has actually been building for a long time even if it only really kicked into gear in January. The media has been a bit slower to pick up this side of things, however articles are starting to be written about him and his Reddit post history and YouTube livestreams are still available for everyone to see. https://www.wsj.com/articles/keith-gill-drove-the-gamestop-reddit-mania-he-talked-to-the-journal-11611931696 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/technology/roaring-kitty-reddit-gamestop-markets.html Chukulem (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

There was already some discussion of that user in the article when you made that comment. Are some aspects missing? — BarrelProof (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD, if you feel there's missing info, go ahead and add it if you have the proper reliable sources to back the statements, other editors will either expand or trim your content. As I can see, he's covered already in the article, I personally think the phenomenon has "outlasted" him but I don't really see any problem whatsoever in expanding it. Loganmac (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• United States District Court - Southern District New York - Class-action lawsuit against Robinhood.pdf

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision to lead section

Looking at the lead section, i think it needs some work as the second sentence could be interpreted in two ways. Currently it says: "The short squeeze increased the retailer's stock price by almost 190 times from its record low of $2.57 to nearly $500 per share on January 28, 2021, causing large losses for short sellers." While we know that the share price reached a record low last year, this might give casual readers the impression that the increase ocurred within one day on January 28 which is not true. Mainstream media started covering this short squeeze as r/wallstreetbets pushed the price up significantly this month, so it would be more appropiate to focus on the all-time high by omitting the share's record low. Hakken (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point, but I think I may have a better solution. Considering how we mention that this started in January 2021 in the first sentence, the fact that the stock has the possibility of going up higher, and since we have an accompanying graph, I'm going to remove the reference to the date from that sentence. Then the article would read something like this: "This event happened at this time. Here's what happened as a result." If anyone disagrees with this edit, leave a response here or just fix it (feel free to ping me too). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't the title be "2021 Gamestop Short Squeeze"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.208.110 (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There was previously a discussion about this. Please see the section Talk:GameStop short squeeze#Requested move 28 January 2021. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox event

GameStop short squeeze

Duration	2020-2021
Type	finance gambling
Target	Melvin Capital and other hedge funds.
Budget	$3.5 billion
Patron(s)	One o more professional investor hidden
Participants	200,000 gamers and not professional investors.

I like Infobox, please correct any information not accurate. Guys here Elon Musk is a director!! helps some hidden director!! Guys, I'm going to leave you all the fun on this article. I only know that there are between 200,000 and 500,000 participants in this event. If it goes on like this Musk opens a Gamestop store on Mars!! Now they have begun to speculate on dogecoin!! up 500%!! --Peter39c (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

I don't think an infobox is a good fit for this page. It can be accurate but not helpful, see WP:DISINFOBOX. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this, and this example here just proves the point of that essay to a T. A complex financial event is completely stripped of all nuance and framed as some kind of battle between gamblers, gamers and hedge funds? I don't get it. Who would be the general, Elon Musk? Also, this makes it look like some kind of GameStop promotional event. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Peter39c (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Guys on Elon Musk need to expand his article. It's amazing what he unleashes with his tweets!!

References

Insert Warren's letter to SEC into article

Should we add "01.29.2021 Letter from Senator Warren to Acting Chair Lee.pdf" as a file to the article?

https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/01.29.2021%20Letter%20from%20Senator%20Warren%20to%20Acting%20Chair%20Lee.pdf

It was mentioned on her twitter page https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/1355187260514250754?s=19 Phillip Samuel (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Has the letter been covered in WP:RS? Loganmac (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, see for example this source.

References

Consensus on See also section

The See also section changes literally every time I reload the page. With some variance being all negative topics (Pump and dump being included as to suggest this is such a scheme) or others being on the other side of the spectrum (including Occupy Wall Street for example, as to imply this is a revolt against the rich or something), these are borderline WP:OR. Per MOS:SEEALSO "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number" and "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body". Including short-selling, Reddit, and Short squeeze are obviously out of the question, they don't belong as they are explained in the article's body in relation to the topic in question, and are linked throughout. There are also links that are particularly only there inflating the section: Speculation would have to be present in every article about anything even remotely related to stocks and finances, and Economic bubble is also unrelated, we're not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, we don't know yet if it's a bubble or not. So far I've only seen a few links that have survived numerous iterations of the section by several authors, and appear to be relevant: Greater fool theory, Irrational exuberance, and Tulip mania. If others would like to suggest links, feel free to do so, and hopefully people can reach a consensus so that this section stops changing every hour with questionable articlesand original research. --Loganmac (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The "see also" section fundamentally is an editorial choice for related topics. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 10:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why any of those articles should be linked. This is a short squeeze, not a speculation bubble. Erik10293802023 (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Some links that should definitely NOT be in see also: Occupy Wall Street, because it is discussed in the article, and economic bubble, for the reasons Loganmac stated. Some are suggesting to add South Sea Company; because this company engaged in little actual trade and is primarily known for an economic bubble, included it may also be improperly assuming that this short squeeze will be a bubble.Irish Birdcatcher (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Jen Psaki clip

As White House press briefings should be in the public domain, I was wondering if it would be helpful to get and embed a video of Jen Psaki being asked and responding to the question about the short squeeze. Does anyone know how to go about doing this, or have any other comments? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Is the filming itself in the public domain? I don't know if the White House itself keeps records of that Loganmac (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, see for instance this video. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

If you can find it, add it my man Loganmac (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to do it myself, but here's the video if someone else would like to take a stab at it. The event occurs around minute 49. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

AllegedlyHuman, does this clip suit your needs ? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:01-27-21_Press_Briefing_by_Press_Secretary_Jen_Psaki,_John_Kerry,_and_Gina_McCarthy_re_Gamestop_short_squeeze.webm --JBchrch (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: that is perfect. I've added it to the article. Thanks a lot. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

140% of shares

As another general reader, I thought that Running up to the squeeze, approximately 140% of GameStop's shares had been sold short looked odd, and was going to ask for an explanation of where the 40% that didn't exist came from. However, looking at the ref, it says something different: 72 million shares - or 140% of GameStop's float - were shorted. Well, I don't understand that either, but maybe an editor can make it clearer. Davidships (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC).

Shorting involves borrowing shares for a small fee, selling them, then waiting for the stock price to drop, buying shares for the lower price, then returning them to the lender. There is no rule that limits how often this can be done, so what the 140% means is that shares were borrowed, sold, and then while the loan is still outstanding, those same shares were borrowed again (from the new owner), and sold again, repeated to the point that the amount of shares that are owed to those who loaned them is higher than the actual amount of shares in existence. Omegastar (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

More than 100% of available shares can also be shorted in the case of naked short selling, where shares are shorted without actually being borrowed, however I'm not certain if this scenario applies to the current GameStop situation, as I haven't come across any articles suggesting that this is occurring. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both. I almost get it. Presumably, in this case, the number of shares issued at flotation has not changed subsequently - so the two sentences do say the same thing. OK, going back to editing articles on old steamships. Davidships (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is a list of partial ShortVolumes reported by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority :
Date|Symbol|ShortVolume|ShortExemptVolume|TotalVolume|Market

20210121|GME|11420490|108322|35202394|B,Q,N
20210122|GME|33257918|686860|97123046|B,Q,N
20210125|GME|27342770|393941|72224899|B,Q,N
20210126|GME|27348512|514375|82653297|B,Q,N
20210127|GME|15692871|161898|28687984|B,Q,N
20210128|GME|9606123|455032|18899860|B,Q,N
20210129|GME|8814229|527920|16327706|B,Q,N
FINRA covers some, but not all market participants. The numbers may or may not be useful. TGCP (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Article is written in the past tense and should not be

This is an ongoing squeeze. There is no evidence that it is over. --70.81.247.152 (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It is ongoing, however anything that has been covered enough to have reliable sourcing for it must necessarily be in the recent past. So most of the article will be written as such and eventually whenever this event ceases, the final wordings will be put together. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 04:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It's often preferable to use past tense for articles that can change constantly WP:PRECISELANG Loganmac (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Article does not mention "naked" short-selling of GameStop stock

The greatest number of GME shares sold short was about 140% the actual number of shares available. Short-selling more shares than actually available is known as "naked" short-selling and is typically illegal. However, the article makes no mention of naked short-selling and how it likely contributed to the extent of the GameStop short squeeze. – DA1312 (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

DA1312, thank you for the comment. Please find a reliable source describing it as "naked short selling" and suggest the addition in a "change X to Y" format. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Per the article on the subject, I believe that is not an accurate description of what naked short selling is. I think that the statement that the practice is "typically illegal" is also incorrect. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It's possible to have more shares shorted than available by the totally legal means of chaining. E.g. Alice has all the shares of Gamestop. Bob borrows those shares from Alice and sells them to Carol. Dave borrows those shares from Carol and sells them to Eve. Fred borrows those shares from Eve and sells them to Greg. Now we have 300% of the available Gamestop shares shorted, and they can in theory be shorted an indefinite number of times more.

And it's possible to untangle this mess too if necessary: Bob buys shares from Greg and gives them back to Alice to cover the shares he borrowed. Dave buys those shares from Alice and gives them to Carol to cover the shares he borrowed. Fred buys those shares from Carol and gives them to Eve to cover the shares he borrowed. Now nobody's shorting Gamestop any more. Loki (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

"Naked short" is a common allegation. This expert says it doesn't really happen. TGCP (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Reddit analysis.

I found a analysis of the situation by a user on reddit and was wondering if it could be used and how ? https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l97ykd/the_real_reason_wall_street_is_terrified_of_the/

--Maxime12346 (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Maxime12346 and thank you for checking. Information added to Wikipedia has to come from a reliable source, such as a reliable newspaper or a book from a respected publishing house (WP:V, WP:RS). Social medias such as Reddit are considered "self-published" and, as a result, are not reliable sources (WP:SPS, WP:UGC). Therefore, this analysis cannot be added to this article. However, if it ever gets covered by a reliable source or — even better — a perennial source (WP:RSP), then it could be added. Hope this helps.--JBchrch (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)WP:RSP#Reddit

Silver

I understand the same thing has happened for Silver today. Do you want to start a new article or add on to this article? Blockhouse321 (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

See #Metal futures. What sources or content do you have that aren't currently included? — Bilorv (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

FAKE NEWS

Although the short sellers are currently being squeezed. This is WAY too early to comment on a short squeeze happening. SEC filing for failed on delivery shares won't be published until mid February! So how can you even say the short squeeze has happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:94A2:B800:E0B2:2FA7:9E91:C440 (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Because reliable sources have described this as a short squeeze, and because it resulted in hedge funds and related companies to lose billions and buy back the stock they had shorted at a loss, driving the price up (the definition of a squeeze). But, if you have a change you would like to make, propose it in a "change X to Y" format and add a relevant source verifying your claim. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If the hedge funds don't like it, they can make their own reddit. --1.152.105.90 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove the verified badge on the article

I just saw this template used on the Robinhood (company) page. It showed a verified badge on the page. This makes no sense in my opinion. Verified badges should not be in existence on the internet, let alone Wikipedia... All it does is make people cringe. Matthew Cenance (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I kinda like the tweets; I think they work nicely on this article. Whether you like the badge or not, that's a crusade to take to Twitter. For better or worse, readers expect Twitter's "verified" symbol to appear next to the name of public figures when presented with their tweets, and the whole reason is to increase confidence in official accounts. Because of that expectation, many readers rely on the symbol to help them determine the veracity and credibility of a tweet. Removing it would also take the display out of step with reader expectations on how tweets are stylized and presented. We can't embed tweets directly, but we want to create the illusion for our readers that we've embedded the tweets. As I said, readers expect it, so it's also a good idea to meet their aesthetic expectations (see Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Principle of least astonishment). Removing it not only makes the tweets appear less polished, they also remove a symbol many people expect from reliable tweets. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It's just some formatting design my man, copied from everywhere where tweets are "embedded", btw I don't get why Musk's tweet citation was deleted, giving it skyrocketd this whole thing and has been cited in a lot of RS. Loganmac (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Loganmac: Eh, the Musk tweet might be worth removing. It's one word that takes up a lot of space on the page. Doesn't bother me enough to do anything about it, but I also don't really miss it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The verified badge doesn't seem to meet MOS:APPROPRIATEICONS and should probably be removed. If such an icon is desirable, a discussion should be had at Template talk:Tweet to add a parameter to the template as this would apply to many instances of the template. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like MatthewCenance has already opened a discussion at Template talk:Tweet. Could the addition of the icon please be reverted pending a consensus on the matter? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't get why the tweets were deleted altogether, even the AOC one that was covered in a shitload of RS, and used to convey a bi-partisan sentiment towards the topic (as it was shared by Ted Cruz). This being a mostly online phenomena, showcasing social media events are noteworthy imo Loganmac (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Removed, as there's not consensus for similar types of icons, nor yet consensus for this particular one. — Bilorv (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Bilorv. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Covering short positions

'Short interest plummets from 150% to 40% of available GME stock' - Bloomberg today. Where in the article should this go, and when? – SJ + 01:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll add it on the "Impact on involved entities" section if that's OK Loganmac (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)