Talk:Wall Street

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Tleung13, Jennychen717.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

As a culture

I'm tagging this subsection for multiple issues because it is way too big to rewrite, and in my opinion it would be best to just remove it completely. Here's an example of where I think it clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX: Similarly to regular wage earners, Wall Street employees are just trying to earn a day's pay. Their work is sometimes undervalued, because the public does not see them in this manner. Thus, Wall Street cannot be understood in black and white terms. One needs to understand that they have a value system which is not only logical to them, but also reflective of North America's values... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snizzbut (talk • contribs) 22:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Snizzbut: I agree. I have removed the section entirely because there are too many issues with this section:
  • Paragraph 1: Various anthropologists have conducted research on Wall Street and it is their research which can confirm the negative views of Wall Street while providing the public with information that can contribute to a better understanding of how Wall Street workers perceive themselves. - I'm going to say this falls under WP:SYNTH. This has only three sources which is shown as representative of the culture in general
  • Paragraph 2: Professor Katarina Sjöberg argues in The Wall Street Culture that within the media negative images of Wall Street are painted in terms of the district's market falls, money losses and deceitful gains. ... - I don't know what this paragraph is trying to say, since it doesn't get to a point, but I'm guessing it's about how Wall Street investors are motivated by money. Which, in a sense, is not really relevant.
  • Paragraph 3: In Situating Global Capitalisms: A View from Wall Street Investment Bankers by Karen Ho, she interviews a banker who believes that working for Wall Street puts them at the top of the hierarchal ladder in society. The banker feels that everything goes through Wall Street, in terms of loans, investments, change or growth - this is just one banker, and should be addressed with an opposite viewpoint per WP:DUE. But rather than address opposing viewpoints, this opinion is reinforced - by Sjoberg's source in paragraph 2.
  • Paragraph 4 For example, throughout the 1940s and into the 1950s Manhattan was a "white-only" community. Within that time period, there was a lot of racial segregation. The values of America and the social practices were not like they are today, so African Americans were not within the Wall Street community. - This is now going off on a tangent here, and is also wrong to boot. Even though there were discrimination against blacks, Manhattan was not a "white-only" community during this period. And the quote you pointed out is also a glaring example of how this is a soapbox. What does "one need to understand" anyway? There needs to be a focus to this section.
• These are just four examples I picked off from the article. I think this should be added back in a much condensed form, but yes, this does read like an essay or thesis, more so than anything appropriate for an encyclopedia. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: thank you very much for your help I wasn't expecting a response so quickly! I really needed a second opinion as I'm pretty new to editing (and I've never read anything like it on Wikipedia before) Snizzbut (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Name

Waalstraat is the name of a street in Amsterdam. The street is named after the Dutch river called Waal. In dutch a wall is said "muur". So if the original name of wallstreet is "waalstraat" and not "Muurstraat", it cannot come from the word "wall". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:40F2:9B00:7C3A:C03C:6E49:6A82 (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional sections

I think this article on the Wallstreet should also be containing an additional sections for "Criticisms" where a general description of criticism is included along with counterarguments for the criticism. In addition I think there should also be a subsection revolving around the "Wallstreet during economic depressions" with greater focus on the 1929 depression, 2009 depression as well as (1) how the Wallstreet may have caused it (2)how the Wallstreet was affected by them (4) how the Wallstreet introduced policies to ease the economic turbulence (3) the aftermath and the changes Wallstreet made

LostCitrationHunter (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Exact Dating in the 'As a financial symbol'

Neither the 3rd and 4th paragraphs within 'As a financial symbol' specify when the events said occur, is there a reason for this or should it be editied?

Short description

I do not think we should be appending "City" to the short description, as has been done here. When I shortened the SD yesterday, Trorov reverted my edit, saying "Manhattan is subordinate to New York City, not New York State."

That is not true. Manhattan is part of New York state, so the previous short description ("Street in Manhattan, New York") is still technically correct even if we only consider "New York" to refer to the state. There is no other Manhattan in New York state that we would need to distinguish from. However, in this context "New York" may also be used to refer to the city. Though this may cause ambiguity if this were a street in (for example) Buffalo, there should be absolutely no doubt that "Manhattan, New York" refers to Manhattan, the only locality by that name across the entire state, which is in NYC. Changing the short description to "Street in Manhattan, New York City" adds five characters but does not clarify anything; it would also be inconsistent with other articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Trorov, you still haven't commented here yet despite reverting me again. I'll link an essay on my user space that explains my reasoning - I wrote that essay relatively recently, but it expresses something that I have been thinking about for quite a while.

• Regarding Yes, New York can refer to either – hence the need to distinguish. The number of letters in the city's name is irrelevant. If Manhattan were a part of White Sulphur Springs, WV the name would take 19 characters vs. the 11 in New York City. Essentially, I don't think anyone is going to see "Manhattan, New York" and not think "New York City"; Manhattan is in both the state and city, so there is no need to clarify that it's "New York City" specifically and not "New York" state. By contrast, the "New York" in "Buffalo, New York" may be lexically ambiguous, but few are going to think that Buffalo is in New York City.
• In regard to the length issue, WP:SD40 says that the short description should be limited to only 40 characters, so the length of the city's name actually is relevant - longer city names get cut off when you try to search for an article in Vector 2022 or on a mobile device.
• Regarding A child is subordinate to her grandfather, but he isn't her parent (an unorthodox comparison as we're talking about a street, not a person), there is also no requirement that the short description be strictly hierarchical. For example, "Building in Toronto, Canada" would be an accurate short description for a building in Toronto, although Toronto is not a direct sub-locality of Canada (it is part of the province of Ontario, which is part of the country of Canada). By this reasoning, I do not think that "Manhattan, New York" is inaccurate either; Manhattan is a borough of New York City, but it is also coextensive with a county of New York, so it is correct. We could say "New York City, U.S.", and it would also be correct, though I do not prefer that alternative for the reasons I've linked above.

Hence, I think the short description should be changed back to "Manhattan, New York". If any of this seems overly verbose or unclear, feel free to tell me. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a short description. Just use "Street in New York". That's how the majority of the world thinks of it. Station1 (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

My concern, and the concern that Trorov seems to share, is that "New York" can be ambiguous with regard to whether it's the state or the city.

As a compromise, I will change the SD to "Street in New York City". This is detailed enough that everyone knows Wall Street is in NYC, but it also excludes the borough to avoid going into granular detail. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

In some contexts "New York" can be ambiguous, but there's no danger of that for "street in New York". One wouldn't say "street in Texas", for example. But it's really not important; "street in New York City" is also fine. Station1 (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)