Talk:Wall Street/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Link

What's with the [1] link? I don't care where the firms are headquartered. What do you want, a list of financial firm addresses?--Jerryseinfeld 22:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks like a well-intentioned but inappropriate citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:28, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
Do you see the link? Why is there a link to an MSN search for "manhattan real estate report"?--Jerryseinfeld 22:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As I said, "well-intentioned but inappropriate" -- Jmabel | Talk 22:52, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
But what am I supposed to find there? The first result is "New York City (NYC), Hamptons, Palm Beach Real Estate", is that it? What does that mean?--Jerryseinfeld 22:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What more can I say? Yes, we should kill the inappropriate citation. Probably when he ran the search god-knows-when it had something relevant at the top, and unfortunately he pasted the URL of the search, not the relevant page. Kill it. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:46, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
An important factor is probably that the NYSE is located on 11 Wall Street.--Jerryseinfeld 22:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Clearly. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:52, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

-Rivals- Removed the section on smaller international rivals as they were mostly places in 3rd world countries that are mostly unknow and nobody would mention them in the same breath as wall street. (RIP)

Address

What's their address? ([2]) ([3])


Proposed move

Copied from WP:RM:

Wall Street (Manhattan) → Wall Street - 99% people accessing this article are looking for Wall Street in New York. The parenthesis unneeded. EdwinHJ | Talk 23:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Rationale: The parenthesis are unneeded and clutter the title of the article. It should be under simply Wall Street with a link to the disambiguation page as now. EdwinHJ | Talk

Support/Oppose

Comments

NPOV notice

I inserted an NPOV notice. A great deal of the writing here is left-wing personal opinions that should be replaced with facts. - Ted Wilkes 15:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please cite specific concerns. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Truly. NPOV means nothing without an indication of what is disputed. Either state your issues, or anyone should feel free to remove the notice. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Ted, are you saying this POV problem exists after your own extensive edits? Because you've left the tag on. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Not having received a reply, I am removing the tag. Please feel free to restore if you believe there is still a problem, but please explain here if you do. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The War on Prose

The following paragraph was recently cut from the article:

In the morning, restaurants, bodegas, and delis serve coffee and an American-style breakfast as crowds stream by commuter rail or by train. Newspaper stands and convenience stands, as well as workers on foot, hock newspapers to the morning crowd. In the busy lunch hour, professionals, blue-color workers (often employed repairing streets or maintaining the aging buildings), middle class service sector workers, and those filling positions in the many layers of government that have a presence in downtown Manhattan rub shoulders at bodegas, cafes, delis, and restaurants that often emphasize a quick meal. Nonetheless, the area is largely on bankers' hours. Many of the stores are closed by six o'clock in the evening, leaving a few bars and classier restaurants open until later in the evening.

Jmabel | Talk 21:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed this passage not because I dislike prose, but because this passage doesn't contain anything which is directly connected with Wall St. It could describe a scene to be found daily in half of Manhattan, and indeed any major US city and or even non-US major cities. It is not especially well written either ("blue-color workers"? "restaruants, bodegas and delis" and then "bodegas, cafes, delis and restaurants" a couple of lines later) and not particularly accurate ("the area is largely run on banker's hours. Many of the stores are closed by six o'clock in the evening." investment banking hours typically run roughly from 9am until 9pm. Perhaps the writer meant "stock market trader's hours"?). I appreciate the thought of someone who wanting to add atmospheric prose, but such writing should at least relate specifically to the subject at hand and also be accurate. Bwithh 23:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

People not from New York will tend to agree with Joe Mabel, just as New Yorkers might think that Pike Street is just a fishmonger. To understand the special place Wall Street has in New York, you have to experience it. The point is that the place bustles in the day and they take in the sidewalks at 6:00 sharp. You have diminished the value of this entry, and all to prove a point: you're ignorant about New York.Cybersharque (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If the cut paragraph doesn't convey anything special to the reader who is not from New York, then what is the point of it? The article should be written to convey its points to a general readership. I've experienced New York plenty of times and there isn't much in the above that is special to the financial district. It is a bit striking how quickly it becomes a ghost town, but that can easily be conveyed without such lengthy and redundant prose. Incidentally, "Pike Street" isn't anything. You mean Pike Place Market. I'm not sure what the point of your comparison is. As someone from the Seattle area that moved to New York, I can tell you that anyone that has heard of it is quite familiar with its stature as a tourist landmark without having "experienced it". --C S (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Origin of name of Wall Street

From the Wall Street article:

The name of the street derives from the fact that during the 17th century, it formed the northern boundary of the New Amsterdam settlement where the Dutch had constructed a crude wall of timber and earthwork in 1652. The wall was ostensibly meant as a defense against attack from Lenape Indians, New England colonists, and the British, but it was never tested in battle. The wall was dismantled by the British in 1699.

From the Dutch Republic article:

While the banking system evolved in the Low Countries, it was quickly incorporated to the well-connected English, stimulating the English economic output. The legacy of this new banking system can still be heard through a well-respected name in the financial world of today; it is a name that is based on these original financial traders: the Walloons made the voyage to New Amsterdam too, and their name is connected to the street where they started their trading: Wall Street — today's largest stock market in the world. The Dutch word for Walloon is Waal (Wall).

Anybody know which is correct? -EDM 01:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The former. I'll take a photo of the plaque at Wall & Broadway when I get a chance. The stock market was started under a tree on the street in the late 1700s. The city wall was from far earlier, see Image:Castelloplan.jpg, which depicts the 1660s. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that accords with my own vague memories which of course are not acceptable sources here. I'll change the Dutch Republic article misinformation. -EDM 20:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
plaque on 1 Wall Street at corner of Wall & Broadway

Plaque reads:

Landmarks of New York
Site of the Wall of New Amsterdam
In 1653 the City of New Amsterdam erected a wall along the nothern edge of town to protect the inhabitants from attack. This wall, five to six feet high, was contstructed of heavy planks laid horizontally and ran from the Hudson River to the East River on the line of present-day Wall Street. Frequently in need of repair, the wall had been abandoned by 1699.
Plaque erected 1963 by The New York Community Trust

I might get a chance to upload a photo later. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur with ChrisRuvolo's explanation, that Wall Street was named for the "wall" structure that once delineated the north boundary of the settlement. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)+
SO IF EVERONE AGREES THAT 'THE WALL' IS WHAT THE STREET WAS NAMED AFTER,WHY DOES IT HAVE THE STUFF ABOUT THE WALOOONES THEN?

ISNT THIS A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE TALK PAGE AND THE ARTICLE?,THE HISTORY CHANNEL HAD A STORY ABOUT PIGS ON MODERN MARVELS AND IT SAID THE STREET WAS INDEED NAMED AFTER THE WALL,HOWEVER IT ALSO SAID THE WALL WAS TO KEEP WILD BOARS FROM GETTING IN PEOPLES GARDEN AND TRASH AND STUFF,WHICH SEEMS MORE LIKELY THAN A 5' OR 6' FENCE KEEPING SOMEONE FROM ATTACKING THE CITY,THE INDIANS WERE TALLER THAN THE FENCE BUT WONT CLIMB OVER IT?DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT TO YOU?....ME NEITHER

Photo added. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've boldy just changed this all. The Dutch built it and probably just called it what it was, as they tended to do: Broad Way, North River, Flat Land, Oyster Bay. (The Dutch word for wall is muur, by the way). The English just added the letter to conform to their language.

- I added a comment further below. In short: the Dutch word for a mud barrier or barrier created by dirt is called a 'wal.' A wall is indeed called a 'muur' (from the French word 'mur'). The word on all the maps is not wal, but waal. Let there be no mistake if you don't speak Dutch, this is a change similar from fit to feet, hand to hound, etcetera. There were many Walloons in and around New Amsterdam. With the modern stock market finding its oldest example in the world in the Netherlands, there is a logical connection between having the NYSE be what it is today, and not finding it in Boston or Philadelphia.

The strongest evidence I have is that even the first English maps of New York still talk about Waal street and not Wal street. Hand street or Hound street, the difference for a Dutch person is quite noticeable.FredrickS (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a more credible source than W. J. Sidis (The Tribes and the States, 1935) is Russell Shorto, The Island at the Center of the World, 2004 p. 260 "It is worth noting that the wall along Wall Street was built not to keep Indians out, as folkore has it, but to keep the English out." Since it is generally accepted that the name derives from the wal(l) there is no need for the elaborate Walloon explanation. FolkertMuller (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

WASP references

What is the point of the references to the WASP Establishment and White Anglo-Saxon businessmen? Many significant Wall Street firms (e.g. Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Salomon Brothers, Bear Stearns, etc) were predominantly Jewish until the 1990s. I guess characterizing Wall Street as a bastion of WASP establishment is the highest honor you could bestow upon the Jewish partners of the past at these institutions: complete assimilation, a notion of having made it.

I would take out the references to WASPs, or add some balancing information about Jewish firms. If you wanted to keep the reference, you could for example talk about the distinctions in the past between very WASP-y firms (Kidder Peabody, Morgan Stanley) and very Jewish ones (Salomon Brothers, Lehman Brothers).

Carl NYC 19:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your point, but don't know enough about the ethnic history of Wall St banks to edit the section (perhaps you could?). Actually, I think the whole Perceptions section is of dubious value. It's overwritten (unsuitable style for an encyclopedia - same writer as the one who wrote a inaccurate/vague passage I took out before? (see "the War on Prose" above)) and is too dependent on presenting stereotypes without references. Bwithh 01:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the WASP references -- sounds like weasel words. Frankly, I've been working in the investment business for 10 years and never heard anyone say Wall Street is a WASP dominated place, because it just isn't. I agree that some firms were founded by Jewish families, but would anyone feel comfortable writing a list of investment banks and the ethnicity of their founders? I don't know how you'd write that and not have it coming off as racially charged. We might agree that Wall Street has been dominated by white men for generations, but that doesn't separate it from any area of business in the U.S., so I don't see the point of having such a statement in this article. I think the whole "perceptions" section should be deleted as well as other ethnical references.

69.250.194.108 20:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Tom G.

An interesting historical point is that the oldest stock market in the world functioning according to modern principles is found in the Netherlands. This nation was at one point part of the Western part of the Habsburg Empire in which Spain and the Low Countries were the main possessions. When in 1492 the jews were expelled from Spain and Portugal, the Low Countries were the logical place for them. In Belgium and later the Netherlands, the (richer) Jews were welcomed with open hand, also because they were now also against Spain. During the war of independence, the Dutch fought off the Spanish. With Jewish immigrant having money, they influenced the outcome of what was not particularly a very rich nation at that time. The Jews even influenced the pronunciation of the Dutch words, making them singular in tone and open, so the distinction between an a and an aa was quite easily audable.

I believe the English, having taken over Dutch possessions, tried to diminish the role of the Dutch wherever they could (they did the same with Rhode island, which is a Dutch name, but everyone is still following the English version of history). To understand the anger between both sides, the English named the Belgium city of Newport in New England, to show off they had beaten the Dutch at Nieuwpoort in 1600. In short, I am quite certain the roots for Wall Street are Dutch/Jewish, and that this was later covered by the official declarations about Wall Street.FredrickS (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Suburbs

What's the basis for saying that most people who work in the Financial District commute from suburbs, not from elsewhere in the city? - Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am concern about you guys. How is possible nobody talk about the wall. Nobody realize that the Wall divides rich and poors, whites in one side, blacks in the other. I understand that americans barely know anything about history. Go and read please. Nobody talk much about the sale business. The same system of prejudice is working today. Same slavers, different slaves. Same as the Berlin wall, Wall street should go down. Grab your hammers. That day is closer than you think. One day we will wake up and realize this big joke of the liberalism that incredibly still flows from wall street. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.112.189 (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The Crash

Shouldn't this page make at least some mention of the Wall St Crash? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.87.101 (talk • contribs) 28 August 2006.

Which one? There've been quite a few U.S. financial crashes, probably most notably 1893 and 1929. But I think not. There's really nothing here about economic cycles, etc. It's an article about a particular place, not about economics and the culture of stock exchanges. - Jmabel | Talk 02:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Investment Banks Headquartered Downtown

The beginning of the article suggests that Deutsche Bank is the only I-Bank headquartered in the financial district. The last time I checked, Goldman Sachs is still there, though plans for a move to one of the building's around the World Trade Center site is in the works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.48.162.159 (talk • contribs) 8 October 2006.

Goldman Sachs is at 85 Broad Street. The intro paragraph says "elsewhere in lower or midtown Manhattan" in comparison to being _on_ wall street, not in the financial district. Is it unclear? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Further Reference

There is a very good set of articles labelled the ABC of Wallstreet from 1939. It is located at the following url: http://www.oldandsold.com/articles09/wallstreet-1.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smithville (talk • contribs) 18 November 2006.

At a quick skim, rather boosterish and really rather more on the topic of stock market than Wall Street ("Wall Street" is used there as a metonym). Anything in particular you think we should draw from it? - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Walloons?

While taking an Ubran Studies GIS course, a Dutch classmate pointed me to a map of Manhattan from the Dutch days, and showed me that "Waal" street was written in such a way to indicate that it was the street where all the Walloons lived. The placement of the picket was coincidental, apparently, and the street was originally just named this because it was full of Belgians.

Needs citation, clearly, but I was surprised to not see it mentioned here.

See the discussion under the heading 'Origin of name of Wall Street' above. -- Donald Albury 03:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it may have been named for the Wallons, I will look for a proper citation. Bennyj600 (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Another major Wall Street institution

The Bank of New York has been headquartered at One Wall Street ever since buying the former Irving Trust and its prestigious location has been cited as one of the motivations for the merger. Is this meritorious of a mention along with Deutsche Bank? 68.53.110.123 22:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that we can reference, then sure. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove

Finally, the New York Stock Exchange itself remains the last great holdout where trading is done entirely on the floor rather than electronically. There is, ironically, no longer really any need for Wall Street the institution to be located on Wall Street the street, except perhaps for prestige. Stocks could easily be traded almost anywhere.
NYSE has established a hybrid market so that stocks on NYSE are no longer purely floor traded. Also, there *is* a need for financial institutions to be physically close to each other as this helps face-to-face trading and technical support.

Roadrunner 03:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


I apologize, but I fail to see the relevance of your candor to this article. Please save personal opinions for a forum dedicated to the subject. Thanks! (MaytrixInk)

Basic info?

What are the times that WALL STREE is actually open, I know its till 4, but when does it open... stupid question i know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.234.73 (talk • contribs)

I think you mean the trading hours of the NYSE. That article says: "Since September 30, 1985 the NYSE trading hours have been 9:30–16:00 ET." Hope this helps. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Opening Photo

Is anyone else bothered that the opening photo to this article is not of Wall Street, but of Broad Street? Yes, that's the well-known facade of the NYSE, however this isn't an article on the NYSE, but on Wall Street. 208.120.84.99 01:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

New Walloons changes

Recent changes by FredrickS (talk · contribs) have added back in the Walloons as the source of the name of Wall Street. This contradicts the previous discussion above. As far as I can tell, I don't see any references that indicate that the street was named for the Walloons, only one that indicates that Walloons were present in early New Amsterdam (a fact that is not disputed). I propose reverting these changes. Comments please. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


YEP ME TOO DUDE,CHANGE IT BACK,CHECK MY COMMENT ABOVE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.49.98 (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on getting some sources that describe the confusion. Hopefully will update this soon. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wallen translated from Dutch is rampart, this word is often shortened to Walle which in the right context describes a wall around a town or city. My bet is that Wall street is an English shortening of the Dutch Walle or Wallen. 92.2.27.112 (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am Dutch, and the word wallen is as you describe, but the maps (even the later English ones) do not use that word. The word is Waalstraat, with all four letters of w-a-a-l taken up in the english maps (when that name was not yet changed to wall). If you think you can just change the vowel and the word remains the same, then you can change as easily 'feet' into 'fit,' 'hand' into 'hound,' 'beg' into 'bog' or 'knee' into 'no.'

The noun 'Waal' can only mean two things in Dutch: the river Waal (the main branch of the Rhine when it enters the Netherlands) or an inhabitant of the French-speaking part of Belgium. I am quite certain that the fact that the English built a wall there was the cause of this confusion, and stubborness is in the way of listening to the Dutch themselves about what the name stood for.

The choice for Walloons is a pretty good choice since so many Walloons were among the first to live in and around New Amsterdam. I would understand the name Waal as indicating the river as well, with the Hudson nearby. From my visit to New York, I remember the river was rather similar looking to the Waal. However, I have not seen the name Waal used for the Hudson river, a name given for the Englishman who discovered this location on the East coast while in Dutch service.FredrickS (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Barricades

I was under the impression that a substantial portion of Wall Street was blocked off from vehicle traffic with semi-permanent barricades, due to the perceived risk of car bombings. This article doesn't mention that, so I'm wondering if I'm misremembering it somehow. <eleland/talkedits> 07:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. It is closed to vehicular traffic from Broadway to William Street. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Times square a question for it: What was the first permanent home of the New york exchange? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.95.248 (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Captain William Kidd

I just happened to stumble across this article well doing a school assignment and my idea is probably dumb but it could be mentioned that the famous convicted pirate/privateer Captain William Kidd lived at 56 Wall Street at the very end of the 17th century (1690's) Duder999 (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for this? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure the format to put it in but it is a book and here is the information. The book is a non-fiction book and has alot of references but no in text paranthetical documentation so I'm not sure where the author got this exact information.

Title: The Pirate Hunter // Author: Richard Zacks // Publishing Year: 2002 // Publishing Company: Hyperion // Publishing City: 77 W. 66th Street, New York, New York 10023 // Edition: First Trade Paperback Edition // ISBN: 0-7868-8451-7 // Page:Prologue page 4 Duder999 (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

American flags on pic

The plastering of American flags over the main picture seems very patriotic and nationalistic. I have no problem with patriotism, but would it not be more neutral to have a picture without the flags and would also show more architectural details which is what the point of the picture seems to be due to the tag line? This is in the end a global encyclopedia and not just an American one. Danno81 (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was down there in 2002, and the flags were there; and I went back in 2008, and the flags were still there, so I think you may have to accept them as part of the picture, at least in the present era. It is just how the NYSE has chosen to adorn its building; indeed it would be less encyclopedic to include a picture without the flags, if you could find one, because that's not how the building has looked in the recent past. Fletcher (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, ok. I was assuming this was a picture of a specific event or on a national holiday/celebration, etc. If this is how the building generally looks then I suppose it's an accurate and up to date representation. Fair enough. Danno81 (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It's possible they were put up in the patriotic fervor after 9/11, but I can't be sure. Fletcher (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Introduction/Opener

I read the first paragraph over a few times, and I'm uncertain about the way it's phrased. The first line reads:

"There are 383 different Wall Streets known in the world, but the historical one is in lower Manhattan, New York City, New York, United States."

Aside from reference issues, I feel that this needs to be re-worded. Saying 'the historical one' seems very informal and casual. Also, I feel that mentioning that there are 383 Wall Streets 'known' in the world is unnecessary and altogether too trivial. The article should be either straight proven fact or arranged so that what is being said in the early parts of the article can attract the reader without rhetoric or unverified claims. I'm not saying that the fact listed is necessarily untrue, but even so, it's not a necessary point at all. It is a good attempt at an introduction, but it feels very awkward.

Any witnesses? I just felt that it was a weird way to bring the article into focus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trossman (talk • contribs) 05:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment

After reading through this article, I am delisting it as a GA for the following reasons:

  • The following sections are completely unsourced: Decline and revitalization, buildings, personalities, transportation

There's enough that need citing that I feel that it is too great to put it on hold for a week. When this is up to modern GA standards, it can be renominated at GAN. Wizardman 22:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove Argument

This:

However, due to the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent federal bailouts, Americans are enraged at Wall Street.

From the Wall St. v. Main Street comes not one with no supporting data, but is a virtually impossible-to-prove generality. I'd like to remove it, if there is a consensus to support the notion. I will remove after 0000TAC on 14 Nov 2009. Sahrin (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

C est hassan mohamed sidi baba qui a ecrit avant hiere ,concernant son ancien ordinateur amiga 1000 de commodore de Rabat

Apres avoir ecrit avant hiere dans un site de wall street en faisant une recherche sur mon ancien ordinateur subtilise ;j etait arrive sur votre site.Je rappel que ce que j ai ecrit est de la premiere importance.J ai deja ecrit aux bourses du monde, un mot au services de justice europeens (concernant clearstream banque), a la ligue arabe et en passant a vous.Concernant donc cette pondeuse d aglo illegale dans mon domicile louee a la societee BULL societee secrete ici. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.244.151 (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

... suite de hassan sidi baba de rabat

... cette pondeuse d aglo qui a construit le monde depuit 1986 est plaint a l U.E doit etre dementelee :La loi est irrevocable est si rien n est fait nous craignons le pire pour toute l humanitee et le millenaire. Hassan sidi baba 

                           ----------------
IL faut sauver le monde !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.244.151 (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

JE RAPPEL UNE DERNIERE CHOSE "NO MEDIA" NE PAS MEDIATISER ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.244.151 (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ferry Picture Replacement

I'm a bit partial because this is my picture, but what is the opinion of others about replacing the current picture with this one?
NYCRuss ☎ 16:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Pier 11

Article Clean-up

This article needs to be cleaned up and partly re-written.

I cannot understand what the author means in the History section. And it goes beyond simple comprehension. There are major grammatical mistakes, and not just technical ones like "who-whom," but mistakes so severe that they seriously impair the legibility of the piece.

If the author sees this, please repair your article!

Dr. P. Su-Don Euym (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is know not to have "authors" and "your article" (see: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles). I've removed a piece of text on the name which was a bad robot translation from the Dutch site. I assume your comments refer to that part of the article. Next time you come across something like this, I suggest simply to remove it (better no info, than unreadable and unsourced info). Joost 99 (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revamp

The Wikiproject United States has selected this article for additional work since it's seen as important with high traffic and in need of attention. Accordingly, I have been working on a proposed revamp of the article here in a sandbox. Please have a look and give your reactions if interested. It's an expansion mostly, keeping the original material, although I edited the lede somewhat, and kept practically everything except for a sentence or two, and then did copyedits and reorganizations of the rest. It probably needs more pictures. If you would like to edit it in the sandbox please be my guest. I'm not so sure about how to organize it in terms of sections.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, awesome job. I didn't read through the whole thing but from what I can see and read through its a massive improvement and is probably at last GA if not A class material IMO. I agree it could stand to use a couple more pictures but the sections look fine too me. --Kumioko (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Kumioko its better but still needs more work if people get interested in it. I'd like to get a picture of Wall Street at night, before the neighborhoods came, looking deserted. Also perhaps a tickertape parade picture? Ferryboats? I'm think I didn't include the suicides following the 1929 crash -- many accounts (unfortunately) of guys jumping out skyscraper windows but I don't know if people want that. And I think Edison did his first light experiment around there (or was that the City Hall area?).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
A nice read (for what I've read). I do find it tricky though, because it now mixes all the different uses of the term Wall street into one article. This makes that the focus keeps changing from the street itself to the financial markets to the area and so on. Maybe a separate article for Wall Street as a financial centre could make things more clear, without losing any of the good work. A more elaborate Wall Street (disambiguation) could also help the cause, I think. Joost 99 (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanx. I like your thinking about this. When people say the phrase Wall Street there are multiple meanings as we know -- the street itself, the section of the city, the financial capital of NY & the US, corporate America, and such.What's tough is saying what the most common sense is; based on the newspaper stuff, I'd say Wall Street is most often meant like the financial aspect of America in the most common parlance, but this is open to interpretation. How about the main Wall Street article talks about all of the different senses, and then splits off to go into more detail about specific uses -- like a separate article about Wall Street -- the street? or, Wall Street -- the neighborhood -- etc. Wondering what u think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I swapped in the proposed revamp temporarily. What's hard to see, if one compares the versions, is how the original material is still pretty much there -- it just doesn't line up well, that's all. Unless nobody objects, I propose swapping in the revamp in a day or so, and we can always keep working on this but I'm getting interested in other projects.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I just thought I would mention that there are already separate articles for Wall street and the Financial center. --Kumioko (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes there's Financial District, Manhattan. It gets a few hundred readers each day and is rather short. My sense is to use the revamped Wall Street article which has all the different senses (street, district, neighborhood, metonym) since they're all kind of bound up with one another historically. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
And perhaps if the WS article gets too big, we can move some of it to supporting articles, but right now the article size shouldn't be a problem.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I read through the Financial District, Manhattan article and the section of yours that describes it and I can't see anything substantial missing. --Kumioko (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems good. People can work from here if they want more distinction or to move sections to the Financial District, Manhattan or Wall Street Historic District (New York, New York) (maybe cut some text and link to articles on the List of stock market crashes when aappropriate). Joost 99 (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Review

(copied from the Wiki US project page by Kumioko; posting here for others for guidance)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC) I hope its ok to post this here but if not feel free to move it to the articles talk page. I was looking through the Wall street article and it is a massive improvement over the pre Collaboration version. I fixed a few things already but here are a few things that could use some improvement in the article. I am going to work on some of these as well. I think that we are pretty close to getting this to GA quality and wether it actually makes it to collaboration article of the month I think we should try and work on it too as we find the time of course.

  • I think we should notify the other WikiProjects that might be interested in helping with this. New york, New York City, Economics, etc
  • Inline citations shouldn't be in the lede
  • lede needs to be expanded a little. Its a bit short
  • Needs a little prose and grammer work. There are some choppy sentances, run-on sentances and things of that nature.
  • I think there are too many images on the right and I think it would look better if we shift them around a little more
  • There are still a couple places that need a reference such as the section titled Wall Street versus Main Street, some of the items in the Wall Street in popular culture section and the Transportation section
  • Some of the references need to be cleaned up a bit such as 3 and 15
  • I don't think we need to caps all the author names
 Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the quotes in the inline citations. Are these needed?
 Done. Agreed. Not needed any more; removed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the dates in the inline citations should follow a standard format. We are using 3 or 4 different formats. If the format changes it should be because we are following the display of the article or paper but generally I would say use month day, year.
  • We use a lot of Newspaper articles like USA today, New york times and Wall Street journal in the article and it might be good to see if there is a book or 2 as well to subsidize some of these newspapers. Some could argue that the New York times and Wall street journal are not objective enough to offer unbiased opinions. --Kumioko (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Competitors to Wall Street

Seems to me, the whole section is in the wrong article, being about far away places. Such a discussion of similar places around the world belongs in another article such as Financial district, with appropriate links from here. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. My thinking about including this section here when I did the revamp a few months back was that other cities (competitors) have a substantial impact on Wall Street since they can take away business from it; what happens in Singapore and London, for example, impacts Wall Street as a financial center. And this has been happening. Further, this relation has been changing; while most of the 20th century, Wall Street was a preeminent "capital of capital", in the last few decades, its stature has diminished, and substantial financial business has shifted to overseas capitals. That is, trying to explain the basics of Wall Street to someone who wants to know all about it, then we'd probably want to tell them not only what it is and where it's located, but tell them about outside forces which directly impact its success and will have a strong role in its future. For example, if we talk about a tiger, it makes sense to talk about other species which impact it -- animals it eats, and animals that eat it -- it's a competitor in an ecosystem, and it doesn't make sense to talk about tigers as if they're not part of the ecosystem. Or, in articles about a business such as IBM or Chegg, I feel obligated to write about competitors, since it helps someone wanting to learn about either of these businesses to become acquainted with its chief competitors. But, if you feel this section should be trimmed, well maybe there's a case for that I suppose, but I don't think it should be eliminated. Of course adding material from the "competitors" section to the article Financial district makes perfect sense and I encourage you to do this if you feel so inclined.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street (4 votes, stays until March 14) for May 2011

Nominated 08:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC); needs 2 more votes by March 14 (minimum 3 votes per month)

Support:

  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  2. Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  3. Kumioko (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC). I'm gonna go with this one too.
  4. (Iuio (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC))

Comments:

  • I believe Wall Street should become the new USCOTM - it is an iconic geographical and economic place. Just a feeler to see waht folks think. It might be modest and circumscribed enough to get to GA without too much work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment: I have been working on a revamp of Wall Street here in a sandbox; it's an expansion, needs more pictures, perhaps better organization and viewpoints from others, if interested. Please feel free to edit it in the sandbox if you wish.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Review:

I hope its ok to post this here but if not feel free to move it to the articles talk page. I was looking through the Wall street article and it is a massive improvement over the pre Collaboration version. I fixed a few things already but here are a few things that could use some improvement in the article. I am going to work on some of these as well. I think that we are pretty close to getting this to GA quality and wether it actually makes it to collaboration article of the month I think we should try and work on it too as we find the time of course.
  • I think we should notify the other WikiProjects that might be interested in helping with this. New york, New York City, Economics, etc
  • Inline citations shouldn't be in the lede
  • lede needs to be expanded a little. Its a bit short
  • Needs a little prose and grammer work. There are some choppy sentances, run-on sentances and things of that nature.
  • I think there are too many images on the right and I think it would look better if we shift them around a little more
  • There are still a couple places that need a reference such as the section titled Wall Street versus Main Street, some of the items in the Wall Street in popular culture section and the Transportation section
  • Some of the references need to be cleaned up a bit such as 3 and 15
  • I don't think we need to caps all the author names
  • I'm not sure about the quotes in the inline citations. Are these needed?
  • I think the dates in the inline citations should follow a standard format. We are using 3 or 4 different formats. If the format changes it should be because we are following the display of the article or paper but generally I would say use month day, year.
  • We use a lot of Newspaper articles like USA today, New york times and Wall Street journal in the article and it might be good to see if there is a book or 2 as well to subsidize some of these newspapers. Some could argue that the New York times and Wall street journal are not objective enough to offer unbiased opinions. --Kumioko (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: Tomwsulcer has greatly expanded and improved this article since it was submitted to this Collaboration and I think if it is selected we should include that time and those edits as part of the improvement counted. ----

Personalities

Drat; I hate it when smart people disagree politely with me and force me to attempt a constructive reply. Much more fun to get into a futile mudslinging contest with idiots. Alas, the most productive recent contributor to this article has expressed thoughtful disagreement (in my talk page) with my recent move of material about the influence of Wasserstein Perella & Co. people, from this article to that one. A full hashing out of differences would take much time during months when wikiphotographic opportunities beckon, so I intend to write a little essay here outlining my doubts about the size, emphasis and tenor of the article. People who devote more of their time to such things are invited to accept, reject, modify or ignore my suggestions, according to their lights, when considering the proper course of development.

The article is too big, because it's too broad. Something like a third of it is a history of the American securites industry. Would it be proper to have a history of the automobile industry taking up one third of Detroit? Of course not; instead there is a broad automobile history article and various detail articles. That's what should be done here, though of course on a smaller scale since Wall Street and its main industry are much smaller than Detroit's. Like a city article, a street article should be focused on its literal topic. It should be principally a geography article. As suggested in WP:SUMMARY, associated matters should be summarized here and the details and associated matters moved to well linked separate articles.

Hmm; I thought I had broader things to say, but they seem to have evaporated from my mind, so let's consider narrower ones. My recent use of a smartphone to access Wikipedia on the road to find photographic targets has renewed my interest in WP:SIZE, at least for geographical articles. Tiny computers with tiny screens, or tablet computers with not quite so tiny screens, are becoming commonplace. They are seldom used to edit articles, but often to read them, and they are better accommodated by shorter articles.

In recent months I have whittled away small bits about distant places (competitors) that better belong in articles about those places. Perhaps that section should be cut down to a list, and most the meat moved to a worldwide article about financial districts in general. Even this small change might require a fair amount of thought over a period of weeks or months, but alas I must ration my limited resources of thoughtfulness. And surely other sections and subsections also belong elsewhere.

Upon reconsideration of my recent move of Wasserella material, I agree that the remnant I left behind provides too slight a connection to the broader topic of the influence of financial big shots. My own preference would be to move that whole section to some other article which would accept and expand that broader theme, leaving again a sentence or two here and a link. However, if nobody intends to put forth the effort to find and renovate, or create, that other article then my mere remnant sentence should be appromately doubled in size.

Oof, sorry to write such a long piece with only few thoughts, but my time this morning was long enough to write many words and not long enough to boil them down to an essence. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Drat SQUARED; I hate it even more when people even smarter than I disagree with me, but then I find myself persuaded that they're right. So this is double painful, you'll understand. Yes, I generally agree with what you say, and now that I see things from your enlightened point of view, I will support you. Yes, maybe spinoff articles would be a good idea; I hadn't thought about this as being a geographic article, but I see where you're coming from. Thanks for responding.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm kind of second guessing what I wrote above, somewhat, to offer my view about an approach that I've come to think is effective as I contribute more here at Wikipedia. And it's this: as contributors, we should try to guess what most readers expect to know when they type in an article title such as Wall Street; based on our guess about this, we should write the article to satisfy that guess. Yes, Wall Street is a geographic location. But is that what a user is looking to learn when they type "Wall Street"? I think of a high school kid writing some report on the topic of Wall Street, and my guess is that the information about the physical geographical location wouldn't, in itself, be satisfactory -- that they're looking for the institution, the context, perhaps the history, perhaps not the competitors (but then maybe municipal authorities, reading the article, might be interested in that). What I'm saying is: Wall Street isn't just a street; it's an institution. When used in conversation, it rarely means the street -- it is symbolic of American finance. And maybe, in terms of article organization, we could have the flagship bringer-inner article "Wall Street" adhere strictly to the geography, but then have side-articles on history, competitors, Wall St vs Main Street, Wall St vs midtown, etc. Working with articles on the US Congress, I found that readership for the side-articles is usually only a fraction of the main one -- that is, it requires an extra click to go there which many people might not do for some reason. Like, History of the US Congress gets perhaps 100 readers a day, compared to the 5000+ for the main article United States Congress. I see your point about limiting article size to fit smaller screens like cell phones and such; but there's always scrolling too. My sense is that breaking up this article is perhaps a bigger issue that we need to get others' views on before acting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
With hot weather keeping me off the streets, I get fewer photographs and more keyboard time. Yes, when people say "Wall Street Lays an Egg" or "They're just selling you a lot of Madison Avenue dreams, or "Hollywood has become a cesspool" or "how can Detroit's products cope with the high price of gas?" or "The Pentagon will just have to get along with fewer Billions" or "10 Downing Street has got to come to grips with the Euro crisis" or "Foggy Bottom has no idea how to handle Syria" or "Can the President get this through Capitol Hill?" they are using a place name to represent its prominent industry or institution. Each link leads to a geographical or architectural article, shorter than the institutional article to which it is prominently linked. Except Wall Street. My take on this situation is that Wall Street is the one that has it wrong, and the others are right. I can't think of why it should differ.
Yes, municipal authorities and many other people might be interested in how every financial center in the world compares to all the others. Same with every army or football team or television camera type or television serial or cereal crop. Is it better to do this by each place or institution's article having a section describing the situation of all its competitors, or better to centralize the comparisons?
Yes, history articles tend to be larger and less read than their broader parental articles. Last year I split off the history section of Long Island Rail Road into its own article, which at that time was thrice the size of its parental remnant whose job is to describe the institution as it exists today. Same for History of the bicycle, History of New York City and whatever. That's for good reasons. Minor reason, readers are sometimes intimidated by the prospect of reading a large article; people nowadays appreciate more meals with smaller bites. Major reason, Wikipedians, bless us, tend to be fascinated by the story behind the story, more than readers are. Separate articles can satisfy both desires, when we've got more good material than most people want to take in at one sitting.
So yes, it is slightly painful to see that so much good careful work has gone into growing a geographical article into a well written piece which, however, is too big for its britches. Good news is, careful disassembly into functional free standing articles won't take as much labor as the overbuilding did in the first place. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Good weather has put me on the road and off editorial projects requiring much thought, but yesterday after showing another Wikipedian Admiral's Row and while we climbed to South Side Williamsburg and the New England Congregational Church, I was thinking about the Tiger. This large animal indeed has a large article which, like other species articles, touches on geography, taxonomy, diet, ecology, animal coloration and other questions. And it doesn't go into detail on which other animals have a similar range, nor about other felidae, nor about the population statistics of various prey deer species, nor about how killer whales, crocodiles, eagles or other animals deal with the problems and opportunities of being an apex predator, nor about how other animals are striped. These questions, so far as they need discussion, are handled by linked articles and yes, this seems to me a good pattern to follow here. Most obviously, by moving the competition section to Financial centre whilst retaining appropriate hooks. When good bicycling weather in New York becomes exceptional, anyway. First things first. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well. You raise some interesting issues and I appreciate your viewpoint. You favor articles which are strictly on topic -- no sidebars -- focusing on the precise subject -- but with links to related articles so that if readers are curious about learning more about a related subject, such as Competitors to Wall Street or History of Wall Street, they can click on a link and go there. Clearly there are organizational benefits for this structure. It may help users with smaller browsers quickly go from article to article (with less time to load a page). It keeps information bite-sized (McArticles?).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
An alternative view is that sometimes people would benefit by certain information, but won't know that they'll benefit until they actually see it. But they might not see it if they're reluctant to click on a link. Perhaps we might call this phenomenon click reluctance, that is, a kind of a reluctance to click on a link which hampers people who should be learning about a particular aspect of a subject, but who don't because they can not see how it might be useful. In this case, the bite-sized organizational format is a barrier of sorts, impeding learning.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me illustrate click reluctance with traffic statistics from a project I worked on a while back. The United States Congress article has 4000 readers per day; once it spiked to 28K readers (Super Congress stuff). A related subarticle, prominently displayed, entitled History of the United States Congress gets only 125 readers/day. This is a huge dropoff in traffic. Does it mean that people don't want to know much about the history of the US Congress? Or that it's irrelevant? It's hard to say for sure.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
What I think might be best is to have some kind of compromise, and I think the United States Congress and its related articles gets this right. That is, in the main article, there is a subsection about the history which is a page or so in length -- but there is a wikilink to the much larger subarticle History of the United States Congress so readers, who seek extra information, can find it there. At the same time, the subject is not avoided, so that, say, students getting information for a high school project will find some information about the Congress' history (which they may not have known ahead of time that this information would have been helpful to their project). It's a kind of balance.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
So, wondering what you think? My recommendation is that if you'd like, to begin creating subarticles, based on the material in the main Wall Street article, but not blank out the sections such as "history" and "competitors", but rather to edit them to be more tight and compact, and possibly expand the subarticles with more information. That's a compromise which seems to me to be reasonable. I still like the idea of us guessing about what a reader wants when they type in a phrase -- if they want to learn about Wall Street, what would they want to know? And that our guesses about this should help guide us in determining what to put into an article, and what to move to subsections.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Drat; so much careful thinking; so little time to craft appropriate counterarguments before I must cart an old computer to Columbus Circle and do others of today's errands. It takes almost as much thought as actually editing an article. We've got a disagreement that is related to the little table near the beginning of WP:SPLIT, which suggests that the US Congress article at 150 Kbytes is far overlong, its history article at 100K is somewhat overlong, and our own Wall Street at 90K probably ought also to be split. With all these implications I am entirely in agreement, while you tend to see greater benefit in fewer, longer articles for such topics.
Adding what's good for people, instead of just feeding them what they want, has its limits. All these articles will take most readers an hour to read through, or more likely two, and my own speculation is that if we could supplement the click counts with a count of attentive minutes, we would find closer equality between an article of 20K and one of 200K, and between an institution article and an institutional history one. That is, when we pile more spinach on the plate we seldom put more into the consumer's digestion. Alas, I am not aware of anyone putting up the money for focus groups and other market research work that would help answer such questions, so we're stuck with hunches, introspection, and asking fellow Wikipedians who are splendid people in ways that keep them from being typical readers. Incidentally, are your numbers from [4]? I ask with trepidation lest I get sucked into yet another diversion of my time.
Anyway I snapped a bunch of nice pictures yesterday evening on a Hudson River boat ride, and the dormant Commons geotagging bot awakened this morning and produced locations that need directionalizing, and much else is on my editorial plate, so again I won't do anything substantial on this project unless the weekend hurricane keeps me indoors longer than I expect.
Drat to the FIFTH POWER. You continue to impress me as reasonable, wise, fair-thinking, with reasonable arguments with the uncanny savvy to incorporate spinach of all vegetables into your thinking, so I will most likely support your choices. Btw I used to live in the Columbus Circle area years back, plus worked in market research. Btw the article traffic statistics come from clicking on the "View History" tab, then clicking "Page view statistics" which even works on our own user pages; here are page views from your own user page here if interested. I had several thousand people looking at my page after the Sarah Palin- Paul Revere brouhaha back in July.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Now I see the history pages have several very nice helps, most from that grok.se site and one from the chronically ill Toolserver.org. I must widen my horizons and watch for improved tools in the left side and top of pages instead of sticking to the content views I know. Weekend looks much too busy to get down to revisions of the kind under consideration but first priority among this low priority class will be moving out the world comparison section to Financial centre (Oh, I hate these Brit spellings but naught to do about them). Someone else is likely to expand it in its new home. An editor who knows even a little about market research might be able to find ways to do great services to the Wikimedia complex behind the scenes. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street

Surely there should be some reference to the OWS movement on this page? 86.147.159.179 (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I second this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.193.115 (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Rage Against the Machine

None of the citations say anything about the Stock Exchange having to close early. The only place I could find that listed the specific time in the article (2:52 P.M.) is the video itself. Its absence from the Closings list (citation 81) seems especially suspicious. As much as I'd like it to be true, all point towards the possibility that it's an outright fabrication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.231.126.136 (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This article needs to be split into old and new Wall Street

Firstly the article is primarily about the financial center of American Commerce and home to the NY stock exchange. But it is also about the area and the history of the area.

The two topics are only linked by the geography nothing more. And should IMO be separated into two distinct articles.86.171.196.113 (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Libor Administration

Removing a recently added sentence about NYSE takeover of Libor administration because it is not directly relevant to Wall Street. The new administrator is NYSE Euronext Rates Administration Limited (see announcement at http://www.bba.org.uk/media/article/bba-to-hand-over-administration-of-libor-to-nyse-euronext-rate-administrati), a London-based, UK registered company, regulated by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority. (see chief executive of the BBA's article at http://www.cityam.com/article/libor-now-has-new-administrator-our-reforms-have-gone-much-further) --Whizz40 (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"Wall Street"

The movie character 'Gordon Gekko' was actually based upon the latter life of one Ivan Boeskey, NOT Michael Milken as indicated from a "source." Milken spent most of his business life in Beverly Hills and specialized in the mortgage & S&L field, while Boeskey was a NY'er and prominent in the stock market and corporate takeovers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.69.1 (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Source for your assertion? --NeilN talk to me 15:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
You are correct. Ivan Boesky even did his own "Greed is good" speech at UC Berkeley. The article on Ivan Boesky cites references supporting this:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,978367,00.html
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-12-15/features/8604030634_1_ivan-boeskys-greed-fund
However, what we really need is a source that quotes the script writer saying who the character was really based on. The source cited in this article (saying the character was based on Michael Milken) is simply reporting an author's opinion, not the view of the script writer who created the character. Using sources to synthesize a conclusion that the sources don't actually say is what we call WP:SYNTHESIS. Therefore, the statement should probably be removed altogether. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we insert this image somewhere in the article?

The Charging bull is an iconic symbol of Wall Street and I assume it should be placed somewhere in the article.Holy Goo (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

That would be problematic. That image (File:Charging_Bull_statue.jpg) is non-free use, so you'd have to come up with a fair use rationale, which would be difficult for use with this article. Besides, it's not actually on Wall Street any more. Station1 (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
this other image seems to be free to use. Not sure if this one was supposed to be fair-use-only as well. Holy Goo (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I would have thought that would have the same problem, but I'm not that much of an expert. I've asked at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for someone to take a look. Station1 (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
c:File:Taureau de Wall Street 2016.jpg has been nominated for deletion. It is a derivative of a copyright work and can only be used under fair use. Using File:Charging Bull statue.jpg here would fail WP:NFCCP#8 since it does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article's topic (Wall Street). — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

How could it be 0.7 miles long?

I think they meant 0.7 km and even that must be rounded up (0.65?). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right. That is too long. Google maps shows approx. 0.4 miles (0.64 km). I've taken the length out of the article. Station1 (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wall_Street/Archive_1&oldid=1122406367"