Talk:GameStop short squeeze/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Disputes about embedded tweets

There have been some disputes about whether to include embedded tweets in this article (in addition to simple descriptions of the tweet in the text) and which tweets to embed. Currently the embedded tweets are Musk's "Gamestonk" and Ocasio-Cortez's criticism of Robinhood. I argue that AOC's tweet, or any other reaction by a politican/other major figure, should not be embedded because there is such a high volume of these, and nothing causes AOC's reaction to be more significant than, for example, Elizabeth Warren's. Musk's tweet is more unique because it had an demonstrable effect on the stock rise, however it still may be unnecessary to embed because it is so short that it can be completely written in the text. I'm making this section so there isn't an edit war with deleting and re-adding tweets.Irish Birdcatcher (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree about the embedded tweets being unnecessary.--JBchrch (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I think embedded tweets are pretty similar to images in the way that they make the text more engaging and readable, so at least some should be included. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 10:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The difference between AOC and Warren is quite simply that AOC's response was a tweet. Warren's is a CNBC interview and then a letter. AOC and Elon are by far the most notable tweets to include, save perhaps Ted Cruz, who I wouldn't consider including as his tweet is so brief and functionally serves just to link to AOC's. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for comments

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to keep both the embedded tweets, with a strong consensus for the AOC tweet and a slightly less strong consensus for the Musk tweet. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Should embedded tweets by Elon Musk (diff) and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (diff) be included in this article?--JBchrch (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Tagging likely participants (removed the level 3 title to improve readability of the RfC discussion --JBchrch (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)): (AllegedlyHuman, Hakken, Loganmac, Samsara, Murtaza.aliakbar, JShark, Zvikorn.--JBchrch (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• To me, the use of tweets in this way seems to imply an endorsement of, and tie-in with, Twitter, the tweeter, and the content of the tweet. I understand preferring this over a screenshot of the tweet for accessibility reasons (an alt tag can do that, too!), but even in that role, I would advise that it should only be used when a screenshot would be appropriate, and I would strongly encourage rethinking the design to make it more neutral - the link to the Wikipedia article on Twitter should be removed, for instance, as that constitutes, in my view, a free advert and an endorsement. WP:NPOV forbids it. Before knowing about this discussion, I removed the Musk tweet template because it currently does duplicate the text, which goes against our Manual of Style. We can't have both. Samsara 17:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Include: As a random watcher of this article, I quite like the embedded tweets. Especially the AOC one conveys a lot of information in a small amount of space, just like a picture. The Musk one feels a little awkward in its current place in the article: the share price chart takes up the space where it should be, but I wouldn't support removing it either since Musk's tweet was undoubtedly an important moment in this. I do not think they are an endorsement of the tweeter or the content of the tweet. (I would also remove the link to Twitter's article from the template though: I don't think it adds much and I agree it does come off as an endorsement of Twitter.) Loki (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• I am all for embedding super significant Tweets that meet a high bar for WP:NPOV, that is do not come off as endorsing one candidate / one view point over another, and add valuable context: GME short squeeze phenomenon is unique in that it played out online, over twitter and reddit. I agree with the view that Tweets serve the same purpose as "images" do in other articles (ie, add valuable context) like Samsara mentions above. I also agree it is very hard to decide which tweets to embed, since there's a storm of them, and from very many notable personalities. One way to decide which tweets are impactful could be to see if reliable sources mention those as being very highly significant (Musk's profile change causing Bitcoin prices to soar, for example, is undeniably significant) and adds valuable context to the article section (ie, doesn't stand aloof, weak, out of context, and unsupported) but not duplicate it. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand @AllegedlyHuman:’s argument that, out of the criticisms of Robinhood by politicians and celebrities, AOC’s response may be the most notable *tweet*. But tweets are not the only type of response they can be embedded. And I don’t think AOC’s tweet is unique or effectual enough to be embedded on its own (ie no rise in GME price afterwards, no new turn of opinion against robinhood because everyone already was criticizing them). Irish Birdcatcher (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Remove I agree with Irish's reasoning. No big change happened. I mean its the weekend so US markets are closed but still... I also agree with Samsara. But my main reasoning is that there are soooo many people from different parts of the world that agree with the movement and have posted a tweet that choosing two would be hard and set kind of a pov which is why I am against. I am all for listing the notable ones in the article. Idan (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep AOC's tweet because it announces a potential investigation, has been linked to bi-partisan agreements and has been cited in extensive WP:RS [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6][7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Musk's tweet is linked as a substantial event in the early timeline that contributed to a price surge and/or explosion of the subreddit. The tweet citation template is used in several articles where social media is involved, such as Donald Trump on social media. Out of all the reactions, theirs are the most notable ones as far as RS appear to tell. Loganmac (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep AOC tweet, likely keep Musk tweet if formatting can be fixed. As the article notes, responses to the event from most people were very similar (to the point where arguably the most left-wing and the most right-wing members of Congress, AOC and Ted Cruz, fully agreed with each other). As such, the AOC tweet serves as a visual aid, providing not just the opinion of AOC but the essence of most opinions on the subject, conveys the digital nature of the incident, and breaks up plain text. The Musk tweet, alternatively, having a direct impact on the market, is notable for that purpose. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep AOC tweet as per above, no opinion on Musk tweet. YuriNikolai (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep AOC tweet, she is an important and influential member of the Democratic Party and also part of the Committee of Financial Services. The Committee oversees the SEC and in part Robinhood along with other brokers. Given that Congress is likely to investigate such brokers regarding this event her tweets are relevant and have been widely sourced. Leaning Keep in regards to Musk's tweet as he is not part of Congress and does not really add to the article as much but he is a highly influential figure and as mentioned above his tweets contributed to the price explosion. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep the AOC tweet. She is an important member of the Democratic Party, and arguably the most prominent young politician in contemporary America. Her tweet mentions a possible investigation, and thus prompted following reactions. It is safe to say she is a trailblazer for the consequent reactions from other politicians, both Republican and Democratic, making the tweet notable and relevant in this article's context. Weak Keep for Musk's tweet. If Musk's tweet had a significant impact on the market, then it is not a problem to keep. HĐ (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep AOC's tweet is notable given her public office and her position on related US House committees. Musk's tweet is notable because his tweet massively popularized the squeeze, which previously had less mainstream awareness. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 04:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep both, both were widely reported about and they serve as "images" in sections that don't have pictures otherwise. --mfb (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep both have received coverage and help illustrate the article. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep both. Benjamin (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep AOC's tweet, which is significant and whose specific text is useful in illustrating the congressional response. Musk's tweet should be mentioned (since it's also significant) but I'm not sure its content of "Gamestonk!! https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/" is informative enough to need the embedding. --Aquillion (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep the AOC tweet. – SJ + 01:49, 2 February 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.

RfC consensus

Is it correct to say that the consensus of this RfC is to keep both embedded tweets? Also, I propose to close the RfC, since the last comment was close to 24h ago.--JBchrch (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

RfCs usually run a bit longer. In response to the question whether sufficient consensus has been reached, it seems to me that the issue of whether the mention of the Musk tweet should use the template or be in the main text has not really been addressed. Samsara 02:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Samsara, you're right — I figured that since there is a lot of traffic on this talk page we could move fast and break things. It is true that the template issue has not been addressed.--JBchrch (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The whole RFC was always about "embedded tweets". It's your own RFC! Don't try to change the scope because you dislike the replies. --mfb (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch, Samsara, and Mfb: I've gone ahead and closed the RFC. The RFC was not attracting more comments and had an incredibly clear consensus to keep. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I restored the Musk tweet (the RFC called it "keep" but the article didn't have it embedded during the RFC). --mfb (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021

Suggested Change: In section "Short selling and short squeezes" Add a 3rd paragraph:

Short interest was unusually high in GameStop stock, with short interest reaching 140%. Short interest levels have only exceeded 100% of ANY company’s float 15 times in the last 10 years[1]. In fact, before the GameStop short squeeze, many market participants thought that shorting more than 100% of a stock was impossible[2].

Sources: [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanponciano/2021/02/10/meme-stock-saga-officially-over-gamestop-short-interest-plunged-70-amid-20-billion-loss/?sh=16c4080ab213 [2] https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/01/28/yes-a-stock-can-have-short-interest-over-100-heres/#:~:text=At%20first%20glance%2C%20it%20might,for%20short%2Dsellers%20to%20get.&text=However%2C%20even%20without%20a%20naked,short%20interest%20to%20exceed%20100%25. Edlee93 (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. 4D4850 (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

4D4850, I have reverted your edit as Edlee93 had already implemented the edit himself/herself and it had been worked on by other editors (including me). Sorry for the confusion.--JBchrch (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, hadn't realized it had already been put in. I suppose that's why it threw out a warning about citations with the same content when I checked for them, even though I couldn't find the other one for the life of me. 4D4850 (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Information related to Elon Musk's embedded tweets

Samsara, I disagree with your latest edit: you removed valuable and interesting information that is not contained or presented in the embedded tweet.--JBchrch (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS, we have to decide on one of the two. The RfC has weakly determined that the template version should be kept. So if you can create a version that doesn't repeat the content of the tweet, please do. Samsara 16:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please be more specific: Where does the MOS say you can't have the template for a tweet and also describe it in the text? Especially as your version left the reader confused. Are you concerned about repeating a single word? I'll take the BRD approach here. --mfb (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Since the tweet is just one word, it's pretty unreasonable to apply the MOS in this way (whatever the rule may be). Since you are the one who has deleted content, I think you should be the one proposing an alternate wording that, at the same time (and again, these are the rules that you have laid out), 1) mentions the tweet, 2) without stating its content, 3) but explains what GameStonk means, 4) without saying GameStonk... If you can do that, I'll buy you a beer.--JBchrch (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I've asked for a re-review of the consensus given the involved closure. Samsara 17:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is that discussion. WP:STICK comes to mind. --mfb (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Big players benefiting

• GameStop mania may not have been the retail trader rebellion it was perceived to be, data shows -CNBC
• Analysis: How Wall Street gains from 'populist' trading movement - Reuters
• How the rich got richer: Reddit trading frenzy benefited Wall Street elite - Washington post

More data is coming in, and the narratives are shifting a bit to focus on the big players benefiting from this. The article is still written from the week old narrative of little guys vs. the system. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There will always be a "spin" in every article, especially on topics such as this one. That being said, I agree Harizotoh9, there are always two perspectives and the ideal is having articles that don't show too much bias on either side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurisdicta (talk • contribs) 23:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Harizotoh9, as of this morning it seems to me like most mainstream sources are still writing this story from the perspective of retail vs. institutional (although I do agree that the narrative is beginning to change) : WSJ, FT, WaPo, NYT. What do you think of expanding the "Gains of existing shareholders and third parties" section?--JBchrch (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The big players gains is under-represented in the article. Reuters and CNBC have articles on it and I'm sure more do as well. As time goes on more data will come through so it's good to keep updating the article and keep it up to date with the latest information. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Harizotoh9, sure that is a valid point and I am seeing the same thing. I have started to incorporate this WSJ article and will continue to do so maybe later this evening. On an unrelated note, I saw that you removed a few opinion sources that I had added. While I agree that this sources are not strictly reliable, you have probably seen that I have always added them in addition to a reliable source, because the analysis provided may be interesting to readers looking for secondary sources (just like some government sources can be cited in articles, but only in addition to a reliable source). So I would like to propose to you that we leave them in?--JBchrch (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

OP-ED pieces are only evidence for the opinion of the editorial board of the organization. They shouldn't be used for citing real world events. So stick to news articles. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not disputing that. However these sources provide interesting data and information. They aren’t just the author’s opinion. JBchrch (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

They're still the analysis and opinion.

Also, the biggest shareholders of GME were big players and it looks like the squeeze was gonna happen regardless of the smaller player's actions. It was institutional money vs institutional money. The CNBC article goes in this direction and it should be cited more. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't oppose that. Will try to refer to it when I work on the article.--JBchrch (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding another key article. This is a theme playing out in more and more articles. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Harizotoh9, I did two edits which go in your direction.--JBchrch (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Key thing is that it's not my direction, rather the direction of reliable sources. As time goes on more will come out and we'll learn more about the topic. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Short selling vs. going short

The article is unclear on the distinction between the general investment strategy of "going short" (betting that price of asset will decline) and "short selling" (borrowing a stock then selling it), which is just one of the ways one can short a stock. In particular, it's not clear at all if Melvin was short selling the stock. According to MarketWatch [12] at least a good chunk of their short investments were through owning put options on GameStop. With those, the potential loss is capped. And this is what they announced which prompted the short squeeze. This article however assumes that they were short selling the stock. Volunteer Marek 23:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Volunteer Marek, the mechanics of a short squeeze imply that at a considerable degree of actual short selling is taking place. Simply buying put options cannot expose a trader to a short squeeze risk because if the stock price increases, it is easy to liquidate sell the put option at any time or just not exercise it. This could be an interesting info, however, for the Losses by short sellers section.--JBchrch (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Right, which is my point. IF, as marketwatch reports, Citadel was shorting GameStop via put options rather by straight up short selling then they were never really exposed to the short squeeze (whoever had borrowed the stock was) - they just lost the cost of their options, which presumably was still quite a chunk. Volunteer Marek 07:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

According to MarketWatch, Melvin had a short position in GameStop, i.e. it had borrowed stock in order to sell it. Marketwatch then says about Melvin, "Losses extended beyond GameStop, with declines coming from throughout its portfolio during...January. Positions in which Melvin had publicly disclosed owning put options -- bearish contracts that typically profit as stocks fall -- in its last quarterly regulatory filing soared, while positions in companies it held sold off." In other words, Melvin bought puts in other stocks than GameStop. The prices of those stocks went up, so Melvin's long puts matured at a loss. In addition, yet other stocks (not GameStop) that Melvin owned as longs experienced price declines. Citadel was not shorting GameStop according to MarketWatch. Citadel (and others) gave $2.75 bil to Melvin so it would stay solvent. In exchange, Citadel gets non-controlling revenue shares in Melvin for three years. There is only one way to short a stock, and that is by selling it. There are other financial instruments and strategies that can be used to get exposure to stock price declines e.g buying puts, selling calls. Those are not a type of stock short selling though. Citadel was never exposed to the short squeeze (insofar as we know, although they aren't forced to disclose), and according to MarketWatch, Melvin only got caught in a short squeeze for one stock, GameStop.--FeralOink (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Price table extending beyond February 5

Hi, I have reverted this edit by Tresznjewski. I think extending the table beyond February 5 is not extremely useful, since the period between February 6 and February 23 is not very notable in terms of price changes and volatility. The price became notable again only on February 24, which is why a § February 24 surge section was added. Extending the table also affects the readability of the article, and we should try not to extend it beyond what is necessary. Comments are welcome.--JBchrch (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a nice idea. What do you think about a second table in the new section? Tresznjewski (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

There appears to be a second rise and in the Feb 24th section there should be a second table perhaps. It may be that the stock will be on a rollercoaster for months, so one chart will show the most significant rise and fall, and we may need another chart for like 6 months to a 1 year. It all depends how it plays out. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Should we still consider the squeeze "done" and have an aftermath section?

The stock touched $180 after hours. Thoughts? Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 22:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Many of the people I associate with have been saying for weeks that this was going to skyrocket again, however, WP:RS do not necessarily cover the dynamics of what is actually going on with the short squeeze. Clearly after today this article will need to be amended. With what content, I don't know. Buffaboy ^talk 22:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

By definition a short squeeze requires can only happen if there is a big amount of short interest in a particular stock. But we know that the short interest in GME has disappeared, so this is not a short squeeze anymore, it's just a bout of volatility. I would say that this article should remain focused on the market activity of late January-early February and its aftermath. But we could certainly add a paragraph about the current volatility at or after the § Decline in value section.--JBchrch (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

How do we know that the short interest in GME has disappeared, again? 216.106.94.95 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Official numbers for February 12 short interest should be out in a few hours. Data for Friday February 26th arrives at March 9. That's the numerator, and the Float is the denominator, which together describes the Fraction for the Short%ofFloat, even if they disagree about some of the numbers. Media are likely to vet those numbers and report them soon. In particular, sources may compare with other highly shorted stocks. The 20 million shorts at the end of January was still a significant amount (42%). TGCP (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

16.47 million shorts is the official number for Friday February 12th (repeated on Yahoo, but for Feb11 for some reason). TGCP (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Noting for posterity, especially in case the issue later makes it into the article, that there is some dispute about whether that number 1) is being correctly reported, and 2) indicates the actual dissolution of short interest or short interest transferring its liability into derivatives/ETFs/etc. The stock is behaving ... strangely, still. Given that it was already trading "high" relative to its value a few months ago, today's movement (price doubling and 8 million shares moving in under an hour) seems to indicate something slightly out of line with just "high volatility". 216.106.94.95 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

FWIW the FT[13] and the WSJ[14] have no idea what is happening. Bloomberg says it's a reaction to the ousting of the CFO[15]. I guess we'll just see 🤷.--JBchrch (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

There was a short squeeze in that it's done. There may be another one and if it happens it will be added once it's reported. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

How can you call it a short squeeze and how can you call it over? What are the criteria for both claims? There's also rumors that the shorts right now are hidden in ETFs containing GameStop stocks beeing shorted. Please source your claims. Media have called it a short squeeze but there's also a possibility that they have no idea what's going on. --Tresznjewski (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Tresznjewski, the answer is reliable sources. We don't write articles strictly speaking, we're just transmitting what is reported in reliable sources. There's a lot of conspiracy theories and speculation on social media regarding GME and all of that is noise that has no business being in the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Role of options and gamma squeeze - impact of market capitalization and implied volatility

Call options enhanced the short squeeze via a gamma squeeze.

Generally a short squeeze is more likely to occur when a stock’s market capitalization is small (relative to the activity). (This also makes short squeezes in widely traded commodities or Currencies more difficult).

Gamma squeezes are more likely to enhance short squeezes when call options are initially inexpensive, particularly when they have a low implied volatility. (This makes it harder also to immediately return to the same stocks because options will be much more expensive).

For an example, the Reddit user below compiled a list of low call Option implied volatility stocks with Market Cap data.

Assuming that the data is correct, this would suggest that a company like Hershey’s or Dollar tree would be at more risk of a short squeeze with gamma squeeze enhancement than Amazon for example because of their low market capitalization and low call option implied volatility.

Again, this is ONLY An EXAMPLE! (Obviously NOT to be acted upon!)

https://www.reddit.com/r/options/comments/kcfg47/weekend_iv_report_tickers_with_low_implied/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:21DA:F091:5C1:6EA8:908F (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM and citations to reddit forum posts are not valid citations. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Public domain documents

As the hearing is going on, a reminder to all editors that any of the PDFs here are in the public domain. These could be useful for breaking up text and elaborating on sections that need it. I believe video of the event created by Congress would also be in the public domain (so long as it's not the version on, say, CNN). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If the video of the hearing is in the public domain, I'd be happy to upload it to Commons and we could maybe incorporate it in the article?--JBchrch (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Copyright law is quite complicated, and it is not clear to me whether those PDFs are actually in the public domain. {{PD-USGov}} only applies to works created by employees of the federal government. However, those statements were written by private individuals. Because of this distinction, I'm not sure those PDFs would survive a deletion request on the Commons. Mz7 (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Those PDFs are in the public domain. The statements by private individuals constitute sworn written testimony to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives. That is committee content. The U. S. House of Representatives provides access to committee content for the general public via docs.house.gov: "Documents are made available in accordance with the rules of the House of Representatives and standards adopted by the Committee on House Administration." The Terms of Use page for the rules of the House of Representatives states that "Pursuant to federal law, government-produced materials appearing on this site are not copyright protected." The copyright page for standards adopted by the Committee on House Administration says that "all of the content of the website constitutes a work of the Federal government under sections 105 and 403 of title 17 of the U.S. Code".--FeralOink (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Neither the committee's internal procedures nor the Terms of Use page for the website are a part of US copyright law. As far as the copyright page goes, it merely reiterates that works produced by the committee and its employees are in the public domain. However, the statements on the House page were written by private individuals, not by the committee. I'm assuming most of us are laymen here, so I'm not so sure we can assume confidently that these statements are copyright-free. Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

PiiQ Media

I disagree with addition to the article by Harizotoh9:

PiiQ Media found very similar daily start and stop patterns in the GameStop-related posts that were a possible sign of artificial activity. Speicifc phrases associted with the activity were "hold the line", "gme" and "gamestop.

References

The PiiQ story has to be given WP:DUE weight (which is what I had attempted to do here): this is only one report by a small company, on a story where a many people have published theories, conjectures and analyses. Also, the sources cited are not sufficient in this specific context: Newsweek is not generally reliable and CNBC Indonesia is not an appropriate source for an event that has happened in the US and is extensively covered by US sources. Currently, the only "good" source covering this report is the Reuters release cited in the article, but in my view this does not warrant a full paragraph describing PiiQ Media's findings.--JBchrch (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. I think if this company was notable enough to have its own article, it might merit inclusion, but as it stands, I don't think it does. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Having or not having a Wikipedia page has no bearing on whether something is included. PiiQ media does not matter at all. What matters is that Reuters and others reported. This is early provisional reports, but it's not going to be the last. Others will do more in depth analysis on whether bots were used. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Harizotoh9, would you agree, as a matter of consensus, to keep Later analysis by cyber security company PiiQ Media of social media posts suggested that thousands of automated bots may have hyped GameStop stock, Dogecoin, and other stocks, on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. and remove the rest?--JBchrch (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Any news?--JBchrch (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus. I added it originally, then Rauisuchian added it again, with even more detail and only removed it after seeing it was already there. I then merged the two posts because theirs was better written. "Thousands" is mentioned by the Telegraph and it should be there to get some sort of scale to what they are saying. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That's precisely what we're trying to do: achieve consensus. Since at least 2 editors want to remove the paragraph, I think you should make a step in our direction and consider compromising and trimming it a little. I don't mind "thousands of" staying if it can help advance this discussion.--JBchrch (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The PiiQ Media study should definitely be mentioned due to the Reuters source, but a trimmed mention of the study is fine IMO. Rauisuchian (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Articles name

If the definition of a short squeeze is the Short sellers being forced to buy back the shorted stocks but the article doesn't even mention this has happened or who would have done this and the stock is still heavily shorted, how can you call this article the short squeeze then? --Tresznjewski (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tresznjewski, the article is named that way because that's how most reliable sources have described the event.--JBchrch (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch, do you mean the sources define it as such or they just call like that? --Tresznjewski (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. We go by the most common name for the topic. This does not have to be the official name (if applicable), it does not have to be technically correct. It can even be obviously wrong. As an example, the Poincaré conjecture has been proven - it's not a conjecture any more - but that's how everyone calls it, so Wikipedia uses that name as well. --mfb (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that! --Tresznjewski (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Gamma squeeze

GME Hearing, Plotkin admitted the jump in price wasn't due to shorts covering! Change the first sentence to say gamma squeeze. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=17723&v=RfEuNHVPc_k&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=U.S.HouseCommitteeonFinancialServices Plotkin HIMSELF said it was not due to shorts covering! If shorts were not covering, then it means it's NOT a short squeeze caused by a massive buying pressure from shorters all fighting to buy shares that were illiquid! Convolutionx (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a page for improving the article, not a forum for discussing the topic. Do you have any third party reliable sources that say this? This looks like WP:Original research based on testimony. People are free to speculate but WP:NOTHERE. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• NASDAQ exchange appears to refer to the event as a gamma squeeze: https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/what-is-a-gamma-squeeze-2021-01-28 Ain92 (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Not really involved in this discussion myself, but I did want to point out WP:EXCEPTIONAL. If it's not clearly or prevalently labeled as a gamma squeeze but rather is only labeled in passing in what looks like a blog post more than a NASDAQ statement, it's probably not enough to solely back up something that major and potentially controversial. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ain92, this article reprints a Motley Fool article which was previously removed—and rightly so—by Harizotoh9.--JBchrch (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Couldn't we mention the existence of the "gamma squeeze" theory in passing as well? Do you all not think it's notable? Ain92 (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I was going to say that we need reliable sources, which the Motley Fool isn't... but I did the research once again and found an FT source mentioning the gamma squeeze. I guess, then, that it could be incorporated in passing, yes. May do it later or tomorrow.--JBchrch (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source describing the second and current surge as a gamma squeeze. https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgecalhoun/2021/03/10/gamestop-the-second-surgeanatomy-of-a-gamma-swarm/?sh=6e4c9a364225 St.nerol (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This is WP:FORBESCON – not reliable. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding a table of stock changes after 24 February

Hello fellow wikipedians! The Gamestop stock has been rising since 24 february, the rates at which its growing are really high. Can a table be added for the growth after 24 february? Powering everyone (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if this actually applies to this or not. Someone with financial knowledge should compare the results of this event with the current ongoing rise and explain a connection/lack thereof. --Larcondos (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

We already have a paragraph discussing it. A graph would fit well to that I think. A table would be an alternative but I prefer graphs. --mfb (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@mfb i think you are right, a graph would be ideal at the current time, but if the stock keeps growing, we might have to think about a table. Powering everyone (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, there should be a second graph as it is a second separate bubble. Right now it looks like it's on the decline. And maybe a third graph that covers both? Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not the first time when the users/fans wanted to buy a company on Internet

The good example may be Commodore(company making e.g. Amiga), in 1991(!) the users/small shareholders wanted to buy the stocks to control the company, because they were thinking, that it is bad directed. However the stacks rise from 4$ and then go down, rise etc. Read "Electronic Games" 8/1994 page 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.67.52 (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:GameStop short squeeze/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 03:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I am still seeing major ongoing edits and new developments in this saga since the article was put up for GA review again, meaning the article is not sufficiently stable for GA review. Please wait 6 months for things to settle before renominating. (t · c) buidhe 03:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Article is now dated

The article is now dated because it doesn't include enough info about the subsequent rise. I am adding an Update template. For instance, the graph is out of date. I'm updating the portion about "Decline in value" to mention that some retail investors lost if they didn't continue to hold Netdragon (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

We would need reliable sources to describe and characterize the later events that way. I'm particularly leery about the "those who didn't hold..." wording, which directly contradicts the sources we're citing at the moment; yes, I understand your logic, but we have to go with the sources, and generally speaking they describe gains or losses based on the current value of held stocks, not some hypothetical value they might be sold for in the future. --Aquillion (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You are right aquillion but i have another problem. Why is there no consensus over the current short squeeze? Powering everyone (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Powering everyone what exactly are you asking here? Elli (talk | contribs) 15:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elli Im saying that in the section "Resurgance from february 24" it is written there is no consensus over what caused the second resurgance. The source that says that is over a month old. Powering everyone (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:GameStop short squeeze/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 06:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe this is stable enough to be a Good Article now. Not so much because of edit warring (WP:GAFAIL #4), although there has been some, but because the situation is too recent and ongoing to be stable (GAFAIL #1, a long way from meeting GA criterion 5). The main events may have been over after January, but in late February the NYT reported that there were nearly 50 ongoing lawsuits against Robinhood over this (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/business/robinhood-gamestop.html), two weeks ago GameStop reported a plan for major changes in management structure (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gamestop-provides-corporate-governance-130000470.html), and new analysis of what happened and rule-making to address what happened is still coming out. I think we need to wait long enough to have some perspective on the situation before setting this in stone as a good article. Otherwise, either we would pre-empt the addition of later developments (if editors use the GA status as an excuse to prevent changes to the article) or those changes would make any GA review quickly obsolete. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with your reasoning for an immediate failure. WP:TOOSOON is an essay specifically concerning whether or not there is enough information generally to include a subject in the encyclopedia, and only gives guidance in relation to notability for biographies and films. Suffice it to say, this article subject, while recent, certainly meets the Wikipedia general notability threshold; there are currently 238 references included, all of which are about the subject directly. On your other point: I struggle to see how an article cannot fail as per GAFAIL 4 but can fail per GAFAIL 1 re GA criterion 5. I see no logical difference between an article that "is not stable due to edit warring on the page" and an article that "is a long way from meeting" the criterion of being stable, defined as "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." This article has not been majorly edited in several days, and as you note, there is not a significant enough amount of edit-warring to warrant an immediate failure on that count. However, you immediately failed the nomination per a criterion only discussing edit-warring and content disputes. I empathize with the spirit of what you are saying, but as per the relevant guidelines, I still feel this is deserving of a full review. I would like a reply, and if you will not reconsider, I would at least appreciate some advice for improving the article going forward. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This is basically censorship at this point. EVERY OTHER ONGOING EVENT gets tagged as such and gets news updates. This one gets locked and has its timeline end months ago. It's in the hedge funds best interest to keep pretending this is past, yet current news articles found with a google search for "gme stock news" shows this is absolutely ongoing. Do I really need to google this and paste a bunch of links in? Doubt anyone will even care, I mean hell who cared about the housing crisis either, may as well not even have an article!

Honestly, this REAKS of censorship and I'd be surprised if those reversing all the edits containing useful data weren't employed by a HF. I mean, the paid shills are abundant on reddit, who not on wikipedia too? Or is wikipedia in such need for money that a hedge fund can literally pay for wikipedia edits? ░▒▓█▌Cm0n3y34▐▓▒░ 15:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Censorship / Pay for Wiki Edits?

Where's the "ongoing event" protection/tag? Where'd literally any event from the past few months? The deleted edits look like wikipedia articles, but the article itself looks like a carefully edited Citadel news release. I thought wikipedia wasn't supposed to be a place for companies to control the narrative? Then again wikipedia HAS been circling the drain moderation-wise, quality content moderated away due to come subrolule, but garbage edits and the 1%'s stories are apparently what Wikipedia is now.

Honestly, are we really at the point where a hedge fund can pay for edits, or is Citadel hiri!g wikipedia mods? Maybe the shillbots have infested wikipedia like they did Reddit?

Regardless, this REAKS of censorship and bad faith editing. A key point of this whole thing is that the hedge funds have been caught REPEATEDLY manipulating the news and paying ashills, bot writers, whoever will go spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. Has this been addressed here? Are the mods and editors with "approved" changes recieving orders from a hedge fund?

Also, fun how my first post was INSTANTLY deleted after "successfully posting". Wonder how long this one will last? ░▒▓█▌Cm0n3y34▐▓▒░ 15:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cm0n3y34 (talk • contribs)

I'm speaking to details like the timeline, not the whole article. There's missing info ░▒▓█▌Cm0n3y34▐▓▒░ 15:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cm0n3y34, can you outline specific claims this article makes that you dispute? Besides, 1) allegations of misconduct should be posted at WP:ANI and 2) the Citadel-related content in this article was worked on by many editors (including me), who have a demonstrable track record of good faith edits. JBchrch (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Should I remove the sentence "as of Feb 25, there hasn't been any consensus on the current surge" in the "resurgence from Feb 24" section. The sentence is outdated and I don't think it should be put in an article about an ongoing incident. Powering everyone (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Powering everyone, what do you think of stating "reports could not identify a specific cause for the surge"? --JBchrch (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch I think you are right, but I think I got the perfect news source that specifies the cause of the current surge. Powering everyone (talk)

Sorry Powering everyone, this is a WP:FORBESCON source and it is not considered reliable. --JBchrch (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch (talk), welp I couldn't find a reliable source so i guess we should put that statement.

@JBchrch (talk) So, should we put the statement "reports could not identify a specific cause for the current surge"? Powering everyone (talk) 5:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done, sorry I was off wiki for a bit. JBchrch (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

"In reaction to brokerages halting..."

In reaction to brokerages halting the buying of GameStop and other securities, the total market capitalization of cryptocurrencies and metal futures increased as well.

This sentence in the lead has been bugging me for a long time and I finally mustered the courage to talk about it. I have two issues:

1. Do we know whether the moves of crypto and silver was really in reaction to brokerages halting the buying of GME? I think this sentence is copied from a sentence in § Cryptocurrencies that states In reaction to brokerages halting the buying of GameStop and other securities, the combined market capitalization of all cryptocurrencies increased to over US$1 trillion, with Dogecoin's value increasing over 800 percent.. I can't find the in reaction to part in the CNBC and AV Club articles, and I don't have a subscription to The Independent.

References

1. Is the total market capitalization of a good language? Wouldn't it be simpler and more accurate to write the price of cryptocurrencies and metal futures increased as well? --JBchrch (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I have done some changes to the article in relation to the above. Relevant edits are [16] and [17]. JBchrch (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

{{current|section|date=May 2021}}

SvenL (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am not entirely clear on the requested changes. However, if you are requesting that we add the {{current}} template at the top of the article, please note that this template is not intended to stay more than a single day on any article, and should only be used when there is intense editing activity by multiple editors. Since this story is now developing very calmly and since the article is pretty stable, it's not appropriate to add it back up. JBchrch talk 09:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2021

I request you change the aftermath portion of your article, or change this title to specifically the January squeeze and prepare to do follow ups.

In the aftermath portion you should include how investors moves into different subreddits and such as r/Superstonk and r/GME beyone the wallstreetbets and that the squeeze is still on going. How the price decrease in February from $330-40 was done with artifical shares that have failed to delivery making them naked shorts. Oh and that this thing is still going on and will rip some more after the share holders meeting. Prepare to state that the company Game Stop, recieved 200% of its issued shares in votes in the most recent stock holder meeting. OH and that the shorts haven't and have no intention of covering so the. Mentality is to hold above and beyond a margin call on the short side. 178.78.99.193 (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Edit requests are for particular changes that you'd like made, backed up by reliable sources. Please phrase yours in a "change X to Y" - or better yet, provide replacement wikitext we could swap in. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

In Academic Studies

A paper mentioned in Econophysics#Basic_tools foresaw the "inevitability of collusion" of a group such as WallStreetBets when demand increases with increasing price, as during a short squeeze. Would this link Econophysics#Basic_tools be a good candidate as an entry in the "See Also" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2812:3800:4d95:65f1:88ed:3484 (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I propose that this idea be added under "Possible Causes". That paper shows payoffs are positively correlated when demand is increasing, which is what happens during a short squeeze and is reinforced by the hot hand fallacy. This positive correlation means that payoffs will increase more when agents work together/collude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772a:e580:4d88:5be9:6ba9:a1f1 (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've undone some inappropriate refactoring by an IP editor - changing the section title and adding a edit request template (which should generally go in its own section). There isn't a clear "change X to Y" presented here, in any case. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Possible Causes - Semi-protected edit request

Per request above, this is an edit request in the correct format. I propose changing the following text in the section Possible causes from

• Suggested factors included anger of some investors towards Wall Street hedge funds for their role in the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008, or the general democratization of the stock market coupled with the ability of retail traders to communicate instantaneously through social media.

to

• Suggested factors included anger of some investors towards Wall Street hedge funds for their role in the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008, or the general democratization of the stock market coupled with the ability of retail traders to communicate instantaneously through social media. This coordination through social media during a short squeeze, or more generally "collusion" during increasing demand, was theoretically shown to be inevitable.

References

This is a source from 2016, and not about 2021 events. From what is written above, that is entirely unclear to a reader. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The source is about 2021 events, but in a general sense: during a short squeeze demand is increasing which in turn is conducive to collusion akin to what WallStreetBets did. One possible cause of the collusion of WallStreetBets during the GameStop short squeeze is a result of a more general situation stated and proved in the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:8d3f:b800:d1e5:9b95:779f:bf55 (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Using a source from 2016 here would appear to be WP:SYNTH RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2021

This event is still ongoing and therefor it should be treated as an ungoing event such as the COVID Pandemic. Instead of the written past tense. 83.128.94.158 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This kind of thing would definitely need consensus as it's changing the entire article. The article seems to be talking about January-March anyway, I can't find anything from June or May. --Ferien (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2021

AMC ticker symbol (AMC) not ( AMCX) 2601:14A:4500:45E0:35C0:A7E7:1B38:A7E1 (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Two different companies are being dicussed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2021

No short positions were covered in January the price was due to simple buying pressure. Why would you lie unless you're paid off? The CC released an article clearly stating that no short positions were covered in January therefore there was not a short squeeze. Your misinforming hundreds of millions of people on purpose. 2600:1008:B024:6A83:4629:1B42:3D52:1EBB (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for Revision

I was reading the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) report on Equity and Options Market Structure Conditions in Early 2021. This report included information regarding the "short squeeze" of GameStop Corp that happened this year. I read the whole report and found something interesting.

The SEC reported that there was actually no evidence that a short squeeze occurred. In fact, there was also no evidence of a gamma squeeze occurring. I found every single line in the report that states this and listed it below:

1. Alternatively, others contended that unusually high levels of short interest in GME presented the potential for a coordinated “short squeeze.” 2. GameStop had already started to receive attention on Reddit in 2019, including in discussions about short squeezes. That attention grew throughout 2020. 3. Given the high levels of short interest, together with the price movements in GameStop, a natural question is the degree to which these price movements arose from a “short squeeze.” Indeed, some of the meme stock trading was described in news coverage as an act of rebellion against short-selling professional investors who had targeted GameStop and other stocks. 4. While the price of GameStop did eventually fall, one could ask to what extent a short squeeze lay behind its price increase dynamics. 5. Another possible explanation could be a “gamma squeeze,” which occurs when market makers purchase a stock to hedge the risk associated with writing call options on that stock, in turn putting further upward pressure on the underlying stock price. As noted above, though, staff did not find evidence of a gamma squeeze in GME during January 2021. 6. These observations by themselves are not consistent with a gamma squeeze. 7. While a short squeeze did not appear to be the main driver of events, and a gamma squeeze less likely, the episode highlights the role and potential impact of short selling and short covering.

I am addressing this is because I read the Wikipedia article regarding the "GameStop Short Squeeze" and it appears to be fairly inconsistent with the U.S. SEC official report. There was no evidence of a short squeeze and the price movement was solely from retail buying pressure. I think it needs to be corrected because it gives the false narrative that a short squeeze already happened and that short sellers covered their positions. As far I can tell, we actually do not know if they covered - opening the potential for an actual short squeeze to happen.

Let me know what you think. Thanks!

Source: https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtomSnatcher (talk • contribs) 02:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is this page so wrong

I am not trying to offend anyone, I love the work the people of wikipedia do. But a short squeeze forces the price up by forcing (squeezing) short buyers to buy the stock. But according to the sec report on this event there was no buying back of stocks by short buyers 178.228.130.23 (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)