Talk:Panic of 1907

Comment

To the authors of Panic 1907:

[NOTE: SHOULD THIS READ AUGUSTUS HEINZE, NOT OTTO HEINZE?]

I read with interest the existing article on this important and timely topic and noticed several (what I believe are) inaccuracies. Based on my reading of the many New York Times articles written at the time, I think the Heinze's bank was the Mercantile, not the Knickerbocker Trust. Heinze was later indicted for alleged violations of banking law relating to a loan he made from the Mercantile to himself to fund his brothers' firm's repurchase of United Copper Stock. (He was ultimately acquitted). One of the major trigger points of the panic was the inability of the Heinzes to purchase all of the shares of Copper stock which flooded the market in October 1907 after the Heinzes tried to corner the market in United Copper. I don't think Knickerbocker was a Heinze bank.

The Knickerbocker was implicated in the panic through Charles Morse. Morse was a speculator who was involved with the Heinzes in the so-called Copper Pool which at the time was trying to corner the United Copper market and squeeze out the short interest which it believed was driving the price down. When the Heinzes made their move to corner United Copper, Morse apparently dumped his shares into the market. The Heinzes couldn't find funds to purchase all of the stock dumped into the market and believing that Morse was a seller approached Morse to have him buy back his shares. As the panic unfolded, Morse, through his bank, the Bank of North America, made a deposit in the Knickerbocker Trust which then made a loan back to Morse. It was subsequently alleged that this transaction, as well as others Morse engaged in through the Bank of North America constituted violations of banking law by Morse.

As the panic unfolded, confidence in the New York banks and trust companies was drained and depositors feared for the safety of their deposits. When it came to light that the Knickerbocker, through its President, Charles Barney, had been transacting business with Morse, Barney resigned. A run on the Knickerbocker was begun and while it was initially expected that the New York banking community would support the trust, support did not materialize and the Knickerbocker failed. As the failure of additional trust companies loomed, JP Morgan and other banking leaders did ultimately step in and provide liquidity and total disaster was averted.

Unfortunately, it was too late for Barney. Humiliated by the failure of his bank, the Knickerbocker, Barney committed suicide. He was never accused of wrong-doing and both his estate and the Knickerbocker were found to have been solvent. Morse was indicted and ultimately convicted of violations of bank law and he served two years in Federal prison before his sentence was commuted by President Taft. Heinze was acquitted of wrong-doing in connection with the Mercantile Bank loan and spent the few remaining years of his life trying to reestablish his fortune.

Skipjen (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Skipjen, if you're reading this -- you are quite correct and I wish someone had spotted it earlier. This article was shockingly incorrect. I'm working on fixing it! --JayHenry (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fed

I deleted "relatively" from the first sentence of the article -- as in "the panic was a relatively serious economic downturn." It struck me as an unsupported subjective viewpoint, and also seemed to contradict information later in the article. (E.g., "the severity was such that Congress was moved to form the Federal Reserve Bank" -- I am paraphrasing here.) It's possible that this panic really was only "relatively" serious when compared to others, but I think it would be better to provide some real indication of the scope, rather than use a vague modifier like "relatively". For instance, X number of banks were forced to close, etc.

There are also two instances of "Panic" being capitalized where perhaps it shouldn't be. (One at the end of the first paragraph -- "the fourth Panic in 34 years" -- and another in the second paragraph where the event is referred to merely as "the Panic.") I was going to change both to lowercase, but there have already been edits on the case of those words so I let them be.

Finally, I wonder about the last sentence in the first paragraph (i.e., "the fourth Panic in 34 years"). The argument for inclusion is probably that it provides context -- this wasn't just one isolated panic. But the numbers used are odd. Why 34 years? Why the last four panics? Was the period before ~1870 especially quiet? Did Congress refer especially to these four panics when ordering the creation of the Federal Reserve? Would it suffice to say, "The Panic of 1907 was just one in a series of panics that swept Wall Street in the years following --some event-- or leading up to --some event--"? I don't know enough about this topic to make the edit myself, but that is a question I have as a reader. --Mbennardo 15:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I added another sentence to the end of the article about the creation of Federal Reserve Bank in response to the Panic of 1907. I think this closes the loop on the effect of the panic... The Fed was mentioned in the first paragraph, but never again. Perhaps this addition is outside the scope of the article, but since the article on the Federal Reserve Act mentions the Panic of 1907, it seemed to make sense to reciprocate.

--Mbennardo 15:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The intro of this article seems to be propaganda for central banks and Keynesianism. The "logic" seems to be that the crisis was caused by lack of a central bank, and so a central bank was needed. This is debatable at best. Hence, a tag for disputing of neutrality is added.

146.2.243.254 (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Seasonal interest rate fluctuations, liquidity crunches, and panics were a result of the National Banking system. There's no circular logic behind that, as it's spelled out in some detail in the article, and much more detail in the sources if you're interested in the topic. --JayHenry (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced?

This article has an "Unreferenced" template tag which says "This article does not cite any references or sources," but there are number of references at the bottom of the article. While it might be nice to have individual statements footnoted, I would hardly think this counts as unreferenced. 24.155.88.186 13:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC) SOrry but I couldn't afford to have refrences. There might be a chance to have those.

JP Morgan Criticism Section Missing

There's no section for the criticism of JP Morgan actually starting the rumor that lead to the panic of 1907. The 1907 crisis was also precipitated by a rumor by J/P. Morgan that the Knickerbocker Trust Company was insolvent, and then J.P. Morgan swoops in wit a capital infusion to save the day. this so-called panic became the justification for the Jekyll Island meeting to discuss the establishment of a new Fed bank.

As well it's not even mentioned that banks had the option to shore up their reserve rates. (So they actually had most of the money they said they had.) Instead this article seems to make creation of a central bank to alleviate the issue the only viable option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.199.4 (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm in the middle of an expansion and haven't gotten to the end yet. This will be included along with the Pujo hearings in the "Aftermath" section. From the literature I've read, however, there's little historical evidence that Morgan did this deliberately, although the theory is certainly out there. --JayHenry (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I stuck an "underconstruction" tag on the article to show where things are at; pls feel free to remove it when you get to the end. tnx. (and good work, party like it's 1907) Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification ?

what is 'float consolidations'? in: "obtained control of the Bank of North America and other banks to float consolidations and other schemes." Is it a bad phrase, or some economic term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.45.29 (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions

I have a few questions, although nervous exhaustion prevents me from gathering them all, for now. Here is one: The 1907 panic was the fourth experienced in the States in 34 years. Can you put this in context; is four a lot or not a lot. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was meant to be a superlative, but four is sort of a lot. Depending on what you classify as a banking panic, we have had...(thinking) 4 in the last 30 odd years but <2 the 30 years before that and 1-2 the thirty years before that. Protonk (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I mean context; it needs to be qualified how often did runs occured at the time. This a small thing bty; I think the article is very strong otherwise. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This was language from an old lead I think. I've been meaning to rewrite. Historians seem to disagree about how many events should be considered bank panics. --05:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Forbes quote under "Central bank" could be trimmed. Its verbose, and out of proportion. Ceoil ^sláinte 05:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of interesting to have a quote from one of the few famous contemporary business journalists, but it's quite long. I've just left it in there from the old version as I don't have that particular book and don't know the page number of the quote. I hate to drop it altogether, but without having it double checked might have to... Of course, it's probably a bit better suited for "history of the fed". --JayHenry (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Otto Heinze

Some sources about the Panic of 1907 are not very clear about the corner of United Copper. Although Augustus Heinze was associated, it was his brother Otto Heinze who led the failed corner. Bruner and Carr are both extremely detailed and extremely clear about this. --JayHenry (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Panic of 1907/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I am selfishly reviewing this article for GA because I have read it through and found it fascinating. Everything about the article seems to be in order. There are a few minor prose issues which I will list below, along with anything else I may find. All in all, it seems like a wonderful article. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Comments

• In the lead, perhaps you should be more specific regarding when in 1907 this occurred to orient the reader. I know that in the body of the article, you say it started in January. Maybe a time span in the lead would be good.

  Okay I clarified. The panic itself only lasted for a few weeks beginning in October 1907. The information in "economic conditions" is about how the system got to a point where a panic was possible. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "that October" - October of 1906?

  Specified. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "for the scheme experienced a number of runs which in time spread to affiliated banks and trusts.." - could remove "in time" as unnecessary wording, since you say a week later it led to....etc.

  Agree. Removed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "With the collapse of New York's third largest trust company fear spread throughout the city's trusts and across the country as regional banks pulled deposits from New York and as nationwide people withdrew deposits from their regional banks." - needs some commas - With the collapse of New York's third largest trust company, fear spread throughout the city's trusts and across the country as regional banks pulled deposits from New York, and as nationwide people withdrew deposits from their regional banks.

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• wikilink anti-trust?

  I linked to trust-busting, because it better explains the context here than anti-trust (which redirects to Competition law). --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Foreign investors would fund cash..." - Foreign investors funded cash - FAC editors hate "would"s.

  Rewrote this a bit. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "modest correction" - could this be wikilinked to correction (stock market) or something else appropriate?

  Yep. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "By late September, they had recovered about half of their losses." - not entirely sure who "they" is.

  Oops! "They" were "stocks". --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The economy stayed shaky..." - remained shaky?

  Changed it to remained volatile which is more precise. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "that June an offering of New York City bonds failed; while in July the copper market collapsed;" - semicolon is incorrect here as a comma is needed - should be ...that June an offering of New York City bonds failed, while in July the copper market collapsed;...

  Rewrote this whole graf. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• 'the Commercial & Financial Chronicle noted: "the market keeps unstable.' - usually this is formatted as The Commercial & Financial Chronicle noted: "[T]he market keeps unstable.

  The Wall Street Journal vs. the Wall Street Journal is not something style guides agree on. I went with your preference here. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "F. Augustus Heinze's company United Copper." - comma needed - Heinze's company, United Copper.

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "cautioned Heinze" - which Heinze brother? Also, you start out saying that it is F. Augustus Heinze's company, but then you switch to Otto as the main player.

  That's correct, Otto Heinze developed a plan to corner the stock in F. Augustus Heinze's company believing that the Heinze family (he, Augustus and some other family members) controlled all the stock. I went through and clarified throughout. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Heinze was ruined" - or were all the Heinzes ruined, or what? I am getting the Heinzes and their various positions confused!

  Clarified. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "By the weekend after the failed corner there was not yet..." comma needed - By the weekend after the failed corner, there was not yet...

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "boom cycle" - wikilink to Economic boom or something appropriate.

  I reworded. This was a mistake. What was happening with Trusts wasn't intrinsically cyclical. This was just a boom. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "run" - I notice that you use this word several times in the article - is there anything financial you could wikilink the first occurance of the word to?

  Done. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "agitate the confidence of New York's banks..." - odd wording - shake the confidence?

  Agree. Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "most-connected" - not sure about this word - could it be reworded somehow?

  I'm not sure... This is meant in the sense of business connections, and I think it becomes apparent throughout the article what's meant, no? Morgan had business ties with everybody. --JayHenry (talk)

• "but decided it was insolvent and decided not to intervene to stop the run." - repeting word - decided it was insolvent and therefore not to intervene to stop the run?

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Tuesday, October 22 the..." - Tuesday, October 22, the...

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "to help support the situation." - is there a better word than "situation"?

  Specified. He did this to help shore up their deposits. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "afternoon Morgan pronounced “This is the place to stop the trouble," - comma - Morgan pronounced, "This...

  fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "crash" - wikilink to Stock market crash?

  Good idea. Done. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "most famous banker Lord Rothschild sent word..." - commas - most famous banker, Lord Rothschild, sent word

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "In an attempt to gather confidence, the Treasury Secretary Cortelyou agreed that it would send Washington a signal..." - not sure what "it" refers to.

  Oops, never finished this sentence when I wrote it :0 He returned to Washington to send a signal to Wall Street that the worst had passed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "To ensure a free flow of funds on Monday, the New York Clearinghouse issued $100 million in loan certificates, to be traded between banks to settle balances,..." - remove second comma - To ensure a free flow of funds on Monday, the New York Clearinghouse issued $100 million in loan certificates to be traded between banks to settle balances,...

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Unbeknown to the city a new crisis was being averted in the background." - comma needed - Unbeknown to the city, a new crisis was being averted in the background.

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "by Saturday November 2" - by Saturday, November 2,

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "economic contraction - wikilink? economic contraction

  Linked. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "until December 22, 1913..." - comma - December 22, 1913, - you have the comma at the second mention of that date.

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I might have missed some things. I will run through the article again and check the rest of the issues. Very interesting article, but complex! It would help to wikilink as many of the financial terms as you can.

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, thanks so much for taking the time to review. I will start working on these points later tonight and hopefully will be able to address most of them quickly. I'm glad you enjoyed the article! --JayHenry (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks again for going over that so closely, Mattisse! If you see any other problems feel free to edit yourself (some editors don't like when reviewers get involved, but I don't mind) or if you prefer to raise them for me, that's okay too. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Update: I just learned that I have to leave town for a couple of days and I'm not going to be able to edit. I apologize that this came in the middle of a review. If further work is needed, I should be back by Monday and will be able to address concerns then. Again, my sincere apology for this unexpected delay! --JayHenry (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for letting me know. I will put the article on hold, but the seven day limit is very flexible and nothing to worry about. I probably will do some editing myself, since you don't mind. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• A great deal of editing has been done by several editors. At this point, I see no further problems with the article and will pass it as GA.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Very well written b (MoS): No obvious MoS errors

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced. b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):Broad enough to set the context. b (focused): Focuses on the issues important to the article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: It is neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): All images are in the public domain. b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Extremely good article. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Some present relevance

In which our readers note that occasionally Wikipedia does a better job summarizing a crisis than a magazine. :) Protonk (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice to hear we are not all just wasting our time ;-) Ceoil ^sláinte 22:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

...And a very well chosen topical and interesting article to select as todays featured article! Well done! ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.71.186 (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

"Markets are closed for Election Day" (in the side box) The US presidential election was held on November 3, 1908 almost a year after the Panic of 1907. Therefore this could not possibly be the cause of calm returning to the markets in late 1907.

In some states, election day does not only refer to presidential elections. New York had local elections on November 5, 1907, this was election day, and the market was closed. --JayHenry (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

An entire market took place on the curb outside the New York Stock Exchange—this later became the American Stock Exchange—and was where the panic of 1907 began. (From an img caption) Badly explained: why 'entire' and although I get the jist I had to muddle it for a while before it made sence. Long captions are ok. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mattisse|'s edit [1]; better, but still begs the question why and under what circumstances? The caption should stand on its own. Sorry to be pain the arse. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, one solution would be to remove the picture altogether. Another would be to give it a more global caption. The description on the image is: "Stock trading on the New York Curb Association market, with brokers and clients signalling from street to offices." It is such a great picture that it would be a shame to remove it. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No definatly dont remove it. I'm just interested in the back story. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is contained in the text:

The stock closed at $30 on Tuesday and fell to $10 by Wednesday. Otto Heinze was ruined. The stock of United Copper was traded outside the hall of the New York Stock Exchange literally "on the curb" (this curb market would later become the American Stock Exchange). After the crash, The Wall Street Journal reported, "Never has there been such wild scenes on the Curb, so say the oldest veterans of the outside market."

—Mattisse (Talk) 13:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse sorry the thick Paddy; but why outside the building? Was the stock "expelled"? Ceoil ^sláinte 22:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the American Stock Exchange was actually an outdoor market until 1921 when it moved indoors. It was located in 1907 on the curb outside the New York Stock Exchange building. (I don't think this article can ever be explained much more specifically than it is now. The more I read about the whole thing, the more complicated it becomes. Just explaining "antitrust law" - actually known as Competition law in Europe - as it pertains to this article seems like a huge task. It would be easier just to remove the phrase anti-trust crusading from the article for those not familiar with the history of American presidents.) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dont agree. Competition law is a basic concept to Europeans as we take monopoly seriously, and a short note explaining antitrust law in six or less words is not a big ask of anybody, yank or euro. Img captions should be self explaniatory and self contanined, otherwise they are just decoration. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Antitrust law is Competition law. The article should be written with European terminology so no one is unduly mystified. "Antitrust" isn't in the caption. It is referred to regarding Theodore Roosevelt in the lede, and isn't necessary to the story. Either remove the trust-busting link, or use "antitrust law" with piping, since it redirects to Competition law anyway (being the same thing), so that no more complex explanation is needed. Competition law is common knowledge to everyone. There is no point in repeating an explanation everyone knows, just because the terminology is not European. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

I can make sence of this: Not only had Morgan's bank survived, but the trust companies that were a growing rival to traditional banks were also badly damaged. Ceoil ^sláinte 13:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Reworked this a bit so hopefully it's clearer. In short the concern was: 'Morgan survived, his competitors were damaged, so was he being altruistic or taking advantage of a crisis?' I've gone over a lot of the prose points. I'm not as sure what to do about the sourcing objections, as they're not exactly grounded in policy or an understanding of what would and wouldn't be a controversial claim. WP:CITE says "anything that is likely to be challenged"; but the de facto standard at FAC is, to the detriment of the encyclopedia, "anything that could possibly be challenged". Grrr... --JayHenry (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Better now for sure. If you are unsure as to how to respond to the sourcing concerns, ask Awadewit directly. She is very approchable and very helpful. Ceoil ^sláinte 15:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh don't get me wrong, I really love Awadewit and think she's almost the best thing on the project. And as much as I appreciate her efforts to raise standards on Wikipedia she's literally opposing an FAC because a single clause of a single sentence might not pass muster in an academic journal. That's not grounded in WP:WIAFA. You know, I don't live on a university campus. I don't have access to ILL. I have a killer day job (especially right now) I don't have time to hang out at libraries; I buy these books. She's not stupid; she knows what she's saying. She thinks WP:WIAFA is too lenient. She thinks FAs should be at academic journal standards. But seriously, a single clause? How am I not going to be irked by this? --JayHenry (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. I feel like there has been some misunderstanding here. When I read the article, this sentence - "Although Morgan lost $21 million in the panic, and the significance of the role he played in staving off worse disaster is undisputed, he became the focus of intense scrutiny and criticism" - was sourced only to Strouse (a very questionable source). Now, however, a new sentence - "The significance of the role Morgan played in staving off worse disaster is undisputed, but he became the focus of intense scrutiny and criticism" - is sourced to three sources (two of which are extremely reliable). I specifically asked at the FAC whether this sentence could be supported by peer-reviewed sources because it is a major statement underlying this section - apparently it can. I'm not sure why this was not made clear at the FAC. I have no problems with this at all - I only had problems with such an important sentence being sourced to a questionable opinion piece rather than a peer-reviewed source. That has now been rectified. Awadewit (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, I'm curious why you think Strouse is a questionable source? I haven't gotten to it yet, but it seems to be a well-reviewed biography. --Robertknyc (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• The article wasn't quoting from the biography - it was quoting from an opinion piece of some sort in the Washington Post. I would have had no problems with the biography. Awadewit (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• As opposed to those hacks on the news staff at The Washington Post, I'm certain the editors at Random House employed forensic accountants from PricewaterhouseCoopers to go over the ledgers of JP Morgan's companies in 1907. Of course not. Even in the biography the issue rests with the scholar's own integrity and accuracy. The other clauses in this sentence are tautologically contained in the other sources. The entire panic section described Morgan's role in tremendous detail; the remainder of the article describes the scrutiny and criticism in some detail as well. The article would be written from an outrageous POV, to describe Morgan's role in such detail, if it were in fact held to be insignificant! This is basic context. So, yes, you literally opposed because a single clause was not more reliably sourced than to a J.P. Morgan scholar, writing about J.P. Morgan, in the Washington Post Outlook section. I'm surprised you don't understand how someone might consider this taking things a wee bit far. --JayHenry (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Others aren't as positive on Morgan..."

In [2], I wonder if the opposing viewpoint on Morgan is a significant one that should be mentioned in this article? See paragraph beginning "Others aren't as positive on Morgan..." JayHenry's Attorney (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I see now that alternative views on Morgan's role are mentioned under "Pujo Committee". That's probably sufficient. Good article! (Yes Jay, I'll stop using this account name now, as it's probably getting on yer nerves.) JayHenry's Attorney (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought about this too, but other than the claims that Morgan helped spread rumors to damage the Trusts, I haven't seen the support behind the claims. (I included what I saw.) There's a curious conspiracy-theory literature behind the Federal Reserve. And of course it's a continuum, from advocates of aggressive interest rate adjustment, to those who think the reserve should focus solely on inflation and not also employment, to critics of its dependence and independence, to critics of central banking period, to those who believe the system is too insular, that it is anti-competitive, that the "money trust" never went away, that it quietly manipulates the entire world using mechanisms nobody understands, and finally and sickeningly, the unending Protocols-inspired anti-Semitic cabal theories. --JayHenry (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh... In case anyone thought I was exaggerating Talk:Panic of 1907#Historical lies perpetuation. --JayHenry (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In light of today's Crisis

Is there a reason why this article is featured today exactly 101 years after J.P. Morgan infusion to the market? SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The system for placing featured articles on the main page, WP:TFAR, rewards extra points for anniversaries. It's mostly just a coincidence. Myself and several other editors finished working on this article a few weeks ago (I started working on it before the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy). Since it was so timely, it was quickly featured. --JayHenry (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical lies perpetuation

Don't let be fooled by all these official lies perpetuated.

It's clear that bankers then leaded by J.P.Morgan forced and used this crisis as one more flawed justification to create the nefarious Federal Reserve System in 1913.

Watch the Zeitgeist: Addendum, the movie : Find here as well as it’s replies.

Open Your Eyes Fellows! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.181.13 (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Should mention that the cure was worse than the disease

Since the article goes to great lengths to show that these events were the alleged justification for creation of the Federal Reserve System, allegedly to prevent such catastrophes, isn't it relevant in aftermath to point out that the next Panic to occur after the Fed's creation, the Great Depression, was far worse and longer-lasting than any of its predecessors? As the stock chart indicates, the index dropped about 50% during this incident, vs. 90% during the 1929-1930's era. The article mentions the Fed as the proposed cure, so its failure to prevent, and perhaps exacerbate, such situations is notable.

Also, with all due respect to the time and effort put into the stock market chart, please note that such charts are generally put in log scale (logarithmic on the left axis) to offset the overly-dramatic visual effects of compounding over time. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Eh. It wouldn't be helpful to place a graph that goes from 50-130 on a log scale.

• also, this article isn't the place to argue the fed's role in the great depression. The discussion of the impact of central banking is important, but tangential to this article on an event in history. Protonk (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Graphs of the stock market over decades might be put in log scale. But there's no "overly-dramatic visual effects of compounding" when you're only looking at a period of 2-3 years. Just think about how compounding works... --JayHenry (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This article reeks of bias and praise towards Morgan, and it is peculiarly apologetic in the defense of the idea of a central banking system and, more specifically, the Federal Reserve. If one understands Austrian economics, this article reads like a really poor joke, at best. The introduction is nothing short of pure propaganda. Read it for yourself and try to keep a straight face.

The panic would have deepened if not for the intervention of financier J. P. Morgan, who pledged large sums of his own money, and convinced other New York bankers to do the same, to shore up the banking system. At the time, the United States did not have a central bank to inject liquidity back into the market.

I cannot believe this is allowed on Wikipedia. I could have sworn Wikipedia was one of the few remaining bastions for truth and unbiased/unfiltered information to combat what people take for granted in the "mainstream" world of information and education.

I don't want to be too rude, but that is what happened. How are we to have this article without noting the record. We can't go back in time and make JPM not lend millions of his own money and canvass bankers and industrialists to do the same. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Mr. Protonk :) According to the Austrian School, central banks are what cause crashes. It's their whole business cycle theory. For our little Austrian friend's world not to explode he has to pretend that the entire event never even happened. The cognitive dissonance is very difficult for him.

Error in the feature article

The figure legend reads: """ A swarm gathers on Wall Street during the bank panic in October 1000101010 to eat pancakes. Federal Hall, with its statue of Adolf Hitler is seen on the right. """

This is obviously wrong. Adolf Hitler was a complete nobody in 1907.

Is that a tasteless joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.191.71.15 (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's vandalism. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 12:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)