Talk:S&P 500/Archives/2016

Price history

In the spirit of WP:BRD, the purpose of this comment is to solicit opinions about an edit made by me (HLachman) and reverted by another editor (OwenX) in the "Price history" section on 26 July 2016. There are two consecutive sentences involved.

Original text:

• On May 21, 2015, the index closed at 2,130.82, its high point for the year. At the close of 2015, the index hit 2,043.94, down 0.73% for the year.
• But it managed to reach current record in July 14, 2016 after 14 months with closing high at 2,163.75 along with intraday high the following day at 2,169.05.

Proposed edit:

• On May 21, 2015, the index closed at 2,130.82, its high point for the year. At the end of 2015, the index closed at 2,043.94, down 0.73% for the year.
• It managed to reach a new record on July 11, 2016, after nearly 14 months, with a closing high of 2,137.16.

In my opinion, my proposed edit as above (which is what was added by me, then reverted) is an improvement over the original text for the following reasons:

1. It was July 11 (not July 14) when the S&P 500 broke a record that had previously held for nearly 14 months (and not a full 14 months). (source: Reuters)
2. Asserting that the high reached on July 14 is the "current record" is not accurate since that high has been broken since then (data available on Yahoo Finance).
3. While breaking a nearly 14 month record may be a notable milestone (as occurred on July 11), additional new highs on subsequent days (such as July 14 and 15) may be frequent occurrences (e.g., see also July 18, 20, 22... data available on Yahoo Finance) and therefore less notable.
4. Some wording cleanup was needed ("But" not necessary, and "reach current record" is grammatically incorrect).
5. The word "hit" is typically used when a high is reached, but the 2015 closing price was a decline since the previous day and year.

I now see that an edit similar to mine had been made previously by another editor (OfficerAPC) and reverted by the same reverter (OwenX). In my opinion, that edit would have similarly improved the article.

Upon reverting my edit, the reverter (OwenX) stated the following in the edit summary:

• (Undid revision 731606204 by HLachman rv; please don't replace valid information with stale data just to prove a point. If you can't be bothered to look up any financial news source, at least let others do so.)

My response to that is as follows:

• ("please don't replace valid information with stale data"): The original text asserted that the July 14 high is "current", but that is no longer the current high, which makes the wording of the original text (not my text) stale (meaning, inaccurate at the present time).
• ("look up any financial news source): My data came from Yahoo Finance, and is corroborated by Reuters (see link above).
• ("at least let others do so"): I noticed that the original text did not cite any sources. My text is supported by the Reuters link (as above).
• ("just to prove a point ... you can't be bothered"). It's unclear how making comments about individual editors or their motives helps to improve the article (WP:CIVIL).

Please discuss any opinions about the above. In particular, if you disagree with the numbered reasons listed above, please state your reasons for that and cite sources if applicable. My proposal is to reinstate the proposed text (along with the Reuters link) if there is consensus or if there is no discussion. I will wait at least a few days to see if there is any discussion. Thanks. -- HLachman (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here, HLachman. I agree with point #2; neither record is current. As for the rest of it, a quick look at Yahoo Finance that you mentioned or any other reliable source shows that the July 14 close was higher than the July 11 close, and significantly so. Since then, the record has been broken three more times: on July 18, 20 and 22.

What bothers me more about this is what I see as the "inquisitorial" system versus the "adversarial" one, to use legal nomenclature. The inquisitorial approach would be to take a quick look at any reliable financial source, see that the July 11 record is stale, and update the article to reflect the July 22 closing record, and the July 20 intraday record. Instead, HLachman opted for the adversarial approach, which is, sit back, let other editors present the "evidence", and reject whatever isn't supported by a valid citation, even if it can be easily verified with a quick fact-check. This, I consider to be laziness. Our job here is to edit, not adjudicate. While the July 11 data had a citation, the July 14 was closer to the truth. It would have taken the same effort to update it with the current (July 22) numbers and add a reference as it did to remove the July 14 numbers. If I have misread your motives, my apologies, but your actions speak for themselves.

It takes thirty seconds to check the current S&P record at any given moment. If you're going to edit that section, update it to the current numbers, rather than engage in petty quibbles about sources, while employing willful blindness to the facts. The way to fix poorly referenced but accurate information is by adding references, not by removing the information. Owen× ☎ 13:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Just to respond:

• ("If you're going to edit that section, update it to the current numbers"): Your comment leads to an interesting question, which is: Should the "Price history" section only document notable past milestones and events, or should it also make assertions about what is true in the present time ("present" meaning whenever a reader happens to read it) such as by using the word "current"? To my knowledge, the former, at least, had always been the case, while the latter had not been the case, at least not by any precedent existing prior to the July 15 edits. I am created a separate Talk page section (below) to address this question.
• ("the July 11 record is stale"): As I had suggested already in points #1 and #3 (which have not been referenced by anyone as being false or controversial), if the sentence in question was meant to convey when the nearly 14-month record was broken, then my proposed text accomplishes that and the original text does not. There is precedent in the article that the breaking of a long-held record is a notable milestone (e.g., the mention of the March 28, 2013 close). If we take "stale" to mean that this kind of information is no longer useful, then it would seem that both the July 11, 2016 and the March 28, 2013 closing prices could be regarded as "stale." Rather than to debate the meaning of the word "stale", I will only express my opinion that the breaking of long-held records is a notable event that may be worth including in the article, and if we do so (as the original text attempted to do, as evidenced by its "14 months" wording), then we should do so using the date when the milestone of breaking that record actually occurred (and not some other date, which is what the original text did).
• ("HLachman opted for the adversarial approach ... laziness ... your actions speak for themselves ... engage in petty quibbles ... employing willful blindness to the facts"): It appears that these comments are about me, and not about the article, so I'm not sure how to respond, other than to repeat for a second time my previous comment, "It's unclear how making comments about individual editors or their motives helps to improve the article." I agree that my actions speak for themselves, and to my knowledge, my only action was to edit the article in good faith, and my only motive was to address the issues in the numbered items listed above (1 to 5). Please keep the focus on the article and its subject matter, as the issue at hand isn't me or any editor or their motives.

As it stands, other than the open question of whether the article should contain assertions about "current" record highs (addressed in a separate section, below), I'm not aware of any disagreement with my numbered reasons (1 to 5, above), either in terms of whether they are valid statements or whether they legitimately support the proposed text over the original text. I will therefore assume that those reasons are still valid (unless and until someone states which ones are not, and why). I welcome any further feedback. -- HLachman (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

HLachman, you said, "It appears that these comments are about me, and not about the article". That is incorrect. My comments are about your edit, and about similar edits by other editors. I know nothing about you, nor hold any opinion about you. I never accused you of bad faith. My criticism was not ad hominem; it was directed at your edit, and at similar edits by others who prefer to click the "undo" button, when searching for a reference would provide a much better solution.

Do we need WP to provide an up-to-date quote on the S&P record at the time of reading? I have no strong opinion about this one way or the other. There are many links in the reference section that already provide the data. However, if a record is to be mentioned in the article, it should be a currently valid one, and should not be reverted to an older record simply because an editor failed to provide a proper citation. Owen× ☎ 10:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your question, please note that I had previously forked the discussion into two different sections, this one dealing with the question of whether the "Original text" or the "Proposed edit" (as noted above) is better for the purpose of reporting historical data. The other section, "Assertions in article about current record highs", is the one intended for dealing with the question of whether or not current data should be treated in the article. Therefore, please see that other section (below) for my response to your question.

Getting back to the topic of this section (treatment of historical data), since it appears that the only issue you raised is the one discussed in the other section (treatment of current data), I'm assuming you have no issue to raise with regard to treatment of historical data (specifically, how to accurately report when the nearly 14-month record was broken) and that my "Proposed edit" above is satisfactory for that purpose. Therefore, please indicate whether you accept or reject my proposal to reinstate my "Proposed edit". If you accept it, then I invite you to revert your own reversion of my edit. Thanks. -- HLachman (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen your forked section, and have no interest in participating in your gymnastics. If you want a serious discussion, please keep things in one coherent thread. This divide-and-conquer tactic won't win you much support around here.

As for your edit, I see no notability in a mere 14 month "record". The May 3, 2013 record was meaningful, as it followed 13 years with no record. The July 2016 one is a statistical artifact. I am fine with removing the entire portion about 2016, or replacing it with any wording that also includes the current record, as of the time of writing, whether or not it mentions the July 11 yardstone. Owen× ☎ 17:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your comments:

• ("divide-and-conquer tactic"): My reason for creating the other section was to keep from entangling two issues (how to treat historical data, which is what at least 99% of the "Price history" section is about, and how to treat current data, which I believe should be in a separate section of the article, assuming it should be represented at all). It also helps to keep this section from being more massive than it already is, since I don't have to write here everything that I wrote there. I disagree with and object to your accusation of "divide-and-conquer tactic". For the third time: It's unclear how making comments about individual editors or their motives helps to improve the article.
• ("I see no notability in a mere 14 month "record""): The "Original text" (which is what you restored in your reversions of July 15 and 26) also contains the "14 months" wording. If your meaning is that you disagree with the wording that you helped to restore, then that is new information.
• ("The July 2016 one is a statistical artifact): I understand that this is your opinion. Again, your opposition to including it was unclear because you restored text that included July 2016 information. As to whether it's an "artifact", at least Reuters chose to mention that it was a long-held record (in the article cited above). It's unclear whether your standard for inclusion/exclusion would also exclude the March 28, 2013 price (as I mentioned above). That text is still in the article.

It seems we have not reached a consensus. Therefore, I have requested a WP:3O (third opinion). To recap my opinion, it is basically what I said in "My proposal is" above (for the reasons given above) and "no" to the question in the other section below (for the reasons given there). As it stands, the article contains false information (as mentioned in my point #2) and therefore it is necessary to reach some consensus for a fix. -- HLachman (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• "For the third time: It's unclear [...]" - It's unclear to me how repeating this phrase like a parrot makes it any more valid than it was the first time I pointed out its falsehood. Get over yourself already; no one here is interested in you or your motives. We are discussing your edits and the views you express here. It may behoove you to interact with others like a grown-up. That will help not only this article, but your overall editing experience, as well as that of others working with you on an article.
• "I have requested a WP:3O (third opinion)." - Jolly good. And once that fails to provide a resolution, you'll take it to WP:DRN, as you normally do. The time and effort you are prepared to spend (and waste others') is without any proportion to the issue at hand. I already offered you several possible solutions for this one-sentence edit. But as I said, the thrill of the chase seems to capture your fancy far more than resolving this ridiculous tempest in a teapot.

I'm happy to give the 3O process a chance, but failing that, I suggest you either edit the article per any of my suggestions, or provide an alternate wording that addresses my concerns. Or if you prefer, I'll edit it myself to reflect the concern you raised in #2, which I already accepted as valid. Owen× ☎ 20:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Applied edit that simultaneously satisfies my suggestion ("My proposal is..."), suggestions from OwenX ("replacing it with any wording that also includes the current record, as of the time of writing, whether or not it mentions the July 11 yardstone", "I suggest you either edit the article per any of my suggestions"), and my "further suggestion" (which remains unopposed) in the section below ("a separate section or subsection called something like "Current record highs""). The question in the section below remains open. -- HLachman (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks good; thank you! Owen× ☎ 14:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are we using Acronyms in the article heading.

This is inappropriate. The Articles name should be Standard and Poor's 500 not the more commonly used S&P 500. We are not to use symbols as the articles main name. Please see Automated Teller Machine article for the correct way to title an article.

Above comment appears to have been added by‎ Boilingorangejuice on 8 January 2016.

@Boilingorangejuice: per WP:COMMONNAME we title articles according to the most commonly used name of the subject, not the official name. That's why, for example, our article on Bill Clinton isn't titled "William Jefferson Clinton" which is his actual name. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Assertions in article about current record highs

The outcome of the RfC was this edit, which removed the "Current record highs" section. Cunard (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

The purpose of this section is to request opinions about this question:

Should the article make assertions about what is "currently" true with regard to record closing highs and/or intraday highs? ("currently" meaning whenever a reader happens to read it).

Background info: The article was edited (by an IP editor) on 15 July 2016 to add such an assertion. This led to a series of edits and Talk page commentary, including the above comment from OwenX, "If you're going to edit that section, update it to the current numbers".

My opinion on the aforementioned question is "no", and I invite other opinions and reasons. My reasons are as follows:

• Upon cursory review of past versions of the article, it appears that prior to 15 July 2016 there was no precedent that the "Price history" section made assertions that any past record highs noted in the article are still current in the present moment (that is, the moment when a reader reads the article). In the absence of strong arguments to change, my inclination is to follow past precedent.
• Making statements about the "current" record high would place a burden on the editors to update that information whenever the record high changes. In the absence of any editors who are established as being committed to the task of keeping it updated, we have a situation where readers will see the article frequently containing a false statement (that something is a "current" record high when it is not).
• While I am aware that many articles make assertions about what is true currently ("The current President of the United States is...", "The current capital of Japan is..."), those are things that don't change very often, and in those cases, assertions about what is current will likely be inaccurate for only minutes (or hours) over a period of many years, and very infrequently. Stock indexes, on the other hand, might reach new record closing highs on a daily basis during steady bull markets, and reach new intraday highs minute-by-minute, meaning that assertions about "current" stock index record highs have a far higher likelihood and frequency of becoming out of date as the facts change, compared with those other kinds of events.

If there winds up being a consensus that the article should, in fact, make this kind of assertion, then my further suggestion would be to put it in a separate section or subsection called something like "Current record highs". This would make it easier for readers to understand where to find accurate current information (as opposed to historical information, which is what "Price history" seems to imply), and also alert editors to the need for timely and vigilant attention to that section.

Again, my opinion on the above question is "no", for the above-mentioned reasons, and I invite other opinions and reasons. Thanks. -- HLachman (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

A question was posed by OwenX (in the previous section, above), "Do we need WP to provide an up-to-date quote on the S&P record at the time of reading?" My opinion is "no". -- HLachman (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I added the subsection "Current record highs" as I mentioned above, as a compromise to resolve the disagreement in the preceding Talk page section ("Price history"). However, my opinion remains that it is unnecessary for the article to provide the latest record high (due to reasons listed above; also, other articles, such as DJIA and Wilshire 5000, don't provide latest record highs either, and there is no reason to set a new precedent; also, it is questionable whether records that change day-to-day are of any historical significance). Therefore, the question remains open. -- HLachman (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

opposed as high-maintenance Elinruby (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Opposed No, it should not. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, and though it's a "living" encyclopedia, it should attempt to remain relevant and true over time. The Plutocracy's Capitalist plunder records are transient and cyclic, at core there is zero significance behind record highs or record lows other than mere symbolics, ergo they're meaningless at core. The mere transient nature of the phenomena dictates irrelevance. Damotclese (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Summoned by bot . Opposed per WP:NOTNEWS. Coretheapple (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. If any high or low is notable, per sources, those can be listed, but not just recent ones. As a rule of thumb, the high or low would need significant coverage outside of day-to-day financial news -- front page of the Times and such. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Also summoned by bot. Also Opposed. Taking a step back, any record high is only significant until the next record high, since there are so many, by definition. What is significant instead is milestones. I think dates when the 100 pt steps are breached are notable. The article mentions several of these, but I think a table listing the dates of each new 100 pt close would be useful, and easier to update.Timtempleton (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• The table exists on a separate page, linked from the Milestones section in this article. It was embedded in the main article until 14 May 2013, when it was moved to its own page. As for your views on records, I disagree. Setting a new record after a 13 year gap is notable, and indeed received wide mainstream media coverage. Breaking a record after 14 months is probably not as notable Owen× ☎ 18:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• It's notable if a record high is reached after 13 years, but then if another is reached a week later, that 13 year period becomes somewhat less notable. We could debate how long a record-setting drought period is significant enough to write about, but don't you think the aforementioned table would settle everything - milestones, gaps, etc.?Timtempleton (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• WP:Notability applies to what may have its own article on Wikipedia, not what may be included in an article. Whether to focus on current records, or on surprising record-breaks, is simply a consensus determination of what the scope of the section should be. The former requires checking regularly if not daily, while the latter does not and is easier to maintain. Arguably it's the job of newspapers to report current stats with regard to something that may change on a day-to-day basis, yet WP:NOT#NEWS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The consensus seems to be "opposed" (which I agree with). Therefore, I will wait a couple days or so (to see if there is further discussion), and then revert my own edit (of 11:57, 1 August 2016‎, where I added the subsection "Current record highs"). -- HLachman (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:CURRENTLY and WP:NOT#NEWS, plus the above-described problem that we don't have anyone clearly committing to keeping updated in a daily basis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Due to the apparent consensus of "oppose", I have reverted my own edit (of 11:57, 1 Aug., in which I had added subsection "Current record highs"). I have also removed the RFC tag from this Talk section. If there are further comments on the above question (whether the article should maintain some statement about current/latest/recent record highs), you are welcome to post here, but the consensus seems clear enough already. If there are comments about any separate question or issue, please create a separate Talk section. Thanks again to all for your comments. -- HLachman (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2016 (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.