Talk:2000s United States housing market correction

Redundant?
A lot of this article seems redundant with the 2007 Subprime mortgage financial crisis article. Thoughts? Laser813 02:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and also redundant with United States housing bubble. At least two of these three articles should be merged. —Lowellian (reply) 03:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Biased?
The term "correction" in the title of this article represents a bias against free market economics. Markets determine the value of an exchange, but correction implies that other forces set some "correct" value. This is a socialist point of view. 74.64.19.13 (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Eric Jones Loan Inc.

A Sincere and certified private money lender approved by the GOVERNMENT. I give out international and local loans to all countries in the world. Amount given out $2,500 to $100,000,000 Dollars, Euro and Pounds, available now are Business, Personal, House, Travel and Student Loans. Apply for a loan today with your loan amount and duration.Its Easy and fast to get. 4% interest rates and monthly installment payments.Check-out this great offer, Please For more information contact me on ericjones1012@yahoo.com

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "NYT Alt-A loans" :

2009 Updates?
Any possibility of having this (and the housing bubble article) updated with 2009 information? This is a fascinating article, and I'd love to learn more about the events taking place right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.235.197 (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Every bubble has a correction, why put the correction on the bubble page? --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I vote against merger. That would be like merging "Black Tuesday" with the article on the speculative bubble of the 1920's.  The housing bubble spanned many years and involved cultural as well as economic factors;  it defined an era in American economic history, and its aftermath also spanned many years.  But the correction was its "Black Tuesday" moment, and is complex enough that it deserves detailed documentation in its own context.  As the years go by, I suspect that appetite will increase for information about The Correction as a separate event. Xanthis (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Redundant - Merging Suggested
I would agree that this article is redundant to several others on the same topic.

Lfrankbalm (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)lfrankbalmLfrankbalm (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Which others? I'm open to some consolidation... bobrayner (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on United States housing market correction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061110125549/http://business.bostonherald.com/realestateNews/view.bg?articleid=154892&format=text to http://business.bostonherald.com/realestateNews/view.bg?articleid=154892&format=text
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070526231748/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/18842917/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18842917/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States housing market correction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704225821/http://www.usnews.com:80/usnews/biztech/articles/060613/13housing_bubble.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060613/13housing_bubble.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629131731/http://www.rgemonitor.com:80/blog/roubini/202280 to http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/202280
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705213834/http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/184125 to http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/184125

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of citations to widely cited academic article by MrOllie based on Off-wiki personal attack; see wikipedia's page on reliable sources re: Mortgage Securitization
I wrote the following on MrOllie's talk page following his deletion of multiple citations to a particular academic author. Mr. Ollie did not respond on substance but rather responded with ad hominem attacks. Please discuss so that we can reach consensus.

Dear MrOllie,

You recently reverted edits to articles about mortgage securitization, the GSEs, and the subprime mortgage crisis. I believe these revisions reduced the substantive quality of the wikipedia articles and the edits should be restored. My explanation is below. I look forward to working with you amicably to reach consensus. I believe that our goal should be to improve the article and cite to high quality, relevant sources whenever possible.

The edits you reverted included substantive improvements to the articles and cited an award-winning (see also here), widely-cited, widely-read academic journal article by a tenured professor at a leading research university with relevant expertise.

According to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources:

″Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. . . . Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. . . . One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.″

Thus, the source cited is among the most reliable sources under Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. You reverted it while suggesting that it might be reference-spamming, but given the relevance of the academic article to the wikipedia article, and the high quality of the academic article--demonstrated by its placement, its citations, its readership, its awards and the institutional affiliation and status of its author--it is not a form of spam but rather a legitimate effort to improve the article.

Please note that news articles in journals with an ideological valence, think tank reports and other materials are considered less reliable sources than academic research. See Biased or Opinionated Sources Many of the other sources in the article are editorials and think tank reports, not academic articles, and the inclusion of more high quality and up-to-date academic articles would therefore improve the article.

Many of the think tank reports cited in the article are written by organizations that receive financial sponsorship from private lenders and therefore have an interest in portraying the financial crisis as having been caused by government policies rather than by private financial institutions. One of the few academic reports cited is years out of date, claims to provide a "comprehensive" bibliography of articles, but was published in 2012. Much has been written in the ensuing 7 years--the article is no longer a comprehensive review, if it ever was. And indeed, the author claiming otherwise has a think-tank affiliation.

In addition, self-published material is generally considered an unreliable source, except when published by well-published academic experts. Per Wikipedia policy, self-published material:

″are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.″"

You cited to self-published blog by a self-employed blogger / part time document reviewer which contains an off-wikipedia criticism of a scholar with whom he disagrees about the benefits of legal education.

It may be helpful to understand the context of this post. The blogger apparently posted this criticism as a form of revenge for having been made to appear foolish for making substantive mistakes about legal education and student loans --subjects about which the blogger purports to be an expert--even in a publication to which he has contributed.

Citing to the post you cited violates wikipedia policies including No_personal_attacks and []. Indeed, the author of the post you cited acknowledged "that this post might be construed as an “off-wiki attack” ... that Wikipedians may perceive as harmful to their community."

Edits are supposed to be evaluated on substance based on established wikipedia policies about reliable sources, not based on snap decisions based on []

I recognize that my edits only added one source and that it would be better to include multiple sources. If you would like to add additional high quality academic sources rather than deleting the few high quality citations that are in the wikipedia article, I would encourage you to do so. I have reviewed Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policies and I am in compliance. Mbs6446 (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United States housing bubble which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)