Talk:COVID-19 recession: Difference between revisions

COVID-19 Start‑class Mid‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After 15 weeks at WP:DYKN, the article still has close paraphrasing in addition to a merge tag. Closing as unsuccessful.

... that due to the coronavirus recession, almost 80 countries have asked the IMF for help before May 2020? [1] Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
- ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created by Sa.vakilian (talk). Self-nominated at 11:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Date and length fine. However there are several problems with the article. It has several citation needed tags and tags on the header. There is also the big problem of the merger proposal which means @Sa.vakilian: it cannot proceed until all tags have been removed. Once the merge debate is ended and the citing is fixed (the citations are a bit messy too I'll add), then ping me and I'll have another look. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article's title has not been established by reliable sources. As of now, I could not see this article passing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:40, 31 March 2020Seyyed(t-c) 04:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

@The C of E: All of the tags exept one of them has been removed. Can you please check it again. Of course, we can find a better DYK.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sa.vakilian: All tags need to be removed before this can proceed. I've also noticed after a recheck that the Coronavirus pandemic subsection under the Causes section is a complete copy and paste from 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic's opening paragraph. That is not allowed under rule 1.b of DYK rules and will need to be reworded or deleted and also casts suspicion on the rest of the article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not checked all of it but I think most of it is not copy from the other articles.Seyyed(t-c) 15:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote it, how do you not know if you copied anything? It cannot include any copied work from other articles. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The C of E: I have written some part of it and I ask other participants to answer you here. Seyyed(t-c) 04:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Keepcalmandchill:@Capewearer: Hi, as major contributors in coronavirus recession, please participate in this discussion and help us to have DYK on the main page.Seyyed(t-c) 04:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@user:Keepcalmandchill and @user:Capewearer Hi, as major contributors in coronavirus recession, please participate in this discussion and help us to have DYK on the main page.Seyyed(t-c) 08:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the nomination. Please don't keep pinging me about it. Capewearer (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the merge proposal is ongoing, the nomination is temporarily on hold. If the article survives intact, then a new review will be needed: the nominator's only significant edit to the article was in creating a 2715 prose character article, which has since grown to 38951 prose characters. There doesn't seem to have been overlap between the articles in the initially created article—the Causes section was a later addition, so any direct copying within Wikipedia was after and beyond the minimum 1500 prose character creation. If there were copied sections, they ought to have been mentioned on the article talk page (I didn't see any mentions in the edit summaries), but running Duplication Detector, there aren't very many exact strings of words left between the two articles after two months of editing. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listing at WT:DYK for a new review or follow-up. The move/merge discussion ended with this article staying where it is. Courtesy @The C of E: as per wishes listed above. Flibirigit (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - I can't find the hook in the article, but it is sourced to a reliable source.
Interesting:
Other problems:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Laun chballer 17:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the hook is outdated. It would be better to use one or more examples from different countries to make an interesting hook. But this must be taken care of soon. This nomination has been sitting here for over 3 months and is no longer "new content".
There is still close paraphrasing from the sources:
Source: Property investment sales in Singapore fell 37 per cent to $3.02 billion in the first quarter of this year from the previous three months as the coronavirus outbreak took its toll on investor sentiment, a report from Cushman & Wakefield on Monday (April 13) showed.
Article: Property investment sales in Singapore fell 37 per cent to $3.02 billion in the first quarter of this year from the previous three months as the pandemic took its toll on investor sentiment, a report from Cushman & Wakefield on 13 April showed.
Source: The preliminary estimate of 1Q20 Italian GDP shows a 4.7% quarter on quarter fall (-4.8% YoY), a much steeper decline than in any quarter seen either during the financial crisis or the sovereign debt crisis.
Article: The preliminary estimate of 1Q20 Italian GDP shows a 4.7% quarter on quarter fall (-4.8% YoY), a much steeper decline than in any quarter seen either during the financial crisis or the sovereign debt crisis.
Source: Manufacturing sales in March fell to the lowest level since mid-2016 as sales of auto manufacturers and parts suppliers were both down over 30%.
Article: Canadian manufacturing sales in March fell to the lowest level since mid-2016, as sales by auto manufacturers and parts suppliers plunged more than 30%.
Source: Ali says annual inflation remained in negative territory in May (-1.7%) and is forecast to edge up to 1.0 percent by year-end.
Article: Annual inflation remained in negative territory in May (-1.7%) and is forecast to edge up to 1.0 percent by year-end.
Source: Dow futures tumbled more than 1,000 points and Standard & Poor's 500 futures dropped 5%, triggering an automatic shock absorber.
Article: Dow futures tumbled more than 1,000 points and Standard & Poor's 500 futures dropped 5%, triggering a circuit breaker.
There are also several "citation needed" tags that must be addressed. Yoninah (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, this article has been nominated to be moved, so the nomination can't currently proceed anyway. @Keepcalmandchill:@Capewearer:@Sa.vakilian: - could you chime in?--Laun chballer 07:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the large number of issues still outstanding, and that as noted above there is no longer any new content, I feel it is time to close and reject the nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too Soon?

@Sa.vakilian:While I thank you in a way for creating the article, this particular article has a few setbacks. The first of which, it feels like it's just a copy and paste of Financial impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic, and hardly presents any new information. The second problem, the biggest one, is that this has been tried before. Another thing is that this feels like an essay/editorial you might find in the New York Times. An article about the upcoming recession certainly is notable, but I suspect that they will be knocking on the door soon, telling us to wait until next year. In the meantime, definitely find a discussion to get involved in, and perhaps we-work this article to look at the big picture in an encyclopedic way.

Thank you for your considerations, and if you have any questions, feel free to contact me at anytime, and I'll try to help.Britishfinance, do you have any input on this? Thanks, Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 16:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid creating many different articles on the Financial Impact of the virus - It is very hard to keep even one major article properly up to date and well written, it won't happen if split over many articles. I would change this as a Redirect to the main Financial impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. Britishfinance (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Britishfinance: Thank you for your fast response. I definitely feel like we could merge this all in to the Financial impact article. Perhaps somewhere down the line, like in June, or even later, like 2021, perhaps we could redirect all the articles to a name based on what ends up occurring? I agree that too many articles would be borderline impossible to maintain, and we aren't a directory. However, while "Financial impact" works very well, and fits with the quo of everything with the virus, what will we think about it in 20 years? For this reason, I say merge into Financial impact for now, and revisit later. Would you agree? Thanks, Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 17:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, create a new section in Financial impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic, titled "Global recession", and merge this into it. Then redirect this article to Financial impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. Hope that makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britishfinance, I second this. I also think the normal 7 day waiting period should be bypassed since there doesn't seem to be in objection and in consideration of the urgency involved in having concise and accurate information surrounding this subject. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, Thank you. :) Stay safe, Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 17:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article definitely should be merged. We are currently in the midst of this pandemic and its economic impact is still being determined day-by-day. It will probably result in a recession but I don't think that has been declared yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:, Thanks for the input, definitely a lot of unknowns regarding the virus. Where should we merge to? Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 02:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section B

@Zanygenius and Liz: I disagree with merging this article in Financial impact. "The global economy will contract this year, International Monetary Fund managing director Kristalina Georgieva said in a statement after a call with G20 finance ministers and central bankers... the economic outlook for the world economy for 2020 is negative—a recession at least as bad as during the global financial crisis or worse. But we expect recovery in 2021". " [2] As IMF's statement describes the crisis may be even worse than a global financial crisis. You see, the real economy has been damaged severely and we can not merge the damage of economic sectors such as transportation and tourism in Financial impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is full of half-done articles that arose because one core topic was so broken up into many topics that they were all sub-standard/unfinished. It could happen that a larger "global recession" article might arise (which would still be a sub-section in the "financial impact" article, but with a "Main article" hat to the "global recession" article). However, my strong advice would be to create this inside the "financial impact" article first and let it progress from there. If this article is ever going to be really read it needs to be short and figures/table based (e.g. with the actual falls in GDP, and the new records those falls set). If it is just full of long paragraphs of well sources text on the "topic" of the global recession, it will be read by very few. Hence the benefit of keeping things consolidated until the real "encyclopedic-vale" factual GDP figures emerge. Britishfinance (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not logical to merge a broader issue in one of its subsection!--Seyyed(t-c) 11:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In all scenarios, the "2020 global economic recession" will appear as a sub-section in the "Financial impact of coronavirus" article. Whether there is also a standalone "2020 global economic recession" article is to be seen. I can tell you from experience, the thing readers will want from a "2020 global economic recession" article are the actual statistics and records of the recessions. However, most of those numbers will not be known for months. Hence, incubating the article inside "Financial impact" article will save editors of writing large bloated but well-referenced content on the daily chronicle of the emergence of global recession information, that will all be deleted in a 12-24 months time, in favour of a more reasonable slimmed-down article, with the actual tables of the GDP fall (and the associated economic records they will create), that readers want. Britishfinance (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section C

@Britishfinance and Sa.vakilian: I do see where one day the impacts could be split up and have a large article on it's own, and in fact I tried to lay the groundwork for it earlier, but now I think we should draftify and wait. Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 14:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Actually scratch that. I want to ping a few dozen Wikipedians and achieve some consensus before moving on. We have policies contradicting other policies and everybody's best interest. As a new *ish* user, I officially retract my opinion. Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 14:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is continued here.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"which is going to happen"

So Wikipedia can now have articles "predicting" things. How is this even allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.211.137 (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@84.0.211.137:, Thank you for the question. Technically, Wikipedia has a rule against this kind of thing, however some notable and well sourced events may be accepted, such as the up-and-coming Olympics, in which case we have news already for this. Hope this helps, Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 03:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As sources describe it is a certain prediction. The recession has begun. Please pay attention to IMF's statement.[3] --Seyyed(t-c) 06:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a dangerous thing for Wikipedia to do. Wikipedia is a go to source for tens or hundreds of millions of people. It should not serve as an amplifying platform for "certain predictions". Let the things happen first, and not codify analyses as if they were upcoming events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.211.137 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an overview of indicators and events to follow. It is not a reliable source in itself, but it points to useful resources. TGCP (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation sector

Currently, the section talks only about aviation and ignores all other forms of transport.

Clearly the outbreak has had significant impact on other forms of public transport such as buses and trains. No doubt taxi companies have been hit as well. And then there's the impact on petrol stations, motorway services, road maintenance, etc. in more ways than one. Is anyone here up to the task of adding relevant info about these? — Smjg (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously notable

I don't have an opinion about the title or merging but the subject is obviously notable and has begun so am removing the notability tag. Officially declared by IMF https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/28/imf-declares-global-recession-and-doubles-the-size-if-its-financial-war-chest Chidgk1 (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Page Title

I believe the name doesn’t follow Wikipedia naming style. I think it should be rename from Coronavirus Recession to 2020 Recession. Efuture2 (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: CONSENSUS TO NOT MOVE: There is general consensus against the move at this time. Too soon, not a common name. (non-admin closure) A asim 03:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronavirus recession → 2020 Global Recession – Coronavirus Recession does not follow naming guidelines by wiki. There's many causes for the new recession including Coronavirus, crude oil prices dropped. IMF declare a recession on March 27, 2020. https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/28/imf-declares-global-recession-and-doubles-the-size-if-its-financial-war-chest Efuture2 (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - simply WP:TOOSOON to know the commonname of this - and that is probably an indication that its TOOSOON to even have an article about it (WP:NOTNEWS). -- Netoholic @ 01:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the new article title makes much more sense. >>BEANS X2^t 14:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I agree that it's too soon to know what this recession will be eventually called by the history books, but for now the term "Coronavirus recession" seems to be the most descriptive title we could use, as well as being most recognizable by current readers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the media settles on a different name. Also, "2020 global recession" would be a better capitalization, as 'global recession' is a generic term. Mcrsftdog (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not established as a name just yet. "Coronavirus recession" seems to be better established and chances are it will be the commonname in the future. Juxlos (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Los Angeles Times [4], [BBC][5], New York Times [6], Foreign Affairs [7] have used this title.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support with lowercase (2020 global recession): We shouldn't assert causation in the title, and this is more of a descriptive title than a proper noun. Per MOS:CAPS, Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly Oppose Now, this virus will most definitely cause havoc around the world in their economics, lifestyle, way of living, etc. But we have to consider the different economies of different regions around the world. We don't know there exact situation and how that will play along in the long run. Feel free to message me for anything :) ObliteratedRox (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC) ObliteratedRox[reply]
Oppose and merge. No independent sources indicate that "Coronavirus recession" is an official or common name. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 21:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nice4What: I repeat my answer for you. Los Angeles Times [8], [BBC][9], New York Times [10], Foreign Affairs [11] and many others have used this title.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 10 April 2020

Coronavirus recession → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic economic recession – To match the base article 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, which is how other articles are named, and also because "coronavirus recession" is ambiguous, it cuold refer to recession of the virus from the world, and not an economic concept. It also doesn't specify which coronavirus, such as the recession experienced by Hong Kong during SARS -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I can find many sources that call it the "coronavirus recession" but I can't find a single one that calls it the "coronavirus pandemic economic recession". Rreagan007 (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding 2020 to the title. Neither "pandemic" nor "economic" is necessary, and "2019-20" may describe the period of the pandemic, but the recession is entirely occurring in 2020. BD2412 T 03:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - just stop. -- Netoholic @ 03:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what about "The Great Lockdown"? --Saqib (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name and Merging Articles

Hello my fine-looking wikipedia companions, I'm wondering on your thoughts of merging the 2020 Stock Market Crash with this article, considering we probably want to keep everything in one place in order to keep things concise. As well as that, should this article be changed from 'Coronavirus recession' to 'The Great Lockdown'? With a quick google search, it doesn't take much to see that every media outlet in existance is calling this now 'The Great Lockdown', with no mention of 'The Coronavirus Recession' in sight. As IMF is calling it this, and multiple media outlets have latched onto the term, I think it's now appropriate - or should we wait for the meme community to start making jokes about it?

We humans tend to romantacize specific extreme events, and 'financial impacts of the coronavirus pandemic' doesn't roll of the tongue as well. The IMF have given us a glorious name. Thanks to certified reports (IMF) we can officially say that we are indeed now in a recession, one that could well and truly last outside of this year. It's probably also good to consider that the virus isn't the only reason for recession! We were on path for one anyways, this just kinda, accelerated it. Let me know your thoughts. By the way IMF, thanks for the badass name. Foxterria (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 *'''Oppose''' - just stop. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 03:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' what about "The Great Lockdown"? --[[User:Saqib|Saqib]] ([[User talk:Saqib|talk]]) 17:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
+== Name and Merging Articles ==
+Hello my fine-looking wikipedia companions, I'm wondering on your thoughts of merging the [[2020 Stock Market Crash]] with this article, considering we probably want to keep everything in one place in order to keep things concise. As well as that, should this article be changed from 'Coronavirus recession' to 'The Great Lockdown'? With a quick google search, it doesn't take much to see that every media outlet in existance is calling this now 'The Great Lockdown', with no mention of 'The Coronavirus Recession' in sight. As IMF is calling it this, and multiple media outlets have latched onto the term, I think it's now appropriate - or should we wait for the meme community to start making jokes about it?
+We humans tend to romantacize specific extreme events, and 'financial impacts of the coronavirus pandemic' doesn't roll of the tongue as well. The IMF have given us a glorious name. Thanks to certified reports (IMF) we can officially say that we are indeed now in a recession, one that could well and truly last outside of this year. It's probably also good to consider that the virus isn't the only reason for recession! We were on path for one anyways, this just kinda, accelerated it. Let me know your thoughts.
+By the way IMF, thanks for the badass name. [[User:Foxterria|Foxterria]] ([[User talk:Foxterria|talk]]) 20:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:04, 14 April 2020