Select Page

Talk:COVID-19 recession: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
68.134.239.246 (talk)
Sleyece (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
2,776 edits
→Rename: COVID-19 Depression: This User's Thoughts on the Issue
Line 164: Line 164:


:Wikipedia is not a doomer colony. So go away doomer. [[Special:Contributions/68.134.239.246|68.134.239.246]] ([[User talk:68.134.239.246|talk]]) 14:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
:Wikipedia is not a doomer colony. So go away doomer. [[Special:Contributions/68.134.239.246|68.134.239.246]] ([[User talk:68.134.239.246|talk]]) 14:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

:: I suggest this section becomes an RFC for further consideration. The U.S. Economy has depressed in 2020 more than three times the 10% GDP trough threshold. This easily qualifies it as an acute Economic Depression, and some Economists project 50% loss of GDP before 1-1-2021. We also need to decide when is the most Encyclopedic time to reevaluate a Recession as a Depression. I would not feel comfortable with a move to "COVID-19 Depression" until year's end. However, as previously mentioned, this section needs an RFC to be truly settled; I would support an immediate move to "COVID-19 Recession" because the current article name is misspelled with an improper noun. -- [[User:Sleyece|Sleyece]] ([[User talk:Sleyece|talk]]) 18:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


== "Great Shutdown" / "Great Lockdown" / "Coronavirus Crash" ==
== "Great Shutdown" / "Great Lockdown" / "Coronavirus Crash" ==

Revision as of 18:47, 15 August 2020

Template:Vital article

DYK Nom

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 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]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - I can't find the hook in the article, but it is sourced to a reliable source.
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Launchballer 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?--Launchballer 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]

Merge with Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

There is consensus against this merge. Those in favor suggest that the two topics are connected and a merge would make updating easier. Those oppose point to the length of this topic and the broader scope of the proposed merge topic. Note that per WP:STRONG (which I advise those who haven't read it to read) I did not consider the strength of support or oppose when determining this consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.


I propose merging this article into Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and explaining "Coronavirus recession" as terminology (with graphs, etc.) in that article. The recession is the primary economic impact of the pandemic, and slowdowns in various industries and countries are the details of how that is happening. There is very little if any that either article has to say beyond that, which results in both articles approaching the topic at the same level of detail, even if theoretically there might be impacts beyond the recession. (And those can easily be added to the post-merge article, since the title will be more general.) In particular:

  • There are by-country sections in both articles, which are 100% overlapping in scope.
  • There are by-industry sections in both articles, which are 100% overlapping in scope.
  • The Financial crisis/Financial markets sections are 100% overlapping in scope, though some details probably need to merge down to Financial market impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • The Background sections have exactly the same scope, but currently have different contents. (It's unclear if the content about global economic conditions before the pandemic are on-topic.)
  • Any of the remaining sections could be found in either article, and if maintained properly would be the same in both. -- Beland (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- Beland (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would you scope Great Lockdown? Which article would cover GDP stats, unemployment, and supply disruptions? What should be in "Economic impact" that's not in Great Lockdown? -- Beland (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for which opinion, in addition to the arguments of Beland, I wish to submit that: (i) the merged article becomes much easier to manage with limited editorial resources; (ii) "recession" may be suggestive, but it is first and foremost a technical term that is, in my view, not easy to delineate from "non-recession". Hence it seems not a good criterion to define the title of an article that also caters for novice readers. --CRau080 (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, would you call the Great Recession "economic impact of the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis", or call the Great Depression "economic impact of the 1929 stock market crash"?? (I know these examples are not perfect, but you get the idea) The recession is an event in itself: the coronavirus pandemic was the triggering event, but it was also exacerbated by other factors, and in particular many economists were predicting the next recession as part of the normal business cycle to occur around now anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.17.34.27 (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you say yourself, the examples you give are not perfect, and I think the gap is considerable. That a recession may have been around the corner even without the COVID-19 pandemic is, at present at least, only a theory – and one that would have its detractors in countries such as Germany, where prominent government members referred, at least in the early stages of the pandemic in the country, to the robust state of the economy as a good shield. Therefore, the pandemic ought to be considered, in my view, as the single crucial event on one side and its economic impact, including recession, on the other as a whole. --CRau080 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Notable event in its own right and it shouldn't just be mixed in with everything else. This is already major news as it stands and is only going to get worse and more noteworthy before it gets better. As the person above me stated, we don't minimize the importance of the Great Depression or Great Recession and this is already competing with them in fallout and notability. Gamermadness (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Experts agree that this virus will create a short term recession and those effects are already being felt; they are encyclopedic and should be documented in this article. Dmarquard (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that the recession should be covered. But do we really need two articles on the recession? Wouldn't one be better? If we need both "Coronavirus Recession" and "Economic Effects of COVID-19" how do we decide what content belongs in which of these articles? To me, they seem to be the exact same subject. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Nobody is disputing that the recession caused by COVID-19 is a notable event. Nobody is arguing that the economic impact isn't encyclopedic or shouldn't be covered. But having two articles on the event with overlapping content is absurd. Readers would be better served by having a single merged article with the best content from both current articles. Please explain what you mean by "the gap is considerable." I can't see any difference between the 'Coronavirus Recession' and the 'Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic' They are one and the same and should be a single article. WP:MERGE says "There are several good reasons to merge pages ... Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope." Here, we have duplicate pages. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support under the name of coronavirus recession — I believe that the two articles should be merged, but a title such as "economic impact" may not truly reflect the severity of the impact as it would be in calling it a recession. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 01:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for merge, and milder support for retaining the "impact" title. If a recession isn't an economic impact, I'm not sure what it is. We need to consolidate to make better use of our editorial resources and not confuse readers. The "impact" title is more consistent with other COVID-19 articles and more flexible (e.g. if it becomes a depression, or if we want to talk about the economic impact before it technically became a recession. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose for merge. "Recession" language is consistent with the extremity of the downturn. Japan, one of the world's largest economies, is now "officially" receding. Unemployment rates in the United States have skyrocketed to Depression-era levels. The language of "economic impact" does not adequately convey to Wikipedia's readership the severity of the turmoil wrought by prolonged shutdowns and widespread uncertainty on future reopening and economic productivity. Frevangelion (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems more like an argument for using the word recession in the title of the merged article than for keeping the two articles separate. Do we really need two articles on the economic impact / recession? Would you support merging the articles if the "Coronavirus Recession" title was retained? MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronge oppose for merge. I don't think a recession is really enough to describe the full picture when it comes to the impact this virus has on the economic life as a whole. There are definitely other affects that aren't the direct results of the recession. --Dundeezic (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft support for merging under the name "Coronavirus Recession" - the economic recession/depression resulting from the virus is a notable event in its own right. One article would definitely be better than what the situation is now, but the name 'Economic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic' does not highlight that the recession is a big event with potentially big effects on its own. Brikumw02 (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - They are just different names for the same thing. In some places it may become a depression, but that would not warrant a separate article - it will still be the same thing. Multiple articles on the financial impacts might well be warranted, but need an unambiguous basis for separation. (e.g. separate article(s) covering effects in particular places). Zodon (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The title "Coronavirus recession" is exactly a major subset of "Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic". With the context and content being (as at present) nearly identical - although narrower in its scope, its merger can certainly be advanced as being in the general interest, in creating a more balanced and holistic article (including for example the change brought to consumption models, the development of certain sectors and technologies), also avoiding duplication, redundancy, and the development into a POV fork. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and renamed as COVID-19 (or Coronavirus) depression, you can't recognized/recognised that this economical disaster is excesses the definition of a normally economical recession is, if you seen the clear comparisons from the previous economical disasters from (the last 100 years of) modern history, even its sound really too soon for you and the others yet, and also some of these articles on the page, are just describing to referring to the big event happen, starting on February 2020. Chad The Goatman (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is a bit more broad than this, while few and far between, there are industries that have benefited from the pandemic [1] (not the best cite I admit), the (anticipated) recession as a result of Covid-19 is a more compact, narrower topic that should be referenced in the Economic Impact page, but have a link to here as the main article. Longer term, I suggest perhaps this article discuss the impact over the longer term, and Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic be a more short term impact page about the more immediate impact of Covid-19. (do tell me if such a distinction or page already exists). Regards.747-200B (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose and renamed as Great Shutdown I oppose this move as by this point i consider this article as a complete, which i don't think deserves merging. However, i want this article to be renamed since it might be confusing. SMB​99​thxthis might be ugly 03:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat oppose as economic impact is broader the the recession specifically. There are numerous economic impacts of the Great Shutdown, only one of which is the recession.

References

  1. ^ https://telecoms.com/503247/who-is-set-to-benefit-from-the-covid-19-outbreak/
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.

Should the May 2020 US jobs report be added?

Here's what I think should be added:
"In May of 2020, the unemployment rate fell unexpectedly, falling from 16.4% in April to 13.3% in May. Many politicians were surprised; the DNC chairman, Howard Dean, tweeted, "The trump [sic] folks fudged the figures.""[1] [2]

Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 15:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/business/economy/jobs-report-data.html
  2. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/06/09/conspiracy-theory-of-jobs-report-misclassification-errors-is-unfounded-heres-what-happened/#5a835a747fa8

Requested move 6 July 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: page moved by strong (but not quite unanimous) consensus. Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronavirus recession → COVID-19 recession – Fewer syllables, fewer characters, and as the 2003 SARS-CoV-1 was also a coronavirus, specifies which coronavirus and consistent with COVID-19 pandemic article style. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it is the only Coronavirus-caused recession in history. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007: For now; WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007: It's not logically impossible for there to not be a subsequent novel coronavirus to emerge in the future that evolves by either natural or artificial selection, spreads to pandemic levels of contagion, and requires comparable international economic lockdowns. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "coronavirus" is 11 characters, while "COVID-19" is only 8. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CommonKnowledgeCreator: You have it completely backwards. It's WP:CRYSTALBALL to assume there will be another economic recession caused by another coronavirus in the future, and thus we should move this article now in anticipation of this possible future eventuality. If there ever is another economic recession caused by a coronavirus, then we can move this article at that future time. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007: I don't agree with your interpretation of WP:CRYSTALBALL; in fact, I think you are the one who has it entirely backwards. I am not stating that there will be another economic recession caused by a coronavirus, only that it is logically possible and it's not based on "unverifiable speculation" (as the WP policy article puts it) but a pretty basic understanding of both introductory macroeconomics and evolutionary biology (and in point of fact, evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein stated in an interview on 18 June 2020 that it is possible that the current coronavirus was the result of artificial selection), while I would argue instead that the current title actually violates WP:CRYSTALBALL because the current title assumes that there won't be (which is an implicit prediction), which is why it makes more sense to have what is a more precise and less clunky title that is consistent with the remainder of the COVID-19 project and has fewer characters than the current title. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe I'm the person who originally proposed the title "Coronavirus recession". -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL is about anticipating future events, and you are anticipating a future event, specifically that there will be another recession caused by a coronavirus, thus necessitating another article on that event. What future event am I anticipating exactly? Rreagan007 (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007: Nope. I am not predicting a future event, only stating that a particular event is possible within the category of possible future events while the current title of the article does violate WP:CRYSTALBALL because it makes an implicit prediction that the same particular event will not occur (or in other words, stating that the same particular event has a probability of 0). You are the one implicitly claiming that the economy won't go into another recession in the future and that it's impossible for any future recession to be caused by lockdowns in response to a subsequent novel coronavirus. You're the one making implicit predictions, not me. I'm also a math and economics major and I think your misunderstanding of WP:CRYSTALBALL is related to not understanding probability theory (and even if you have a PhD in mathematics, it doesn't occur to me that your opinion has any more standing than someone who doesn't given how most mathematicians responded to the Monty Hall problem and still do). More importantly, this is secondary to the fact that the proposed title is shorter, more consistent with the rest of the COVID-19 project on Wikipedia, is a common enough name in its own right, and is a more precise name than the current title. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're clearly going around in circles here, and it is largely an irrelevant point. The title should be located at the most common name, and right now the most common name is the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 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.

Rename: COVID-19 Depression

I think that the article should be renamed from "COVID-19 Recession" to "COVID-19 Depression," as the Q2 2020 economic report indicates a GDP drop of 32.9%, well lower than the 10% threshold for a depression. At this point, I think continuing to call the crisis a "recession" is trivializing the issue, and the terminology needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.56.232 (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE: Wikipedia is not Original Research. So does not using the term which rarely use by media or use before it publish by media. 114.125.244.19 (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a doomer colony. So go away doomer. 68.134.239.246 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this section becomes an RFC for further consideration. The U.S. Economy has depressed in 2020 more than three times the 10% GDP trough threshold. This easily qualifies it as an acute Economic Depression, and some Economists project 50% loss of GDP before 1-1-2021. We also need to decide when is the most Encyclopedic time to reevaluate a Recession as a Depression. I would not feel comfortable with a move to "COVID-19 Depression" until year's end. However, as previously mentioned, this section needs an RFC to be truly settled; I would support an immediate move to "COVID-19 Recession" because the current article name is misspelled with an improper noun. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Great Shutdown" / "Great Lockdown" / "Coronavirus Crash"

Can we please move this jangle of names down to a new section, rather than in bold text in the introduction? Many of these names, especially the "Great Shutdown" or "Great Lockdown," haven't been used enough to really justify placement in the article's opening paragraph, as 'cool' as they sound. The sources cited don't even list many of the names we've provided, and, even if they do, the preferred name of a single journalist writing in the early days of the recession are again not worth including in the opening. Let's please curb it to just 'COVID-19 Recession' or 'Coronavirus Recession,' or some other phrase that is used more commonly in media?