Talk:COVID-19 recession

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)
After 15 weeks at WP:DYKN, the article still has close paraphrasing in addition to a merge tag. Closing as unsuccessful.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... 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).

• 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)

• 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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

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: Launchballer 17:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

The map needs a legend!

Proposal: To mark either May or June 1st as end date if no reports of COVID-Related Recessions surface after start of next month

This would be because of the K-Shaped Recovery still counting as recovery & Economic Activity/GDP appearing to have bounced back in most major economies since the initial decline (+ return) So if nothing happens throughout May, It's safe to reasonably assume that nobody is reporting on COVID Contractions due to everything at that point having other causes. We can't wait forever if nobody reports by then.

I would say that anything in June should likely be put in an "Aftermath" section of the article. Unless another page needs on some other recession leading from that needs linking to.

Daesin (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

* Support - This is not a crystal ball, it's just using common sense and is based off of other events that were marked as over before any official announcement.

For one E.g. Articles surrounding the *War/Conflict in Afghanistan:* topic. I was opposed back then in the review, but that was the final decision. No point in invoking the CB Guideline that didn't have a chance in hell of changing the outcome. The consensus was that it would be changed if any reputable sources could show otherwise. ...That decision, in turn had also referenced the precedent before that, the worst that happened in other cases were some articles poking fun about Wiki's having to change dates. Admins didn't have a problem then and I don't see any having a problem now. Nobody wanted to do a RfC either. (Even as it was a current major event that had a lot of activity.) Daesin (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Most countries having a Stalled K-Shaped Recovery that had atleast either met or surpassed pre-covid levels by this point in time still count. You can either have two separate national recessions in the timespan of a global depression, but not two global recessions that happen inside eachother. So with that being said, unless there's a consensus that says there's proof stating we're still in a global recession or that this is a prolonged depression that has 2 underlying recessions.

Then 1st May 2022 should be marked as the end with reporting having ceased on the matter & instead they talk about separate recessions in the future. Which implies that the current one is ending.

...The only proposal now would be an Aftermath session. Otherwise, saying the current one is ending is just stating facts.

We don't need sources to accept that an apple exists, or that we need to prove the sky is blue, or that the pyramids were infact built by humans ...not aliens, or that the moon isn't made out of cheese as someone with a tinfoil hat may say. Those things are either implied by agreed upon definitions, implied by pre-existing sources, or just known facts that we can see for ourselves instead of trying to debate. Sources talk about one potentially starting now, so the lockdown one is now over. Especially given all the talk in news sources about how surpassing previous growth levels so quickly set the conditions for around 10% Inflation in some of the major economies. This should be settled, and if there is no other activity or edits to the page. Then unfortunately the topic is pretty much dead either way. 213.107.49.121 (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

You actually DO need sources to accept that an apple exists. Sleyece (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment "This is not a crystal ball, it's just using common sense" WP:NOT -- Sleyece (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 201 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bettyhwt, Rr3961 (article contribs).

Explanation of Ammended Dates: (*May 2022)

I want to question the rollback/revert to ongoing as there isn't really a source that we're currently in a recession. Only articles that say a new recession is likely to occur soon. That's despite the background/aggravating factors still ongoing.

Marking it as over was correct & has had numerous precedents over multiple Wiki topics where the current date was picked and amended after official sources provided otherwise in their own independent records.

Also, if we're still in a recession right now even though most major economies surpassed their Pre-2020 peaks at least once since the lockdowns, should this really be called the "COVID Recession"? Litmus test of googling it has a lot of flaws & it's not really an official name anymore than the 'Greater Recession' which has also been the term used in some reports.

But all things set aside, I would happily concede on the change back to initial state of 'ongoing' ...if there were sources to act as proof of that same global recession still occuring right now. Let alone it carrying over in the next months of Q3/H2 of 2022. (Which should be in the aftermath anyway.) Daesin (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Would the Wiki just forever say ongoing if the recession isn't talked about as happening again?

Or if a future global recession were to happen & then is compared to this one, would the start of that one then be classed as an end date here? @user:Worldwar1989 Since two global recessions don't overlap, only Economic Depressions can have two separate* Recessions within them.

It can already be inferred that this would either be over by now as implied by the reports talking about a "new" recession for mid-2022 ...Or as an economic depression that is implied by the definitions & previously used standards to classify economic downturns as uniquely extreme as this one. Daesin (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Also my apologies for the formatting flaws, it seems that editing from mobile devices is still buggy. Daesin (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

"only Economic Depressions can have two separate* Recessions within them. " You're literally so close to an actual point, but still so far away. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Can we change this to Depression yet?

The current worsening economic woes throughout 2022 without a full recovery from the prior troubles in indicative of the W pattern common to longer economic depressions.