Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 recession: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
+banner shell
Line 136: Line 136:


*''' 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. [[User:Brikumw02|Brikumw02]] ([[User talk:Brikumw02|talk]]) 02:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*''' 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. [[User:Brikumw02|Brikumw02]] ([[User talk:Brikumw02|talk]]) 02:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''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). [[User:Zodon|Zodon]] ([[User talk:Zodon|talk]]) 05:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:42, 21 May 2020

Template:Vital article

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]

I feel that "the great lockdown" should be used to describe the quarantine measures that are being taken because of the coronavirus.Pancho507 (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a play on words to reference the lockdown of Human Civilization during the pandemic and of the lockdown of the economy, the IMF and Reuter's have clearly stated it to be 'The Graet Lockdown', I do think this would be the best course of action to call it what the media and world is actually calling it. Foxterria (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think care should be taken when suggesting the usage of a neologism to describe an event. Let's wait a bit to see if this silly "lockdown" verbiage gets picked up. Zaathras (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be honest, we seem to have done so liberally with the name 'coronavirus recession' - no one's calling it that, they're calling it the Great Lockdown. We should go by what the IMF and Reuter's are calling it. Foxterria (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Foxterria: Los Angeles Times[1], [BBC][2], New York Times[3], Foreign Affairs[4] and many others have used this title.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support the use of "Great Lockdown". The term "Great Depression" was not named by the IMF or any such organization. Much like the "Great Lockdown", the most popular term should be used. Until I read this article today, I had not heard this financial crisis referred to as "Coronavirus Recession", from anyone other than some IMF officials. If we want to be super accurate with the name, then we should use the real official IMF name; Financial Crisis 2020. Additionally, the term "Coranavirus Recession" strongly implies that this is a financial crisis is a recession. The IMF defines what a recession is. There must be at least three quarters of loss/stagnant growth in the economy. PortugeeStud82 (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google search results for each term:
  • 143 million results - COVID-19 recession
  • 161 million results - Coronavirus recession
  • 499 million results - The Great Lockdown

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? [5] 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]

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]

Restored from the archive as the issue is still unresolved. — Smjg (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

great lockdown/great shutdown

great lockdown/great shutdown should have its own article. it refers explicitly to government policies and their related effects on the population. that's very different than a recession or even socioeconomic effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.255.226 (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article does exist: Curfews and lockdowns related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. I somewhat agree with you that Great Lockdown should redirect to that page instead of this one. If you have evidence for the change, you can start a discussion at WP:RFD.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I boldly changed Great Lockdown to point to more relevant articles. -- Beland (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map and possible errors

@George Kokkinidis-GR: I have restored the infobox map from your edit because:

  1. It was unnecessary to remove an image if there was an error in it. You could have simply messaged me to make a correction.
  2. I reviewed the source (see "Statistical Appendix: Tables Part A"), which projects −10.0% growth for Greece in 2020, not −9.1% as you indicated in your edit summary.

Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 06:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 May 2020

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus seems to be not to move. -- Beland (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronavirus recession → COVID-19 recession – As many other articles have changed the "coronavirus" in their titles to "COVID-19" due to the renaming of the main article, this should be done for this one too Geekgecko (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does that even mean? They're both "real name"s, whatever that means (even though COVID-19 is shorter, more accurate, and more specific). Also, it's pretty unlikely that the name "COVID-19" will be forgotten by later this year, or next, or anytime soon. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is no reason why the name would need to be changed since their is only one recession dealing with the coronavirus BigRed606 17:17, 13 May 2020 (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.

Merge with Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_recession&oldid=957933596"