Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/United States fiscal cliff

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

United States fiscal cliff

[edit]
(
)

Created/expanded by RoyGoldsmith (talk), Farcaster (talk). Nominated by Antony-22 (talk) at 00:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Article was first created on the 26th of August 24th of July, therefore the article does not qualify under New criterea, however as of this review the content has been expanded upon tenfold. Article is of sufficient length, and appears to be neutral. That being said, the hook can be improved so that it is a shorter length.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Rule D9 gives some wiggle room on the nomination timing. The article itself was absolutely way over 1500 characters within five days of its creation; the actual nomination came slightly after this just because I didn't become aware of the article until then. Both hooks are below 200 characters; ALT1 can be shortened by omitting the "according to the Congressional Budget Office" phrase, but it's usually a good idea to have an in-hook attribution for statements about the future.. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Rule D9 says: "Five days old" limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks - we do have a large backlog of hooks, and this hook is currently the 7th oldest nomination, so I'd say we reject this. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd like to be able to use this in DYK, if it can be revised to qualify. The article is about a topic (government finance) that is seldom seen at DYK and the contributors are not regulars here. I did a partial review of it a couple of evenings ago, and identified a concern that the "Background" section is completely lacking in reference citations. That would need to be fixed. --Orlady (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, citations have been added to the Background section. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Are we any closer to this being ready as a possible DYK? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, the referencing concerns have been dealt with, and I'm not aware of any issues that affect DYK eligibility other than what has already been brought up. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I suspended review on this at one point because the duplication detector tool was temporarily unavailable. Completion of this review will require focused attention; it's not a drive-by review. --Orlady (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
And when you complete the "focused review", you'll probably have an additional 5000 characters added to the article since you started. Which in turn will have to be reviewed. And so forth. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
If the article is free of plagiarism and doesn't garble or misrepresent its sources, I'm not likely to feel compelled to edit it. --Orlady (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • OK on length and newness and footnotes. I had some concern about closeness of wording to some of the CBO documents (some of which led me to edit wording in the article), but because these are public domain documents (eliminating the potential for copyvio) and some similarity of wording is unavoidable, I think the current situation is acceptable. HOWEVER, I didn't like either of the proposed hooks. Contrary to the lead sentence in the article, the cited sources do not define the "fiscal cliff" as referring (in whole or in part) to the reduction in the budget deficit. As I read the sources, the "cliff" metaphor is related to the idea of "stepping off a cliff" and refers to the negative economic impacts of the automatic tax increases and spending cuts, not the concomitant reduction in the deficit. Also, (1) the CBO has not referred to the potential recession as a "double-dip recession" (that is a characterization made by others) and (2) some of the link piping in the proposed hooks is misleading: "tax increases" should not point to Bush tax cuts, the Budget Control Act of 2011 has far more to it than implied by the words "tax increases", and deficit spending is an unsatisfactory destination when the word "deficit" should refer to the U.S. federal government budget deficit. I would, however, happily approve the following variation on the original hook, if the article creators do not object:
  • ALT2 ... that U.S. federal tax increases and spending cuts mandated for 2013 have been called a fiscal cliff due to their projected economic effects? --Orlady (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it's important to say what the economic effects are in the hook. If you object to the specific term "double-dip recession" we can replace it with "recession in the first half of 2013", but I think it's uncontroversial that a second recession would fit the definition of "double-dip"... it's certainly not OR to use a different word than the source that still accurately describes the subject matter. The main tension in the fiscal cliff is that it both reduces debt (a good thing) but threatens the short-term economy (a bad thing), and this contrast should be featured in the hook. How about one of the following? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Since the 2007 recession technically ended in 2009, referring to the possibility of a 2013 recession as part of a "double-dip" recession seems inappropriate. Why not just say "new recession", without the wikilink to the "recession shape" article? (I think "recession in the first half of 2013" is unnecessarily wordy.) In fact, "double dip" should be removed from the article for the same reasons; as Orlady notes, it's not in the CBO source or the NYT writeup. The term is more controversial than you think. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Since the recession that began in 2009 has already ended, any new recession "within a short period of growth" will be, according the Wikipedia article and section Recession_shape#W-shaped_recession, a double-dipper. According to the CBO, we can expect a -0.5% contraction in the first half of 2013, if Congress acts to avoid the fiscal cliff. IMO therefore, "double-dip recession" is OK if you're satisified that the hooks do not violate NOR.
That leaves us with perceived controversiality. I would follow the 10 year rule: if you were reading the article 10 years from now, would you think there was anything controversial about double-dip recession?
Also, what's the difference between ALT1, ALT3 and ALT4 (other than a bit of wording)? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The 2007 recession ended in June 2009. There will have been 3.5 years of growth through the end of 2012, not a "short period". By the definitions I can find, that's too long an intervening expansion for the 2007–09 one to be combined with a 2013 recession into a single double-dip recession. Unless you can find a reliable source that says it would be a proper example of the term "double dip"—and there's been enough written about the fiscal cliff that it should have appeared in a competent source—it seems to be WP:SYNTH to me, and not a valid use of the terminology. Wikipedia articles cannot be cited as reliable sources for this (or any) purpose, though their reliable sources can be. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Not only hasn't the CBO projected a double-dip recession, the cited sources don't actually indicate that the CBO actually projected a recession -- they mince their words, saying that the economy would contract and the contraction "would probably be judged to be a recession". ALTs 1, 3, and 4 are all unacceptable because they aren't fully supported by the article and the cited sources. ALT2 (a trimmed-down version of the original hook) is OK because it is supported by the article. Additionally, note that DYK hooks generally are more effective when they aren't encumbered with a lot of detail.
I am prepared to OK ALT2. If the article creators insist that only their longer hooks are acceptable, I would gladly reject the entire nomination on the grounds that it was submitted too late and has proved to be more trouble than it's worth. --Orlady (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, how about one of these? You've convinced me that "double-dip" isn't the right term, so ALT5 changes this to "new recession". ALT6 is closer to the exact wording you've specified, but I've still wikilinked it to the Recession article; if you think this wikilink is inappropriate it can be removed. (Isn't a contraction of the economy necessarily a recession, regardless of the exact wording of the CBO report? Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.) Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  • ALT2 is good. The other hooks that the article creators continue to propose all suffer to some degree from the same issues as others already rejected. --Orlady (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
What specifically do you object to in ALT6? I have tried to deal with all your points in this hook. I have removed mention of a double-dip recession, and in fact of any recession at all, especially if the wikilink is removed, which I said I was open to. I also removed or changed the three wikilinks to which you originally objected. ALT6 follows the wording of the CBO report precisely, it is short, and it is (I believe) neutral. I'm not trying to be a stickler, but I just don't quite understand your criteria. I have continually come up with new hooks in response to your points; surely we can find a mutually acceptible hook. (And as a point of order, I'm not sure if it's in the spirit of the rules for you to approve your own hook to the exclusion of others, because it's no longer a third-party approval.) Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 15:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
ALT6 is uninteresting (likely to be of interest only to people who are already very familiar with the article topic). More importantly, it's not at all clear to me that "fiscal cliff" refers so exclusively to the tax increases and spending cuts as to be called the "cause" of deficit reduction and recession in the economy. Rather, it appears to me that the term refers to the combination of causes and effects. Note that the lead sentence of the article contradicts ALT6 by saying "The United States fiscal cliff refers to a predicted significant reduction in the budget deficit[1] and corresponding slowing of the economy if specific laws are allowed to automatically expire or go into effect at the end of 2012."
ALT2 is merely a trimmed-down version of the original hook. You have not explained why you object to it. You and your co-authors have, however, convinced me that it was a mistake for me to offer to consider this nomination in spite of its lateness, as I have been thoroughly punished for my generosity. --Orlady (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel punished; I do appreciate the thorough review and the time you've put into these discussions. I don't have a specific objection to ALT2, but I feel like the most interesting part of the hook, the part that will most draw the attention of readers, is the potential for the new recession. The fact that the cliff consists of changes to tax and spending rates is kind of wonky, and readers can find that out by clicking on the article. Anyway, my preferred alternative is ALT5; if the article itself is in order, I'm happy to just let the closing admin choose one of ALT2 or ALT5 and be done with it either way. And again, I'm sorry that you feel you've had a bad experience with this nomination. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/United_States_fiscal_cliff&oldid=829337452"