Jump to content

Talk:Recession

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.53.212.155 (talk) at 23:56, 28 July 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Newspeak

Funny how the Wikipedia powers that be will provide censorship that benefits the false narratives of democrats: https://twitter.com/EudaimoniaEsq/status/1552656170631843840 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:3F47:BA00:2D59:B13A:8C14:6689 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He who controls the past, controls the present. He who controls the present, controls the future. And that's what this is about: controlling a narrative to defend the Biden administration. Wikipedia's hard-left bias has been present since forever, but this is embarrassing even for the usual gang of left-wing apologists. Nineteen Eighty-Four wasn't supposed to be an instruction manual. 68.204.5.49 (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's like playing a board game with a four year old, making up rules when things don't go their way 2601:83:4203:20B0:260A:A6CA:4E7A:F14F (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, a recession is not defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. There was a recession in 2001 that did not have two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. It is a myth that will never die. It's a shame that people who continue to believe this myth are outraged that others who know what they're talking about corrected them. soibangla (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
bullshit 65.118.56.97 (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly two hours after the text in question was added by an anonymous account, it was highlighted and tweeted out by a congressional caucus twitter account. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to score political points through making updates to neutral articles, it's to provide unbiased statements that can be backed up by citations. The definition that was added conflicts with the definition that is used in the US (which is already included in the article header). The old definition is already listed in the Definition section in the article itself, and there's no reason to add it to the intro as it is not the current definition. Ethelred unraed (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Good catch. soibangla (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a one organization (even one that some consider "official") changes its definition, that does not change the generally understood definition. The Oxford dictionary defines a recession as "a period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters." What is the point of a US specific definition, that's not the generally accepted definition worldwide, being in the header of an English language article that is read by people around the world? It can be in a sub-section. 65.183.131.113 (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article header gives an overview of the article's subject, in this case giving the agreed upon understanding of what a recession is in two separate countries (the US and UK). If someone would like the Oxford definition, they can look it up in the Oxford dictionary -- Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. The article explains that the NBER criteria is generally accepted within the business, economics, and academic community. If you believe there is a dispute or controversy as far as accepting the NBER definition of a recession, well, on Wikipedia that is done by adding citations to trustworthy sources -- not by adding boilerplate text (without citation) or removing blocks of cited text. I stand by the header as it currently reads, as I believe it gives a good overview. If the community disagrees, I'll defer, but as it stands, I'm not seeing any good justifications for removing the description that's there (which is backed up by a citation). Ethelred unraed (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your US and UK centric views are myopic at best. Should every country's definition of a recession appear in the header, or the generally accepted definition worldwide? 65.183.131.113 (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the largest bank in Canada, TD says "A recession is officially judged as two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth."
https://www.td.com/ca/en/personal-banking/articles/recession-canada/
Bloomberg, in an article January 22, 2022 this year about Mexico said "That would put the country into a technical recession, which is defined as two consecutive quarters of quarter-on-quarter GDP contraction."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-20/economists-see-increasing-signs-mexico-s-economy-is-in-recession
An IMF paper from 2008 says " Most commentators and analysts use, as a practical definition of recession, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country’s real (inflation adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP)—the value of all goods and services a country produces (see “Back to Basics,” F&D, December 2008). Although this definition is a useful rule of thumb, it has drawbacks." Then it goes into some of the drawbacks, but that doesn't change that it's the generally accepted worldwide definition.
https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/022/0046/001/article-A021-en.xml
As you know there has been widespread criticism of the NBER definition for a number of years (https://search.proquest.com/openview/a837d15f8c1ab33ee422f6f7368a4998/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2823&casa_token=--7Kq61xJS4AAAAA:HFGVipfroo2fLCsW-zuWW5Vt7F0aHnhQ8cEQ6S3XOxqwtT_AZD1NhQjoiFFbYlMvHaAhbh_0rkA). Why would you put a country specific definition into the header of an important article like this instead of the generally accepted technical definition? 65.183.131.113 (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The UK uses two quarters. It's the US that is alone on an island with NBERs definition.
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/459/economics/define-recession/ 119.18.0.175 (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who decides what the correct 'US definition' is ? Is it just the political party you support ? Its a rhetorical question, already know the answer
Here's Financial Times 'defining the US' entering a 'technical recession' as of 1 hour ago:
'US enters technical recession after contraction in second-quarter growth'
https://www.ft.com/content/8e4caa59-5799-430b-9896-e494369900dc
I doubt any amount of facts and evidence will ever bring about any change since you are all bought propagandists. But I do enjoy pointing it out. Iamtanmay2 (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, I have a pretty good idea of why there is sudden interest in this article: some are eager for the possibility GDP growth is negative in Q2 so they can commence jumping up and down, chanting "BIDEN RECESSION!" Because the NBER definition applies to the United States, I will resist any efforts by editors to declare in this encyclopedia that a recession has begun if Q2 is negative, unless it is solidly supported by reliable sources. And I've seen the Fox News reporting on this topic, so don't even think of going that way. The report comes out Thursday. See y'all then! soibangla (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines) 72.29.177.235 (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reasonably explained the purpose of recent activity in the article and what we might reasonably expect to see if tomorrow's number is negative, which have had and would have a deleterious effect on the article to advance a transparent political agenda. I am well aware of what some dubious sources are reporting on this topic to concoct yet another fake controversy. This ain't my first time at the rodeo. soibangla (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Financial times count as a 'dubious' source ?
'US enters technical recession after contraction in second-quarter growth'
https://www.ft.com/content/8e4caa59-5799-430b-9896-e494369900dc
You won't change the article, no matter the 'sources' and 'evidence' presented, because you are a propagandist for the libs.
Still I enjoy rubbing your hypocrisy and lies in your face.
As Larry Sanger said, Wikipedia is a propaganda arm for the Left. There's alternatives in the works, and I will be helping make you lot obsolete. Iamtanmay2 (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Iamtanmay2: FT is published in the UK, where a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. That is not how a recession is defined in the US, as our article explains. In America, the NBER is the de facto arbiter of recession dating, a recession starts when they say it starts. They have not said it, and if they do it won't be for months, and then they could conceivably say we were in recession even before today's report. There is simply no way to know until they talk. Thanks for playing. soibangla (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain why this uncited statement, complete with weasel words, appears in the Definition section, then?
"Almost universally, academics, economists, policy makers, and businesses refer to the determination by the NBER for the precise dating of a recession's onset and end."
Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't your personal political platform. You can't make a statement like that without citing references. Morgan greywolf (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you're pointing at me, because I didn't add that content, but maybe I will endeavor to substantiate it. soibangla (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines) 72.29.177.235 (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where's *YOUR* source that NBER is the 'de facto' arbiter of recession dating ? C'mon bro, I know how you wokesters love citations.
Lol, yall cited the NBER definition of recession with a link to NBER, instead of, and I quote "solidly supported by reliable sources - (Personal attack removed)"
Meanwhile:
USA Today Fact Check on Donald Trump's 2019 recession:
"A recession is generally defined as two consecutive quarters of declining GDP"
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/28/fact-check-do-gop-presidents-oversee-recessions-dems-recoveries/5235957002/
Politifact:
"Negative GDP growth -- in other words, GDP shrinkage -- from quarter to quarter is one of the hallmarks of a recession."
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jun/16/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-us-gdp-never-negative-ter/
Thanks for playing wokeboi Iamtanmay2 (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
USA Today: "generally defined" except it's not official like the NBER is, which USA Today later discusses.
Politifact: "general rule of thumb" which happens to be wrong. soibangla (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"you best not call me names if you wanna keep your account -soiboi"
(Personal attack removed). Ban me from your shitty website, propagandist.
If it was a Trump presidency, you would be copy pasting "tWo QUarTeRs" on the whole page
(Personal attack removed) Iamtanmay2 (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, this isn't really helpful. Cut it out. jp×g 17:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines) 72.29.177.235 (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines) 72.29.177.235 (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines) 72.29.177.235 (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines) 72.29.177.235 (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have a transparent political agenda. 165.89.30.1 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soibangla gets called out by DailyWire, 'For example, an editor by the name “Soibangla” — the third most prominent member of the Recession page by authorship — repeatedly deleted additions by other editors who used the textbook definition of a recession as being two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.' 165.89.30.1 (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A friend asked me what was going on with this article, since he heard some hemming and hawing about it on Twitter, and wanted the opinion of a Wikipedia understander. I figured it was going to be a whole lot of nothing, because people on Twitter often get a very bad understanding of how Wikipedia works, but to my surprise, it makes no sense to me either. Looking through the edit history, it's kind of hard to understand what is going on -- the citation being discussed here is to a Greg Mankiw economic textbook, correct? He is a fairly respected author, and as far as I'm aware his textbooks are pretty widely used (I believe a couple of my own courses used them). The IMF e-library seems pretty legitimate as well. What is the issue with these sources? jp×g 16:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not what the issue is either. Ask soibangla. Endwise (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that there have been efforts in recent days to game this article to push a political agenda. The changes you made are not helpful in stopping that. soibangla (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should base articles on reliable sources, not on trying to win a war against other editors who you see as trying to push a political agenda. Endwise (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a reliable source that unequivocally states that a recession is universally defined as two quarters. Barring that, we can only say there is no such definition, as we now do. soibangla (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines) 72.29.177.235 (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What? Why? Where are you deriving such a rule from? This disagrees with how effectively every tertiary source deals with this. Endwise (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would also make far more sense to highlight the so called 'US' definition as an outlier from the general (and until recently fairly uncontroversial definition) from the rest of the world. The inverse is true at the moment.

2A00:23C5:5314:FB01:4CDD:A7E5:D7D3:A73B (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead correcly says there is no globally agreed definition. But it's no surprise to cite the definition of the Big Dog of the global economy, and then cite others. That's what we have. soibangla (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its nothing less than laughable partisan sophistry. 2A00:23C5:5314:FB01:4CDD:A7E5:D7D3:A73B (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what the IMF actually says (not the cherrypicked version presented here earlier):

There is no official definition of recession, but there is general recognition that the term refers to a period of decline in economic activity. Very short periods of decline are not considered recessions. Most commentators and analysts use, as a practical definition of recession, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country’s real (inflation adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP)

"commentators and analysts" as a "practical" definition for the masses
Do you have exactly what Mankiw said?
What we have here is a classic case of many people repeating the same myth for so many years that it becomes assimilated as established fact. It is a myth that will never die. soibangla (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you just quoted agrees with the article content you have removed three times now. The textbook, Claessens' article and the Reserve Bank of Australia all say much of the same thing. Endwise (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?

A recession can be defined as a sustained period of weak or negative growth in real GDP (output) that is accompanied by a significant rise in the unemployment rate. Many other indicators of economic activity are also weak during a recession.[1]

soibangla (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The next paragraph: The most common definition of recession used in the media is a ‘technical recession’ in which there have been two consecutive quarters of negative growth in real GDP. This definition often appears in textbooks and is widely used by journalists. Endwise (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"used in the media" because it's easier to explain to the masses than the real definition and/or they're just parroting what they've always heard even though it's wrong. soibangla (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, here is the Mankiw cite: Greg Mankiw (1997). "The Data of Macroeconomics". Principles of Economics (9th ed.). SSBH. p. 504. ISBN 978-0-357-03831-4. Anyone want to go find it? jp×g 16:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The introduction of the term "Recession" in the book is: Recessions—periods of falling real GDP—are marked with the shaded vertical bars... The upward climb of real GDP is occasionally interrupted by periods during which GDP declines, called recessions. Figure 22-2 marks recessions with shaded vertical bars. There is no ironclad rule for when the official business cycle dating committee will declare that a recession has occurred, but a good rule of thumb is two consecutive quarters of falling real GDP. As I said in my edit summary, tertiary sources effectively always mention this practical definition/rule of thumb when introducing the concept of a recession. Endwise (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "rule of thumb". The NBER makes the call. Have they made the call today? soibangla (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of the United States, so that does not matter. Endwise (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I added that there is no global definition in the lead, followed by examples of two definitions. And I just showed you here how the RBA definition more closely follows the NBER definition. By contrast, you are putting the two-quarters rule of thumb right up top in the lead even though it is not a global definition. soibangla (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The most commonly referenced definition -- as used in the media, textbooks, the work of analysts and commentators, what have you -- and the one referenced when introducing the concept of a recession in tertiary sources (which Wikipedia is), is the negative gdp growth over two consecutive quarters one. There is no reason for Wikipedia to be special among other sources on this, and there is no reason for Wikipedia to kowtow to US cultural supremacy. Endwise (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading all the comments in this thread, yours is the most concise (and, IMHO, correct) reading of the topic. Keep up the good work. 2601:192:4000:490:EC9C:ABC0:6CF7:70CF (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The two-quarter rule gained a foothold because of its simplicity for the public, news outlets, and politicians, said Ernie Goss, a Creighton University economist. But officially, the only recession arbiter is the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Business Cycle Dating Committee.[2]

    soibangla (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the IMF definition should be included in either the lead or definition section, as it is not specific to a particular country and is cited in several reliable sources.47.152.112.193 (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endwise, I strenuously oppose your edit, I consider it GAMING for political purposes, and I will take this as far as I need to in order to end it. soibangla (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It kind of seems like both of you are watching a bit too much cable news; would it be possible to get back on topic? jp×g 17:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't watch cable news, couldn't care less. Let me tell you where I'm coming from: I studied economics at the #1 program on the planet. I have been fully aware of this issue for decades. Frankly, I know WTF I'm talkin' about here. There are people who are accusing others of gaming this issue while they themselves are gaming it. Projection. And it's right here on Wikipedia. soibangla (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was based on the fact that, earlier in this conversation, you said "I've seen the Fox News reporting on this topic". I guess maybe you were watching a local affiliate and not the cable network, but at this point we are kind of splitting hairs. At any rate, I don't think that what people are saying on Fox News has anything to do with what the definition of an economic recession is. I mean, if you like to watch Fox News, that's fine, but whether you do (or whether other people do) doesn't seem relevant to the issue at hand. jp×g 20:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endwise, go back as far as you like in the article history and you will never find that the lead contained the two-quarter rule. Despite allegations that some are suddenly changing the definition when it appeared Q2 would go negative, it is in fact your edit that is opportunistically changing the definition now that Q2 did go negative. It is gaming for partisan purposes. I consider this extremely not cool. You should self-revert. soibangla (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it is certainly possible for the addition of this material to be politically motivated, I don't see any way around it. The current US president is a Democrat, so Republicans will want to point out things that make him look bad. But the same would be true, vice versa, if the president were a Repubican. I suppose we could just write up a version of every politics and economics page with the relevant information, wait until the next presidential election, and do all of the editing between the time the polls closed and a winner was announced. But this seems impractical. jp×g 17:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When people derisively refer to "debating semantics," this is what they're talking about. Whether the United States today is in a recession is a question this article cannot and should not answer. We might as well be taking a position on whether a hot dog is a sandwich. —Rutebega (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla: "I studied economics at the #1 program on the planet." Citation Needed. Briefbreak96 (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of recession has now been altered on this page

As I expected, the plain definition of recession according to multiple sources which has been on this page for years has now been changed because it is convenient for the current Presidential administration. That is an absolute embarrassment and needs to be reverted. Wikipedia is NOT a propaganda tool for one political party or the other. 2600:4040:A35B:EE00:958:3B36:46DB:5593 (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost as if Wikipedia is a propaganda tool for one political party or something AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 17:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what the lead said in December:

In the United States, it is defined as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the market, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales". In the United Kingdom, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters.

So, has it changed recently? Or are people watching Fox News? I know what they're telling their viewers, so it's no surprise some are coming here.soibangla (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That defintion was given on this page for over 12 years. Example from 2009: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&oldid=284703225 the only thing that has changes is that the Biden administration is presiding over a recession. 204.111.131.82 (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article version you're pointing to doesn't have any definitions listed in the header. Further down, it lists the US definition as relying upon the NBER determination. There's no discrepancy between that version and the current version, with the exception that the current version is much more detailed and has a lot more sources cited.Ethelred unraed (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference in that the definition given in the lead and elsewhere makes the article too US-centric. I think adding the IMF definition cited previously adds to the neutrality of the article.47.152.112.193 (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
America may, in fact, be in a recession right now. But today's number does not say it, and it will only be true if/when NBER says it. soibangla (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds do you insist on equating NBER's opinion with that of the US as a whole, or its determination as the one true relevant opinion? Why does this one private non-profit hold so much sway in this debate in your mind? 108.31.230.231 (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of your 2009 version says "a recession is a general slowdown in economic activity in a country over a sustained period of time," which is aligned with the NBER definition, but that lead says nothing about two quarters. The lead with the official NBER definition has been in the article for many months, even years, with no mention of two quarters. No one has changed the definition to make Biden look good. Rather, the exact opposite is true, as some are now pushing an unofficial definition to make Biden look bad. It's happening all over the internet and Fox News and quite predictably it found its way here. And quite predictably people are accusing me, specifically, of gaming the article. And they think they're really clever in doing this and that no one notices. LOL! soibangla (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the process for getting soibangla banned? ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.112.27 (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any basis for such an action. soibangla has been making edits backed with citations on the main article page and engaging in good faith discussion on the Talk page whilst being subjected to vandalism and personal attacks by other users. Ethelred unraed (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith or not, I think Soibangla could use a timeout. Civility seems to have gone out of the window and the user's responses, especially to Endwise are extremely aggressive. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rsrikanth05: Assertive is the proper term. Extremely aggressive is a pejorative term. Consider striking. soibangla (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After this response, I'm definitely not gonna strike out my earlier statement. You're now being aggressive to me. I'd seriously suggest you take a break. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it is now you doubling down to cast aspersions upon me. I have nothing more to say here. soibangla (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doing anything of the sort. You're the one who said Frankly, I know WTF I'm talkin' about here. in an earlier discussion. That is not civil in any way. That isn't being assertive either. It's downright aggressive. By demanding that I strike out my observation, you went up a notch on the aggression scale. I made an observation, one that I shall stick with. But my initial statement remains the same. Please take a break before accusing others of doing things they aren't doing. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla is running cover for the administration and interfering with information that was never a problem before and is still correct. This is pathetic. Theldurin (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section in the article header containing the NBER definition of a recession in the United States has been there since at least 2019, which predates the current administration. I would say the spike in interest in suddenly removing what has been there for a long time (which is primarily being driven by anonymous accounts) is the issue here, not the attempt to retain valid information which is backed up by valid citations.Ethelred unraed (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The general rule of thumb is that it takes two quarters of negative growth to signal a recession." https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jun/16/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-us-gdp-never-negative-ter/
"However, the two-quarter threshold cited in the Instagram post has never been official. It’s more like a rough guide — one piece of a complicated puzzle." https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/27/instagram-posts/no-white-house-didnt-change-definition-recession/ 101.173.70.31 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The information retained is important yes, but so is the information that was removed and was also properly cited. And given their conduct in Talk and elsewhere makes this a rather contentious decision Theldurin (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What information was removed? Information has been added to the header (since this spike of edits that started yesterday) specifically noting the common rule of thumb two quarters definition.Ethelred unraed (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
International Monetary Fund. External Relations Dept. Finance & Development. International Monetary Fund. pp. 52–. ISBN 978-1-4519-5368-8. OCLC 1058600237. There is no official definition of recession, but there is general recognition that the term refers to a period of decline in economic activity. Very short periods of decline are not considered recessions........ Most commentators and analysts use, as a practical definition of recession, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real (inflation adjusted) gross domestic product ... Moxy- 20:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do we define very short period? That's the important question. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added full quote above ...as i assume not all can see it. ". Most commentators and analysts use, as a practical definition of recession, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real (inflation adjusted) gross domestic product .."Moxy- 20:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article header now includes that information, in the form of: "two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession.." So I'm not sure what people are advocating for at this point.Ethelred unraed (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree ...just an international source....should be added? Moxy- 20:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fair enough. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map showing countries with varying definitions of recession

Considering the stark difference in definitions between the US and other countries in determining recessions, I think a map showing which countries define a technical recession using 2 quarters, which use something else, and which do not define a recession nationally, would be useful. As of now the current definitions listed are ambiguous and Anglo-centric and listing every country’s own definition seems impractical at the is time.47.152.112.193 (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The English wikipedia is Anglo centric? I'm shocked. SHOCKED. No opposition to the map idea. But other countries information being missing is a WP:SOFIXIT and possibly WP:WEIGHT problem. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why the sarcastic remark. It’s a good amount of work, so I don’t want to do it unless it’s going to be accepted.47.152.112.193 (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media

https://www.outkick.com/wikipedias-bans-edits-to-recession-page/ Moxy- 19:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm infamous! Woohoo! soibangla (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article prominently includes a link to a tweet showing the version history, and the cited Twitter account acknowledges being the one responsible for the anonymous addition of "your mom" to the article. Locking this one down temporarily to anon/unconfirmed users (until this spike of interest dies down) was definitely the right course of action. Frankly, this whole talk page is a disaster.Ethelred unraed (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you change the definition of recession Ethelred unraed? 101.173.70.31 (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't understand your question. If you'd like to point to a specific edit I've made, I'd be happy to elaborate. Ethelred unraed (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the protection itself was probably a good idea, but I get the feeling that there ought to be some comprehensible-to-non-Wikipedians explanation when an article at the center of a political media circus is semi-protected (especially when the media circus revolves around accusing en.wp of censorship). It happens enough that it might be worth making a quick explanation page, that isn't a million words long -- or at least giving one here on the talk page. jp×g 20:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"internet sleuths have discovered more than 40 attempts to edit Wikipedia," like it requires "sleuthing" to look at a page history. Ethelred unraed (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these articles are quite unfair, but it seems like a fairly predictable outcome for an edit war that was kind of silly to begin with. One of them is talking about, I dunno, "company administrators", which is clearly absurd (nb. all editors are volunteers and we indef-block people who turn out to be taking money in exchange for edits), but the central charge is that a bunch of people were arguing about changing the definition of a word while it was relevant to current politics, which is true. jp×g 20:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like some new friends might send me greetings in coming days.soibangla (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Le sigh -- I guess I will post the links here so they can be formatted for {{Press}}. jp×g 20:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Twitter is popping off over this now, I guess. I can't post the search URL because it's blacklisted (huh?) but this tweet is at about ten thousand likes. jp×g 23:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look ma, I'm on TV! jp×g 23:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on Whether or Not NBER Should be Wikipedia's "Arbiter" of Whether or Not the USA is in a Recession.

I believe that the worldwide definition and a variety of notable, reliable sources should be used. I don't like either US political party, so I have no stake. But I believe that Wikipedia should be a neutral encyclopedia, relying on a variety of sources and showing a worldwide view. I personally believe Wikipedia should use the Oxford definition of recession, as the majority of sources seem to do so. Regardless of whether or not that definition is accepted, I do not believe NBER should be the sole arbiter on whether or not we say the US is in a recession. Thespearthrower (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what individual editors believe, what matters is the consensus view backed up by citations to reliable sources. And the bulk of these sources consider the NBER the official source for determining whether the United States is in recession. See here ("The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is considered the leading authority on U.S. economic issues. It determines whether the U.S. economy is in expansion or recession."); here ("In the United States, the private National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which maintains a chronology of the beginning and ending dates of US recessions, uses a broader definition and considers a number of measures of activity to determine the dates of recessions."); here ("Officially, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) – a non-profit group of economists – defines when the US is in a recession."); here ("... in the United States, the economy isn't broadly and officially considered to be in a recession until a relatively unknown group of eight economists says so. The economists, who serve together as the Business Cycle Dating Committee, are hand-selected by and work under the umbrella of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private nonprofit organization."); here ("While many countries define an economic downturn as two consecutive quarters of negative growth for gross domestic product, the US defers this assessment to elite academics at the National Bureau of Economic Research, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, whose leaders scoff at the two-quarter benchmark as simplistic and misleading."); here ("the actual definition of a recession is less clear. Specifically, at what point is the economy officially in a recession, and how does the NBER determine this point?"); here ("Even if gross domestic product figures show a shrinking economy, a recession won’t officially have begun unless the National Bureau of Economic Research says so"); here ("The designation of a recession is the province of a committee of experts at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private non-profit research organization that focuses on understanding the U.S. economy. The NBER recession is a monthly concept that takes account of a number of monthly indicators—such as employment, personal income, and industrial production—as well as quarterly GDP growth. Therefore, while negative GDP growth and recessions closely track each other, the consideration by the NBER of the monthly indicators, especially employment, means that the identification of a recession with two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth does not always hold."); here ("Everyone who cares knows that recessions happen when there are two consecutive quarters of negative growth — everyone, that is, except for the people who actually decide when the economy is in recession. For those folks, at the National Bureau of Economic Research, the definition of recession is much squishier."); here ("The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is generally recognized as the authority that defines the starting and ending dates of U.S. recessions. NBER has its own definition of what constitutes a recession"); here ("Economists including those at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which dates U.S. business cycles, define a recession as an economic contraction starting at the peak of the expansion that preceded it and ending at the low point of the ensuing downturn."). Currently, the header lists the standard global definition while also listing the US and UK definitions. I don't see any reason to try to obfuscate things by removing those details. If you want to try to remove the NBER definition, I think the burden is on you to provide extensive citations to back up the idea that this isn't the accepted definition within the US. Ethelred unraed (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I applaud your contribution and wholeheartedly agree with it in principle, I think it would just save everyone a headache if we just accept Wikipedia leans progressive and go on with it. Frequent readers *know* this already. This goes way back with the whole founders thing and so on. I see no point working to "conceal" it. On the contrary, I think WK could recoup credibility by taking a side really, then conservatives could read the Wiki knowing where "it's coming from" and adjust their expectations accordingly. This whole thing would NOT be a story at all if WK didn't try so hard to pass a "neutral POV". 2804:14D:4CA9:81C4:E87D:465B:64FF:E514 (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first Oxford definition is "An overall decline in economic activity mainly observed as a slowdown in output and employment," which is consistent with the NBER definition. It later says "A recession is often defined as real GDP falling for two successive quarters, but the National Bureau of Economic Research defines a recession as 'a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales'."[3] Please look at this chart from the US government Bureau of Economic Analysis via the Federal Reserve. Note "Shaded areas indicate U.S. recessions" at bottom left. These shaded areas are provided by NBER. They are the recessions formally recognized by the US government, and hence Wall Street and everyone else. Other countries can declare recessions as they choose, but this is the method in the US. NBER is the sole arbiter. No serious economist disputes this. soibangla (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the NBER is less reliable and slower at determining an economic slowdown than the definition every other country on earth uses. They were a year late to the party in 2008 and they may not ever come to this party as long as major news outlets like Washington Post are citing progressive think tanks pre-emptively calling the NREB a "laughing-stock" if they label this a recession. All the jobs numbers donnt matter if they are still below pre-pandemic levels. Low labor participation rates, negative growth for 2 consecutive quarters, high inflation, falling consumer spending, falling real wages, etc. But I'm sure the NREB are the arbiters of truth, so we will wait for them to tell us what the data already shows. Also every single serious economist in the world besides American ones dispute this. Probably when it becomes convenient and theyre not being so heavily pressured anymore. Briefbreak96 (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, what everyone agrees on is there is slowing from last year's torrid pace. If the slowing continues, we might fall into recession. But there are other indicators that are not flashing red at this time. It is premature to declare we are in a recession, but there is no shortage of people who want to because they have a transparent political motive. And obviously from some dubious press coverage those people are furious that they're being prevented from doing that here. soibangla (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether the NBER sucks, it is what it is: the sole arbiter. No one, here or anywhere else, is in any position to call a recession because their analysis says so. soibangla (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference, the current passage in the lead (as of 21:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)) is this:
Though there is no global consensus on the definition of a recession, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession.[1][2][3] In the United States, a recession is defined as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the market, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales".[4] In the United Kingdom and other countries, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters.[5][6]
This seems, basically, fine to me. It goes over the common, official, and technical descriptions of the concept pretty well, and explains what each of these descriptions is. "Recession" is, well, a word. People use words to describe stuff. There isn't a "global consensus" on the distinction between a loveseat and a sofa, or a table (furniture) and a desk. Of course, there are probably a lot of manufacturers, tax agents, and customs authorities that make very precise and official distinctions. But, you know, I am allowed to call the thing I'm sitting at a "desk" without the police kicking down my door (even if, I dunno, maybe it is actually a table). Usage reflects this sort of thing. jp×g 21:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"This seems, basically, fine to me." jpxg, I agree: I think the current header is basically fine. It includes the general and commonplace (non-technical) 'rule-of-thumb' definition used internationally, as well as the specific definitions of the US and UK. Not sure what grievance people still have with the article is. Ethelred unraed (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the battle lines are primarily drawn over this edit, which went back and forth between Soibangla and Endwise a few times. Honestly, it doesn't seem to me like it makes a huge difference either way. The only actual piece of information being added is that two quarters of GDP decline is "commonly used as a practical definition"... but this is already heavily implied by the "and other countries" sentence immediately afterwards. And -- this is crucial -- the "definition" section already said all of the same stuff, per this June 2021 revision ("In a 1974 The New York Times article, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Julius Shiskin suggested several rules of thumb for defining a recession, one of which was two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.[6] In time, the other rules of thumb were forgotten. Some economists prefer a definition of a 1.5-2 percentage points rise in unemployment within 12 months.[7]"). So it is a mystery to me what the argument is about. I have made an effort to assume good faith, but it seems like what's going on here is primarily a bunch of people getting mad about Joe Biden (with an extremely tenuous connection to the content of the article). Normally, in a dispute like this, I would recommend opening a RfC to determine which side of a disagreement should be reflected in article text, but in this case, it may indeed be worth opening an RfC to get everyone to agree about what the disagreement is. jp×g 22:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See below: #Straw poll: What is the disagreement with regard to this article? jp×g 23:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Claessens, Stijn (2009-03-17). "Back to Basics: What Is a Recession?". Finance & Development. 46 (001). doi:10.5089/9781451953688.022.A021. Archived from the original on 2022-06-19. Retrieved 2022-07-27.
  2. ^ "Recession". Reserve Bank of Australia. Archived from the original on 17 July 2022. Retrieved 28 July 2022.
  3. ^ Greg Mankiw (1997). "The Data of Macroeconomics". Principles of Economics (9th ed.). SSBH. p. 504. ISBN 978-0-357-03831-4.
  4. ^ "The NBER's Recession Dating Procedure". www.nber.org. Archived from the original on 2019-05-11. Retrieved 2019-06-04.
  5. ^ "Q&A: What is a recession?". BBC News. 8 July 2008. Archived from the original on 7 March 2012. Retrieved 27 September 2011.
  6. ^ "Glossary of Treasury terms". HM Treasury. Archived from the original on 2 November 2012. Retrieved 25 October 2012.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2022

everyone knows a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth...stop trying to change the definition to help out Biden. 65.118.56.97 (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The discussions above are the ongoing process by which editors are coming to agreement on the issue (as there is not currently a consensus). jp×g 21:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate media shills

Why are definitions being changed? Why are things being updated BECAUSE they're a talking point? You cant just edit facts Wikipedia.

Whoever edits and locks pages like "Woman" and "Recession" is a coward and an enemy of the people.

"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." 2604:2D80:5611:AE00:175:ECAD:57B7:502A (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is that the definition had been the same for months/years until the past several days, when vandals came in to change the definition in anticipation of a negative number today, so they could loudly declare a "Biden recession." That is what changed. soibangla (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are just making complete fabrications. How is moving where the definition is located on the page, changing the definition? You are the one who changed the definition by deleting it, despite it being sourced including a direct citation to Mankiw Briefbreak96 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion is a gross misrepresentation. soibangla (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And you are wildly speculating based on your political beliefs that you need to defend this page and delete sourced materials to prevent people from declaring this a "Biden Recession" that is not your job. Briefbreak96 (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No see, here's what actually happened. I and others noted speculation in the press several days ago that the Q2 GDP might be negative. Then I noticed a flurry of edits on this article and upon inspection I saw IP editors changing the definition in the lead, to set up the scenario for today. In fact, some political operative changed the lead definition, took an image of it and tweeted it so they could claim that Wikipedia confirms it's officially a recession. It was a totally obvious political set up that reversed long-standing content, so I shut it down. LOL!soibangla (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but it is not your call to make to delete sourced information due to PURE speculation that your political enemies conspired to edit a the page because someone tweeted the article 3 hours after an edit was made. Briefbreak96 (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What sourced information are you alleging has been deleted? Ethelred unraed (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what it said in April of this year was this:
"In the United States, it is defined as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the market, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales".[3] In the United Kingdom, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters.[4][5]"
Maybe you can help me out here, because I literally cannot understand the difference between this and the current version, despite editors on both sides claiming that they are extremely different. What actual changes are we talking about? The "commonly defined as" sentence? That says basically the exact same thing as the April version did. "Two quarters" is "a few months". jp×g 22:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, 2604:2D80:5611:AE00:175:ECAD:57B7:502A. I agree that censorship is bullshit (I believe I recognize the 1984 quote, which is a book I appreciate). However, a few things ought to be said here in our defense: articles get edited a lot, for all kinds of reasons. If you go to Special:RecentChanges, you will see that about a hundred edits are made every second. Most of them are stuff like fixing spelling errors, adding/removing hyperlinks, rephrasing sentences, or improving the formatting so the page is easier to read. Oftentimes, people will expand an article that's already been written, because they found some book or article or paper somewhere that's got information (for example, last night I went and found out what the last movie was to be released on VHS, and added it to the article because it wasn't there). The fact that a page is being edited doesn't itself mean something crazy is going on. Anyway, in this instance, the issue at hand is... well, it's kind of hard even for me to understand what the deal is. Basically, though, there is some disagreement on what we should give as the definition of a recession in the lead section of the article. Right now, what it says is "Though there is no global consensus on the definition of a recession, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession". As far as I can tell, this is what the newspaper articles were angry about being removed, so if that is your issue, I guess there is not a lot to find fault with. If you want to participate in the discussion above regarding what the content of the article should be, you are of course free to do so. An encyclopedia written by millions of people requires a lot of bureaucracy in order to function at all without immediately descending into chaos, though, so I will warn you that it will probably be difficult to participate (especially on a political topic) without a bunch of people saying stuff like "Strike per WP:NPA, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG" unless you are willing to read a lot of boring guidelines beforehand. jp×g 22:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JPxG *ahem* Strike per WP:NPA, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 22:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are pedantic and are acting like children.

The drama over the definition is pointless. Two things can be accurate at the same time. First, every country may have different meanings for a recession. Secondly, in the U.S., a recession is *generally* defined as "two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product." Under that definition, the U.S. is in a recession (according to advance numbers from the BEA). Why change the definition for no reason? The White House may or may not be trying to reframe this situation, but that doesn't matter. The White House is not responsible for defining any economic phenomenon. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for government institutions or the media. Long story short, why is this even happening in the first place? There's no need to vandalize an apolitical article and fight over edits. Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Why change the definition for no reason?" The definition has not been changed. Since 2019, this article has included the NBER definition, complete with citations, in the heading. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for the government, however content on Wikipedia is based on neutral citations to trustworthy sources. So what is your specific issue with the article as it now stands? Ethelred unraed (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just referencing the people arguing about it in the edits Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why change the definition for no reason? The long-standing definition in the lead was changed in recent days by IP editors in anticipation of a negative number today. This setup was spotted and the long-standing lead definition was restored. IP editors (you know, trolls) changed the lead definition, others "changed" it back to what it always had been. soibangla (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Soibangla: I don't think comments like this are particularly constructive, as they are mostly casting aspersions about the motivations of other editors: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political activism platform, so it's not relevant which political movements stand to benefit from our article content. Surely, Democrats benefit from Richard Nixon's article mentioning Watergate in the lead – I hope you would agree with me that this is not a cogent argument for removing it. jp×g 23:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not engaged in political activism here. I am fighting it. I correctly spotted the train coming down the tracks and most of today's discussion here has only served to prove it. soibangla (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll: What is the disagreement with regard to this article?

There is a lot of disagreement on this talk page, but it is unclear precisely what the subject of disagreement is. Hitherto, discussions here have covered a wide variety of subjects. This makes it difficult to open an RfC and judge consensus. Therefore, I invite participants to indicate below what topic they are primarily interested in attempting to reach consensus on. Once a consensus emerges for which topic is the main object of contention, it will then be possible to open an RfC to achieve consensus on the topic.

  • Option 1: Whether or not Joe Biden is a good president (note: "Biden" does not appear anywhere in the article).
  • Option 2: Whether or not Fox News is good or bad (note: "Fox" does not appear anywhere in the article or its citations).
  • Option 3: Whether or not the United States is currently in a recession (note: the main article for this is List of recessions in the United States).
  • Option 4: Whether or not Wikipedia is run by "libs", "cons", "intelligent and trustworthy people wiho do their best to keep a neutral point of view", or "other" (please specify).
  • Option 5: Whether or not the lead section should contain the following sentence: "Though there is no global consensus on the definition of a recession, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession".

Please note that options 1 through 4 are not appropriate subjects for this talk page, and should be discussed elsewhere (such as Talk:Joe Biden, Talk:Fox News, Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia, et cetera). jp×g 22:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is editors repeatedly deleting sourced objectively true information because they feel the need to defend a political administration based on (i) pure speculation that their political opponents will use something as an attack and (ii) evidence as attenuated as a tweet about a current issue in the news 3 hours after a supposed "suspect" edit was made. That being said, I am happy with the article as it currently is. Briefbreak96 (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking personally, I did not make any edits for any purpose other than to maintain the long-standing status quo in the lead that had been changed by IP editors in recent days. And the ensuing events demonstrate quite clearly that this was the correct course of action, because I correctly spotted a bogus conservative media narrative. And it pisses them off so much that they're writing about me to get trolls to come after me. LOL!soibangla (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider deleting "While national definitions vary, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's GDP is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession" along with its sources including a direct citation to Mankiw and replacing it with "there is no global consensus on the definition of a recession" with no source is an extremely transparent partisan, and substantively and procedurally extremely poor edit.Briefbreak96 (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to tell which option these comments are in support of, but I think it is probably Option 4 (per "bogus conservative media narrative" and "extremely transparent partisan"). Is this accurate? jp×g 23:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am option 5 and as I said, I am fine with it as is. If this page was not protected I highly doubt the lead section would say this considering the terrible edits that led up to this. Briefbreak96 (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What two sourced sentences immediately followed there is no global consensus on the definition of a recession? Two sentences that specifically demonstrated that the statement preceding them was accurate. soibangla (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually untrue and not supported by your sources, there is a global consensus. The United States is the outlier in its reliance on the NBER's determination of a recession rather than the 2 quarters of declining GDP growth. Moreover please explain why you deleted the statement "While national definitions vary, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's GDP is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession" along with its sources including a direct citation to Mankiw. Briefbreak96 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
there is a global consensus is false. soibangla (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you deleted the statement "While national definitions vary, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's GDP is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession" along with its sources including a direct citation to Mankiw. You have admitted you are option 4 and made the edits purely because you felt you needed to defend the article from negative news stories based on your political beliefs.Briefbreak96 (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia admins are spineless and political hacks.

I have taught AP Macroeconomics for four years and every economist worth their salt have agreed to the idea that a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.

It is appalling that the admins for this site would allow such flagrant political editing of this article to protect the current White House.

Shame on all of you that are biting into this crap sandwich while smiling and wanting the rest of us to join you. 2600:1700:52E:1A30:2C1A:C6DD:F6F2:451D (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually looked at the changes or are you here from Twitter/elsewhere? — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 23:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheresNoTime: To be fair, anyone reading through this talk page is being greeted by a wall of text consisting overwhelmingly of political arguments, so it would probably seem reasonable to conclude that the issue was political in nature, even though the edits in question don't really add or remove any content that wasn't already in the article. jp×g 23:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone making changes on this to revise history should have their account restricted.

The number of users trying to change the definition of a recession in order to protect their political party of choice are clearly bad faith actors and deserve to have their ability to make changes revoked. Itsmejames (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually looked at the changes or are you here from Twitter/elsewhere? — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 23:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Especially people who make edits based on pure speculation and delusions of conspiracies Briefbreak96 (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should've talked to the IP editors who in recent days vandalized the article by changing the long-standing definition of recession in the lead, requiring that the original long-standing content be restored and the article protected from further vandalism. soibangla (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2022 (2)

A recession is a significant decline in economic activity that lasts for months or even years. Experts declare a recession when a nation’s economy experiences negative gross domestic product (GDP), rising levels of unemployment, falling retail sales, and contracting measures of income and manufacturing for an extended period of time. Recessions are considered an unavoidable part of the business cycle—or the regular cadence of expansion and contraction that occurs in a nation’s economy. 67.81.131.157 (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recession&oldid=1101033050"