Talk:Recession

ATTENTION NEW VISITORS TO THIS PAGE

TL;DR from Beland:

• If you are about to hate-post "The definition of a recession is two quarters of declining GDP!": the article already says that, so this would be a waste of time unless you have further suggestions for improving the article.
• If you are here to complain Wikipedia changed the definition to favor the Biden administration, please don't, because 1.) the article has mentioned both the "two quarter" and NBER definitions for years, and that hasn't changed recently, 2.) after discussion by editors from a diversity of political perspectives, the introduction has actually been changed so it emphasizes the "two quarter" definition a little more, which we expect you will find satisfactorily neutral. But feel free to leave a note if you read the article and still have concerns.

---

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)

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)

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)

Why have a map of USA vs other countries? For the longest time then Americans have also thought "2 quarters of decline = recession", it is only incredibly recently and only a very small minority of Americans who have thought anything else in the USA. Mathmo ^Talk 09:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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'."[1] 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)

@Soibangla Actually, they do because economy textbooks don't use the NBER definition.

Ultimately it's absurd to discuss this. The NBER is a single private organization from a single country, what they define is irrelevant on the face of the worldwide accepted definition.

If a single private organization in a single country made up its own definition of "genocide" would you support changing all and every single historical articles about genocides to claim they weren't actually a genocide? This isn't even a rethorical question as countries frequently deny commuting such acts anyway.

"History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." 88.17.193.95 (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

This is an entirely arbitrary distinction. Economics has most of its genesis in France and Britian, if we are making arbitrary definition by fiat arguments, why isn't the UK definition correct?

I'm not saying it is, I'm simply pointing out your point of demarcation is entirely arbitrary. The state of fiat definition in the US is an entirely arbitrary definition of an economic term. At best you've secured it an "unofficial recession" 2A00:23C5:5314:FB01:F854:8626:68E1:8949 (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• 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. 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". In the United Kingdom and other countries, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters.

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)

"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)

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)

See below: #Straw poll: What is the disagreement with regard to this article? jp×g 23:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

When NBER has become hopelessly politically compromised with bias, then no they shouldn't be Wikipedia's arbitrator of if America is in a recession or not. Mathmo ^Talk 09:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

References

RfC: Phrasing of the infamous sentence

The amount of sheer nonsense and vitriol that has transpired on this article, and this talk page, has been an embarrassing spectacle for everyone involved. I think we should pick something to say in the lead paragraph, and avoid making clowns of ourselves. Maybe this is an impossible task. Anyway, here are a few things that we could say. jp×g 10:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1: "Two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession, although standards differ between countries. In the United States [...] In the United Kingdom and other countries, [...]"
• Option 2: "Although the definition of a recession varies between countries, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession. In the United States [...] In the United Kingdom and other countries, [...]"
• Option 3: "The definition of a recession varies; in most countries, two consecutive quarters of decline in real gross domestic product is commonly used. In the United States [...]"
• Option 4: "There is no universally agreed-on definition, but two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product is commonly held to constitute a recession. In the United States [...] In the United Kingdom and other countries, [...]"
• Option 5: "There is no universally agreed-on definition of a recession. In the United States [...] In the United Kingdom and other countries, [...]"
• Option 6: "There is no universally agreed-on definition of a recession."
• Option 7: Other (specify in comment).

Survey

• Option 2 or Option 3 seem like the most reasonable to me. This is something that seems to be fairly common around the world, as well as in the US: there are lots of sources for this (like the three which support this statement as it currently exists in the article). The article has said something along these lines for most of its existence (like this version from 2011, this version from December 2021, and this version from June 2022. There's already a more general description in the first sentence, calling it "a business cycle contraction when there is a general decline in economic activity [...] when there is a widespread drop in spending (an adverse demand shock)". From what I can tell, this is the most common definition, whether formally (in analyses of past economic trends) or informally (used contemporaneously to describe events as they occur). Currently, the statements that the NBER is the canonical organization determing US recessions seem to be cited to the NBER's own website and two news articles, which is problematic, but I am given to understand that there are additional references that support this, so if those can be found I think it is perfectly fine to talk about the US using different metrics. I don't think it makes sense to just say "there is no global consensus" and not elaborate further. I furthermore reject the idea, or the insinuation, that we should write the article to "own the libs" or "own the cons" – this is complete hogwash and runs counter to the foundational principles of Wikipedia. We should write the article to be a true, impartial reflection of reality according to a consensus of reliable sources. jp×g 10:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, failing that Option 2. Strong oppose to any other option as it gives disproportionate weight to the United States in the lead. — Czello 10:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• Options 3ish I'm against the In the UK sentence, as it's only duplicating the details of the first sentence, it should be dropped and it's references moved to the first sentence. I say ish as I believe the second sentence should start However in the US, as the second sentence is showing how the US departs from the first sentence. The US definition is rather wordy, maybe we don't need the entire NBER quote. I can understand the argument regarding weight, but this is a departure from a more general standard by the US and we could incorporate other major outliers into the sentence as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2, but any of Options 1-3 sound reasonable. It might be worth pointing out (later in the article, not the lead) that there is some discussion in the US about whether NBER should be the gatekeepers, as we've seen on this talk page. Rwbogl (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, with a preference for the second sentence to be removed from the lead as giving disproportionate weight. The comment above "The NBER is a single private organization from a single country, what they define is irrelevant on the face of the worldwide accepted definition" seems to the point. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 2 both sound good, although given ongoing debate, it may be useful to define which institutions (NBER, Bank of England, etc.) make the calls in each country listed. (Although, that might make things rather wordy.)
• Option 3 is probably best but..... (invited by the bot) It's just a variable meaning WORD, and any wording should not imply otherwise. North8000 (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 looks to resemble what the article currently has, and I think that's what we should leave it at for now. It includes the non-technical global rule-of-thumb definition, and includes the specific definitions for the US and the UK. This gives the reader the context and detail they would need in the heading. I don't believe we should change this on the basis of the spike in interest following erroneous media reports and subsequent frequent vandalism. Ethelred unraed (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 first option, Option 2 failing that. Seems the most reasonable to me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 7: Restore the lead to its long-standing state that existed for years before this current and contentious event, thus eliminating any doubts about whether anyone is attempting or succeeding in politically gaming this article. After all, isn't this why this brouhaha arose in the first place, that the definition had been changed? In fact, it was, just in the opposite way some assert.soibangla (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 7: same opinion as soibangla. There was never any issue or contention with the information that has existed for years until now. Restore the page to before all these changes.
• Option 2 seems best, option 1 next best. Option 3 is not teneable as we have no source for the statement that "in most countries, two consecutive quarters of decline ..." LK (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

A "recession" is ...

• An economy-wide term
• It attempts to describe a moderately adverse, but somewhat transient state of the economy
• Historically (for many years), the news media used a simple, clear definition; stating it was "two quarters in a row of declining GDP"
• Does anyone dispute this?

Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tondelleo Schwarzkopf: I cannot speak with confidence on the historiography of definitions of economic recession, but your point seems to be within reason. You may be interested in the RfC in the section above this one, where a survey is underway to determine consensus for what the lead section of the article should say. jp×g 11:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is completely in ruin and an Admin must step in to correct this.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The standard editors for this article have turned it into a political farce whereby you attempt to continually re-define the accepted definition and terminology to fit your worldview. This is not simply pathetic, it's also against the spirit of Wikipedia and also MANY... MANY.... GUIDELINES AND RULES.

This is sheer MADNESS. That the article exists in this state along with the editor being allowed control over it is simply an indication of a cancer-like infestation on Wikipedia. Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point to some of the WP:PAGs that have been broken by this article. Vague gesturing doesn't help anyone to improve the article. You might start by reading the FAQ at the top of the page, as it might answer some of the misconceptions you have about the article. Cakelot1 (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Discuss your concerns with the Administration staff whom I have already alerted. I don't find your arguments convincing at all. Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

A recession is two quarters in a row of negative growth."

-- President Clinton, Dec. 19, 2000 It was the standard definition till Wikipeida changed it just a short time ago to suit a current political party Montalban (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Liftmoduleinterface: @Montalban: There's literally an open request for comment, directly above this section, pertaining to the sentence in question. I don't know what you are expecting anyone to do about it beyond that. jp×g 10:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not find your arguments convincing as a long-term user of Wikipedia. I've alerted the Administration as to the low-quality nature of this article, and the editorial choices regarding it. Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have alerted the Administration of Wikipedia about this. Beyond being a sickening example of Americans attempting to politicize articles, it is simply factually incorrect in the current state, and if the Editorial team regarding this article cannot remedy their /lies/, perhaps the Administrators will consider the validity of their accounts. Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Liftmoduleinterface: I don't know if you thought I was lying, but I literally have no idea what you are talking about. You keep saying the article is sickening and politicized, but I cannot tell whether you are angry that the article is too right-leaning, too left-leaning, too long, too short, or what. You are refusing to say what actual changes you would like to be made. There is a section directly above this one, which is open to comment from anyone, where you can say what actual changes you would like to be made, and have some impact on them, but you are refusing to participate in it for some reason. Please help me out here and tell me what you want. jp×g 11:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The article has no bearing on reality. It's attempting to politicize an /American/ view because of the current American political landscape. This is NOT ACCEPTABLE for an Editorial source that attempts to be authoritative. This article actively undermines the goal of Wikipedia by dragging it down into political *muck*. Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The definition wasn't changed. Stop believing everything you read on social media and learn to think for yourself — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 11:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Liftmoduleinterface: Okay, I understand that you think it's bad, but you have still not answered my question, so it is impossible for me to respond to this in a meaningful way. Please tell me what changes you think should be made. If you do not want to do this, please stop editing this talk page. jp×g 11:19, 29 July 2022 (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.

Let's review what has happened here

Several days ago, maybe even weeks, emerging data suggested that American Q2 GDP might go negative, for the second consecutive quarter.

Consequently, some said this would meet the definition of a recession in the United States. A common layperson definition, not an economist definition. When actual economists correctly pointed out that two consecutive quarters does not automatically trigger a recession in the United States, some accused those economists of changing the definition to prevent a recession from being declared under Biden. Certainly, many made this accusation out of simple ignorance, while others did it quite deliberately. Maliciously, in fact. It went viral all over the web and Fox News and all the rest. It was a setup.

Examine the long history of this article, any version you like. Without exception the lead has either 2) never included the two quarters definition, or b) included it only in reference to the UK. In the latter case, the different US definition, per NBER, is explained. This has been the long-standing status quo of the article since forever.

That changed last week. Having heard that Q2 GDP growth come in negative, some IP editors changed the lead to place the two quarters definition front and center in the lead, where it had not been before. Why do you suppose they did that just days before the GDP report would come out? It was a setup. They changed the long-standing lead definition, then later accused others (elsewhere first, then here on Wikipedia) of changing it. They've accused others of politicizing this matter while it is actually they themselves who are politicizing it. It's called projection. It's kinda clever trolling unless one is paying close attention. Alas, most are not.

So, what happened after the Q2 report was released yesterday? The long-standing lead was significantly changed to include a sweeping reference to the two quarters definition, rather than its outright exclusion (or reference to the UK only) that had been there all along. It was the vandalism by IP editors last week, which was reverted, and the change made yesterday, that were the changes made to the definition of recession. The definition was not changed to remove the two quarters definition from the lead, as some assert. The exact opposite is true. The two quarters definition was not removed to politically spin the article, the exact opposite is true: the two quarters definition was given unprecedented prominence in the lead for political spin, consistent with the false narrative going viral in conservative media. So this was a double-score for them: they got the Wikipedia lead altered to their liking and accused editors (notably me) of changing the definition to cover for Biden. It was a setup.

So, let's look at how that lead sentence reads now:

two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession

This is supported by an IMF source[2]. It first says:

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

This definition is aligned with how the NBER, the official arbiter of American recessions, defines it.

Later, the IMF says:

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.

There is a reason why they say this later, and it's the same reason we have consistently said it in the body of our article rather than in the lead: it is a secondary and subordinate definition in the United States. It is not the official definition and it should not be given undue prominence as though it is.

The second reference[3] to the sentence is a straight lift from the IMF reference. First it says:

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.

Then later it says:

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.

So the second reference is being reused as though it is independent corroboration. Not only that, it's cherrypicked to ignore the first definition provided and focusing instead on the secondary and subordinate definition. That is really weak sourcing, especially for the lead.

Then there's the Mankiw source.[4] Here's what he actually said in his book:

(There is no ironclad rule for when the official business cycle dating committee will declare that a recession has occurred, but an old rule of thumb is two consecutive quarters of falling real GDP.)

And old rule of thumb. A layperson's definition. Not the official definition in the United States. This is not solid sourcing for a lead sentence. It's a parenthetical aside.

Here's a Fed paper[5] that crystallizes the issue here:

Let’s start by defining a recession. As I mentioned, there are several commonly used definitions of a recession. For example, journalists often describe a recession as two consecutive quarters of declines in quarterly real (inflation adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP). The definition used by economists differs. Economists use monthly business cycle peaks and troughs designated by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) to define periods of expansion and contractions. (emphasis mine)

The first sentence of our lead begins, "In economics..." Not journalism. Not commentary or punditry or politics. In economics. And economists don't rely on any layperson old rule of thumb. They use what the NBER dating committee of economists determines. And our lead should continue to adhere to that, as it always did, until yesterday.

Consequently, I propose that the lead, as some insist, "be restored to what it always was before it was changed for political purposes":

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 and other countries, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters.

And prepend to that, as I did yesterday:

There is no global consensus on the definition of a recession.

soibangla (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Like I said above: I reject the idea, or the insinuation, that we should write the article to "own the libs" or "own the cons" – this is complete hogwash and runs counter to the foundational principles of Wikipedia. We should write the article to be a true, impartial reflection of reality according to a consensus of reliable sources. Somebody just went to my talk page and threatened to kill me over this talk page. This is not relevant to the definition of a recession. Whatever some random cable news talking head is saying on Twitter is not relevant to the definition of a recession. Your insistence on bringing this up again and again, and insisting we need to counter "spin" by introducing "spin" of our own, is disruptive. Repeatedly casting aspersions against other users is tendentious editing. Please stop doing this. jp×g 11:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

insisting we need to counter "spin" by introducing "spin" of our own is absolutely and unequivocally not what I am doing. This article has been politically gamed and I seek to ungame it by restoring the long-standing status quo. Please do not attribute false motives to me. soibangla (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

rehash and ramble plus ASPERSIONS from logged-out editor. SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You understand that other Wikipedians might find this defense difficult to believe, given your repeated reversions despite numerous sourced contributions that indicate that the two-quarter rule is a generally accepted definition and not simply a "parenthetical aside", no? Not to mention, as has been mentioned above, that your patterns of editing on this page run well beyond simple vandalism prevention and into tendentious editing territory, including multiple accusations that those who disagree with your opinions are some sort of coordinated misinformation operation egged on by American cable news networks, as well as this insistence that the job of Wikipedia is to "counter conservative media narratives". Both of these cast serious doubt on your neutrality as an editor. Being passionate about American politics is not a license to camp the Wikipedia pages of major events in what appears to be an attempt to shape/moderate news coverage. That isn't our job. And, as an aside, your continual references to "IP editors" as some sort of pejorative is highly inappropriate. I'm currently not logged in on purpose because I don't like dragging my account into Wikipedia politics. People do not have ill motives simply because they are choosing to associate some activity with their IP address instead of their account. I could just as easily use your edit history to back an accusation that you're some sort of paid partisan political operative, but I'm not going to do that because this organization understands that casting WP:ASPERSIONS against other editors is highly inappropriate. Your own user page says that "truth will prevail". I suggest taking that advice. 209.122.233.219 (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC) The page was locked down due to vandalism by IP editors. Not good faith editors, common vandals. And the bottom line here is that I am proposing the article be restored to its original state that existed for years before this brouhaha, and this will remove any doubts as to whether anyone has attempted or succeeded in gaming this article for partisan purposes in light of current events. soibangla (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC) I have no issue with locking the page; in fact most of the productive debate around this sentence only happened once the page was locked. From a cursory look, the "two consecutive quarters" definition was added at least as far back as 2018, well before either the current economic or political situation in the US. 209.122.233.219 (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC) It was in the lead specifically for UK recessions. We're not talking about a UK recession. Otherwise, it was previously in the body, not the high-visibility lead. You know, the tone of this discussion might improve if some would actually bother reading what others say. soibangla (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC) Then why not simply revert the sentence so that it's once more UK-specific, if we're restoring the article to its old state? Or add some sort of qualifying statement such as "in recent years, this definition has been used in the US as well" to the new expansion of that sentence? Is it possible that this was added as the result of some sort of partisan activity; of course. But we shouldn't be dismissing relevant, sourced information out of hand just because it could have been added with ill intent. 209.122.233.219 (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC) It was added within hours of the BEA release, as this stuff was ricocheting across the internet. Why not earlier? Ahem.soibangla (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC) I could just as easily use your edit history to back an accusation that you're some sort of paid partisan political operative, but I'm not going to do that ha! soibangla (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC) Did you logout specifically so you could launch into an lengthy anonymous personal tirade against me without consequences? soibangla (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC) This is not a "tirade", nor is it personal in any way. This is a discussion about the neutrality of contentious edits; I am making a case that these edits were not neutral. I am not personally attacking you, nor is this some sort of denunciation; you are encouraged to defend your edits just like we do in any talk page discussion. Again, casting aspersions against other users is highly inappropriate and unproductive. I'm not motivated by any sort of personal animus against other users, I am simply making a case against certain edits and asking you not to try to divine the motives of other editors. 209.122.233.219 (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC) You insinuated I'm some sort of paid partisan political operative while tagging it with a feeble disclaimer that you think absolves you. You think that's clever, don't you? You most definitely went personal in a big way. Enough of this here, you wanna engage in this, you log in and come to my Talk page. soibangla (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC) If you're going to publicly accuse me of this behavior, please do not delete my speaking in my own defense. I repeat: this was an example of something that would be highly inappropriate to say, and I chose it as an example largely because it's a very common accusation that's flung around which openly violates WP:ASPERSIONS and which everyone can agree is inappropriate behavior. Deleting another user's comments on a talk page, especially when you have accused them of a serious rule violation, is a flagrant violation of WP:TPO and I would really appreciate if you didn't do that. 209.122.233.219 (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC) None of this has anything to do with improving the Recession article, and it's not relevant to the article talk page. If there's a personal disagreement, please take it elsewhere. This isn't the place for it. Ethelred unraed (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This is serious folks, this could damage Wikipedia if we aren’t careful

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey folks, I want to congratulate you all because after 18 years of using Wikipedia almost religiously you’ve push me over the edge to make an account so kudos to you. I’d like to start by saying this is the second time In the last few months I’ve seen Wikipedia edited to push a seemingly partisan viewpoint, the other situation was the people murdered by communism article that was almost deleted and thankfully it seems the administrators came to their senses and hopefully that will prevail here. I don’t understand how any reasonable person could look into this situation and not see it as long time editors playing defense for the current administration because they can and even more frighteningly admins with sympathetic views covering for said editors, telling everyone nothing to see here. The idea that the NBER is some non partisan entity that is just reporting the facts is bordering on insane. Any think tank can say they are not partisan but if you’ve ever spent even a second reading their editorials or seeing their member donation records which are freely available (100% to the DNC) or that the vice chair Peter Blair Henry was a high ranking member of the Obama administration well feel free to draw the rest of the lines yourself. Next anyone making even a cursory glance at the editors in question can see that they are not even pretending to be unbiased now I’m not arguing that they are making these arguments in bad faith but it’s easy to think why people would see it that way. Even worse is that the administrators who should be here to bring reason to the situation are instead deleting threads and saying nothing to see here. What everyone needs to understand this isn’t just happening right here I imagine it will be treading on twitter by the end of the day, and I implore you be reasonable here if your not going to revert the page fine at least let’s admit that NBER’s definition’s may be at least in question, and the administrators should be asking themselves if this will be damaging to Wikipedia as a whole because trust me the world is watching. Good luck and Godspeed. 96.38.117.150 (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

So, you agree with me that the article should be restored to the long-standing version that existed before this recent brouhaha? Great to hear it. soibangla (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2022 (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.

If that is you intention great, but let’s be honest you were one of the folks who instigated this whole thing I’ve heard you argue up and down about how “reliable” NBER is and how it shouldn’t be questioned if you’ve had a change of heart fantastic but in my experience things are rarely that easy but I did fall asleep for the last few hours perhaps things changed… Donnydelicous (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2022

For years Wikipedia has been a great source of information about an array of topics. I understand it is easier for politicians to change definitions then to deal with consequences. Unfortunately what we are in is a recession and has been counted as such for a long time. Kneeling to the biden administration and displaying economic misinformation as fact is disgusting. I cannot really believe anything I read on Wikipedia now, and you will never receive a donation from me. I'm sure there are enough democrats to fund Wikipedia now that you have turned into a political hackjob 71.237.149.229 (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Not an edit request. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Oceania is at war with Eurasia, Oceania has forever been at war with Eurasia. 2A00:A040:196:21AA:7853:932B:92B3:5A60 (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)