Talk:Recession: Difference between revisions

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.

Comment from Notalawyerxyz

Try it without the polemics EvergreenFir (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
the nber's hyperpartisan definition of recession is unworthy of being in wikipedia. Of the 8 nber members who decide on what is a recession, all their federal political donations goes exclusively to democrats, or never trumper RINOS like Romney and Weld. This can be verified by looking at FEC records, including for their spouses. Their presence on wikipedia is purely to spread political propaganda either for Joe Biden, or nefarious groups like the world economic forum who has many authors from the nber. Furthermore, the NBER definition is not what the United states regularly Uses as the wiki suggest. We use the traditional 2 quarters rule. Instead Wikipedia presents us with the propaganda of a corrupt regime as the official standard, when it is not. "The eight economists on the committee are among the most respected in their field. Some have served in Democratic administrations, but past members have also included GOP appointees. In addition to [James] Poterba and [Robert] Hall, the members are Christina Romer and David Romer of the University of California at Berkeley; James Stock, of Harvard; Robert Gordon, of Northwestern; Valerie Ramey, of the University of California at San Diego; and Mark Watson, of Princeton." -https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/07/27/who-decides-recession/ The wife of James poterba of MIT https://www.nber.org/bah/2004no3/nber-profile-james-poterba https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=nancy+rose&contributor_zip=02478 The Wife of Bob hall https://web.stanford.edu/~rehall/ https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=Susan+Woodward&contributor_zip=94025 Christina Romer https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&page=1&q=Christina+Romer&sort=D&type=donors https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&page=2&q=Christina+Romer&sort=D&type=donors David Romer https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&q=david+Romer&sort=D&type=donors https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&page=2&q=david+Romer&sort=D&type=donors https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&page=3&q=david+Romer&sort=D&type=donors John Stock of Harvard https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&q=James+Stock&sort=D&type=donors Robert Gordon of northwestern University https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=Robert+Gordon&contributor_zip=60201 Valeria Ramey, UC SD: her husband garey https://economics.ucsd.edu/faculty-and-research/vramey_interview.html https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=garey+ramey As I said, the inclusion of the NBER definition is not worthy of wikipedia. Nor is it just to assert this is the standard that is used in the USA. Notalawyerxyz (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Ban User who changed the definition?

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 benefit (even though this is less and less true) and problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit or remove anything. However it is fairly obvious that the change was made (entirely) due to political considerations. If they said that "the traditional, but unofficial, definition of a recession is two quarters..... etc" and the explained nber, that's better. But they didn't - they removed it entirely and made Zero reference to it. All for political purposes (Not education purposes).

Wikipedia should ban the user who made the post (unless they are anonymous). If they don't then they expose bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.193.160 (talk) 04:21, 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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Today's number does in fact say America is in a recession right now. 2601:300:4100:4FE0:6C34:E52:CC02:6A17 (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

Unhelpful snarkiness and personal attacks collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I thought Wikipedia was for everyone, not just Americans, what a shame 2806:102E:A:867D:810D:2C42:1C7A:65E0 (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC) Good news: Wikipedia is for everyone, which is why the article lists a common global definition as well as the definition in the US and the UK. Is your objection that any information about the US definition is included? Ethelred unraed (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC) What's the process for getting soibangla banned? ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.112.27 (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 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) 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) Rsrikanth05: Assertive is the proper term. Extremely aggressive is a pejorative term. Consider striking. soibangla (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) "Frankly, I know WTF I'm talkin' about here" is also a gross logical fallacy, of the appeal to authority variety. 47.185.149.75 (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC) 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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

How do we define very short period? That's the important question. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Agree ...just an international source....should be added? Moxy- 20:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Polemics EvergreenFir (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
the nber's hyperpartisan definition of recession is unworthy of being in wikipedia. Of the 8 nber members who decide on what is a recession, all their federal political donations goes exclusively to democrats, or never trumper RINOS like Romney and Weld. This can be verified by looking at FEC records, including for their spouses. Their presence on wikipedia is purely to spread political propaganda either for Joe Biden, or nefarious groups like the world economic forum who has many authors from the nber. Notalawyerxyz (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like citations to the IMF and Reserve Bank of Australia have been added, so it seems this is now taken care of. -- Beland (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wpow request

Until it was inconvenient for president Biden : recession is 2 conservative quarters with negative growth. Please change back to original definitions or it will hurt your status as being truth and unbiased. Wpow (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wpow: This happened several hours ago, as you can see from the current revision. jp×g 00:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

On July 4th, the lead said:

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"

with absolutely no mention of two quarters. None. Is that the change back you'd like? soibangla (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. This claim is factually incorrect: the article has mentioned the definition of two consecutive quarters with declining GDP as far back as 2009, in the very first section of the body text, titled "Definition". jp×g 00:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about Soibangla, he is spreading clear falsehoods and misinformation and already admitted that he deleted a sourced and objectively correct statement, and replaced it with an unsourced statement, solely for political reasons. This is not okay.Briefbreak96 (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Generally, accusations of misconduct are beyond the scope of a talk page. If you're interested in pursuing some kind of enforcement action, this is something that should be done at WP:AN/I or WP:AE (where a request for WP:DS enforcement can be filed under the WP:ARBAP2 sanctions), but I really don't recommend opening a case at either of these venues unless you are extremely experienced with procedures and PaGs (and know what all of these abbreviations stand for without having to click them) – for some comparison, I have made over 60,000 edits in the last three years, and I have still never opened a request for arbitration enforcement. jp×g 04:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Briefbreak96: Whether or not the "While national definitions vary" sentence should be in the article is a simple content and sourcing dispute. Such disputes are a normal part of Wikipedia editing and material is added and removed in the course of these disputes. This is not a violation of Wikipedia rules, as long as editors bring disputes that aren't easily resolved to the article talk page. Soibangla appears to be doing so in good faith. In this case, because there are multiple definitions of the same concept, we should not expect everyone to have the same beliefs about what is true and accurate. Following WP:NPOV, Wikipedia does not take a side in these disputes; we simply document notable viewpoints and provide information for readers to decide on their own, or not. Wikipedia needs editors from a variety of viewpoints to work together to achieve neutral coverage, and doesn't ban editors just because they have or act upon a personal opinion about the material under consideration. That process seems to have worked, unless there is something about the article content you still object to? -- Beland (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't usually like to get involved in Wikipedia politics (which is why I'm not logged in right now) but I wonder if the atrocious conduct of certain editors over the past week, especially today, doesn't warrant some sort of administrator action.

At least one of the editors who have been camping this page has a persistent history of parachuting into articles that are "hot topics" on American cable news networks to delete or disparages sentences that are cited on-air, and has repeatedly engaged in hostility with other contributors who point out repeated violations of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. This kind of unprofessional behavior not only damages the user experience on Wikipedia but also opens Wikipedians up to bad-faith attacks against the credibility of the site in other cases.

I'm not sure what particular action would be appropriate and I'm loath to file anything with the arbitrators, but the behavior around this issue has really been dispiriting. 209.122.233.219 (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

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) 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) there is a global consensus is false. soibangla (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 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) I will not explain anything to you because you continue to cast aspersions upon me. soibangla (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC) I know, there is nothing to explain beaides what you have already admitted to throughout this page, that you deleted sourced objectively true information purely for political reasons.Briefbreak96 (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Option 5. The contentious sentence is well-cited and should remain.anikom15 (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Stop suppressing the facts…

The actual changes made

…. the definition has always been 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth, why should it change now? NerdyMadMo (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The article header has included the US definition of a recession, based on the NBER determination, since 2019. So nothing has "changed" now. Ethelred unraed (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ethelred unraed: I think NerdyMadMo is referring to the lead edits recently made by Soibangla (as well as Soibangla's repeated claims on this talk page that they deleted the definition). @NerdyMadMo: Your confusion is understandable, because this talk page is a clusterfuck, and people on Twitter are posting out-of-date screenshots (you can see the actual edit history from the "history" tab, or here). However, the article has mentioned the definition of two consecutive quarters with declining GDP as far back as 2009, in the very first section of the body text, titled "Definition". jp×g 00:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

of the body text Not the prime real estate of the lead. And there's a good reason for that: the two quarters definition is subordinate to the NBER definition. Always was, should still be now. This is what has been changed to advance a "Biden recession" narrative. This is the politicization of the article. soibangla (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Soibangla, there does not seem to be consensus in favor of this modification. Please open an RfC, take this to dispute resolution, or quit bludgeoning the talk page. jp×g 01:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

why are you lying lmao. nobody said it's subordinate except you and your partisan BULLSHIT StarkGaryen (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The 2 quarter thing is media simplification. Just like when they declare a "bear market" if the S&P index declines some percentage, etc. Soibangla is correct about this and scholarly RS fully support his terminology. SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not merely a simplification used in the media, it's also the simplification you'll be given if you take an introductory macroeconomics class at university, and the simplification used by society at large. Endwise (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

We certainly do not go by the narratives of undergraduate baby-macro texts. We go by the mainstream view among peer-reviewed RS publications of economists on the subject. There is no question that the NBER standard is the scientific and practical standard among mainstream notable economists. SPECIFICO talk 01:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That's what the USA uses, and we note that that's what the USA uses, but Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of just the United States. Endwise (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Update to list of recessions in the US

The list of recessions in the US needs updated to add July 2022 - TBD 172.223.182.163 (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Please provide citations to reliable sources stating that the US is in a recession. Ethelred unraed (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

We'll do that the minute NBER announces a recession. soibangla (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Admin deleted my topic, stop attempting to redefine our economic issues away.

I pointed out that the admin are being cowards allowing political editing to this article to protect the current White House and they deleted my topic all together.

For four years I have taught AP Macroeconomics, the book approved by College Board (written by Krugman) and it has been widely accepted that two consecutive quarters of negative growth is a recession!

It is exceptionally irritating that Wikipedia and the media et al are bending to this White House simply because of his political affiliation.

Stop attempting to defend this nonsense. It’s time to smell the roses and realize that the economy has been and is in deep trouble. 2600:1700:52E:1A30:5CED:EEAE:D945:1CEF (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of opinions (which is not consistent with WP:NPOV) and not a lot of citations or specific changes you'd like to see made to the article. Ethelred unraed (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Well, 2600:1700:52E:1A30:5CED:EEAE:D945:1CEF, I wrote a bunch of stuff about all this. There is now a big-ass FAQ at the top of the talk page now which I think will address most of your issues here. The article always said the "two down quarters" thing (there's a "Definition" section, which has mentioned it since 2009). Today's brouhaha was about whether the lead section should say that was general practice, or whether it should say it was general practice for non-US countries. jp×g 01:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@2600:1700:52E:1A30:5CED:EEAE:D945:1CEF: Talk page messages aren't deleted, they are archived. Archived messages can be found from the links near the top of this page. I don't see any previous contributions from your IP address, so I'm not sure which comments you were talking about. You may wish to sign up for a Wikipedia account so that people can communicate with you more easily. -- Beland (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Beland: The edit is tagged as being mobile, so it's probably that thing where phones go through a bajillion IP addresses at random. jp×g 02:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are many situations where one person gets many different IP addresses, or many people all share one IP address. -- Beland (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)