Talk:Recession/Archive 2

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Recession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090328205929/https://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861699686 to http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861699686
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102095705/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/junebudget_glossary.htm to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/junebudget_glossary.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100317155544/http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Key_Indicators/2001/default.asp to http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Key_Indicators/2001/default.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110204065202/http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/press/2003/fs_bushrecession073103.pdf to http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/press/2003/fs_bushrecession073103.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Reference [8], which refers to the definition by the European Union, is sourced as Google. This is an invalid source and does not meet the requirements of proper Reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.115.220.154 (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a section, tagged, that could use more examples. But most of the other sections do appear to have reasonably global perspective. I’ve deleted the article tag. Lets discuss what other sections need a global perspective if you feel the tag should remain. Work permit (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

What a hideously pathetic argument. Are you trying to serve Wikipedia, or are you trying to serve your personal viewpoints? Reality cares very little for the poltik of the average idiotic participant. Not only are you lying intentionally, it's not even a very good lie. Please consider lying better or crafting some other way to screech your political slant to others. Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wpow: @Briefbreak96: @Liftmoduleinterface: Since the issues related to the article brought up here seem to have been addressed, and no new issues have been brought up, I'm going to archive this section so that conversations related to editing the article can be more productive. jp×g 11:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

…. 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)

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)

Funnily enough even NBER use the definition. As an economist myself it's a definition I've seen around the world. It's not a coincidence you suddenly decided to change the definition of the word in late July 2022 after it's existed on this page for something like a decade, so please don't pretend this is anything more than embarrassing political "activism" on behalf of your favourite sports team. 2A00:23C4:BA8F:7301:7DAD:D422:5F4C:BBB2 (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

• Option 6: "Two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product is commonly used as the definition of a recession, although a minority of people disagree and believe other factors should be considered in the definition of a recession".

In my opinion that is a much better sentence to use, as it starts out with the key core point but still includes at the end that there exist other views. Mathmo ^Talk 09:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Okay, well, this seems to have basically run its course, so it should probably be archived. jp×g 10:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

This is the wrong article for that; you want List of recessions in the United States, which has actually already added 2022. -- Beland (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Updated to still not include the current one?

Sounds like 'update' has been redefined as well

Montalban (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Montalban: It's kind of a clusterfuck, as you may have noticed. That is probably something that should be taken up on the other talk page, though, since it doesn't have anything to do with this article. jp×g 11:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't find your argument convincing. As someone who is /not/ new to Wikipedia, you are being disingenuous and intentionally obfuscatory. You posted a lot of words and made some of them bold but ultimately its in service of a lie. How pathetic you are. Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you are talking about. I'm pretty sure all the stuff up there is true, and I wrote it as simple as I could. If you are concerned about the infamous sentence, feel free to participate in the RfC below, but unless you have some comment to make about the article itself, this isn't a general discussion forum. jp×g 10:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit my comments. You are under review. Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you are messing up the formatting of the page (see WP:RTP), and second of all, you are using the talk page as a general discussion area (see WP:NOTFORUM) in which to repeatedly insult people (see WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:DE). Stop doing this. jp×g 11:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

A rose by any other name would still stink. Two quarters of negative GDP growth. Sorry folks, call it what you want. It still stinks. Zarzooba (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Zarzooba: Have you read the third sentence of the article ("Although the definition of a recession varies between different countries and scholars, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product (real GDP) is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession"), and if so, do you have a question about it? jp×g 05:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Why are you changing definitions to support fail8ng policies 2601:19D:402:F10:8067:4CF9:123B:97A9 (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is determined by editors from a variety of political perspectives working together to reach consensus on a neutral text that reflects all notable views. Article content that exists only to support one political agenda does not survive that process. Of course, many people come along and try to inject a political viewpoint, but they are usually quickly reverted. Perhaps you've come here after someone has told you about such an incident, taken out of context? I think if you read the article you'll find it satisfactory, and if you read the discussion above, you'll see that many eyes are currently on it and working to keep it neutral. -- Beland (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

That's actually a false option fallacy. One can think that two consecutive quarters of negative GDP is a bad thing, without also thinking that's a helpful definition of a recession.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:840:8681:9690:0:0:0:B103 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

two consecutive quarters of negative growth 2601:549:4400:4F0:A998:F9E0:9A8D:D75A (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This is what the article says now (and has said for a while). jp×g 18:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Recession has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

We all know what the actual definition of a recession is, please stop covering for the democrats and allow actual definitions to be place such 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.

Just cause you have mental issues and lack of an education does not mean you should make false claims. 2600:1005:B02D:5784:B036:C005:59BF:58B3 (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: the article says this multiple times, including in the second paragraph: "Although the definition of a recession varies between different countries and scholars, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product (real GDP) is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession." jp×g 01:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia has bowed to political pressure to re-write a definition that has been a benchmark for decades, it makes one very suspicious of all other Wikipedia entries. Is Wikipedia re-writing historical facts and events to better accommodate a radical leftist agenda? 104.159.175.78 (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@104.159.175.78: The third sentence of the article provides the definition you are talking about, so I think the answer to your question is "no". jp×g 16:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

2 or more quarters of negative GDP Lindenmanjj (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know the Democrats were in charge of changing the definition of words. If Trumpwas president, this would certainly be a recession 24/7 Lindenmanjj (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Lindenmanjj: It says this in the third sentence of the article, so I think we are safe for now. jp×g 16:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Recession has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

47.221.228.117 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The page on recession has been politicized to protect the Biden administration and should be fixed.

 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. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Recession has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The definition of a recession is two quarters of declining GDP 67.105.200.189 (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There is a request for comment above about the definition of a recession. Please add your comments and reasoning there instead. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Recession has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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: 98.162.224.93 (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

 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. ––FormalDude talk 01:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

2 concecative quarters of negative growth in a row is a recession. Why is Wikipedia trying to gaslight us. Changing a legitimate definition to a definition that follows a narrative of the democrats to cover their ineptitude on running our country. 104.241.217.166 (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Recession has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

JOE BUDEN; Created the current recession becomes of reckless spending- July 2022-current. 76.76.35.6 (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC) N

 Not done Could you please be more specific about what you would like changed? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Evidently, an anonymous user wants us to know that Joe Buden [sic] 'created the current recession becomes of reckless spending,' but I doubt any reliable sources say that, please provide them if you have them, anonymous user. Andrevan@ 07:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Can we add the "everything is fine" meme to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A46E:FFDB:1:39C5:84FA:18FE:2E73 (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

No. jp×g 17:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I imagine that the meme is copyrighted, so its use in this article would violate WP:NFCC#8. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

More information This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. ...

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit request to Recession has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. I think it would be worth noting with an asterisk in the United States, "2022 GDP shrunk 1.9% in the first quarter and .9% in the second likely leading to an increased fear among Americans that the United States is entering a recession. The current inflation rate is decreasing consumer confidence and negatively affecting the housing market causing families to make the tough decision on whether food and gas is more important than housing. Although the job market remains somewhat strong, indications are that the slowing of the economy and the increased interest rates will likely lead to employer cut backs which will increase the unemployment rate. It is very likely that a 3rd quarter decline in GDP will signal a recession is currently ongoing within the country." Subaaaawo (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)  Not done This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and the New York Post is not a reliable source. --JBL (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC) The only thing I took from the NYPOST article is the is the exact percentage numbers. As someone who majored in economics, the remaining words are mine entirely. We can strike the link all together since the fed confirmed those numbers. Subaaaawo (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC) Is it necessary to go through the long list of reasons this is obviously not going to end up in an encyclopedia article? Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources, not things random people made up based on numbers from the NY Post, but also Wikipedia is not a newspaper and doesn't predict the future. JBL (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC) If Wikipedia is a reliable source of information, why is it not a reliable source for information in the collegiate realm? Wiki is just a compilation of information that cites some of the most biased sources in the country. For example, citation 14 (a finance editor who leans heavily democrat) Citation 15, a politifact article (In February 2011, University of Minnesota political science professor Eric Ostermeier analyzed 511 PolitiFact stories issued from January 2010 through January 2011. He found that the number of statements analyzed from Republicans and from Democrats was comparable, but Republicans had been assigned substantially harsher grades, receiving "false" or "pants on fire" more than three times as often as Democrats. The report found that "In total, 74 of the 98 statements by political figures judged 'false' or 'pants on fire' over the last 13 month were given to Republicans, or 76 percent, compared to just 22 statements for Democrats (22 percent). An independent 2013 analysis from the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University showed results consistent with the findings of the aforementioned 2011 study, concluding that PolitiFact was three times as likely to rank statements from Republicans as “Pants on Fire,” and twice as likely to rank statements from Democrats as “Entirely True.” The disparity in these evaluations came despite roughly equally attention paid to statements made by representatives of the two parties: 50.4 percent for the GOP, versus 47.2 percent for the Democrats, with 2.4 percent attention paid to statements from independents.) All washington post articles post Jeff Bezos buying the company are liberal in nature and attack any conservative thought process. Its funny how you attack NYPOST articles, but if its from a liberal company, its perfectly acceptable for use. Subaaaawo (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC) First, no one said "Wikipedia is a reliable source of information", only that we try our best to base our information on other sources, which we deem reliable. Second, this polemic is completely off-topic and I would suggest the discussion end here. It's just gonna get really unproductive for everyone involved, trust me ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?" 📝 "Don't get complacent..." 17:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC) Why is the NY Post unreliable? Does that apply to the NY Times and the Washington Post too, or are only the sources you don't like deemed unrealiable? 2001:5B0:50D8:A358:453D:B634:230A:A5B2 (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC) See WP:NYPOST. The NY Post is unreliable because they deal in falsehoods and shoddy reporting in general, while the NY Times and WaPo do not. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC) So is politifact and the washington post. but they are used as citations on the page. Subaaaawo (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC) Both of those are considered reliable per WP:RSP. — Czello 17:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC) Please read through WP:RSP. The reliability of high-profile sources like the NYT or the NY Post are evaluated through consensus. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?" 📝 "Don't get complacent..." 17:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC) So only liberal sources are reliable. No wonder one of Wikipedia's founders has repeatedly denounced what Wikipedia has become. 2001:5B0:50D8:A358:453D:B634:230A:A5B2 (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC) Apparently not, especially since the Washington Post articles are used in the recession page as well as politifact. Subaaaawo (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC) This is not the venue to litigate the reliability of a source, WP:RSN is. But this source, along with many others (WP:RSP) have been discussed over and over. The NY Post has a track record of unreliability. If something they say is true, you can surely find it in a more reliable source (e.g., WSJ) EvergreenFir (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC) The Most and Least Biased News Outlets in America (businessinsider.com) Subaaaawo (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC) Politifact and Washington Post don't deliberately mislead readers like the NY Post does. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC) try again "In February 2011, University of Minnesota political science professor Eric Ostermeier analyzed 511 PolitiFact stories issued from January 2010 through January 2011. He found that the number of statements analyzed from Republicans and from Democrats was comparable, but Republicans had been assigned substantially harsher grades, receiving "false" or "pants on fire" more than three times as often as Democrats. The report found that "In total, 74 of the 98 statements by political figures judged 'false' or 'pants on fire' over the last 13 month were given to Republicans, or 76 percent, compared to just 22 statements for Democrats (22 percent). An independent 2013 analysis from the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University showed results consistent with the findings of the aforementioned 2011 study, concluding that PolitiFact was three times as likely to rank statements from Republicans as “Pants on Fire,” and twice as likely to rank statements from Democrats as “Entirely True.” The disparity in these evaluations came despite roughly equally attention paid to statements made by representatives of the two parties: 50.4 percent for the GOP, versus 47.2 percent for the Democrats, with 2.4 percent attention paid to statements from independents." Subaaaawo (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC) Again, not the venue for this. Please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Close

Again, stop your censorship. It's a bad idea to censor discussions. It's what happens in China. 2001:5B0:50D8:A358:453D:B634:230A:A5B2 (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@2001:5B0:50D8:A358:453D:B634:230A:A5B2: Wikipedia does not consider only liberal sources reliable. For example, if you look through Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources you'll find Fox News is green. If you disagree with any of Wikipedia's consensus assessments, you can start a discussion on WP:RSN. -- Beland (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. There are various so-called "liberal sources" which are not considered reliable. So, to say that conservative sources aren't reliable, is silly, when publications like The Telegraph in the UK, a conservative source, is considered reliable from what I'm aware. Historyday01 (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

@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)

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)

"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)

I'm just referencing the people arguing about it in the edits Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

@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)

I am not engaged in political activism here. I am opposing 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)

false, you created a self-defeating prophecy based on a mere hunch and speculation and now you have created a news story and harmed the integrity of Wikipedia. Good job! Briefbreak96 (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Nope, I did, in fact, spot vandals days ago, reverted their edits, and the page was protected accordingly. Then I shut up and waited. And lo and behold, today's report came out and events unfolded exactly as I anticipated, and they continue to. soibangla (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla: The purpose of Wikipedia is not to oppose "conservative media narratives" (please see the essay on righting great wrongs). Editing in order to support or oppose political parties is disruptive and violates WP:NPOV. Whether or not you are actually doing that, it is quite frustrating to see you repeatedly insisting that it's a good thing, while thousands of people are coming here (and reading your comments) to form an opinion about how our project handles controversial topics. jp×g 00:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no need to keep pinging me, I'm right here. I'm not editing for or against political parties. In this instance I'm editing to keep lies and chicanery outta this encyclopedia. It's 1am where I am, I'm out. soibangla (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Your assertion is a gross misrepresentation. soibangla (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

What sourced information are you alleging has been deleted? Ethelred unraed (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

  @JPxG *ahem* Strike per WP:NPA, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Recession has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

 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)

This edit request to Recession has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

 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)

This edit request to Recession has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2600:4040:2DCB:D100:495A:A492:8401:AA79 (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

2 successive quarters of negative growth-period

 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. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 00:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Huge Congrats to Wiki for losing all credibilty as a fair objective website with these super conveniently times edits... so long Wiki, it was great while it lasted.

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)

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)

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)

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)

bullshit 65.118.56.97 (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

Ha! Good catch. soibangla (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The NBER has become super partisan despite their claim of being nonpartisan, and in addition they seem to have some kind of partnership going on with the world economic forum-the exact nature isn't clear, but many of the WEF' s authors are also members of the NBER. The Washington post has outed 8 of the NBER members who decide of what is an recession. Of these, including their spouses, 6 donated to democrats, and a 7th donated to socialist never Trumper Mitt Romney. And this is documented through FEC data.

The people are recognizing the newspeak that has occurred. There is nothing non-partisan about the NBER, they are in bed with our enemies who are bringing economic ruin to nations under their rule, implement policies to reduce farming and crop yields while the UN is warning about the worst famines since ww2,and some of their WEF leaders have been forced to resign or flee the country....only to be replaced with other WEF controlled politicians. No one wants the WEF's "our democracy".

Does the NBER have legitimacy? If they had any in the past, they presently do not have it today. Notalawyerxyz (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

"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)

Okay, well, this isn't really helpful. Cut it out. jp×g 17:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

"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)

"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)

"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)

"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)

You have a transparent political agenda. 165.89.30.1 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

I'm infamous! Woohoo! soibangla (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

Why did you change the definition of recession Ethelred unraed? 101.173.70.31 (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Yeah, well, it's more than just that. jp×g 20:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

"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)

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)

Looks like some new friends might send me greetings in coming days.soibangla (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Look ma, I'm on TV! jp×g 23:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

soibangla is making bad faith arguments to promote obvious propeganda and should be removed.

Anyone running "middle of the road" aka "false equivalency" support for sobangla should have their history scrutinized and be removed as well if they show a pattern of similar behavior. 73.214.96.211 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You need to list the bad faith edits and explain why you believe them to be intentionally made in bad faith. Generalized accusations do not belong here. If you disagree explain why and find Wikipedia policy to support you. The Impartial Truth (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is this so snarky? Shouldn't the first thing on this page not be a ridiculous, self-congratulatory obfuscation of the controversy?

jp really seems to want to exploit the attention for self promotion. People "from online" don't care who you are. J1DW (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, but I'm just some guy on the Internet. If I'm expected to write a serious technical document explaining an editorial controversy and I don't get to dick around even a tiny bit, I'm going to have to get paid for it, which I don't. Well, hell, maybe the version in the editnotice should be more soberly written because now it's being presented as a piece of the system interface. I don't know. jp×g 04:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I did censor the word "bullshit" from that version. (I know, I know, I appreciate the irony of censoring a criticism of censorship.) If people feel there should be a more formally-written version in the editnotice, I'm happy to write it, but personally I don't think a little bit of chatty tone ever hurt anyone. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia has developed personal as well as political bias over the last ten years. The most simple solution is not to allow anyone ages 25 - 35 access to edit or contribute until they complete a screening process. It would start with a drug screen. This would remove a significant number of contributors. Stoners as editors isn’t as funny as it seemed like it would be. Either way the site should be relabeled as an entertainment source. 2603:8000:5900:186F:61AD:9BF1:A7A5:23A2 (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You're free to fork wikipedia and set up a new project based on this requirement. In fact, people have already done this 213.104.126.192 (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@2603:8000:5900:186F:61AD:9BF1:A7A5:23A2: Is this in relation to the article, or just a general thought? jp×g 07:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no history, only an unending present in which The Party is always right. 2406:3003:2005:B01:2C52:5D9C:AEC6:98AD (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

This edit request to Recession has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

The definition has not changed in the article. Please read the FAQ at the top of this page for details. 209.122.233.219 (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)