Talk:Recession/Archive 2

External links modified
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.

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

Reference [8]
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)

Globalize
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)

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)
 * 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:
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Stop suppressing the facts…


…. 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)

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). 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)

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. 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)
 * 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".


 * 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)
 * Editors are allowed to focus on any particular topic they like, which includes politics. Many people enjoy updating Wikipedia based on recent news reports. Those alone are not violations of any Wikipedia rules, nor is having disagreements with other editors about content and neutrality, as long as disputes are resolved in a civil and productive fashion. Having said that, I'm an administrator, and if you still feel someone is misbehaving, feel free to send me a note (you can email me confidentially) with their username and links to some of their problematic edits. I can start whatever formal processes are necessary. If it's just a matter of interpersonal hostility, I can try to work with the editor in question to help them make the collaboration process more productive and pleasant for all involved when there's a diversity of viewpoints. General complaints about no one in particular are not actionable in terms of remediation. -- Beland (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Comments by Liftmoduleinterface
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)

Definition
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)
 * 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 failing policies
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)

definition before current recession
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2022
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)
 * ❌: 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)

Recession
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)
 * 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)

Recession
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)
 * 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2022
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.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2022 (2)
The definition of a recession is two quarters of declining GDP 67.105.200.189 (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2022
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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)

Recession
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2022
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
 * ❌ Could you please be more specific about what you would like changed? --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;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)

Request from 2A02:A46E:FFDB:1:39C5:84FA:18FE:2E73
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2022
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) 📝 "Don't get complacent..." 17:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC) 📝 "Don't get complacent..." 17:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ 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?"
 * 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 🐍 ‍  ‍ <sup style="font-size:inherit;line-height:inherit;vertical-align:baseline">💬 "What did I tell you?"
 * 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)  Eve rgr een Fir  (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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

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)
 * Wikipedia does not consider only liberal sources reliable. For example, if you look through 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)

FAQ Visibility
Many people still seem to not be reading the FAQ, making comments on this page indicating that they're misinformed about the situation and have read little to nothing here before posting. Per WP:TCHY, mobile users won't see the edit notice and are unlikely to see the FAQ. Activity is dying down but if anyone has any ideas about making the notices more visible to mobile users, they might be useful. 18:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I tested it out on mobile when I initially wrote it, and noticed this as well (which is why there's a section at the top transclusing the FAQ as well). I mean, I don't know that it's a technical issue -- people tend to hate reading stuff in general, especially if it's stuff that gets in the way of them and yelling at somebody. I don't know that there is any good solution to this other than to just keep saying the thing over and over and hoping it gets through people's skulls that the thing they read on Twitter is bullshit. It seems that we have been doing a fairly good job so far. jp×g 02:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are definitely people who should have been able to see and read it who just chose not to so you're right that making it more visible to mobile users won't get rid of all the issues, but hopefully it would have some impact. Your normal section at the top of the page is the best thing I can think of as a solution and it's possible that it's the only solution.  03:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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


 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2022
everyone knows a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth...stop trying to change the definition to help out Biden. 65.118.56.97 (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2022 (2)
A recession is a significant decline in economic activity that lasts for months or even years. Experts declare a recession when a nation’s economy experiences negative gross domestic product (GDP), rising levels of unemployment, falling retail sales, and contracting measures of income and manufacturing for an extended period of time. Recessions are considered an unavoidable part of the business cycle—or the regular cadence of expansion and contraction that occurs in a nation’s economy. 67.81.131.157 (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2022 (3)
2600:4040:2DCB:D100:495A:A492:8401:AA79 (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 2 successive quarters of negative growth-period
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)

Newspeak
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)
 * 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 - "
 * 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"
 * . Ban me from your shitty website, propagandist.
 * If it was a Trump presidency, you would be copy pasting "tWo QUarTeRs" on the whole page
 * 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)

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


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

2A00:23C5:5314:FB01:4CDD:A7E5:D7D3:A73B (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead correcly says there is no globally agreed definition. But it's no surprise to cite the definition of the Big Dog of the global economy, and then cite others. That's what we have. soibangla (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Its nothing less than laughable partisan sophistry. 2A00:23C5:5314:FB01:4CDD:A7E5:D7D3:A73B (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's what the IMF actually says (not the cherrypicked version presented here earlier):
 * "commentators and analysts" as a "practical" definition for the masses
 * Do you have exactly what Mankiw said?
 * What we have here is a classic case of many people repeating the same myth for so many years that it becomes assimilated as established fact. It is a myth that will never die. soibangla (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What you just quoted agrees with the article content you have removed three times now. The textbook, Claessens' article and the Reserve Bank of Australia all say much of the same thing. Endwise (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh?
 * soibangla (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The next paragraph: The most common definition of recession used in the media is a ‘technical recession’ in which there have been two consecutive quarters of negative growth in real GDP. This definition often appears in textbooks and is widely used by journalists. Endwise (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "used in the media" because it's easier to explain to the masses than the real definition and/or they're just parroting what they've always heard even though it's wrong. soibangla (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The next paragraph: The most common definition of recession used in the media is a ‘technical recession’ in which there have been two consecutive quarters of negative growth in real GDP. This definition often appears in textbooks and is widely used by journalists. Endwise (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "used in the media" because it's easier to explain to the masses than the real definition and/or they're just parroting what they've always heard even though it's wrong. soibangla (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

, I strenuously oppose your edit, I consider it GAMING for political purposes, and I will take this as far as I need to in order to end it. soibangla (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, here is the Mankiw cite: Anyone want to go find it? jp×g 16:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The introduction of the term "Recession" in the book is: Recessions—periods of falling real GDP—are marked with the shaded vertical bars... The upward climb of real GDP is occasionally interrupted by periods during which GDP declines, called recessions. Figure 22-2 marks recessions with shaded vertical bars. There is no ironclad rule for when the official business cycle dating committee will declare that a recession has occurred, but a good rule of thumb is two consecutive quarters of falling real GDP. As I said in my edit summary, tertiary sources effectively always mention this practical definition/rule of thumb when introducing the concept of a recession. Endwise (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "rule of thumb". The NBER makes the call. Have they made the call today? soibangla (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of the United States, so that does not matter. Endwise (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why I added that there is no global definition in the lead, followed by examples of two definitions. And I just showed you here how the RBA definition more closely follows the NBER definition. By contrast, you are putting the two-quarters rule of thumb right up top in the lead even though it is not a global definition. soibangla (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The most commonly referenced definition -- as used in the media, textbooks, the work of analysts and commentators, what have you -- and the one referenced when introducing the concept of a recession in tertiary sources (which Wikipedia is), is the negative gdp growth over two consecutive quarters one. There is no reason for Wikipedia to be special among other sources on this, and there is no reason for Wikipedia to kowtow to US cultural supremacy. Endwise (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * After reading all the comments in this thread, yours is the most concise (and, IMHO, correct) reading of the topic. Keep up the good work. 2601:192:4000:490:EC9C:ABC0:6CF7:70CF (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * soibangla (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe the IMF definition should be included in either the lead or definition section, as it is not specific to a particular country and is cited in several reliable sources.47.152.112.193 (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It kind of seems like both of you are watching a bit too much cable news; would it be possible to get back on topic? jp×g 17:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't watch cable news, couldn't care less. Let me tell you where I'm coming from: I studied economics at the #1 program on the planet. I have been fully aware of this issue for decades. Frankly, I know WTF I'm talkin' about here. There are people who are accusing others of gaming this issue while they themselves are gaming it. Projection. And it's right here on Wikipedia. soibangla (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My comment was based on the fact that, earlier in this conversation, you said "I've seen the Fox News reporting on this topic". I guess maybe you were watching a local affiliate and not the cable network, but at this point we are kind of splitting hairs. At any rate, I don't think that what people are saying on Fox News has anything to do with what the definition of an economic recession is. I mean, if you like to watch Fox News, that's fine, but whether you do (or whether other people do) doesn't seem relevant to the issue at hand. jp×g 20:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

, go back as far as you like in the article history and you will never find that the lead contained the two-quarter rule. Despite allegations that some are suddenly changing the definition when it appeared Q2 would go negative, it is in fact your edit that is opportunistically changing the definition now that Q2 did go negative. It is gaming for partisan purposes. I consider this extremely not cool. You should self-revert. soibangla (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * While it is certainly possible for the addition of this material to be politically motivated, I don't see any way around it. The current US president is a Democrat, so Republicans will want to point out things that make him look bad. But the same would be true, vice versa, if the president were a Repubican. I suppose we could just write up a version of every politics and economics page with the relevant information, wait until the next presidential election, and do all of the editing between the time the polls closed and a winner was announced. But this seems impractical. jp×g 17:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

For the sake of not overwhelming talk page participants with a nasty back-and-forth, I'm going to archive this thread. It seems like the actual dispute is the one mentioned as #5 in Talk:Recession. If that's not right, please make a comment in that section proposing a specific change to the article we can consider in an organized fashion, in an RFC if necessary. The original discussion will of course remain in the archive if anyone needs to refer to the sources mentioned. -- Beland (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Media
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)

Anyone making changes on this to revise history should have their account restricted.
The number of users trying to change the definition of a recession in order to protect their political party of choice are clearly bad faith actors and deserve to have their ability to make changes revoked. Itsmejames (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)

Removal of sobangla and reversion to proper definition
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)

Comment from J1DW
'''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&#124;they&#124;xe) 05:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment from Notalawyerxyz

 * 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 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 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:
 * 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 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 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 -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 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 -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 20:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair enough. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information
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)


 * Is this in relation to the article, or just a general thought? jp×g 07:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Link the definition of recession to Orwell’s 1984
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)

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

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


 * Perhaps you could point to some of the WP:PAGs that have been broken by this article. Vague gesturing doesn't help anyone to improve the article. You might start by reading the FAQ at the top of the page, as it might answer some of the misconceptions you have about the article. Cakelot1 (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss your concerns with the Administration staff whom I have already alerted. I don't find your arguments convincing at all. Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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


 * There's literally an open request for comment, directly above this section, pertaining to the sentence in question. I don't know what you are expecting anyone to do about it beyond that. jp×g 10:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not find your arguments convincing as a long-term user of Wikipedia. I've alerted the Administration as to the low-quality nature of this article, and the editorial choices regarding it. Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have alerted the Administration of Wikipedia about this. Beyond being a sickening example of Americans attempting to politicize articles, it is simply factually incorrect in the current state, and if the Editorial team regarding this article cannot remedy their /lies/, perhaps the Administrators will consider the validity of their accounts. Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you thought I was lying, but I literally have no idea what you are talking about. You keep saying the article is sickening and politicized, but I cannot tell whether you are angry that the article is too right-leaning, too left-leaning, too long, too short, or what. You are refusing to say what actual changes you would like to be made. There is a section directly above this one, which is open to comment from anyone, where you can say what actual changes you would like to be made, and have some impact on them, but you are refusing to participate in it for some reason. Please help me out here and tell me what you want. jp×g 11:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The article has no bearing on reality. It's attempting to politicize an /American/ view because of the current American political landscape. This is NOT ACCEPTABLE for an Editorial source that attempts to be authoritative. This article actively undermines the goal of Wikipedia by dragging it down into political *muck*. Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The definition wasn't changed. Stop believing everything you read on social media and learn to think for yourself — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 11:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand that you think it's bad, but you have still not answered my question, so it is impossible for me to respond to this in a meaningful way. Please tell me what changes you think should be made. If you do not want to do this, please stop editing this talk page. jp×g 11:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This is serious folks, this could damage Wikipedia if we aren’t careful
Hey folks, I want to congratulate you all because after 18 years of using Wikipedia almost religiously you’ve push me over the edge to make an account so kudos to you. I’d like to start by saying this is the second time In the last few months I’ve seen Wikipedia edited to push a seemingly partisan viewpoint, the other situation was the people murdered by communism article that was almost deleted and thankfully it seems the administrators came to their senses and hopefully that will prevail here. I don’t understand how any reasonable person could look into this situation and not see it as long time editors playing defense for the current administration because they can and even more frighteningly admins with sympathetic views covering for said editors, telling everyone nothing to see here. The idea that the NBER is some non partisan entity that is just reporting the facts is bordering on insane. Any think tank can say they are not partisan but if you’ve ever spent even a second reading their editorials or seeing their member donation records which are freely available (100% to the DNC) or that the vice chair Peter Blair Henry was a high ranking member of the Obama administration well feel free to draw the rest of the lines yourself. Next anyone making even a cursory glance at the editors in question can see that they are not even pretending to be unbiased now I’m not arguing that they are making these arguments in bad faith but it’s easy to think why people would see it that way. Even worse is that the administrators who should be here to bring reason to the situation are instead deleting threads and saying nothing to see here. What everyone needs to understand this isn’t just happening right here I imagine it will be treading on twitter by the end of the day, and I implore you be reasonable here if your not going to revert the page fine at least let’s admit that NBER’s definition’s may be at least in question, and the administrators should be asking themselves if this will be damaging to Wikipedia as a whole because trust me the world is watching. Good luck and Godspeed. 96.38.117.150 (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So, you agree with me that the article should be restored to the long-standing version that existed before this recent brouhaha? Great to hear it. soibangla (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2022
For years Wikipedia has been a great source of information about an array of topics. I understand it is easier for politicians to change definitions then to deal with consequences. Unfortunately what we are in is a recession and has been counted as such for a long time. Kneeling to the biden administration and displaying economic misinformation as fact is disgusting. I cannot really believe anything I read on Wikipedia now, and you will never receive a donation from me. I'm sure there are enough democrats to fund Wikipedia now that you have turned into a political hackjob 71.237.149.229 (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not an edit request.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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)

Change the definition
Stop changing definitions just to blindly follow what thr democratic party says. Recession has a actual definition that hasn't changed. The democrats don't get to decide what the definition of words are. 72.213.55.139 (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The definition has not changed on this page in some time. Please see the FAQ at the top of the page, as well as the other sections on this page, which already address your concerns WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The only definition change in the lead at this time, made yesterday, does the exact opposite of what you assert. It tends to implicate Biden rather than cover for him. The previous long-standing version of the lead was neutral, and it should be restored.soibangla (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Definition change
The last 10 times the US had 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP numbers, a recession was declared. But not for our current president who wears diapers. 76.112.68.199 (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What about the 2001 recession that didn't have 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP numbers? soibangla (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on Whether or Not NBER Should be Wikipedia's "Arbiter" of Whether or Not the USA is in a Recession.
I believe that the worldwide definition and a variety of notable, reliable sources should be used. I don't like either US political party, so I have no stake. But I believe that Wikipedia should be a neutral encyclopedia, relying on a variety of sources and showing a worldwide view. I personally believe Wikipedia should use the Oxford definition of recession, as the majority of sources seem to do so. Regardless of whether or not that definition is accepted, I do not believe NBER should be the sole arbiter on whether or not we say the US is in a recession. Thespearthrower (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what individual editors believe, what matters is the consensus view backed up by citations to reliable sources. And the bulk of these sources consider the NBER the official source for determining whether the United States is in recession. See here ("The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is considered the leading authority on U.S. economic issues. It determines whether the U.S. economy is in expansion or recession."); here ("In the United States, the private National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which maintains a chronology of the beginning and ending dates of US recessions, uses a broader definition and considers a number of measures of activity to determine the dates of recessions."); here ("Officially, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) – a non-profit group of economists – defines when the US is in a recession."); here ("... in the United States, the economy isn't broadly and officially considered to be in a recession until a relatively unknown group of eight economists says so. The economists, who serve together as the Business Cycle Dating Committee, are hand-selected by and work under the umbrella of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private nonprofit organization."); here ("While many countries define an economic downturn as two consecutive quarters of negative growth for gross domestic product, the US defers this assessment to elite academics at the National Bureau of Economic Research, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, whose leaders scoff at the two-quarter benchmark as simplistic and misleading."); here ("the actual definition of a recession is less clear. Specifically, at what point is the economy officially in a recession, and how does the NBER determine this point?"); here ("Even if gross domestic product figures show a shrinking economy, a recession won’t officially have begun unless the National Bureau of Economic Research says so"); here ("The designation of a recession is the province of a committee of experts at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private non-profit research organization that focuses on understanding the U.S. economy. The NBER recession is a monthly concept that takes account of a number of monthly indicators—such as employment, personal income, and industrial production—as well as quarterly GDP growth. Therefore, while negative GDP growth and recessions closely track each other, the consideration by the NBER of the monthly indicators, especially employment, means that the identification of a recession with two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth does not always hold."); here ("Everyone who cares knows that recessions happen when there are two consecutive quarters of negative growth — everyone, that is, except for the people who actually decide when the economy is in recession. For those folks, at the National Bureau of Economic Research, the definition of recession is much squishier."); here ("The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is generally recognized as the authority that defines the starting and ending dates of U.S. recessions. NBER has its own definition of what constitutes a recession"); here ("Economists including those at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which dates U.S. business cycles, define a recession as an economic contraction starting at the peak of the expansion that preceded it and ending at the low point of the ensuing downturn."). Currently, the header lists the standard global definition while also listing the US and UK definitions. I don't see any reason to try to obfuscate things by removing those details. If you want to try to remove the NBER definition, I think the burden is on you to provide extensive citations to back up the idea that this isn't the accepted definition within the US. Ethelred unraed (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * While I applaud your contribution and wholeheartedly agree with it in principle, I think it would just save everyone a headache if we just accept Wikipedia leans progressive and go on with it. Frequent readers *know* this already. This goes way back with the whole founders thing and so on. I see no point working to "conceal" it. On the contrary, I think WK could recoup credibility by taking a side really, then conservatives could read the Wiki knowing where "it's coming from" and adjust their expectations accordingly. This whole thing would NOT be a story at all if WK didn't try so hard to pass a "neutral POV". 2804:14D:4CA9:81C4:E87D:465B:64FF:E514 (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The first Oxford definition is "An overall decline in economic activity mainly observed as a slowdown in output and employment," which is consistent with the NBER definition. It later says "A recession is often defined as real GDP falling for two successive quarters, but the National Bureau of Economic Research defines a recession as 'a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales'." Please look at this chart from the US government Bureau of Economic Analysis via the Federal Reserve. Note "Shaded areas indicate U.S. recessions" at bottom left. These shaded areas are provided by NBER. They are the recessions formally recognized by the US government, and hence Wall Street and everyone else. Other countries can declare recessions as they choose, but this is the method in the US. NBER is the sole arbiter. No serious economist disputes this. soibangla (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Soibangla Actually, they do because economy textbooks don't use the NBER definition.
 * Ultimately it's absurd to discuss this. The NBER is a single private organization from a single country, what they define is irrelevant on the face of the worldwide accepted definition.
 * If a single private organization in a single country made up its own definition of "genocide" would you support changing all and every single historical articles about genocides to claim they weren't actually a genocide? This isn't even a rethorical question as countries frequently deny commuting such acts anyway.
 * "History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." 88.17.193.95 (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, the NBER is less reliable and slower at determining an economic slowdown than the definition every other country on earth uses. They were a year late to the party in 2008 and they may not ever come to this party as long as major news outlets like Washington Post are citing progressive think tanks pre-emptively calling the NREB a "laughing-stock" if they label this a recession. All the jobs numbers donnt matter if they are still below pre-pandemic levels. Low labor participation rates, negative growth for 2 consecutive quarters, high inflation, falling consumer spending, falling real wages, etc. But I'm sure the NREB are the arbiters of truth, so we will wait for them to tell us what the data already shows. Also every single serious economist in the world besides American ones dispute this. Probably when it becomes convenient and theyre not being so heavily pressured anymore. Briefbreak96 (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, what everyone agrees on is there is slowing from last year's torrid pace. If the slowing continues, we might fall into recession. But there are other indicators that are not flashing red at this time. It is premature to declare we are in a recession, but there is no shortage of people who want to because they have a transparent political motive. And obviously from some dubious press coverage those people are furious that they're being prevented from doing that here. soibangla (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether the NBER sucks, it is what it is: the sole arbiter. No one, here or anywhere else, is in any position to call a recession because their analysis says so. soibangla (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an entirely arbitrary distinction. Economics has most of its genesis in France and Britian, if we are making arbitrary definition by fiat arguments, why isn't the UK definition correct?
 * I'm not saying it is, I'm simply pointing out your point of demarcation is entirely arbitrary. The state of fiat definition in the US is an entirely arbitrary definition of an economic term. At best you've secured it an "unofficial recession" 2A00:23C5:5314:FB01:F854:8626:68E1:8949 (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * For reference, the current passage in the lead (as of 21:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)) is this:
 * Though there is no global consensus on the definition of a recession, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession.  In the United States, a recession is defined as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the market, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales". In the United Kingdom and other countries, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters.
 * This seems, basically, fine to me. It goes over the common, official, and technical descriptions of the concept pretty well, and explains what each of these descriptions is. "Recession" is, well, a word. People use words to describe stuff. There isn't a "global consensus" on the distinction between a loveseat and a sofa, or a table (furniture) and a desk. Of course, there are probably a lot of manufacturers, tax agents, and customs authorities that make very precise and official distinctions. But, you know, I am allowed to call the thing I'm sitting at a "desk" without the police kicking down my door (even if, I dunno, maybe it is actually a table). Usage reflects this sort of thing. jp×g 21:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "This seems, basically, fine to me." jpxg, I agree: I think the current header is basically fine. It includes the general and commonplace (non-technical) 'rule-of-thumb' definition used internationally, as well as the specific definitions of the US and UK. Not sure what grievance people still have with the article is. Ethelred unraed (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the battle lines are primarily drawn over this edit, which went back and forth between Soibangla and Endwise a few times. Honestly, it doesn't seem to me like it makes a huge difference either way. The only actual piece of information being added is that two quarters of GDP decline is "commonly used as a practical definition"... but this is already heavily implied by the "and other countries" sentence immediately afterwards. And -- this is crucial -- the "definition" section already said all of the same stuff, per this June 2021 revision ("In a 1974 The New York Times article, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Julius Shiskin suggested several rules of thumb for defining a recession, one of which was two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.[6] In time, the other rules of thumb were forgotten. Some economists prefer a definition of a 1.5-2 percentage points rise in unemployment within 12 months.[7]"). So it is a mystery to me what the argument is about. I have made an effort to assume good faith, but it seems like what's going on here is primarily a bunch of people getting mad about Joe Biden (with an extremely tenuous connection to the content of the article). Normally, in a dispute like this, I would recommend opening a RfC to determine which side of a disagreement should be reflected in article text, but in this case, it may indeed be worth opening an RfC to get everyone to agree about what the disagreement is. jp×g 22:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See below: jp×g 23:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the grievance is that the current header is incredibly US-centric. I don't live in the US and when I read an article about recessions, I'd rather not have to trawl through the fact that the US has some group of annointed individuals who get to decide whether or not there is a recession using some non-open-source algorithm to which I am not privvy and to which Wikipedia cannot provide any insight. I want a good common sense definition that I can understand and that applies in more than a single country. 106.1.224.77 (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The current header includes a single sentence regarding the US definition, a sentence about a global definition, and a sentence about the UK definition. So I don't see how one can argue that it's "incredibly US-centric." It doesn't take much effort to "trawl" through one sentence. Ethelred unraed (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * When NBER has become hopelessly politically compromised with bias, then no they shouldn't be Wikipedia's arbitrator of if America is in a recession or not. Mathmo Talk 09:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only content dispute here is over the wording of the intro. That is now the subject of the RFC at Talk:Recession, where I invite you all to participate if you haven't already. On the assumption the conversation has moved there, I'm archiving this thread to keep the talk page from growing outrageously large. If I'm incorrect and there is other text you would like to change, please open a new thread on Talk:Recession. In that case, it would help focus the discussion if you highlight or even suggest specific language, like "Because of (feelings about NBER) I propose changing X to Y"; and feel free to link back to the arguments made on this thread. -- Beland (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

White House did not change the definition
And the only change to the definition in this article eliminated the years-long neutral tone to replace it with a biased tone against Biden, within hours of the GDP release.

The solution is simple: restore an older neutral version, and we're done and we can all go home.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/27/instagram-posts/no-white-house-didnt-change-definition-recession/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/white-house-definition-recession/

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-white-house-change-definition-recession-1727641

soibangla (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It'd be useful to put these links up top in the press template. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know where that is. I'm dumb. soibangla (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It's at the bottom of the lead section of the talk page, I trust you can figure it out. :) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked. I don't see it. I'm dumb. soibangla (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The press template is meant for articles that mention this particular Wikipedia page. If these articles don't mention Wikipedia, they shouldn't be added. Kafoxe (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. I checked, and these three don't mention Wikipedia. Never mind the press template. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is saying the white house "changed the definition" of recession, they're saying that Biden said the US was not in one, despite the fact the US is indeed in a current recession.Crun31 (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "There's no steadfast rule governing what defines a recession in the United States." – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, people have said that, and no, it is not a fact that the US is indeed in a current recession. soibangla (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

New wave of activity on social media - semiprotection may not be enough
As I write this, this article is being discussed in a fresh wave of activity on social media, the majority of it in right-wing and far-right circles, and without much interest in the facts. Semiprotection may not be enough. David G (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning, but WP:NO-PREEMPT means we (admins) need to see actual disruption and not merely fear it before locking down an article. -- Beland (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly valid to criticize how the article is different than it was before this controversy and to consequently come to comment on a Wikipedia talk page. Wikipedia is famously known as the encyclopedia "anyone can edit". That means other people. And I'm not sure what the alleged political leanings of the social media critics have to do with anything. How is that relevant? CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone can edit Wikipedia, including people with right-wing and far-right views. Fijipedia (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that this disruption is coming from the online right, it's fair to call that out. But yes we don't protect or increase protection preemptively. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Definition article
Not sure if this is exactly the right place to put this, but there is now an obviously fake screenshot of the lede of the Definition article now going around, so people may want to keep an eye on that page as well. MainPeanut (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk:Definition or WP:ANI would probably be more appropriate...but Definition hasn't been edited since February, so whatever is happening does not seem to be causing disruption here. Recent Changes Patrol watches everything, in theory, so I'm not sure there's really anything to do. -- Beland (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Recession
A recession is 2 consecutive quarters losses. Has been for decades and always will. 72.19.2.156 (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is what the article says. jp×g 16:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's review what has happened here
Several days ago, maybe even weeks, emerging data suggested that American Q2 GDP might go negative, for the second consecutive quarter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Later, the IMF says:

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

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

Then later it says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And prepend to that, as I did yesterday:

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

soibangla (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I said above: I reject the idea, or the insinuation, that we should write the article to "own the libs" or "own the cons" – this is complete hogwash and runs counter to the foundational principles of Wikipedia. We should write the article to be a true, impartial reflection of reality according to a consensus of reliable sources. Somebody just went to my talk page and threatened to kill me over this talk page. This is not relevant to the definition of a recession. Whatever some random cable news talking head is saying on Twitter is not relevant to the definition of a recession. Your insistence on bringing this up again and again, and insisting we need to counter "spin" by introducing "spin" of our own, is disruptive. Repeatedly casting aspersions against other users is tendentious editing. Please stop doing this. jp×g 11:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * insisting we need to counter "spin" by introducing "spin" of our own is absolutely and unequivocally not what I am doing. This article has been politically gamed and I seek to ungame it by restoring the long-standing status quo. Please do not attribute false motives to me. soibangla (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You understand that other Wikipedians might find this defense difficult to believe, given your repeated reversions despite numerous sourced contributions that indicate that the two-quarter rule is a generally accepted definition and not simply a "parenthetical aside", no? Not to mention, as has been mentioned above, that your patterns of editing on this page run well beyond simple vandalism prevention and into tendentious editing territory, including multiple accusations that those who disagree with your opinions are some sort of coordinated misinformation operation egged on by American cable news networks, as well as this insistence that the job of Wikipedia is to "counter conservative media narratives". Both of these cast serious doubt on your neutrality as an editor. Being passionate about American politics is not a license to camp the Wikipedia pages of major events in what appears to be an attempt to shape/moderate news coverage. That isn't our job.
 * And, as an aside, your continual references to "IP editors" as some sort of pejorative is highly inappropriate. I'm currently not logged in on purpose because I don't like dragging my account into Wikipedia politics. People do not have ill motives simply because they are choosing to associate some activity with their IP address instead of their account. I could just as easily use your edit history to back an accusation that you're some sort of paid partisan political operative, but I'm not going to do that because this organization understands that casting WP:ASPERSIONS against other editors is highly inappropriate.
 * Your own user page says that "truth will prevail". I suggest taking that advice. 209.122.233.219 (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The page was locked down due to vandalism by IP editors. Not good faith editors, common vandals. And the bottom line here is that I am proposing the article be restored to its original state that existed for years before this brouhaha, and this will remove any doubts as to whether anyone has attempted or succeeded in gaming this article for partisan purposes in light of current events. soibangla (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with locking the page; in fact most of the productive debate around this sentence only happened once the page was locked.
 * From a cursory look, the "two consecutive quarters" definition was added at least as far back as 2018, well before either the current economic or political situation in the US. 209.122.233.219 (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It was in the lead specifically for UK recessions. We're not talking about a UK recession. Otherwise, it was previously in the body, not the high-visibility lead. You know, the tone of this discussion might improve if some would actually bother reading what others say. soibangla (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why not simply revert the sentence so that it's once more UK-specific, if we're restoring the article to its old state? Or add some sort of qualifying statement such as "in recent years, this definition has been used in the US as well" to the new expansion of that sentence?
 * Is it possible that this was added as the result of some sort of partisan activity; of course. But we shouldn't be dismissing relevant, sourced information out of hand just because it could have been added with ill intent. 209.122.233.219 (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It was added within hours of the BEA release, as this stuff was ricocheting across the internet. Why not earlier? Ahem.soibangla (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I could just as easily use your edit history to back an accusation that you're some sort of paid partisan political operative, but I'm not going to do that ha! soibangla (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Did you logout specifically so you could launch into an lengthy anonymous personal tirade against me without consequences? soibangla (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a "tirade", nor is it personal in any way. This is a discussion about the neutrality of contentious edits; I am making a case that these edits were not neutral. I am not personally attacking you, nor is this some sort of denunciation; you are encouraged to defend your edits just like we do in any talk page discussion.
 * Again, casting aspersions against other users is highly inappropriate and unproductive. I'm not motivated by any sort of personal animus against other users, I am simply making a case against certain edits and asking you not to try to divine the motives of other editors. 209.122.233.219 (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You insinuated I'm some sort of paid partisan political operative while tagging it with a feeble disclaimer that you think absolves you. You think that's clever, don't you? You most definitely went personal in a big way. Enough of this here, you wanna engage in this, you log in and come to my Talk page. soibangla (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're going to publicly accuse me of this behavior, please do not delete my speaking in my own defense.
 * I repeat: this was an example of something that would be highly inappropriate to say, and I chose it as an example largely because it's a very common accusation that's flung around which openly violates WP:ASPERSIONS and which everyone can agree is inappropriate behavior.
 * Deleting another user's comments on a talk page, especially when you have accused them of a serious rule violation, is a flagrant violation of WP:TPO and I would really appreciate if you didn't do that. 209.122.233.219 (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * None of this has anything to do with improving the Recession article, and it's not relevant to the article talk page. If there's a personal disagreement, please take it elsewhere. This isn't the place for it. Ethelred unraed (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that the people objecting that the "two quarters" definition isn't in the intro are conservative. It's easy to see problems that are offensive to your worldview and easy to overlook problems if everyone has the same viewpoint. The fact that it's conservatives asking for this addition doesn't mean the addition makes the article lean conservative. Even though I generally disagree with conservative politics, it does seem like the result is a good, neutral summary of the contents of the article and the reality of multiple significant real-world definitions. Yes, certain professional economists may wring their hands about the mass media or politicians or even rival economists lacking nuance, or whatever has resulted in this simpler definition, but they don't have a monopoly on how words are used.

Editors are allowed to have political motivations, and indeed without welcoming people with a wide diversity of political motivations we could not write comprehensive articles that are fair to all viewpoints. What counts is the neutrality of the resulting text. To maintain civility, we need to focus on content and not each other. The ongoing RFC is very much focused on that content, and that's how we should build consensus going forward. -- Beland (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , I fully agree that What counts is the neutrality of the resulting text. And that's what we had in the lead for literally years, until yesterday, when the two-quarters "definition" was injected into the lead in a way it was not before. That is what injected bias into the article, contrary to widely-reported but false accounts that the lead was changed to make Biden look good. So IMO the obvious and simple solution is to restore the neutral version of the lead that existed for years, before yesterday's brouhaha. Then we can all agree that the lead is neutral, biased neither in favor nor against Biden. Easy! soibangla (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because text has persisted in Wikipedia in a long time doesn't make it the best version, especially if an article is generally neglected. Sometimes a surge of interest in a topic rapidly improves an article's quality. You can argue in the RFC that a particular alternative is not neutral if you like, but to be persuasive I think you would need to point to something about the text rather than who put it there or why or when. I'm not going to participate in the RFC because from my perspective, both the long-standing version and the current version look like relatively neutral summaries, and I don't have a strong preference between them. -- Beland (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If there was no "RfC" to change the longstanding article into what it is today, than you are defending a corrupt edit to the page. We should restore it to what was longstanding, and then do the RfC. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you would consider any edit that's not approved by an RFC as "corrupt". If you mean paid editing, I haven't seen any evidence of that. If you are referring to people having political motives, it's perfectly reasonable to have a political motivation to read and article and edit it because it doesn't fairly represent your point of view, as long as you don't remove other points of view or unbalance the article. Not everyone agrees on what the right balance is, and part of bold-revert-discuss is making an edit that you later realize might not be the best way to fairly represent other points of view alongside your own. That's why we discuss the text when there's a dispute. I'm sure sometimes you and I are the ones who are being bold and having to defend our changes. If I hear about some high-profile outrage on NPR and add mention of it to an article, I certainly wouldn't appreciate someone accusing me of "corrupt" editing simply because the outrage is coming from the left, or deleting my text if I talk about the controversy in a fair way. -- Beland (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not calling any particular editor corrupt, what I mean is that this isn't how RfCs are normally done. I guess a better way to describe it would be illegitimate. As an example, the Wall Street Journal page has had a longstanding disagreement over references to its editorial team in the lede. However, the process has kept the longstanding reference to the editorial board's environmental apathy in place, until some sort of new consensus can be arrived at. Here, we have had longstanding features of the page that were changed, and now the debate concerns changes from the brand new status quo. It's not like the "recession" page is so obscure that this was an obvious improvement. It's obviously a result of current events, it's hugely controversial, and usually when drastic changes attract this much controversy, the proper way to deal is through an RfC from the longstanding article, not from whatever controversial edit someone managed to get in, that was so controversial, that it managed to blow up half of the internet in the process. I'm sure many veteran editors here could attest to the sanctity of articles' "longstanding" form when disputes arise. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the RFC is already explicitly considering whether to revert to the longstanding version or not, so flipping back to that before the RFC completes would upset people saying not to do that, and then flipping it back to calm them down would upset you, so doing anything about that now would just cause unnecessary drama. As WP:BRD points out, sometimes the bold changes are reverted before discussion, and sometimes they aren't. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004, and I know sometimes I just have to put up with the wrong version of an article being up until a talk page discussion resolves. Sometimes it depends on the nature of the change. It's more important to temporarily remove disputed content from biographies of living people, for example, than it is to retain long-standing content which might be libelous. In this case, it's two pretty similar ways of summarizing the same information, so in the larger scheme of things it might as well be a coin flip, even though people seem to have strong feelings about small differences due to the powerful political microscope being used. Recession is still rated C-class, which means there's a huge amount of room for improvement and missing material. For example, why do these two different definitions exist? What are the pros and cons of each? In what situations are they used? Are they merely labels and governments and companies mostly actually care about the underlying indicators? -- Beland (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the current RfC has too much momentum to just simply invalidate, but I don't think that makes my criticism about how we got here null. I don't know enough about economics to give an expert opinion on this page, but I've long understood the definition of a recession was two quarters in a row of negative growth. As for the current downturn, DNC talking points fail scrutiny on some level. Bragging about a low unemployment rate ignores the low labor participation rate. This is a social science definition and can be very subjective. You don't get this kind of disagreement with hard science definitions. I think it definitely needs discussion, but this could have been done without the jeers from the greater internet, and given how RfCs usually proceed, and how this is NOT proceeding in that fashion, that biting criticism wasn't completely unwarranted. Perhaps it was hyperbolic, but maybe we could "assume good faith" as you indicated we should do, and realize that a lot of people have real fears that the US is descending into an Orwellian dystopia. All of this was avoidable, and I think a relative absence of dissenting voices led to the point where an arguably illegitimate RfC is happening while half of social media confirms their cynical priors about the state of things. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The state of American political discourse is beyond the scope of this conversation. I don't see how this RFC could be considered illegitimate; all the options are on the table, and there's a transparent debate happening, which seems to be more about writing style than questioning any particular economic facts. I'm curious, how do you think this could or should have been prevented? I'm not sure what you mean by "dissenting voices". -- Beland (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt you would be here if it were not for the state of American political discourse. Yes, Wikipedia should be an ivory tower in some way, but in this case, we have to consider what is happening in the real world, and make sure we're not influenced by it. That would mean abiding by RfC norms. Anyway, I think I've made my point known. Thanks for listening. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what anyone's background is, and for some yesterday's change may seem trivial, but to those schooled in economics it is significant, particularly because it was changed mere hours after a significant GDP report was released, in the midst of a political firestorm. The easiest solution to ending all this drama is to restore long-standing content. soibangla (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly, isn't that how controversial changes are done here anyway? Longstanding consensus requires a RfC to change? Why are we doing a RfC to change it back to its original form? I think the RfC should be terminated, the article should be restored to what it was prior to this debacle, then a new RfC should be created to address any changes editors want made. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. The RfC is total overkill, it should be closed, and the original content restored. Problem solved. soibangla (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't deal with objections to its content by ignoring them; it would be impossible to crowdsource fair and accurate content that way. A community of editors needs to discuss proposed changes and evaluate them on the merits. Bringing in editors beyond the handful actively working on a single page is typically how we resolve high-profile conflicts like this one, and in my opinion results in more sensible outcomes because more perspectives are represented and there are more people who haven't become emotionally involved in the outcome. -- Beland (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Arguing over what the state of the article should be while the RFC is going on does not seem useful. There's nothing obviously and grossly wrong with the current version, and the RFC will soon decide what the text should be long-term. -- Beland (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "That's just, like, your opinion, man", as Jeff Bridges famously stated once. I happen to disagree with you. And yes, discussing this amid an RfC is fair game, because per Wikipedia norms that place "longstanding consensus" over the edit someone wants imposed, based on the temporal zeitgeist. I'm not sure how this page got to where it is, and it's a lot of diffs to look through, but it's almost certainly corrupt, by how these things usually proceed. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Given how strongly people seem to feel about it, what would be an interesting and useful addition to the article would be some explanation is why one definition might be preferred over the other. What are the pros and cons of each method? Who is the consumer of that information? Do businesspeople and governments prefer a faster measurement over a more accurate one? Is this really just a political and academic label and they actually only really care about the underlying indicators? -- Beland (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well sure, in the body, but this is about the lead. soibangla (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The dispute was and the RFC is about the phrasing of the intro, but I'm pivoting to how we can further improve the article and make better use of our time. You're probably in a better position to explain why the academic definition is important to distinguish from the two-quarter definition than 99% of Wikipedia editors, and you seem to care deeply about it, so that's why I'm asking if you can share some of that deep background knowledge with our readers. -- Beland (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Economic analysis is not a spectator sport any more than civil engineering, medicine, or astronomy. Popular usage is mid-level in our hierarchy of reliable sources. Economics is an academic field with a broad mainstream of disciplined, rational discourse and research. Peer reviewed sources do not use the 2-quarter thing or indeed any one-size-fits-all rule. A recession is a broad economic slowdown and professionals employ a range of metrics and comparisons to assess "recession". BTW it is not an ancient term -- it's fairly recent that we began to speak of "recessions".<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, the two-quarter definition seems to be mainly in use in socially important areas outside academic discourse which I wouldn't expect to have peer-reviewed journals, including business, media, politics, and government policy. Is there a specific change to the article you are proposing based on what you wrote, other than what's already being discussed in the RFC? -- Beland (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said above, no business decision waits to hear the 2 quarter statisitcs before implementing an operating decision. Same with government agencies. So that leaves media and politics. So the 2 quarter thing is to economics as keto smoothies is to heart surgery. If WP is to treat economics as a social science then peer reviewed expert source definitions and narrative should prevail in Wiki-voice lead content and definition, while widespread popular and dissenting narratives can also be noted.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, so I ask again, are you proposing any change to this article as a result of those feelings, or are you OK with it as-is, other than what the RFC is discussing? -- Beland (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Recession has always meant hair loss of at least two Norwood levels. When you look at Friedman v. Marx's manes, it's obvious which thought leader had a better grip on realities of economics. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not planning to think about anything else until the RfC is done. My comments are meant to be germane to the RfC.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not participating in the RFC, and this isn't the RFC section, so if you have thoughts they should go up there. -- Beland (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)