Talk:Recession/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Press template

Why are we including a who's-who of fake news sites here? soibangla (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

JPxG, {{press}} documentation says Do not use this template to highlight poor quality sources that would not normally be sufficient to support article content. Those sources are either deprecated or should be deprecated. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
None of that is "fake news"... They're largely not RS but not fake news EvergreenFir (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
We have one (at least) legit source discussing this, so the template is back. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a little reminiscent of a similar argument that happened on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination) in December, when the template documentation for {{Press}} was also cited. The contention was over whether these articles were true, or reliable, or whatever -- in this case, I think {{High traffic}} is a suitable replacement, since the primary purpose is not to endorse the content of the articles but simply to indicate why large amounts of people are suddenly arriving at this talk page (and what they are likely to have heard before coming here). jp×g 02:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I was not aware of {{High traffic}}, but it does appear to be the solution. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This definition violates federal legal definition of inflation

This definition violates federal legal definition of inflation 98.168.150.32 (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@98.168.150.32: Could you be more specific about which text in the article you're objecting to and what federal definition of inflation you're referring to? -- Beland (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
There is no "federal legal definition of inflation". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
There are also varying "federal" entities worldwide! Now we're getting somewhere. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Recession is not determined by US law EvergreenFir (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


A "recession" is ...

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

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

@Tondelleo Schwarzkopf: I cannot speak with confidence on the historiography of definitions of economic recession, but your point seems to be within reason. You may be interested in the RfC in the section above this one, where a survey is underway to determine consensus for what the lead section of the article should say. jp×g 11:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Bill Clinton says it's "two quarters in a row of negative growth" https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bill-clinton-sets-record-straight-definition-recession
Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Bill Clinton is not an economist. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Tondelleo Schwarzkopf: The article already says that the two-quarter definition is widely used. What change to the article are you proposing? Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss these issues in general. -- Beland (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

A "recession" is ... (humor)

Does Wikipedia have a sense of humor? The article does a good job discussing the practical and technical definitions. Should it include humorous or folklore definitions such as Harry Truman's famous quip defining recession and depression: 

   "It’s a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it’s a depression when you lose your own.” https://www.forbes.com/quotes/10624/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawjapaul (talk • contribs) 16:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think this would be too bad of an idea. jp×g 07:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Great for a laugh, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it isn't serious enough. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, this sounds like something I would slap {{inappropriate tone}} on. It sounds more appropriate for a lecture or TV news piece or something where the speaker is trying to use a bit of humor to wake up the audience or engage them in the content or make the content relatable. That's not what Wikipedia does; we generally stick to the facts and use the inverted pyramid style. -- Beland (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

State of play

Looks like there are a couple more articles today, many of which are still saying that the definition has been removed, even though it's right damn there in the third sentence of the article. I think we might need to pool together and make a Kickstarter to distribute computer mice with scroll wheels on them or something.

You really think someone would do that... just go on the Internet and tell lies?

Anyway, I guess we are in for another tidal wave of people demanding we change the article to say the thing it already says. Straighten your neckties and brace for impact... jp×g 21:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that, from our perspective, it looks like everyone who reads these articles is taking them at face value, and coming here to call us jackoffs. But it seems likely to me that explaining what actually happened has had some effect. It's possible that, if we hadn't made any attempt to do this, there would be ten times as many angry comments: if you look at Twitter, you can see that there a bunch of people pointing out stuff like that the definition in question has been in this article for over a decade, etc. We have no way of knowing how many people came here to complain, read what we wrote, stopped being mad, and closed the tab -- probably a good number of them. So maybe this is a victory for truth, or something. jp×g 21:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
It's beyond me why editors here waste their time replying to the trolls and conspiracy theorists who clearly haven't read the article, or simply don't care what it actually says. Just step back and look at this page—it's a confusing mess. We should conserve our energy to work on improving the article without muddying the waters of discussion by legitimizing such comments. Carlstak (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The ongoing RfC is an epic legitimization of the disruption. How many of the initial choices and how many of the responses even refer to the article text and sourcing? It's not showing our best face or demonstrating the effectiveness of our editing process. SPECIFICO talk 23:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I haven't responded to the RfC because, in practice, there seems to be too little difference between those options for me to care enough / form an opinion on it. I agree that this is all a distraction. We should revert all "2 QTRS of NEGATIVE GDP GROWTH" comments and focus on the article, now that so many of us have come here. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
"This article has a political bias" is a legitimate concern about a possible NPOV violation. It seems like a bad idea to get in the habit of simply deleting any such complaints because we feel they don't have merit. Those sort of questions are supposed to be solved by calm discussion. Sure, people may be coming in with incorrect notions, but the point of discussion is to point things out to people who disagree with you and given them the chance to digest that and refine their criticism, or to agree their criticism was misplaced. Sure, if someone's not going to engage in civil conversation or is just going to spout opinions and not read anything in the article, there's no point in continuing the conversation. As for the RFC, seasoned editors also have had concerns about the wording in the intro, not just the angry drive-by editors, and it's the way we deal with controversial content, especially on high-profile articles. It certainly is worthwhile to think through the phrasing there, and the RFC adds a lot of legitimacy to the idea that we've done that with the participation of people from a lot of different political viewpoints.
If you don't have the patience to engage these folks, or feel your time is better spent working on the article, then I think you should go do that; there's lots of room for improvement aside from the dispute over the definition in the intro. Personally, I think it's worthwhile for me personally to give them the benefit of the doubt, and demonstrate how Wikipedia is open to reasonable criticism and how it tries to achieve neutrality. Yeah, a lot of these folks aren't listening to reason, but I think some do. It's possible that giving extra leeway in this case may help convert some angry commenters into contributors that help build the encyclopedia. It's mostly American conservatives coming in, and they often complain that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. My response is, if you think so, point it out when you see it, and build consensus for more neutral content. If we're instantly shutting them out of the conversation, we're losing people with a point of view we need to participate, even if it's not one I agree with. I also worry about Wikipedia's reputation. If half of America thinks it's biased, that's a problem both for editor retention and the core mission of the project, which is to provide the best information available to everyone. People need to know how the content is produced to be able to trust it. If the story they tell all their friends is "the one time I complained about something on Wikipedia being biased, my complaint was immediately censored", that's doing serious undeserved damage to reputation and trust. -- Beland (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
When someone posts something like this, there is no legitimate concern that they are raising. They are not engaging in an attempt to improve the article, they are just yelling at us as often happens on the Internet. There is nothing to gain from engaging those comments. Just take a look above at #A recession is 2 negative quarters of GDP growth. There's nothing there but a time sink. The IP that started the thread didn't return. I attempted to engage Druid Floki, who did not respond. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Sure, and I didn't bother restoring that comment. If you don't think it's worth your time to engage, then don't, but my time is mine to waste. -- Beland (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
If the story they tell their friends is "the one time I complained about something on Wikipedia, they shouted me down with woke propaganda", is that any better? I'm pessimistic enough to believe that the reputation game is already lost. XOR'easter (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, "censorship" sounds bad and close-minded, whereas "woke" is clearly something from the culture wars where some people think it's good and some people think it's bad, and when people say that I assume I would probably disagree with their opinion on the matter and thus don't treat it seriously. I'm sure I'm more of an optimist, because I'm willing to give people a chance to learn new information and change their minds. Pissing people off because we assume they are going to dislike us anyway seems like a dangerously self-fulfilling prophecy. Reputation can change over time, especially with repeated exposure to the entity in question. I'm sure tons of people who think Wikipedia is politically biased still use it to look up facts about their favorite TV show or what this weird plant is. Maybe some day they will bring up an article on some political controversy and be inspired to write an angry talk page message that says "THIS WAS AN INTERESTING ARTICLE THAT CLEARLY EXPLAINS THE DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW IN A FAIR AND BALANCED WAY!" -- Beland (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Carlstak: Well, there are a few things to say about this:
1) It's not like it actually costs anything to do this. We do it for free. It takes about ten seconds to type out "this has been in the article since 2011" and move on. Moreover, it's not clear to me that one editor commenting in silly threads on a talk page impedes other editors from commenting in other threads they consider worthwhile.
2) The idea of a "talk page" that isn't a comment section is (as far as I can tell) unique to Wikipedia, and not a concept shared by any other website. Yes, I know we have banners (and I wrote the FAQ currently above the edit window here), but people don't read those. A normal person who sees a bunch of talk page comments being removed without response will tend to conclude that they're being removed in an attempt to avoid responding to them.
3) The main allegations made by haters are thus: that we modified the article to suit a political agenda, and that we have prevented people from addressing this, whether by protecting the article or by censoring their complaints. It does not make sense to respond to false accusations by actually doing the thing we're being accused of (or, more accurately, doing a thing which looks extremely similar to it, and which only isn't it because of an extremely long-winded set of counterintuitive guidelines).
5) An incorrect or exaggerated belief is not really a "conspiracy theory". The general theme of most complaints is that we are politically biased. I would argue that this is untrue (although some articles do fall short of NPOV from time to time). However, saying that an article should be modified in a concrete way is not really trolling. It may be ignorant (because the change they're requesting was already made over a decade ago), but it does not seem to me like a deliberate attempt at provocation, unless it is something like "you suck".
6) While some people seem to desire ignorance, I don't think it's fair to assume that everyone does -- like I said, if you go on social media you will see that a lot of people actually have read what we've written here and figured out what actually happened.
Anyway, this is my opinion. jp×g 23:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not reading extra-long comments; life is short. With all due respect, JPxG, I think you're enjoying this melee far too much.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
But your complaint was that people weren't reading the article before commenting! jp×g 01:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
For cryin' out loud, your boring walls of text are not the article. I'm too busy adding sources. Carlstak (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Rapid disruption

I've semi-protected this talk page for 30 minutes — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 17:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I was likely to do the same thing, you just beat me to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I really don't like protecting talk pages as it's a little too close to censoring discussion for my taste — 30 minutes almost feels too long — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 17:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@TheresNoTime: It's currently 02:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC), and this seems to still be active (if I open the "edit" URL in a private window, it takes me to the view-source dialog). Was there a mistake in applying the protection? jp×g 02:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I've made a request for decreasing the protection level -- I think it will probably do more harm than good for this talk page to be protected. There have been some IPs making useful comments, and most of the people coming here angry are specifically angry about critical news coverage of our decision to protect the main article. While locking the talk page may cause less people to be pissed off at us in the short run, I think that in the big picture it erodes our credibility (in the last day, there have been a number of people coming here to yell about politics, and it hasn't been an insurmountable issue to remove or archive off-topic posts). jp×g 03:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I dropped the protection -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Ooh thank you.. I'm not sure what happened there, I input a custom expiry of "30 minutes" — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 12:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
@TheresNoTime: it got reprotected after your protection expired -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd be fine with semi-protecting this Talk page for much longer — say, 48 hours. People are going to declare us political, biased, unreliable, ANTIFA, etc., etc., regardless of what we actually do, because their anger is getting stoked by "news" coverage that just wants to generate outrage clicks. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not provide a platform for trolls, and volunteer time is a scarce resource that shouldn't be wasted cleaning up messes that we can stop from happening in the first place. XOR'easter (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I can tell you right now that I'd consider this site more politically biased if the talk page continues to be protected. People are being made aware of this article because people are saying that there's a cabal of pro-Biden editors seeking to change the definition and establish alternative facts. Most people are coming to this article to see if this is true, and they're coming to the talk page to give their opinions on the change. That's why I'm here; I wanted to see if the stories were BS or not. It would seem like they're greatly exaggerated.
The talk page is the outlet for public comment on article content. Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world and is directly or indirectly used by most people to see what the truth is. In light of that, we should be taking an inclusive role rather than an exclusive role and ensure that people have an outlet for expressing their opinions.
On the topic of volunteers being a scarce resource, the easiest way to ensure volunteers remain scarce is to tell the public that we don't care about what they have to say. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I would be inclined to broadly agree with the above, and add a little go-off of my own:
Maybe this is a discussion for a policy page and not here, but I don't think it makes sense to remove all of the comments where someone is mad and wants us to change the article, even if they are mistaken in their beliefs (unless the comment is just some WP:NPA garbage like "kys libtards"). The majority of angry comments aren't this, they are just somebody doing the 21st-century equivalent of writing a pissed-off letter to the radio station. I don't find it particularly difficult to just respond to them truthfully and say "this was never the case", or "this has been fixed already", or whatever the case may be regarding their complaint. It's not like they are bringing up difficult thorny questions that we're unable to answer concisely. They are saying "it is chickenshit for you to do this thing", to which we can say "we didn't" and move on. The worst-case scenario here is that they ignore it completely, or think we're lying, which they already did; the best-case scenario is that they (or somebody else reading the exchange) see that we gave a shit about their concern and addressed it. If the comment is summarily removed, however, the best-case scenario is that they believe we are chickenshit, and the worst-case scenario is that the instant removal of the question is a giant chisel carving into stone their (and others') belief that we are chickenshit. Even in the case where nobody responds and they get archived without comment, that still seems way better than removing them. Of course, this is just my opinion, but I think it is based on solid reasoning. jp×g 01:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
@XOR'easter: There are certainly some people in the world who are determined to be pissed off no matter what (as any kid who's gotten yelled at by a teacher for doing their homework too fast can attest). However, I don't think it is a good approach to go out of our way to be rude to people on the presumption that they're asswipes, especially when they're asking extremely basic questions that can be answered in five seconds. Moreover, it seems kind of silly to be like "you incorrectly implied that we were surreptitiously removing content, so we have surreptitiously removed your comment itself". jp×g 06:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
One thing that's rude is using language like that on a website that's used by tens of millions of users who would take offense at the gratuitous scatological language and similar vulgarity in routine conversation. It's easily avoided with no loss of communication value. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure most of the commentators are sticking around to read replies. It seems they drop a nasty note, and go away thinking they've done their good deed for the day. I reply to the ones that aren't just name-calling anyway, following WP:AGF. I was hoping that seeing those things asked and answered will also prevent duplicate comments from being left, and maybe sometimes it does, but it seems some folks don't bother reading anything before posting. I agree with XOR that a page full of toxic comments is bad for participation, and I agree with JPxG that censorship of legitimate concerns, even if ill-informed, is bad for participation and reputation. I think replying and then archiving (if they don't return to reply) and not deleting the angry and mildly reply-worthy comments strikes a good balance while also keeping the talk page from getting too long, and probably better follows WP:TALKO. -- Beland (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The trolls are not reading the replies. They're coming here, piling on with a technique that my wife would refer to as "swoop and poop", and they're gone. They are not here to discuss anything. The majority have no "legitimate concerns", they read a right-wing troll on Twitter, Gab, 4chan, or wherever, and came here. We don't need to protect the talk page, but please don't feed the trolls. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The advice "don't feed the trolls" is meant for the sort of person that make disturbing posts for the purpose of enjoying seeing people get upset and give them attention. If these people are not reading the replies for enjoyment, then they are not that sort of problem, and I don't think that advice applies. If they are here to protest censorship, you could argue that censoring them feeds their bad behavior by giving them more to complain about. And we have already seen someone complaining that their comment here was removed. -- Beland (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

There's a big difference between bad faith, premediated deuces dropped by obvious trolls on here, and angry, cynical comments by good faith visitors who allege the existence of a cabal. I've noticed that some veteran editors deal with either in the same smug manner. I know it can be tiring, responding to the same comment. Perhaps a solution would be to keep all comments on the page, but categorize them into collapsible sections (obvious bad faith comments should be deleted). Anyone coming to visit would see the history, and it wouldn't clog up the page, nor would be as inaccessible as archived comments are. I think that would elevate the discussion on this page to a healthier one, without turning into a cacaphony of bad faith mudslingers mixed with good faith newcomers who happen to be upset (I happen to think that given the RfC is seeking comment on changes from recent changes, not from the longstanding version like how it's usually done, all while a current political controversy rages, people have a right to be upset). CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This article, and this talk page, is a vivid example of Wikipedia's politicization and censorship. No wonder one of Wikipedia's founders has repeatedly condemned what Wikipedia hasa become.Look, kids, you wouldn't have changed the definition of recession if your favorite president wasn't in trouble. 2001:5B0:50D8:A358:453D:B634:230A:A5B2 (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@2001:5B0:50D8:A358:453D:B634:230A:A5B2: The definition of recession has not been changed to favor Joe Biden. Please read Talk:Recession/FAQ and look at the article text to see if it sounds neutral to you. -- Beland (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Isn't it interesting that the flash mob went and changed it now that Biden's in trouble? It's a longstanding pattern at Wikipedia, and it's why Wikipedia is not trusted for any topic other than what we used to look up in the World Book Encyclopedia. It's not new at all, and I very rarely comment on it because Wikipedia is about as arrogant as it comes. 66.96.79.234 (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Again, as has been stated and restated numerous times, the NBER definition of a recession has been in the header of this article for years, pre-dating the Biden administration. That has not been changed. The only thing that was changed in recent days was *adding* the more common definition of "two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth" to the header. It's fine if you don't want to comment, but you should at least read -- if not the talk page, then the article you're commenting on. Ethelred unraed (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
So now, on this page, the Wikicensors declare a discussion closed. And yes, I did read the entire article before commenting, so there really isn't any basis or need for your condescension. There's a reason why Wikipedia's founder condemns Wikipedia every chance he gets. 97.73.100.170 (talk [🎠🍵🎣🐡]) 01:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
If you read the whole article, and you read the whole FAQ, I have no idea what you are talking about. Is the idea that we were running interference in 2011 for a comment that we predicted the president would make in 2022? That Wikipedia editors in 2011 were able to predict the future, and we just used it to kiss Joe Biden's ass, and didn't even buy Bitcoins? That doesn't make sense. jp×g 02:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@97.73.100.170: I'm not sure what discussion you're saying has been declared closed? Yes, editors have been dropping comments that are just abusive or off-topic and archiving those that are not actionable because they are complaining about something that never happened or has already been done or are just unclear. Do you think not doing that would help build a better encyclopedia? The RFC above continues to debate how the intro should be worded, and this page is accepting comments from anyone who cares to make them.
BTW, are you the same person as 66.96.79.234? You might wish to register for an account to keep your IP addresses private and communicate more easily (you'll get pinged if someone replies to you like I did there). -- Beland (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
You're not sure what discussion has been declared closed? Scroll down the page, and quit your gaslighting and censorship. Wikipedia, Facebook, YouTube, Amazon, Microsoft. You people are all the same. And yes, now you're kissing Biden's ass by helping him redefine recessions. You and your kind belong in China. 2001:5B0:50D8:A358:3023:BF53:529D:2B2E (talk) 2001:5B0:50D8:A358:3023:BF53:529D:2B2E (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Can you tell me who was the president of the United States in the year 2011? jp×g 17:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@2001:5B0:50D8:A358:3023:BF53:529D:2B2E: Are you the same person as 97.73.100.170? There's no need to make accusations of gaslighting; you can look at the entire article history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&offset=&limit=500&action=history You're welcome to point out changes you disagree with; many people have already done that in the RFC above. By my reading, the introduction has become less Biden-friendly in the past few days, so I'm not sure what you would want us to do to address the concern that the article is "kissing Biden's ass". Wikipedia is not at all like the other big technology firms, in that it doesn't make any money. The paid Wikimedia Foundation staff is not responsible for adding or removing content, aside from content which causes legal problems, like libel and copyright violations. WMF staff haven't had to do that for this article. So, as you look through the history and through the RFC above, you'll see a bunch of unpaid volunteers taking it upon themselves individually to make or propose changes to the article. Some of them are pro-Biden, some are anti-Biden, and some don't really care about American politics either because they aren't Americans or they are focused on the academic study of economic recessions. So the folks you want to condemn to exile are a mix of your political allies, opponents, and random people who aren't involved in that dispute. I still don't know what discussion you're talking about when you say "declared closed". Like, literally there are two options, 1. the question of what to do about the intro - which is being discussed in the RFC, or 2. the comments that editors have deleted or archived because they are abusive, off-topic, incorrect, or not actionable in terms of improving the article. Is it 1 or is it 2? 1 is happening above; I don't see any of 2 by scrolling down, because by definition they've been deleted or archived. Feel free to point to a specific comment in the archives or edit history of this talk page that you feel still needs to be addressed, if you think it would help build a better encyclopedia. -- Beland (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Map showing countries with varying definitions of recession

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

The English wikipedia is Anglo centric? I'm shocked. SHOCKED. No opposition to the map idea. But other countries information being missing is a WP:SOFIXIT and possibly WP:WEIGHT problem. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Not sure why the sarcastic remark. It’s a good amount of work, so I don’t want to do it unless it’s going to be accepted.47.152.112.193 (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Why have a map of USA vs other countries? For the longest time then Americans have also thought "2 quarters of decline = recession", it is only incredibly recently and only a very small minority of Americans who have thought anything else in the USA. Mathmo Talk 09:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
On the contrary, the definition of recession as a general slowdown, with timing determined by the NBER, has been in Economics textbooks for several decades. LK (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm wondering if constructing such a map would even be feasible. Do most governments have a specific definition that they declare is the one they use? Or do different government agencies have different trigger points? NBER isn't a government agency, so is there something in American law or executive authority that designates it as an official government-recognized arbiter? If the economists who study a given country have their own definitions, does it really even matter what the official government definition is? Especially in countries which blatantly manipulate their economic statistics anyway? A lot of low-income countries don't do near the same level of data gathering as the U.S. and Europe, so maybe there isn't even a government-recognized definition? -- Beland (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The definition of 2 concurrent periods of negative GDP Growth is not recent. In most Economics textbooks have had that as the definition for decades, as well as Bill Clinton in 2000 also openly said it in that definition. As well, this new 'definition' has only come up in the last couple weeks at most. Druid Floki (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
That's simply not accurate. The NBER definition of a recession has been in the header for years (at least since 2019, which predates the current administration). Ethelred unraed (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The French and the German versions seem particularly well sourced. fgnievinski (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski: I don't see a map on either of those, nor a catalog of official definitions by country that a map could be based on? -- Beland (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
FTR, I did see that the French version mentions a third definition, this one from the OECD, so I added that to the article. Thanks for the pointer! -- Beland (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

A recession is 2 negative quarters of GDP growth

We’re in a recession. Wikipedia decided to scrub the page of that. 2603:6081:6B01:C800:C824:19D:808B:375A (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the top of the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Likely no, because they are trolls we should not be feeding. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Of course, the definition of the word has been expanded fairly broadly in the last few years, but I don't think a post is a troll unless there is some reason to believe that the poster is disingenuously representing opinions they don't have for the sole purpose of pissing people off. In this case it seems way more likely that they are just straightforwardly, actually angry about a thing (which happens to be false), not that they are pretending to be angry for amusement. jp×g 01:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Source for their anger and their mistaken beliefs entitling them to post NOTFORUM on the talk page? SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Though the complaint is inaccurate, I don't see how WP:NOTFORUM applies, as it is an on-topic complaint about what this person thinks is missing from the article. -- Beland (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing ... 1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. All of this boils down to "if we are in a recession, that's Bad For Biden", and the inaccurate belief that we were moving the goalposts on what is or is not a recession. There is no "on-topic complaint". They want us to declare that we are in a recession. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
"Recession=bad" isn't a universal thing (just ask the Austrians). There are some folks at the Mises Institute who have written in the past that recessions might actually be good and natural things for the economy. Austrians have been saying this sort of thing for a while. And, while some do seem to implicitly accept the "2 negative quarters" definition, others don't. Some also think that whether or not a "recession" is occurring is a waste of time and/or not something that's easy to technically define. Others even seem to squarely blame the central bank rather than Biden. The Mises Institute isn't exactly in the mainstream of economics, but it's a bit odd to reduce every editor who has come here to complain about our definition also thinks that recessions are the fault of the executive rather than the fault of central banking policy. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Mhawk10, but it's a bit odd to reduce every editor who has come here to complain about our definition also thinks that recessions are the fault of the executive rather than the fault of central banking policy. I agree, but have you seen Fox News's coverage of inflation and the economy lately? That's the driving force here, not accurate assessment of what a recession is. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
To be honest with you, no, I don't tend to watch cable news, but I take your point. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
You're better off that way tbh. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I dont care about the news outlets the right ones are saying its bad, the left its not. Defending or attacking either will paint you as the opposite. But every Economics textbook, even politicians and the economists they drug out for this new definition have used the prior definition not but a couple years ago or more depending.
Economics by Colander first published in 2008, 11th Ed was published in 2020, a primary textbook for Economics 101 and intro to economics classes:
Recession - A decline in real output that persists for more than two consecutive quarters of a year.
Im sorry but this 'change' of definition is just as politically motivated as the news outlets. Druid Floki (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@Druid Floki:, nobody "changed" the definition of a recession on this page. The page always said (and still says) that many see two quarters with GDP decline as a likely sign of a recession, but that the definition is more complex than that. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

We have a procedure for edit requests. The long preamble to the talk page does not give guidance to newbies as to how they can register their concern in a constructive format. That should be what they see, not a lot of -- frankly -- stuff that vanishingly few of them care about or will read. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, the topic of this page is not whether the US is "in a recession" nor was anything about whether the US is in a recession among the content of this page. This thread was appropriately answered and removed and should not have been reinstated. It should be deleted or archived and I hope we will all remember to be a bit more observant about differentiating good faith suggestions for article improvement (even if unconventionally expressed) vs. SOAPBOX and NOTFORUM. SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The article I posted above gives examples of recessions the NBER called that did not have two-quarters of negative growth (e.g. 2001-02), and situations where two-quarters of negative growth did not produce a recession (e.g. 1947). If these examples could be added to the Definitions section (plus the others), then it might take a lot of the "heat" out of this debate. 78.19.229.252 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It's charming that you think so, but the "heat" in the debate is caused by a bunch of professional provocateurs and propagandists -- they don't care what the truth of the situation is. The people who come to rant here without having checked the article first are not going to read a WaPo article first, either. JBL (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
They don't need to read the WPO article if they don't want to (there is another similar WSJ article on the same historical examples), but, if the article clearly stated that there have been recessions called by the NBER that never had two subsequent quarters of negative growth (i.e. 2001-02), and periods of two-quarters of neg growth that was not a recession, then the "content" would speak for itself and clarify for readers why the NBER (and the EU), take the approach they have. We need to provide a little extra detail that would be very useful for readers. 78.19.229.252 (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem of this entire debate is that members of the US Government et al. "tried to redefine what a recession is" from the likes of Joe Biden to "establishment" economist Paul Krugman. I was going to say that there should be multiple-definitions of a "recession" in the article taken from various viewpoints, organisations but it looks like that already exists or at least in the last edit @ 11:32 2/AUG/2022 but this could and probably should be, most-certainly be expanded. When talking about "economics" (or really anything "scientific"), I think Wikipedia articles should stop citing "mainstream" media sources such as The Guardian or National Public Radio or The New York Post and instead focus on citing academics, so things such as journals, research papers, books, speeches (namely from "economists") and so on because the "news media" has a slant which is purposely trying to push a certain agenda whether it's trying to cause a market panic so that say someone wants to make lots of money fast (e.g. short selling shares), trying to stave off an economic collapse through propaganda or somewhere in between. 2A02:C7C:5C36:1100:98D5:9E49:C0FB:CF14 (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC) - William Clifton

I don't think there's any evidence that mainstream media outlets are trying to influence the economy one way or the other and make money through misleading reporting on the definition of recession; do you have any? I certainly trust academics more for details sometimes, but news media can sometimes be better because they are more up to date, and also they are secondary sources which can summarize the opinions of lots of primary-source academics. Some of the ones you mentioned are reliable and some are not; I generally go by Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which includes reliable sources with a diversity of political biases. -- Beland (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Biden admin people trying to deny that we're in a recession is typical politics, not unlike when Bush did it in 2008. Politics is politics. Economics is separate yet overlapping. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
But there aren't really people trying to "redefine" it - a recession simply isn't an absolute one-cut concept. The U.S. could very well be in recession, but with the government increasing interest rates, they have been intentionally slowing economic growth to combat inflation. I would hesitate to say the intended result of the government - lowering economic growth as a long-term strategy to combat inflation - would qualify as a traditional concept of recession. There have been no historical contractions in GDP that were intended by the federal government that are counted today as recessions. 68.227.165.246 (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@68.227.165.246: According to Early 1980s recession in the United States, that's not true - the recession starting in 1980 was caused by the Federal Reserve intentionally triggering a slowdown by raising interest rates to the end stagflation of the 1970s. -- Beland (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Coverage in Bloomberg

I don't edit on this page, but I will say that an article on Bloomberg, which seems negative from my reading, on the debate about the decision on this page, will likely cause even more to flock to this wikipedia page. Just a warning there. I'd guess there are other articles too, but that's one I just saw. Historyday01 (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that this has been added to the press template already so other people don't have to check. PhantomTech[talk] 21:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Seriously, Bloomberg? Today you write this drivel? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my thought too... it is a pretty awful article. Historyday01 (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, I figure any article that quotes me must be good. But I'm not so sure about this one – "hundreds of users making and reverting changes to the page"? Jeez. jp×g 02:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
This really stuck in my craw, so I actually decided to figure it out. Here's a list of every editor since July 24:
Huge list
  1. 173.87.170.144
  2. 210.215.82.3
  3. 2600:1005:b064:cd1d:fc62:fa15:6d6e:81eb
  4. 2603:8001:b507:8100:a43f:c97a:7cec:37e9
  5. 2603:8080:2200:b3ef:972:f2bc:e057:6f1
  6. 2806:2f0:60a0:490a:f8ad:7d54:861a:e3d5
  7. 2a01:11:8410:3780:bd0c:7c0b:277f:c5eb
  8. 47.227.95.73
  9. 65.183.131.113
  10. 70.40.32.88
  11. 71.222.184.126
  12. 76.91.162.29
  13. 98.221.206.190
  14. Acerimusdux
  15. ActivelyDisinterested
  16. Anarchyte
  17. AnomieBOT
  18. AnomieBOT
  19. Beland
  20. CAPTAIN KOOKY
  21. Carlstak
  22. Caspian Delta
  23. Corn cheese
  24. Czello
  25. DanielkHartness
  26. Davemck
  27. David Radcliffe
  28. DGeisz
  29. EditorInTheRye
  30. Encyclopedia Lu
  31. Endwise
  32. EricDuflot1968
  33. Ethelred unraed
  34. Ethelred unraed
  35. Evanbaldonado
  36. FernCreekWiki
  37. Freelance-frank
  38. Ganesha811
  39. Gdeblois19
  40. GorillaWarfare
  41. Guest2625
  42. Haha what up brah
  43. Ham II
  44. HyperEagle
  45. Ineffablebookkeeper
  46. JayBeeEll
  47. Jerry Steinfield
  48. JPxG
  49. Jwuthe2
  50. Leontrooper
  51. Litesand
  52. LizardJr8
  53. Llightex
  54. MainPeanut
  55. Mandarax
  56. Maproom
  57. Mhawk10
  58. Mikalra
  59. Morgan695
  60. Muboshgu
  61. Nicereddy
  62. Notcharizard
  63. Nythar
  64. Onengsevia
  65. Panamitsu
  66. Perching Heron
  67. Politicsfan4
  68. Rhian2040
  69. Rollblocks
  70. Saksapoiss
  71. SirInfinity0000
  72. SixTwoEight
  73. Soibangla
  74. SPECIFICO
  75. Srich32977
  76. StarkGaryen
  77. SWinxy
  78. Tamzin
  79. Tbhotch
  80. Th78blue
  81. The Impartial Truth
  82. TheresNoTime
  83. TomS TDotO
  84. TZander
  85. Vermont
  86. Whoisjohngalt
  87. Wikideas1
  88. Zemant
It's not even a single hundred. And, perhaps more relevant, the vast majority of these edits happened after news sites started writing about it, but I guess "news websites tell people to go dick around on Wikipedia and they do it" isn't a very compelling story. jp×g 02:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm...glad?... you're not more annoyed by Bloomberg choosing to quote your "avoid making clowns of ourselves" line as representative of the discussion that's happening on this page. I guess it's just a reminder to all editors that anything we say here can be read by anyone, and can easily end up on the front page of the newspaper, or whatever the Internet equivalent is. -- Beland (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I couldn't find an official mechanism to submit a correction (I did that for the NPR piece, and I don't know if it was me or someone else but they almost completely rewrote the story to add needed context) so I pointed out the mathematical problem here to the author via tweet. So frustrating I can't just jump in and edit in a correction myself; I'm so used to doing that here! 8) -- Beland (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Clearly, I need to work harder at being quotable. XOR'easter (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

ATTENTION NEW VISITORS TO THIS PAGE

TL;DR from Beland:

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

History section needs work

The history section is a mixture of countries and chronology; the US section has a strange order with the COVID section inserted before the 'Late 2000s' material. Not sure if listing recessions by country is the best here--possible DUEness issues, and the COVID-19 recession probably warrants a section/summary of its own. I don't see an immediate easy way to fix this, suggestions are appreciated. SmolBrane (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

France

Recently EricDuflot1968 added a line about France. I've reverted because the line was a dishonest summary of the source, which reads in full Definition: Period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters. Separately, it's not clear to me whether it is reasonable to describe this link as representing an official definition in France. --JBL (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

A source that provides only one line, and a line full of rather vague generalities at that, is not worth citing. XOR'easter (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
JayBeeEll XOR'easter The source is the Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques, the public national institute for statistics of France. Its mission in forecasting is equivalent to that of Her Majesty's Treasury, and it is it that determines whether the country is in recession or not. How can the source be more representative of an official definition in France? As it is a French administration, the English-language version of its website is quite succinct. Is this sufficient to discard it? What source would be official enough to represent the position of the French State on the matter other than an official source from the French State? User:EricDuflot1968 20:24, 31 July 2022 (CEST)
There's succinct, and then there's superficial. The cited "definition" is the latter. (The corresponding page in French is not any more detailed.) A blurb for general consumption is no substitute for a full description of what periods have been designated as recessions, at which times, based on which data. An official body saying, in effect, "This is what people usually mean when they say 'recession'" is not the same thing as an official set of criteria for demarcating recessions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
If you will reread my message, you see that it contains three separate aspects: the briefness of the source, my personal unclarity about how definitive it is, and the fact that you misrepresented it. The third is by far the most important (as far as I am concerned), and I notice you have not addressed it at all in your comments. So, to reiterate: the link you added gives a rather vague definition, followed by a rule of thumb for when one might expect that definition to apply. Your edit truncated the first part entirely, as if the second part were the entire definition. This is straightforward misrepresentation. (Admittedly, this kind of misrepresentation is something that no one would have cared about two weeks ago, before this very dumb brouhaha -- but as long as everyone is pretending that it's really really important what the precise definition of recession is, it seems to me that it is not okay to randomly truncate half of the definition offered by a source.) --JBL (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
No. The official website of the French State confirms that the definition of the INSEE is the one that is in use (https://www.insee.fr/fr/recherche/recherche-metadonnees?idprec=c2129&q=r%C3%A9cession&debut=0): "En France, selon l’Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE), la récession correspond à une chute du produit intérieur brut (PIB). Plus précisément, un pays entre officiellement en récession lorsqu'il connaît un taux de croissance négatif du PIB au moins deux trimestres consécutifs.". It is the sole definition the INSEE uses, as you can see in the list of their definitions (https://www.insee.fr/fr/recherche/recherche-metadonnees?idprec=c2129&q=r%C3%A9cession&debut=0). User:EricDuflot1968 20:56, 31 July 2022 (CEST)
I believe your first link should be to vie-publique.fr, which is an improvement upon the one-sentence definition in that it at least says something of historical substance. But it's still not so simple; whether a recession should be declared by the two-quarter rule alone was debated in 2008, for example. What we really need are sources that clarify when a rule was adopted, how revisions to estimates are accounted for, and all that good stuff. Otherwise, we're just collating trivia. XOR'easter (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
So, to clarify. We have a primary source with the INSEE, stating the criterion it uses. We have a source of the French government (Vie Publique) confirming that the criterion the INSEE uses is that that is mentioned on the INSEE's official website. We also have authoritative sources with the most basic French economics college textbook that says this is exactly the criteria the INSEE uses, and an authoritative history textbook stating this is how the INSEE also defined the recession in 2008. But, because we do not have sources "that clarify when a rule was adopted, how revisions to estimates are accounted for, and all that good stuff", every source we have is just "trivia" and the information provided by the sources should be discarded. Am I getting that right? Could you please clarify where it is written as a rule, or when it was decided by the community, that to accept the sources aforementioned, we should have sources "that clarify when a rule was adopted, how revisions to estimates are accounted for, and all that good stuff"? It seems to me to be a bit maximalist. EricDuflot1968 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that the information should be "discarded". I'm genuinely grateful for the work you've done in finding them! I just think we need to gather the information first and work out how to summarize it before jumping in. A one-line statement referring to a one-line source doesn't do justice to the subject. XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Assuming I'm reading the correct definition your link doesn't support your claim. It mentions specifically that it's only "most often" marked by two consecutive trimesters of decline. Important to note that France doesn't use annual quarters in the manner of some anglophone countries. XeCyranium (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The French State's website Vie Publique indicates this is the criterion the INSEE uses ("En France, selon l’Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE), la récession correspond à une chute du produit intérieur brut (PIB). Plus précisément, un pays entre officiellement en récession lorsqu'il connaît un taux de croissance négatif du PIB au moins deux trimestres consécutifs"). It thus also confirms what the French history university textbook I mentioned above says about the criterion the INSEE used to confirm the recession in 2008. It itself confirms what the standard French college economics textbook I mentioned above said about this criterion being the one the INSEE uses to measure recessions. What more can be done when you have two university textbooks and the State's website all saying the same thing? What would be the trouble with quoting the INSEE's entire definition, sourcing it with the INSEE's website, and then writing that it the definition the State itself uses, sourcing it with the Vie Publique website? EricDuflot1968 (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The INSEE's own website says, "Le plus souvent, on parle de récession si l'on observe un recul du Produit Intérieur Brut (PIB) sur au moins deux trimestres consécutifs." Emphasis on Le plus souvent: if a statement about X says that X is "most often" declared when Y, then that cannot be the complete definition of X. So, we actually have a logical contradiction between two primary sources, one of them saying "le plus souvent" and the other "officiellement". Now, it's possible that France has a more clockwork standard for officially declaring recessions than the United States does — that they consider only one factor rather than weighting multiple ones. That would be interesting and worth writing about. But that's exactly the kind of subtlety that I wouldn't expect a general-audience website or an introductory textbook to bother with (I'd look for at least a post-graduate textbook or a review article in the academic literature). XOR'easter (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
French academic articles mainly use the INSEE's definition. This article in the Revue française de gestion (2017) writes: "La récession est définie comme un recul du PIB pendant deux trimestres consécutifs au moins (INSEE)". It's difficult to be clearer than that.
We also have Comprendre l'économie, which is an undergrad textbook, that clearly states: "Selon les définitions de l'INSEE, l'économie française entre en récession lorsque son PIB se replie sur au moins deux trimestres consécutifs".
As for your suggestion that an introductory college textbook would not bother with subtleties and that a post-graduate textbook would go deeper, I would suggest sourcing with Pierre Dockès's Le Capitalisme et ses rythmes, a 2000+ pages two-volume typically used by postgraduate students, that says: "Il est courant de considérer qu'il y a récession après deux trimestres consécutifs de baisse du PIB [...] L'Insee en France reprend cette définition". It also can't get clearer.
The French State gives its approval to the definition and writes it is the criterion the INSEE uses. The source is enough to write on the page that this is the definition the French State uses.
That is two undergrad econ textbooks, one standard postgrad book, one undergrad history book, an academic article among many others, and the French State's website that says it is the criterion it uses. I'm afraid if this does not suffice, nothing really will. EricDuflot1968 (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
This is progress! It appears that virtually everyone who talks about the INSEE uses different and more exacting language than the INSEE itself does (another example). Or, to say it a different way, the "le plus souvent" statement on the INSEE website is a generality that applies the world over.
I think we're moving in the direction of a decently informative paragraph that might begin, e.g., In France, the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies officially declares a recession after ... without regard to other economic factors. By this definition, France has had recessions in.... (I left in the first ellipsis to cover whether we want to say "trimester", etc.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Splendid! I initially wrote it in the introductory part of the page, but I'm afraid it may overload it. Where do you suggest I write it?
Also, what sources should I use: the official source from the INSEE with its definition, the French State's website where it approves the INSEE's definition, the graduate textbook confirming the French State's official website's use of the INSEE's definition? A mix of them? EricDuflot1968 (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Adding secondary sources on top of the other two primary sources. The basic college university textbook, Introduction à la politique économique of Jacques Généreux: "En France, l'INSEE entend par récession un recul absolu du PIB durant au moins deux trimestres consécutifs". This is indeed what we observe when reading the INSEE quarterly analyses, such as the Point de conjoncture Octobre 2012, among many others (https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/1560480). The standard and authoritative history book Histoire de la France au XXe siècle of Serge Berstein and Pierre Milza: "Dès la fin de l'été 2007, on considère que la France est entrée dans une phase de récession économique du fait d'une conjoncture mondiale particulièrement défavorable qui a conduit à connaître deux trimestres de recul du PIB". User:EricDuflot1968 21:15, 31 July 2022 (CEST)
Mais "Depuis les années 1950, la France n’a connu que quatre récessions (1974, 1993, 2009 et 2013) consécutives à des crises économiques" [1]? Should we speak of a 2007 recession or a 2009 one? Or a contraction that began in the spring of 2008 [2]? I'm all for including details about France, but I don't think the one-line INSEE English blurb is suitable for our purposes. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, speaking of archiving threads...

Has anyone else noticed that some weird stuff is happening with OneClickArchiver? It seems to be moving stuff to Talk:Recession/Archive 1 even though an Talk:Recession/Archive 3 exists. It was messing some stuff on the Signpost earlier, and we couldn't figure it out -- anybody have some insights? jp×g 00:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that is because this page sets "maxarchivesize = 125K" and /Archive 1 hadn't yet gotten there. (It has since.) (Looking at User:Evad37/OneClickArchiver.js and assuming this is the version you are using, since the docs say it's the only maintained one.) -- Beland (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Beland and JPxG: It's because the counter parameter in the Misza bot config is set to 1. It should be set to the number of the current archive. i.e. 3 - X201 (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@X201: Aha! Thank you very much for the better diagnosis; I just updated the counter, so hopefully it will work next time. -- Beland (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Definition in lead

A new editor insists on adding "and in the United States" to In the United Kingdom, it is defined as negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters.[7][8] in the lead, which doesn't make much sense to me considering both sources only discuss the UK. Bringing it here to stop the edit war and ask for consensus before that specific statement is re-added. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The change is materially at odds with the consensus view being expressed in the RfC. I'd say it should continue being reverted. Ethelred unraed (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The disruptive editor has been indefinitely blocked. Carlstak (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Even better. Ethelred unraed (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

OECD definition of recession

Beland, you added the OECD definition. Where does the cited source define the term? The article on fr.wikipedia says the definition is on page 31 but on page 31 of what? Volume 2008 Issue 2 contains numerous documents. I've looked at the most likely candidates but didn't see a definition in any of them. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I'm sorry, I don't have access to the volume because it's behind a paywall for me. You may want to track down the editor that added it to the French Wikipedia. -- Beland (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Beland, the Read online version isn't available to you? I don't have access through any office or institution but I can still read the documents online by clicking the respective READ symbol. So you didn't see the definition in the English version either? I'm asking because I looked at OECD analyses of other economic cycles, and they seem to be saying, "it depends": There is no single operational definition of a recession. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Ah, thanks for pointing that out! For some reason, they charge for the PDF, which is the button I had been clicking on. I found the sentence in question. As seen in the image, not in the URL, it's in Tableau/Table 1.4 on page 31 in the French version and page 29 in the English version. The word used in the French version is "récession" and in the English version is "downturn". Economic downturn redirects here; as far as I can tell, it's the same thing as a recession. -- Beland (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Useful article for readers

This article from the WP, What two negative GDP quarters means for ‘recession’ — and our politics, would be very useful to incorporate into the Definitions section. It would clarify that:

1. the NBER has declared several recessions that only had one-quarter of negative growth.
2. we potentially had two-quarters of negative economic growth in 1947, but no recession.

While two negative quarters of economic growth usually imply a recession, it is not a certainty, AND, those quarters have to be confirmed through the subsequent revisions (which in times of high inflation are going to be significant). This is why the US, rightly, leaves it to the NBER to confirm it, a process that takes several quarters to confirm. 78.19.229.252 (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@78.19.229.252: Well spotted! (1) is already mentioned in the "United States" section, but I added mention of the 1947 situation and also the reporting delay described in this interesting article. Thanks for the pointer! -- Beland (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Nice work, and thanks to the IP for pointing this out, also thanks to Beland for contribution of this information to the article. This is what I've been looking for—a citation of a reliable source for my retort to the Brandonites, who of course will ignore it and say it's fake,. Carlstak (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, by "Brandonites", I mean the Biden-haters like those who've been disrupting the conversation here—they're almost all Trump cultists anyway. Carlstak (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Darned convenient to paint everyone who disagrees with you with such a broad brush... Perhaps the disagreement is more than a little reasonable considering the common definition. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I can see that my comment is ambiguous, so I will strike it. I should clarify that I was saying that the "Brandonites" I know in my personal life are similar to the commenters here who clearly hate Biden, and that those Brandonites I know are almost all Trump cultists—I'm glad that now I can reference this Washington Post article in response to them. Per a comment on my talk page, I can see that my comments and tone were not appropriate, my apologies to all. Carlstak (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recession/Archive_3&oldid=1154668380"