Talk:Recession/Archive 4

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

RfC: Phrasing of the infamous sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is rough consensus to restore the longstanding text in the lead. Although there is no numerical majority, there is certainly no consensus for another option, and by far the most support is for restoring the text as it stood before this kerfuffle. Looking at WP:STATUSQUO, the lack of any consensus for a specific change, and the clear long term consensus for the original text we're left assuming that consensus did not change, and there is still wide support for that prose. I know this is technically a bit early, but a close was request at WP:CR, and discussion has tapered off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


The amount of sheer nonsense and vitriol that has transpired on this article, and this talk page, has been an embarrassing spectacle for everyone involved. It seems that this is due in large part to a bunch of news sites saying stuff that wasn't true, causing people to come here and call us assholes (which would be quite justified if the accusation were true, but as it is, it's kind of annoying). Anyway, though, I think we should pick something to say in the lead paragraph, and avoid making clowns of ourselves. Maybe this is an impossible task. So here are a few things that we could say. jp×g 10:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Option 1: "Two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession, although standards differ between countries. In the United States [...] In the United Kingdom and other countries, [...]"
  • Option 2: "Although the definition of a recession varies between countries, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession. In the United States [...] In the United Kingdom and other countries, [...]"
  • Option 3: "The definition of a recession varies; in most countries, two consecutive quarters of decline in real gross domestic product is commonly used. In the United States [...]"
  • Option 4: "There is no universally agreed-on definition, but two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product is commonly held to constitute a recession. In the United States [...] In the United Kingdom and other countries, [...]"
  • Option 5: "There is no universally agreed-on definition of a recession. In the United States [...] In the United Kingdom and other countries, [...]"
  • Option 6: "There is no universally agreed-on definition of a recession."
  • Option 7: Other (specify in comment).
Addendum: Some people have referred to a "previous version", but there are quite a few of those. Mostly, the thing that's remained constant is that the article mentions both the NBER and the two-quarter definition, and says that the US uses a different definition than the UK. The two-down-quarters thing was in the "Definition" section until a few days ago; now it's in the lead but not in the "Definition" section. I've removed the "Definition" section heading from these examples, but in each case it was right before the last paragraph.
The infamous sentence in various revisions
  • 2021-12-05: "In economics, a recession is a business cycle contraction when there is a general decline in economic activity.[1][2] Recessions generally occur when there is a widespread drop in spending (an adverse demand shock). This may be triggered by various events, such as a financial crisis, an external trade shock, an adverse supply shock, the bursting of an economic bubble, or a large-scale anthropogenic or natural disaster (e.g. a pandemic). 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]

Governments usually respond to recessions by adopting expansionary macroeconomic policies, such as increasing money supply or increasing government spending and decreasing taxation.

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]"

  • 2022-06-14: "In economics, a recession is a business cycle contraction when there is a general decline in economic activity.[8][9] Recessions generally occur when there is a widespread drop in spending (an adverse demand shock). This may be triggered by various events, such as a financial crisis, an external trade shock, an adverse supply shock, the bursting of an economic bubble, or a large-scale anthropogenic or natural disaster (e.g. a pandemic). 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".[10] In the United Kingdom, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters.[4][5]

Governments usually respond to recessions by adopting expansionary macroeconomic policies, such as increasing money supply or increasing government spending and decreasing taxation.

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.[11] In time, the other rules of thumb were forgotten."

  • 2022-07-06: "In economics, a recession is a business cycle contraction when there is a general decline in economic activity.[12][13] Recessions generally occur when there is a widespread drop in spending (an adverse demand shock). This may be triggered by various events, such as a financial crisis, an external trade shock, an adverse supply shock, the bursting of an economic bubble, or a large-scale anthropogenic or natural disaster (e.g. a pandemic). 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".[14] In the United Kingdom, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters.[4][5]

Governments usually respond to recessions by adopting expansionary macroeconomic policies, such as increasing money supply or increasing government spending and decreasing taxation

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.[15] In time, the other rules of thumb were forgotten."

  • 2022-07-25, 08:23: "In economics, a recession is a business cycle contraction when there is a general decline in economic activity.[16][17] Recessions generally occur when there is a widespread drop in spending (an adverse demand shock). This may be triggered by various events, such as a financial crisis, an external trade shock, an adverse supply shock, the bursting of an economic bubble, or a large-scale anthropogenic or natural disaster (e.g. a pandemic). 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".[18] Economists typically consider two consecutive quarters of negative GDP a recession. In the United Kingdom, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters.[4][5]

Governments usually respond to recessions by adopting expansionary macroeconomic policies, such as increasing money supply or increasing government spending and decreasing taxation.

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.[19] In time, the other rules of thumb were forgotten."

  • 2022-07-25, 14:07: "In economics, a recession is a business cycle contraction when there is a general decline in economic activity.[20][21] Recessions generally occur when there is a widespread drop in spending (an adverse demand shock). This may be triggered by various events, such as a financial crisis, an external trade shock, an adverse supply shock, the bursting of an economic bubble, or a large-scale anthropogenic or natural disaster (e.g. a pandemic). 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".[22] Economists typically consider two consecutive quarters of falling GDP a recession. In the United Kingdom, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters.[4][5]

Governments usually respond to recessions by adopting expansionary macroeconomic policies, such as increasing money supply or increasing government spending and decreasing taxation.

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.[23] In time, the other rules of thumb were forgotten."

There is no global consensus on the definition of a recession. 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".[26] In the United Kingdom and other countries, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters.[4][5]

Governments usually respond to recessions by adopting expansionary macroeconomic policies, such as increasing money supply or increasing government spending and decreasing taxation.

In a 1974 The New York Times article, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Julius Shiskin suggested that a rough translation of the bureau's qualitative definition of a recession into a quantitative one that almost anyone can use might run like this:

In terms of duration—declines in real G.N.P. for 2 consecutive quarters; a decline in industrial production over a six‐month period.

In terms of depth—A 1.5 per cent decline in real G.N.P.; a 15 per cent decline non-agricultural employment; a two‐point rise in unemployment to a level of at least 6 percent.

In terms of diffusion—A decline in non-agricultural employment in more than 75 per cent of industries, as measured over six‐month spans, for 6 months or longer.[27][28][29]"

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.[32][33][34] 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".[35] In the United Kingdom and other countries, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters.[36][5]

Governments usually respond to recessions by adopting expansionary macroeconomic policies, such as increasing money supply or increasing government spending and decreasing taxation.

In a 1974 The New York Times article, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Julius Shiskin suggested that a rough translation of the bureau's qualitative definition of a recession into a quantitative one that almost anyone can use might run like this:

In terms of duration—declines in real G.N.P. for 2 consecutive quarters; a decline in industrial production over a six‐month period.

In terms of depth—A 1.5 per cent decline in real G.N.P.; a 15 per cent decline non-agricultural employment; a two‐point rise in unemployment to a level of at least 6 percent.

In terms of diffusion—A decline in non-agricultural employment in more than 75 per cent of industries, as measured over six‐month spans, for 6 months or longer.[37][38][39]"

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.[42][43][44] In the United States, a recession is defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) 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".[45] In the United Kingdom and most other countries, it is defined as negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters.[4][5]

Governments usually respond to recessions by adopting expansionary macroeconomic policies, such as increasing money supply or increasing government spending and decreasing taxation.

In a 1974 The New York Times article, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Julius Shiskin suggested that a rough translation of the bureau's qualitative definition of a recession into a quantitative one that almost anyone can use might run like this:

  • In terms of duration — Declines in real gross national product (GNP) for two consecutive quarters; a decline in industrial production over a six-month period.
  • In terms of depth — A 1.5 per cent decline in real GNP; a 15 per cent decline in non-agricultural employment; a two-point rise in unemployment to a level of at least 6 percent.
  • In terms of diffusion — A decline in non-agricultural employment in more than 75 per cent of industries, as measured over six-month spans, for six months or longer.[46][47][48]"

References

  1. ^ "Recession". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved 19 November 2008.
  2. ^ Recession definition. Microsoft Corporation. 2007. Archived from the original on 28 March 2009. Retrieved 19 November 2008. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help)
  3. ^ "The NBER's Recession Dating Procedure". www.nber.org.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g "Q&A: What is a recession?". BBC News. 8 July 2008. Cite error: The named reference "BBC" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h "Glossary of Treasury terms". HM Treasury. Archived from the original on 2 November 2012. Retrieved 25 October 2012.
  6. ^ Shiskin, Julius (1 December 1974). "The Changing Business Cycle". The New York Times. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Eslake was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ "Recession". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved 19 November 2008.
  9. ^ Recession definition. Microsoft Corporation. 2007. Archived from the original on 28 March 2009. Retrieved 19 November 2008. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help)
  10. ^ "The NBER's Recession Dating Procedure". www.nber.org.
  11. ^ Shiskin, Julius (1 December 1974). "The Changing Business Cycle". The New York Times. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
  12. ^ "Recession". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved 19 November 2008.
  13. ^ Recession definition. Microsoft Corporation. 2007. Archived from the original on 28 March 2009. Retrieved 19 November 2008. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help)
  14. ^ "The NBER's Recession Dating Procedure". www.nber.org.
  15. ^ Shiskin, Julius (1 December 1974). "The Changing Business Cycle". The New York Times. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
  16. ^ "Recession". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved 19 November 2008.
  17. ^ Recession definition. Microsoft Corporation. 2007. Archived from the original on 28 March 2009. Retrieved 19 November 2008. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help)
  18. ^ "The NBER's Recession Dating Procedure". www.nber.org.
  19. ^ Shiskin, Julius (1 December 1974). "The Changing Business Cycle". The New York Times. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
  20. ^ "Recession". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved 19 November 2008.
  21. ^ Recession definition. Microsoft Corporation. 2007. Archived from the original on 28 March 2009. Retrieved 19 November 2008. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help)
  22. ^ "The NBER's Recession Dating Procedure". www.nber.org.
  23. ^ Shiskin, Julius (1 December 1974). "The Changing Business Cycle". The New York Times. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
  24. ^ "Recession". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved 19 November 2008.
  25. ^ Recession definition. Microsoft Corporation. 2007. Archived from the original on 28 March 2009. Retrieved 19 November 2008. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help)
  26. ^ "The NBER's Recession Dating Procedure". www.nber.org.
  27. ^ Shiskin, Julius (1974-12-01). "POINTS OP VIEW". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-07-27.
  28. ^ Times, Edwin L. Dale Jr ; Special to The New York (1974-04-06). "U.S. to Broaden the Base Of Consumer Price Index". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-07-27.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  29. ^ Silk, Leonard (1974-08-28). "Recession: Some Criteria Missing, So Far". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-07-27.
  30. ^ "Recession". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Archived from the original on 21 April 2009. Retrieved 19 November 2008.
  31. ^ Recession definition. Microsoft Corporation. 2007. Archived from the original on 28 March 2009. Retrieved 19 November 2008. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help)
  32. ^ Claessens, Stijn (2009-03-17). "Back to Basics: What Is a Recession?". Finance & Development. 46 (001). doi:10.5089/9781451953688.022.A021. Archived from the original on 2022-06-19. Retrieved 2022-07-27.
  33. ^ "Recession". Reserve Bank of Australia. Archived from the original on 17 July 2022. Retrieved 28 July 2022.
  34. ^ Greg Mankiw (1997). "The Data of Macroeconomics". Principles of Economics (9th ed.). SSBH. p. 504. ISBN 978-0-357-03831-4.
  35. ^ "The NBER's Recession Dating Procedure". www.nber.org. Archived from the original on 2019-05-11. Retrieved 2019-06-04.
  36. ^ "Q&A: What is a recession?". BBC News. 8 July 2008. Archived from the original on 7 March 2012. Retrieved 27 September 2011.
  37. ^ Shiskin, Julius (1974-12-01). "POINTS OP VIEW". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 2020-03-25. Retrieved 2022-07-27.
  38. ^ Times, Edwin L. Dale Jr ; Special to The New York (1974-04-06). "U.S. to Broaden the Base Of Consumer Price Index". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 2022-07-27. Retrieved 2022-07-27.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  39. ^ Silk, Leonard (1974-08-28). "Recession: Some Criteria Missing, So Far". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 2022-07-27. Retrieved 2022-07-27.
  40. ^ "Recession". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Archived from the original on 21 April 2009. Retrieved 19 November 2008.
  41. ^ Recession definition. Microsoft Corporation. 2007. Archived from the original on 28 March 2009. Retrieved 19 November 2008. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help)
  42. ^ Claessens, Stijn (2009-03-17). "Back to Basics: What Is a Recession?". Finance & Development. 46 (1). doi:10.5089/9781451953688.022.A021 (inactive 2022-07-29). Archived from the original on 2022-06-19. Retrieved 2022-07-27.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2022 (link)
  43. ^ "Recession". Reserve Bank of Australia. Archived from the original on 17 July 2022. Retrieved 28 July 2022.
  44. ^ Greg Mankiw (1997). "The Data of Macroeconomics". Principles of Economics (9th ed.). SSBH. p. 504. ISBN 978-0-357-03831-4.
  45. ^ "The NBER's Recession Dating Procedure". www.nber.org. January 7, 2008. Archived from the original on January 12, 2008.
  46. ^ Shiskin, Julius (1974-12-01). "Points of View". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 2020-03-25. Retrieved 2022-07-27.
  47. ^ Times, Edwin L. Dale Jr ; Special to The New York (1974-04-06). "U.S. to Broaden the Base Of Consumer Price Index". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 2022-07-27. Retrieved 2022-07-27.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  48. ^ Silk, Leonard (1974-08-28). "Recession: Some Criteria Missing, So Far". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 2022-07-27. Retrieved 2022-07-27.
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Looks like the collapse bottom tag ends the RFC closure formatting, so I'm just putting this here for formatting reasons. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option 2 or Option 3 seem like the most reasonable to me. This is something that seems to be fairly common around the world, as well as in the US: there are lots of sources for this (like the three which support this statement as it currently exists in the article). The article has said something along these lines for most of its existence (like this version from 2011, this version from December 2021, and this version from June 2022. There's already a more general description in the first sentence, calling it "a business cycle contraction when there is a general decline in economic activity [...] when there is a widespread drop in spending (an adverse demand shock)". From what I can tell, this is the most common definition, whether formally (in analyses of past economic trends) or informally (used contemporaneously to describe events as they occur). Currently, the statements that the NBER is the canonical organization determing US recessions seem to be cited to the NBER's own website and two news articles, which is problematic, but I am given to understand that there are additional references that support this, so if those can be found I think it is perfectly fine to talk about the US using different metrics. I don't think it makes sense to just say "there is no global consensus" and not elaborate further. I furthermore reject the idea, or the insinuation, that we should write the article to "own the libs" or "own the cons" – this is complete hogwash and runs counter to the foundational principles of Wikipedia. We should write the article to be a true, impartial reflection of reality according to a consensus of reliable sources. jp×g 10:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Note: I've confirmed that in all the revisions in the above {{collapse}}d section, the only citation for the canonicity of the NBER definition in the second paragraph is to the NBER's own website. This is a blatantly unreliable source, and I am opposed to having it in the lead if it cannot actually be verified. jp×g 01:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1, failing that Option 2. Strong oppose to any other option as it gives disproportionate weight to the United States in the lead. — Czello 10:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Options 3ish I'm against the In the UK sentence, as it's only duplicating the details of the first sentence, it should be dropped and it's references moved to the first sentence. I say ish as I believe the second sentence should start However in the US, as the second sentence is showing how the US departs from the first sentence. The US definition is rather wordy, maybe we don't need the entire NBER quote. I can understand the argument regarding weight, but this is a departure from a more general standard by the US and we could incorporate other major outliers into the sentence as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    .Option 7 I hadn't realised how much the current text has been altered recently, and taking another look at the references used I now believe the long-standing should be restored. It's should have been the basis for this RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    Further to my comment about having another look at the references, I've marked two of the refs used as {{failed verification}}. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2, but any of Options 1-3 sound reasonable. It might be worth pointing out (later in the article, not the lead) that there is some discussion in the US about whether NBER should be the gatekeepers, as we've seen on this talk page. Rwbogl (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    Option 7 After comments by soibangla and SPECIFICO, I think reversion makes the most sense. Squabbles about who officially decides what can happen in the definition section first. Rwbogl (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1, with a preference for the second sentence to be removed from the lead as giving disproportionate weight. The comment above "The NBER is a single private organization from a single country, what they define is irrelevant on the face of the worldwide accepted definition" seems to the point. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or Option 2 both sound good, although given ongoing debate, it may be useful to define which institutions (NBER, Bank of England, etc.) make the calls in each country listed. (Although, that might make things rather wordy.)
  • Option 3 is probably best but..... (invited by the bot) It's just a variable meaning WORD, and any wording should not imply otherwise. North8000 (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 looks to resemble what the article currently has, and I think that's what we should leave it at for now. It includes the non-technical global rule-of-thumb definition, and includes the specific definitions for the US and the UK. This gives the reader the context and detail they would need in the heading. I don't believe we should change this on the basis of the spike in interest following erroneous media reports and subsequent frequent vandalism. Second best option would be to just restore the page to what it was before the round of contentious edits at the end of July (what's been labeled Option 7). Ethelred unraed (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 first option, Option 2 failing that. Seems the most reasonable to me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    Secondary comment, it seems like "normally" is doing a huge amount of legwork for NBER, similar to "reasonable" in the legal code or "wont" in the Bible. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 7: Restore the lead to its long-standing state that existed for years before this current and contentious event, thus eliminating any doubts about whether anyone is attempting or succeeding in politically gaming this article. After all, isn't this why this brouhaha arose in the first place, that the definition had been changed? In fact, it was, just in the opposite way some assert.soibangla (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 7: same opinion as soibangla. There was never any issue or contention with the information that has existed for years until now. Restore the page to before all these changes.‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.252.202.148 (talk • contribs)
  • Option 2 seems best, keeping the same version as before is next best. Option 3 is not teneable as we have no source for the statement that "in most countries, two consecutive quarters of decline ..." LK (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 7 Restore longstanding text. Work on any tweaks in the article text "Definition" section, then work on tweaks to lead. The 2 quarter thing as a freestanding definition is flat out wrong per peer reviewed RS. Moreover the 2 quarter thing gives readers the impression that "recession" is a one dimensional event, like "an egg is hardboiled when the yolk don't run". SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    Comment Regarding Option 1: This text is simply incorrect. It is not a "practical" decision. It triggers no action and is not instrumental or practical in any sense of the word. It would better be described as a "popular" or "common" definition in that it may trigger categorization or discussion. But no individual, business, or regulatory sits still and then leaps into action once a 2-quarter statistic is announced (after the fact, by definition.) So "practical" is simply wrong and I'd be curious to see any significant body of RS that use that adjective. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    Saying a definition is practical does not necessarily imply action. There is a difference between the theoretical model of the business cycle and recessionary gaps, and the metrics a given government entity uses to demarcate recessions. The latter can be referred to as the practical definition. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    All well and good, but as above, you would need to cite a few RS that call the definition "practical". If you have any, please present them. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    There's an obscure guideline MOS:CONFUSE that states that "practical" should not be used if unclear what it refers to. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    @SPECIFICO: I don't know that "practical" is the best term to use -- I just used this phrasing in the option because it's what is currently in the article. It could easily be replaced with "generally accepted" or "common", as you have said. jp×g 02:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 7 Restore long-standing text, that which existed before politically charged changes have been made.Codron (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 without second sentence. Encyclopedia represents knowledge, and the lead should be phrased without vagueness. Second sentence gives undue weight to local and current definitions. Definitions used by the officials in various countries, and how they changed with time, should be discussed in the main article text without giving undue weight to the recent controversy. PaulT2022 (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    Comment to expand on this. I've never encountered 'recession' used in practice to denote anything other than sustained contraction of GDP in economics reporting or publications until this year. PaulT2022 (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    Very much agree on this. Consecutive contractions of GDP have always indicated recession, and AFAIK that has never been controversial until now. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    Alternatively, Option 7 - Delete the contentious phrase to work out the definition through editing article body, however strongly oppose long-standing (and the current) version as their wording misleadingly implies that recession needs to be recognised/defined by some entity and is a different phenomenon in different countries. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Options 1, 2 or 4 - They're basically the same, with the words simply re-arranged. IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Options 1 - I agree with GoodDay that Options 1, 2, and 4 are very similar. Option 1 reads the cleanest to me, but any of them get all of the salient points across. They give the most commonly used definition, but also acknowledge that the issue is more complex than that. Joe (Jaw959) (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4 I doubt the phrasing "standards differ by country" because I expect that we have no evidence of many countries having a standard at all. I think it is enough to say that we identified a common definition, then specifically name some countries which use that and any other definitions. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2, Option 1,3 and 4 are all fine. I think if we specify that the term isnt set in stone but that 2 quarters is what most people would say, then weve done a good enough job satisfying NPOV to make it though this week's most important thing ever. Bonewah (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2, though option 1 or 4 would also be okay. The difficulty here is that this part of the lead addresses the practical definitions countries use to determine if an economy is in recession, rather than the economic definition of a recession and its place in the business cycle. It needs to reflect the fact that, though different countries have different entities who designate recessions and use different metrics, one of the primary indicators is two quarters of negative GDP growth. I believe option 2 is most supported by the sources available, and option 1 or 4 a close second. If option 2 is used, please use the "countries and scholars" version that is currently on the page. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 7, I think that one should remove all references to the US and the UK from the leader as that is too Anglocentric. The leader should simply say that most economists/countries define a recession as two quarters of negative GDP and then leave it down below to mention that the US and some other countries (which should be named) have official bodies that arbitrate whether or not there is a recession.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.1.224.77 (talk)
  • Delete the whole sentence, so option 7. It's redundant to say there are varying definitions and it's causing strife elsewhere online. One can easily surmise this with how the US and UK have varying definitions in the sentences that follow. We can "show, not tell" by just not having that damn sentence. People will read that the US and UK have different definitions, and realize there is no true universal definition (though there is one that is most commonly used). CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Speedy close This is an RfC requesting comment on a version of a page has recent changes that are relevant to a controversy. This isn't how it's usually done. We should revert to the longstanding edition, and them make an RfC on how the page could be improved. I think this RfC is based on faulty and illegitimate premises, is creating a lot of heat off of wikipedia, which isn't good for wikipedia. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 7 per soibangla: Restore the lead to its long-standing state that existed for years before this current and contentious event. I concur with SPECIFICO that the ordinary workflow — Work on any tweaks in the article text "Definition" section, then work on tweaks to lead — is the eminently sensible course of action. XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1, regards.anikom15 (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 7 I think we should mention the "many countries" definition in the lead, and that's it. It's a commonly-accepted definition, it fits in one sentence, and we don't want to clutter the intro with too many extraneous facts. We can mention how the US, UK, etc. each define a recession in the "Definition" section. In my opinion that is where details like that belong. Far too many articles on this website make their introductions borderline incomprehensible by inserting innumerable country-specific caveats. That's not what the intro is for, it's to give a brief overview of the subject and define it in simple terms. Quantum Burrito (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 7 Restore to longstanding text. I have no fundamental disagreement with any of the options presented but we're doing this backwards. We need to start with the body and, only then, discuss changes to the lead. By doing it this way we're falling into the trap of editing for the benefit of search engines in response to current events. BIG BURLEY 18:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 7, recession is a term in economics and we need to talk about the general, academic meaning amongst economists writing in books and journal articles. Then we can talk about things like the US or UK central banking policy definition or what have you in a separate section. This should be dry, boring, economic jargon, not politically charged drama drama. Andrevan@ 23:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 (with the citation that it had), or Option 2. Possibly Option 4 if for some reason the words "constitute a recession" are deemed important. Softlavender (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option7 For now, I agree with User:Soibangla. The current version, while not terrible, has notable problems. For one, the assertion about "most other countries" seems to not be supported by the references, which only mention the UK. Moreover, we already know that the EABCDC, the Euro Area Business Cycle Dating committee, formed by the EABCN, representing all of the central banks of the Euro Area, uses essentially the same definition as the NBER: "a significant decline in the level of economic activity, spread across the economy of the euro area, usually visible in two or more consecutive quarters of negative growth in GDP, employment and other measures of aggregate economic activity for the euro area as a whole." Since words are generally defined most by their usage, the article certainly should reference the common, colloquial usage. But since it is also an important part of the series on Macroeconomics, it should also explain why most economists who actually study business cycles reject this definition as too simplistic, as they have for more than 50 years.Acerimusdux (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 7 -- more specifically, either the 2021-12-05/2022-06-14 version Summoned by bot. I think these versions are superior to the new sentences that try to generalize across countries, simply because it is simpler and concrete. It also has the added benefit of relying on past work to show that the encyclopedia is resilient to external kerfuffles. Chris vLS (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or Option 2. Option 3 would also be fine. In general, I agree with the sentiments from JPxG here, and I agree with Czello that the other options risk giving disproportionate weight to the United States in the lead. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 this is the most reasonable one. Briefbreak96 (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 7 Restore longstanding text before this incident, or Option 1. Gamebuster (Talk)║(Contributions) 20:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1, 2, or 3 in that order. The sources tend to suggest that two consecutive quarters of negative growth are widely accepted as a shorthand for "recession" (see: NBER working paper 14221, which references the unofficial, but widely-accepted definition of a recession being two consecutive quarters of receding real GDP, while noting that official recession determination is not always consistent with that definition). These three options broadly reflect the literature on the topic and make sense to include in the lead section, which is supposed to be a brief overview of the topic anyway. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    With respect to options 4, 5, and 6, We should be presenting this topic as reliable sources do. That There is no universally agreed-on definition is an extremely odd way of saying that there is an unofficial widely accepted definition. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 would be the most concise way to explain information to the average reader. Grahaml35 (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    .Option 7 I should have read the request for comment more carefully and was not aware they were suggesting the United States and United Kingdom definition differed. After looking over references, I believe the long-standing should be restored. Grahaml35 (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per Mhawk10's reasoning. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

UTC)

  • ’’’Speedy close’’’ exactly per Captain Kooky, the RfC is based on faulty and illegitimate premises. Revert as per ‘’’Option 7’’’, and if the definition and article needs improvement, it can be hashed out here with a fresh RfC if needed. petrarchan47คุก 23:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand your suggestion. Are you saying that we should close the RfC on this talk page, and then immediately open another RfC on the same talk page, about the same subject, with the same options? jp×g 02:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Strongly disagree that the RfC is based on "faulty and illegitimate premises." This doesn't even make sense in terms of RfC; not only does this not fall under WP:RFCNOT, but dozens of editors have commented here in a perfectly reasonable, good faith discussion. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 7: Revert to longstanding version for now, which would be the version of July 14th. No particularly compelling arguments have been made to change it. It also has the advantage that it avoids the risk of a WP:RECENTISM reaction to current events. Strenuously oppose option 1; it fails to reflect the body, overstates the degree of support for that definition, and treats a largely US-centric definition as fact. Additionally, since it seems like a large part of the reason the article has destablized is because people have been directed here to push for something that makes that definition more prominent, I'd ask the closer to be cautious in evaluating support for it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 7, revert to longstanding version of the lead. The last version before Hannity sicced the trolls among his declining viewership on the article for allegedly taking orders from the Biden administration appears to be this one on July 6. The less simplistic definition of a recession appears to include a few more indicators than two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP (I'm not an economist), i.e., a general decline as stated in the previous version: decline in demand, full warehouses, laying-off of workers, less or no investment, shutting down production facilities, falling stock market, stagnating or falling prices, wages, and interest rates. See also Paul Krugman. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1/2/4...maybe that makes it #7? However, with the caveat that "[...]" needs to be defined in such a way that it does not detract from the previous sentence. You can't say " the unofficial widely-accepted definition is two consecutive quarters of receding real GDP (negative growth)" and then quote the NBER to say that "In the United States we do it differently" when the both quotes are from the same document. The fact is that there is a common, albeit unofficial, definition. That the NBER states "There are better ways to define a recession..." that doesn't mean they say the common definition is wrong or that the US differs and defines it differently. Buffs (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 7, Largely keep it the same as Option 5, not giving the definition until countries are named, but under the US note that the NBER declared recessions track very closely with increases in unemployment. Basedeunie042 (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC. Terms like "infamous", "sheer nonsense and vitriol", "stuff that wasn't true" don't seem to me to be fitting the WP:RFCNEUTRAL requirement "Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded, short and simple." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
By my count, there were about twenty-five news articles written about this editing dispute; if an episode of Wikidrama itself passes GNG, I will stand by calling it "infamous". jp×g 20:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I think I messed up by forgetting to include this when I originally made the RfC. Oh well. jp×g 01:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok...Economics by Calander A commonly used book in Economics courses since 2008, defines Recession as "A decline in real output that persists for more than two consecutive quarters of a year." Exactly the same definition of then President Bill Clinton in 2000. Im sure I can find that definition in more textbooks predating this one. Sorry but this is the definition used in the US as well. No matter what the Biden Administration would want. Even the economist he had say it, said the opposite only a few years earlier. Druid Floki (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
no. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:: I am not sure what you mean when you say "peer reviewed" -- the current revision of the article cites five sources for the claim that the NBER definition is "official", none of which are academic publications, and two of which are to NBER's own website (an obvious violation of WP:ABOUTSELF). In the lead we have these:

These are not credible sources. A company's own website should never be cited to support the claim that the company is "the official" anything.

The following three cites are used to support "The NBER is considered the official arbiter of recession start and end dates for the United States"; they are all from news websites. All of them mention it in conjunction with the two-quarter rule. I have included emphasis on relevant parts of the quotes:

Quote: "So while GDP surprised the vast majority of economists with a second straight quarterly contraction -- constituting what’s known as a 'technical recession' -- it would hardly have fazed the average American [...] She also flagged that the official arbiter of recessions in the US is the National Bureau of Economic Research. And on that score, James Poterba, the NBER President and Chief Executive Officer, said Thursday that the recession-dating committee doesn’t believe in 'the two-quarter-declining GDP rule.'"
Quote: "That’s because the official arbiter in such matters is the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and it doesn’t use the same definition as the one commonly accepted of at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth."
Quote: "A common definition of recession is two negative quarters of GDP growth, or at least that's something that's been true in past recessions," Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said [...] But officially, the only recession arbiter is the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Business Cycle Dating Committee. The committee has been marking the start and end points of recessions since the late 1970s."

All three of these sources say, respectively, that the two-quarter rule is a "technical recession", "the one commonly accepted", and "a common definition ... that's been true in past recessions". I'm not saying that there don't exist any peer reviewed sources saying that NBER announcements are the only acceptable way for this to be determined in the United States, but there certainly aren't any in the article. jp×g 02:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  • A general thought to follow up my secondary comment on the RFC voting itself; the NBRE "normally" means a decrease in employment. It also isn't normal for a country to go from one recession to another in the span of two years; given the huge drop in employment related to health fears and lockdowns in the US, it seems this normative requirement is relatively meaningless. If Biden were to sign an executive order mandating that death squads go around cities executing anyone who left their houses, employment would still likely increase from its current levels. While I agree that NBRE is given an undue weighting, its definition is also somewhat meaningless in regards to the current situation, even as we strive for factual purity. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lots of notices

The "ATTENTION NEW VISITORS TO THIS PAGE" section can't be seen without scrolling down because there are lots of banners at the top, as you'd expect with important topics. Is there a way to collapse the banners so the big notice is visible above the fold? 49.198.51.54 (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

That section has apparently been copied to the edit notice you see whenever you edit this page, as well as the Frequently asked questions (FAQ) at the top of the page (click "show" to see the first banner's content), so I'm archiving this section as redundant. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Now archived to Talk:Recession/Archive 3#ATTENTION NEW VISITORS TO THIS PAGE – wbm1058 (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I see that per this collapsed discussion that there is apparently a problem with mobile editors being able to notice or read the FAQ. Hmm. I'm not a big fan of excessive collapsing of discussions, and think that might be counter-productive here. Regarding the idea of needing to repeat, for the benefit of mobile, the collapsed FAQ in a "normal section at the top of the page" – gag. Please, no. Find a way to un-collapse the FAQ at the top if it's that important. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Try pinning it in a section at the top of the page, similar to Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Similar pin at Talk:Muhammad per this discussion:Talk:Muhammad#Constant_questions_covered_in_the_FAQ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Some encouragement from the media: "It’s unfortunate that the dispute over what constitutes a recession has grown so heated that editing had to be suspended. But if history is our guide, cooler heads will soon prevail, Wikipedia’s entry will settle around a relatively neutral view, and those looking for a fight will move on to the next newsy topic." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

decrease in money supply

Currently the lede says "This may be triggered by various events, such as a financial crisis, an external trade shock, an adverse supply shock, the bursting of an economic bubble, or a large-scale anthropogenic or natural disaster." Shouldn't this list include a decrease in the money supply? recessions are often triggered by attempts to fight inflation by tightening the money supply, and this is a very present worry. The article mentions all over the place "increasing the money supply" but it doesn't mention decreasing. 2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:10D0 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recession/Archive_4&oldid=1216041719"