Talk:Recession

Can we add the "everything is fine" meme to this page?

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.

---

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)

RfC: Phrasing of the infamous sentence

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. I think we should pick something to say in the lead paragraph, and avoid making clowns of ourselves. Maybe this is an impossible task. Anyway, 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. 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". In the United Kingdom, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters. 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. 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." 2022-06-14: "In economics, a recession is a business cycle contraction when there is a general decline in economic activity. 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". In the United Kingdom, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters. 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. 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. 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". In the United Kingdom, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters. 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. 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. 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". 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. 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. 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. 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". 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. 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. In time, the other rules of thumb were forgotten." 2022-07-28, 10:40: "In economics, a recession is a business cycle contraction when there is a general decline in economic activity. 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). 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". In the United Kingdom and other countries, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters. 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." 2022-07-28, 16:59: "In economics, a recession is a business cycle contraction when there is a general decline in economic activity. 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). Though there is no global consensus on the definition of a recession, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession. In the United States, a recession is defined as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the market, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales". In the United Kingdom and other countries, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters. 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." 2022-07-29, 18:07: "In economics, a recession is a business cycle contraction when there is a general decline in economic activity. 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). 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. 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". In the United Kingdom and most other countries, it is defined as negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters. 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." References

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)

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:

• "The NBER's Recession Dating Procedure". www.nber.org. January 7, 2008. Archived from the original on January 12, 2008.
• "Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions". National Bureau of Economic Research. Archived from the original on 5 March 2020. Retrieved 20 March 2020.

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:

• Anstey, Chris (July 28, 2022). "'Technical Recession' Sets Up Washington War of the Words". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 2022-07-28.

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.'"

• Cox, Jeff (July 28, 2022). "The economy may look like it's in recession, but we still don't know for sure". CNBC. Archived from the original on July 28, 2022. Retrieved July 28, 2022.

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."

• Jacobsen, Louis (July 26, 2022). "What exactly is a recession? Sorting out a confusing topic". PolitiFact. Archived from the original on July 27, 2022. Retrieved July 28, 2022.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2022

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

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

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

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

FAQ Visibility

This seems better suited for WP:VPT or Phab since it is a project-wide technical issue --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Many people still seem to not be reading the FAQ, making comments on this page indicating that they're misinformed about the situation and have read little to nothing here before posting. Per WP:TCHY, mobile users won't see the edit notice and are unlikely to see the FAQ. Activity is dying down but if anyone has any ideas about making the notices more visible to mobile users, they might be useful. PhantomTech[talk] 18:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC) I tested it out on mobile when I initially wrote it, and noticed this as well (which is why there's a section at the top transclusing the FAQ as well). I mean, I don't know that it's a technical issue -- people tend to hate reading stuff in general, especially if it's stuff that gets in the way of them and yelling at somebody. I don't know that there is any good solution to this other than to just keep saying the thing over and over and hoping it gets through people's skulls that the thing they read on Twitter is bullshit. It seems that we have been doing a fairly good job so far. jp×g 02:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC) There are definitely people who should have been able to see and read it who just chose not to so you're right that making it more visible to mobile users won't get rid of all the issues, but hopefully it would have some impact. Your normal section at the top of the page is the best thing I can think of as a solution and it's possible that it's the only solution. PhantomTech[talk] 03:15, 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

173.87.170.144 210.215.82.3 2600:1005:b064:cd1d:fc62:fa15:6d6e:81eb 2603:8001:b507:8100:a43f:c97a:7cec:37e9 2603:8080:2200:b3ef:972:f2bc:e057:6f1 2806:2f0:60a0:490a:f8ad:7d54:861a:e3d5 2a01:11:8410:3780:bd0c:7c0b:277f:c5eb 47.227.95.73 65.183.131.113 70.40.32.88 71.222.184.126 76.91.162.29 98.221.206.190 Acerimusdux ActivelyDisinterested Anarchyte AnomieBOT AnomieBOT Beland CAPTAIN KOOKY Carlstak Caspian Delta Corn cheese Czello DanielkHartness Davemck David Radcliffe DGeisz EditorInTheRye Encyclopedia Lu Endwise EricDuflot1968 Ethelred unraed Ethelred unraed Evanbaldonado FernCreekWiki Freelance-frank Ganesha811 Gdeblois19 GorillaWarfare Guest2625 Haha what up brah Ham II HyperEagle Ineffablebookkeeper JayBeeEll Jerry Steinfield JPxG Jwuthe2 Leontrooper Litesand LizardJr8 Llightex MainPeanut Mandarax Maproom Mhawk10 Mikalra Morgan695 Muboshgu Nicereddy Notcharizard Nythar Onengsevia Panamitsu Perching Heron Politicsfan4 Rhian2040 Rollblocks Saksapoiss SirInfinity0000 SixTwoEight Soibangla SPECIFICO Srich32977 StarkGaryen SWinxy Tamzin Tbhotch Th78blue The Impartial Truth TheresNoTime TomS TDotO TZander Vermont Whoisjohngalt Wikideas1 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2022

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

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

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