Jump to content

Talk:Recession: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Lots of notices: new section
Line 491: Line 491:
::The disruptive editor has been indefinitely blocked. [[User:Carlstak|Carlstak]] ([[User talk:Carlstak|talk]]) 22:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
::The disruptive editor has been indefinitely blocked. [[User:Carlstak|Carlstak]] ([[User talk:Carlstak|talk]]) 22:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
:::Even better. [[User:Ethelred unraed|Ethelred unraed]] ([[User talk:Ethelred unraed|talk]]) 22:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
:::Even better. [[User:Ethelred unraed|Ethelred unraed]] ([[User talk:Ethelred unraed|talk]]) 22:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

== 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? [[Special:Contributions/49.198.51.54|49.198.51.54]] ([[User talk:49.198.51.54|talk]]) 22:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:12, 22 August 2022

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.

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. 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)[reply]

  • 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.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    .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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Option 1 first option, Option 2 failing that. Seems the most reasonable to me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  • Option 7 Restore long-standing text, that which existed before politically charged changes have been made.Codron (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Option 1, regards.anikom15 (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Option 1 this is the most reasonable one. Briefbreak96 (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 7 Restore longstanding text before this incident, or Option 1. Gamebuster (Talk)║(Contributions) 20:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Option 1 would be the most concise way to explain information to the average reader. Grahaml35 (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    .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)[reply]
  • Option 1 per Mhawk10's reasoning. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
no. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The INSEE's own website says, "Le plus souvent, on parle de récession si l'on observe un recul du Produit Intérieur Brut (PIB) sur au moins deux trimestres consécutifs." Emphasis on Le plus souvent: if a statement about X says that X is "most often" declared when Y, then that cannot be the complete definition of X. So, we actually have a logical contradiction between two primary sources, one of them saying "le plus souvent" and the other "officiellement". Now, it's possible that France has a more clockwork standard for officially declaring recessions than the United States does — that they consider only one factor rather than weighting multiple ones. That would be interesting and worth writing about. But that's exactly the kind of subtlety that I wouldn't expect a general-audience website or an introductory textbook to bother with (I'd look for at least a post-graduate textbook or a review article in the academic literature). XOR'easter (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
French academic articles mainly use the INSEE's definition. This article in the Revue française de gestion (2017) writes: "La récession est définie comme un recul du PIB pendant deux trimestres consécutifs au moins (INSEE)". It's difficult to be clearer than that.
We also have Comprendre l'économie, which is an undergrad textbook, that clearly states: "Selon les définitions de l'INSEE, l'économie française entre en récession lorsque son PIB se replie sur au moins deux trimestres consécutifs".
As for your suggestion that an introductory college textbook would not bother with subtleties and that a post-graduate textbook would go deeper, I would suggest sourcing with Pierre Dockès's Le Capitalisme et ses rythmes, a 2000+ pages two-volume typically used by postgraduate students, that says: "Il est courant de considérer qu'il y a récession après deux trimestres consécutifs de baisse du PIB [...] L'Insee en France reprend cette définition". It also can't get clearer.
The French State gives its approval to the definition and writes it is the criterion the INSEE uses. The source is enough to write on the page that this is the definition the French State uses.
That is two undergrad econ textbooks, one standard postgrad book, one undergrad history book, an academic article among many others, and the French State's website that says it is the criterion it uses. I'm afraid if this does not suffice, nothing really will. EricDuflot1968 (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is progress! It appears that virtually everyone who talks about the INSEE uses different and more exacting language than the INSEE itself does (another example). Or, to say it a different way, the "le plus souvent" statement on the INSEE website is a generality that applies the world over.
I think we're moving in the direction of a decently informative paragraph that might begin, e.g., In France, the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies officially declares a recession after ... without regard to other economic factors. By this definition, France has had recessions in.... (I left in the first ellipsis to cover whether we want to say "trimester", etc.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid! I initially wrote it in the introductory part of the page, but I'm afraid it may overload it. Where do you suggest I write it?
Also, what sources should I use: the official source from the INSEE with its definition, the French State's website where it approves the INSEE's definition, the graduate textbook confirming the French State's official website's use of the INSEE's definition? A mix of them? EricDuflot1968 (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Oh, speaking of archiving threads...

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

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

History section needs work

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

OECD definition of recession

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

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

Definition in lead

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

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

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recession&oldid=1106027549"