5 ms·

Good. There's no need to make Wikipedia even more U.S.-centric, not to mention current-U.S.-politics-centric...

xiphias2 4y ago
I agree with you, and it's not simply US vs non-US, but changing the definition just after 2 negative quarters in the US can be thought of a politically motivated change. Also only one of the two definitions is objective (the non-political one).
- notahacker 4y ago
  But the definitions haven't changed, either on Wikipedia or the definitions used by the US government and most of the rest of the world respectively. What has changed is the ability for new accounts to edit war the definition due to recent debate in the US
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    But people are changing the definition on wikipedia, that's why the editing in disabled for new accounts. Why? Because it's an election year in USA, recession is here, biden says it's not ( https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/biden-says-no-surprise-economy-slowing-down-economy-enters-technical-recession https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/biden-says-no-surprise-... ), and definitions "have to be changed" for bidens words to be "true". So, one side changes, the other side changes back, then again and again...
    - ChrisLomont 4y ago
      >definitions "have to be changed" for bidens words to be "true" I think that's backwards from reality. The definition used in the US for decades (the NBER one, founded 1920) would say no recession yet. The naive, yet incorrect, definition some people want to change to (2 quarters) would make it a recession.
      - Clubber 4y ago
        >The naive, yet incorrect, definition some people want to change to (2 quarters) would make it a recession. That's the standard used for as long as I remember, until it wasn't. It's called "moving the goalposts." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
        ChrisLomont 4y ago
        >used for as long as I remember Not in the US. Your memory doesn't trump facts. Here's [1] a 1980s report on it. Here's [2] the Jul 31, 2002 Nevada Daily Mail newspaper, stating the same thing: "The National Bureau of Economic Research, the recognized arbiter of when recession begin and end,....." Here's [3] a 1983 news paper article explaining it again, same thing. Here's [4] the NBER on the 1970s recession. Here's [5] a modern Bloomberg article saying the same thing. Here's [6] the current NBER page with the definition. Here's [7] the same page from 2020 (saved at internet archive). Same definition then. Here [8] is the NBER definition from 1999, cached from their website as it was shown in 1999: "he NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GNP. Rather, a recession is a recurring period of decline in total output, income, employment, and trade, usually lasting from six months to a year, and marked by widespread contractions in many sectors of the economy." Where did you learn your standard, and when did you learn it? In fact, if you spend much time looking through old newspapers (the google link I gave you allows it) you can find that the NBER has been the arbiter for a long, long time. Do you still not believe this is how it's been done a long time? [1] https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c0688/c0688.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c0688/c0688.pdf [2] https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1908&dat=20020731&id=be0wAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z-AFAAAAIBAJ&pg=999,1704573 https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1908&dat=20020731&id=... [3] https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=348&dat=19830711&id=HYgxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cUUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2319,1585106 https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=348&dat=19830711&id=H... [4] https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9101/c9101.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9101/c9101.pdf [5] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-12/no-us-recession-until-obscure-panel-of-eggheads-says-it-is-so https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-12/no-us-rec... [6] https://www.nber.org/business-cycle-dating-procedure-frequently-asked-questions https://www.nber.org/business-cycle-dating-procedure-frequen... [7] https://web.archive.org/web/20201101011155/https://www.nber.org/business-cycle-dating-procedure-frequently-asked-questions https://web.archive.org/web/20201101011155/https://www.nber.... [8] https://web.archive.org/web/19990221024645/http://nber.org/cycles.html https://web.archive.org/web/19990221024645/http://nber.org/c...
    - notahacker 4y ago
      You make this claim, but it's not supported by the edit history, which suggests relatively few changes to the actual text (most of it being standard Wikipedia nitpicking, not an edit war), a lot of bikeshedding about alternative wordings on the talk page few of which materially change the factual content and most of which places less emphasis on the NBER definition which Biden is using and Wikipedia always used, plus the unusual introduction of a Talk Page FAQ requesting people to read it before "hate posting" about Wikipedia editors conspiring to make the article more supportive to Biden...
    - throw0101a 4y ago
      > and definitions "have to be changed" for bidens words to be "true". Two negative quarters has never been the definition in the US. NBER in 2003: > Q:The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure? > A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. According to current data for 2001, the present recession falls into the general pattern, with three consecutive quarters of decline. Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we use monthly indicators to arrive at a monthly chronology. Second, we use indicators subject to much less frequent revision. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." * https://web.archive.org/web/20030206100218/http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html https://web.archive.org/web/20030206100218/http://www.nber.o... "Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways." You'll probably find similar verbiage on NBER's site in 2022.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > I agree with you, and it's not simply US vs non-US, but changing the definition just after 2 negative quarters in the US can be thought of a politically motivated change. NBER in 2003: > Q:The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure? > A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. According to current data for 2001, the present recession falls into the general pattern, with three consecutive quarters of decline. Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we use monthly indicators to arrive at a monthly chronology. Second, we use indicators subject to much less frequent revision. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." * https://web.archive.org/web/20030206100218/http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html https://web.archive.org/web/20030206100218/http://www.nber.o... "Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways."
cloutchaser 4y ago
This has been the definition everywhere for a while, UK and elsewhere. The fact that you are changing it now IS the most political you could ever make it. I am baffled that you could make this argument, YOU are us centric political saying this.
- desmond373 4y ago
  The definition has been locked to the original definition and been blocked from being changed by people who believe it to be different. He supports this as it stops people stating their possibly regional views views on a globally centred page. So I'm confused what you think he is supporting being changed.
  - saalweachter 4y ago
    In general, you don't want to be the part of the internet people go to to score points, internet points or news cycle points. You've got to shut it down hard whenever you can or soon everyone will be running over to deface your site and post screen shots to Twitter, "look what site X says about Y!!!" and the non-virtuous cycle will take years of hard moderation to get back under control.
- revertmean 4y ago
  Except it hasn't and nothing has changed. What's more, this is trivially easy to check. The 2022 wikipedia entry for Recession says that two consecutive quarters of negative growth is the common definition, says this is not universally accepted, and gives the NBER definition also. The original 2007 wikipedia entry for Recession says that two consecutive quarters of negative growth is the common definition, says this is not universally accepted, and gives the NBER definition also, which is identical to the 2022 NBER definition.
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  The NBER, founded 1920, has been the call for recessions for around a century. That is, and has been, the definition in the US for that long.
VictorPath 4y ago
Last Sunday Wikipedia had a generic definition of recession. Then the second paragraph was changed so that the US would be in a recession under the definition. Then, as the title says "Wikipedia has blocked editing recession". So it was made US-centric, in fact US current events centric, and now as the title says "Wikipedia has blocked editing".
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  ... but, this isn't at all correct is it? I chose a recession history from 2019 - not cherrypicked, just random, you are welcome to try also, and it talks about two negative quarters: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&oldid=920462660 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&oldid=9... Last week I corrected people implying that wikipedia editors were removing the 'two quarters history' and now I am correcting people that claim we suddenly added it in. ... you can literally look it up for yourself...

I agree with you, and it's not simply US vs non-US, but changing the definition just after 2 negative quarters in the US can be thought of a politically motivated change. Also only one of the two definitions is objective (the non-political one).

notahacker 4y ago
But the definitions haven't changed, either on Wikipedia or the definitions used by the US government and most of the rest of the world respectively. What has changed is the ability for new accounts to edit war the definition due to recent debate in the US
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  But people are changing the definition on wikipedia, that's why the editing in disabled for new accounts. Why? Because it's an election year in USA, recession is here, biden says it's not ( https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/biden-says-no-surprise-economy-slowing-down-economy-enters-technical-recession https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/biden-says-no-surprise-... ), and definitions "have to be changed" for bidens words to be "true". So, one side changes, the other side changes back, then again and again...
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    >definitions "have to be changed" for bidens words to be "true" I think that's backwards from reality. The definition used in the US for decades (the NBER one, founded 1920) would say no recession yet. The naive, yet incorrect, definition some people want to change to (2 quarters) would make it a recession.
    - Clubber 4y ago
      >The naive, yet incorrect, definition some people want to change to (2 quarters) would make it a recession. That's the standard used for as long as I remember, until it wasn't. It's called "moving the goalposts." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
      - ChrisLomont 4y ago
        >used for as long as I remember Not in the US. Your memory doesn't trump facts. Here's [1] a 1980s report on it. Here's [2] the Jul 31, 2002 Nevada Daily Mail newspaper, stating the same thing: "The National Bureau of Economic Research, the recognized arbiter of when recession begin and end,....." Here's [3] a 1983 news paper article explaining it again, same thing. Here's [4] the NBER on the 1970s recession. Here's [5] a modern Bloomberg article saying the same thing. Here's [6] the current NBER page with the definition. Here's [7] the same page from 2020 (saved at internet archive). Same definition then. Here [8] is the NBER definition from 1999, cached from their website as it was shown in 1999: "he NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GNP. Rather, a recession is a recurring period of decline in total output, income, employment, and trade, usually lasting from six months to a year, and marked by widespread contractions in many sectors of the economy." Where did you learn your standard, and when did you learn it? In fact, if you spend much time looking through old newspapers (the google link I gave you allows it) you can find that the NBER has been the arbiter for a long, long time. Do you still not believe this is how it's been done a long time? [1] https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c0688/c0688.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c0688/c0688.pdf [2] https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1908&dat=20020731&id=be0wAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z-AFAAAAIBAJ&pg=999,1704573 https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1908&dat=20020731&id=... [3] https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=348&dat=19830711&id=HYgxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cUUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2319,1585106 https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=348&dat=19830711&id=H... [4] https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9101/c9101.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9101/c9101.pdf [5] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-12/no-us-recession-until-obscure-panel-of-eggheads-says-it-is-so https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-12/no-us-rec... [6] https://www.nber.org/business-cycle-dating-procedure-frequently-asked-questions https://www.nber.org/business-cycle-dating-procedure-frequen... [7] https://web.archive.org/web/20201101011155/https://www.nber.org/business-cycle-dating-procedure-frequently-asked-questions https://web.archive.org/web/20201101011155/https://www.nber.... [8] https://web.archive.org/web/19990221024645/http://nber.org/cycles.html https://web.archive.org/web/19990221024645/http://nber.org/c...
  - notahacker 4y ago
    You make this claim, but it's not supported by the edit history, which suggests relatively few changes to the actual text (most of it being standard Wikipedia nitpicking, not an edit war), a lot of bikeshedding about alternative wordings on the talk page few of which materially change the factual content and most of which places less emphasis on the NBER definition which Biden is using and Wikipedia always used, plus the unusual introduction of a Talk Page FAQ requesting people to read it before "hate posting" about Wikipedia editors conspiring to make the article more supportive to Biden...
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    > and definitions "have to be changed" for bidens words to be "true". Two negative quarters has never been the definition in the US. NBER in 2003: > Q:The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure? > A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. According to current data for 2001, the present recession falls into the general pattern, with three consecutive quarters of decline. Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we use monthly indicators to arrive at a monthly chronology. Second, we use indicators subject to much less frequent revision. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." * https://web.archive.org/web/20030206100218/http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html https://web.archive.org/web/20030206100218/http://www.nber.o... "Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways." You'll probably find similar verbiage on NBER's site in 2022.
throw0101a 4y ago
> I agree with you, and it's not simply US vs non-US, but changing the definition just after 2 negative quarters in the US can be thought of a politically motivated change. NBER in 2003: > Q:The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure? > A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. According to current data for 2001, the present recession falls into the general pattern, with three consecutive quarters of decline. Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we use monthly indicators to arrive at a monthly chronology. Second, we use indicators subject to much less frequent revision. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." * https://web.archive.org/web/20030206100218/http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html https://web.archive.org/web/20030206100218/http://www.nber.o... "Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways."

cloutchaser 4y ago

This has been the definition everywhere for a while, UK and elsewhere. The fact that you are changing it now IS the most political you could ever make it. I am baffled that you could make this argument, YOU are us centric political saying this.

desmond373 4y ago
The definition has been locked to the original definition and been blocked from being changed by people who believe it to be different. He supports this as it stops people stating their possibly regional views views on a globally centred page. So I'm confused what you think he is supporting being changed.
- saalweachter 4y ago
  In general, you don't want to be the part of the internet people go to to score points, internet points or news cycle points. You've got to shut it down hard whenever you can or soon everyone will be running over to deface your site and post screen shots to Twitter, "look what site X says about Y!!!" and the non-virtuous cycle will take years of hard moderation to get back under control.
revertmean 4y ago
Except it hasn't and nothing has changed. What's more, this is trivially easy to check. The 2022 wikipedia entry for Recession says that two consecutive quarters of negative growth is the common definition, says this is not universally accepted, and gives the NBER definition also. The original 2007 wikipedia entry for Recession says that two consecutive quarters of negative growth is the common definition, says this is not universally accepted, and gives the NBER definition also, which is identical to the 2022 NBER definition.
ChrisLomont 4y ago
The NBER, founded 1920, has been the call for recessions for around a century. That is, and has been, the definition in the US for that long.

VictorPath 4y ago

Last Sunday Wikipedia had a generic definition of recession. Then the second paragraph was changed so that the US would be in a recession under the definition. Then, as the title says "Wikipedia has blocked editing recession". So it was made US-centric, in fact US current events centric, and now as the title says "Wikipedia has blocked editing".

OrangeMonkey 4y ago
... but, this isn't at all correct is it? I chose a recession history from 2019 - not cherrypicked, just random, you are welcome to try also, and it talks about two negative quarters: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&oldid=920462660 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&oldid=9... Last week I corrected people implying that wikipedia editors were removing the 'two quarters history' and now I am correcting people that claim we suddenly added it in. ... you can literally look it up for yourself...