The Wiki Minitrue
Well, language changes and evolves, doesn’t it? Sometimes overnight, depending on political exigencies:
Wikipedia has suspended the edit feature on its ‘Recession’ page after users flocked to amend it to concur with President Biden’s claim that the US isn’t suffering a downturn.
The page was altered at least 47 times over a roughly 24-hour period, with an administrator locking unregistered users out until August in an effort to curb what the encyclopedia website characterizes as ‘vandalism,’ and ‘malicious’ edits.
The edit-freeze comes as numerous members of the Biden administration have tried to argue the country is not in a recession by casting doubt on the word’s definition, which commonly agreed upon to be two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth.
One member made repeated edits to the Wikipedia page to insist there was ‘no global consensus’ on the definition of recession, in what appears to be a bizarre attempt to push White House messaging.
It’s not the least bit “bizarre” for people on the left to push what the left is saying. It’s the White House whose message is bizarre, but we’ve grown very used to that in recent years.
As I write this post, the Wiki entry is holding firm with the traditional definition of “recession.” Good. In this case, Wiki seems to be making a valiant effort to preserve the truth. But the episode shows how determined the left is to change the language in order to change minds.
In the case of the economy, however, it’s something people know in their gut. Language and definitions become less important:
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in floor remarks Thursday…”You [the Democrats] would rather redefine a recession than restore a healthy economy”…
‘This is Joe Biden’s recession. Biden can lie and deflect blame all he wants, but that will not alleviate the pain Americans feel every time they fill up their gas tanks, go grocery shopping, check their retirement savings, or balance their budgets,’ said Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel in a statement.
Call it anything you want – inflation, recession, inflation plus recession, or just some little blip – people are aware of it and for most people it is bad.
It seems fitting to use Wiki to explain the “Minitrue” reference for those who never knew or who may have forgotten their Nineteen Eighty-Four. It was a Newspeak nickname for this:
The Ministry of Truth (Newspeak: Minitrue) is the ministry of propaganda. As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer because in reality it serves the opposite: it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. However, like the other ministries, the name is also apt because it decides what “truth” is in Oceania.
As well as administering “truth”, the ministry spreads a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak, in which, for example, “truth” is understood to mean statements like 2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. In keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is thus aptly named in that it creates/manufactures “truth” in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes the doctoring of historical records to show a government-approved version of events.
The left in this country has been engaged in this endeavor for quite some time, and the re-definition of “recession” is only the latest iteration.
Shall we play the “if the current administration were Republican” game?
In this edition, the subsequent question is whether the establishment (deep state, media, and so on) would be rushing to redefine the term “recession”.
Oh: you say you know the answer *already*? Go to the head of the class . . .
This redefinition of recession is of a piece with a lot of stupidity in the modern world. We’re so totally swamped with information every second of every minute of every hour of every day, that the only thing anyone can focus on is what is in front of them RIGHT NOW.
Who cares what the standard has always been? Who cares what tossing it aside will mean in the future? Pretending the U.S. isn’t in a recession makes them feel better RIGHT NOW and that’s all that matters.
Mike
Wokeapedia will cave to the new definition as soon as the woke underlings there get involved.
I think the problem is that recessions are commonly characterized with the ‘2 quarters of negative GDP growth’ as a simplistic definition – but this is one feature out of many that are used to define a recession. Not to mention, GDP is normally re-visited and revised in successive analyses over the proceeding months, as better and more extensive data filters back.
The problem is, recessions are always defined retrospectively by lagging indicators, and are rather subjectively defined (as I understand it).
There is a meme circulating around now that 10 of the last 10 recessions featured 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, as a way of skewering the ‘re-definition’ talking heads. But that’s not true. One can check this for themselves:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RL1Q225SBEA
The recessions of 2001 and 1960 did not have two consecutive quarters of negative GDP.
And the recession of 1970 didn’t technically have them either – there were two consecutive quarters of negative GDP, but the recession didn’t begin (according to the Fed) until the second one, Q1 1970.
Also worth noting: Where a recession does have two consecutive negative GDP quarters, it does not always occur at the beginning of that recession.
I suspect Q3 data is going to be worse, so this will become a moot point in another 3 months, well before the election. And if you’re interested in keeping up to date, the Fed also keeps a running GDP estimate, updated every couple of weeks or so:
https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow
“The problem is, recessions are always defined retrospectively by lagging indicators, and are rather subjectively defined (as I understand it).”
NO. THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM.
The problem is that if Trump had been re-elected in 2020 and we had still somehow come to this exact same point economically, EVERYONE in the media now quibbling over the definition of recession would be calling this a recession and any attempt by a Trump White House to argue otherwise would be rejected, ridiculed, and viciously condemned.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
What this all has truly boiled down to is this:
Do we live in some form of democratic freedom or are we going to exist under a repressive and incompetent self-selected aristocracy?
Mike
I am just short of amazed that anyone at Wiki has some integrity.
And NEO, it’s not just the government, it’s lots of non-governmental talking leftheads…
Tucker Carlson details the blatant perfidy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TdRdn6BqrA
Anyone can hate on Tucker all they want… Claim “he lies all the time”. On this, he is literally just quoting their own claims back at them, and calling THEM out as the liars they clearly are.
I cannot be the first or the tenth or the one-hundredth person to refer to this Lewis Carroll quotation in this context, but here goes anyway.
“‘When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things. ‘”
The Left thinks it can!
It will be harder to badmouth Americans for being monolingual, when we all become English/Newspeak bilinguals.
}}} I think the problem is that recessions are commonly characterized with the ‘2 quarters of negative GDP growth’ as a simplistic definition
No. As MBunge notes, and I link to Tucker Carlson above, showing — with repeated quotes, that until a week ago, the “technical definition” of “being in a recession”, as defined by multiple agencies, was “two consecutive quarters of contraction”. Period. This is not debatable. No, it doesn’t matter if it did not apply to every historically defined recession. It’s that everyone used that as a definition before a week ago, as a “quick definition” of the economy being in a bad state. Sure, you can claim LATER ON, after there is more data and other relevant factors have balanced out, that it wasn’t a recession YET at that point, but that is a retrofit/re-appraisal after the fact depending on more data, not a matter of standard preliminary analysis.
We are in a recession. Period.
No ifs.
No ands.
No buts.
Everyone fucking knows this, who is paying any attention. Anyone who claims otherwise — for a distinct time period by which time it will be hopefully in the past — is a partisan shill with no respect for the Truth, just out to cover the butt for the Left, on whose head this entire debacle falls, in every conceivable manner. This is singularly the fault of the left and leftist policies.
Anyone with any real world sense could have predicted this, but of course, the left is totally blindsided about it… they had a PLAN!! How could THE PLAN fail? It had everything!! Free money for the poor! Taxes for the Rich! Moar moar moar Power for Federal agencies! It was Perfect !!!
The page was altered at least 47 times over a roughly 24-hour period, …
I recall going to Sarah Palin’s Wiki page about 24 hours after she was chosen as a VP running mate. I expected to see dozens of edits within that time period, but the number was over 200.
So…. when I present to the readers the actual source of GDP data, and demonstrate (quoting evidence) that past recessions do not always have two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, and point out that the old-standby definition of recessions ‘as such’ is a ‘Generally speaking’ type of definition, people start shouting and stamping their feet. That’s interesting. I think I’ll take the zen approach and wait for the third quarter to get underway. Incidentally, the ‘GDP Now’ estimate is a positive 2.1% today.
How come nobody is talking about the 10 year Yield Curve inversion?
Call it anything you want – inflation, recession, inflation plus recession, or just some little blip – people are aware of it and for most people it is bad.
Exactly. I don’t really care what they want to call it. The fact is the definition of “two consecutive quarters” is a very a lagging indication of a recession. That definition notes the recession actually began 6 months ago. Any new definition delays recognition of the problem and thus prevents good solutions being brought forward. It just makes me aware the recession will continue for longer and get worse. Case in point in not recognizing the problem and making things worse; the Manchin/Schumer agreement to spend even more money in an economy with so much money chasing so few goods. The Federal Reserves’ 75 additional basis points won’t be enough to stop this new expansion of inflation.
I don’t have an issue with your previous post, Aggie, but I’m not buying the Feds 2.1 positive GDP Now estimate. That’s not against you. You are just pointing at the data. But 2.1 growth doesn’t equate to the news we heard this week from Meta and Walmart; both companies looking to contract their workforce as they predict constriction in their revenue in the quarter ahead. What’s going to turn that around quickly?
It seems we are now moving from the “check out the Emperor’s new clothes” phase to “wow, you got new clothes too” phase. I can only assume this is an effort to keep November close enough to cheat, but I don’t think it is working. Then again, I don’t live near certain people that neo hangs around, and she’s warning us it is working.
“So…. when I present to the readers the actual source of GDP data”
Dude, the economy sucks. It’s really bad. It’s so bad that Joe Biden, with the softest and most positive media coverage any President has received (even better than Obama considering the circumstances), is LESS POPULAR THAN DONALD TRUMP.
At any other time under any other President, except maybe Obama, the media would be calling this a recession given the relevant statistics. There wouldn’t be any “umming” or “ahhing” or “there might be a recession on the way.” They’d be calling this a recession. Literally the only reason they’re not doing so is because the Biden White House told them not to.
And, yes, I get irritated at someone being as deliberately oblivious as you.
Mike
I had checked it out early yesterday afternoon on a whim- at that point there had been 59 edits in just July and 19 just yesterday at the time I opened up the edit tab.
even here, they talk around the point,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recession
I get irritated at someone being as deliberately oblivious as you.
As opposed to being unintentionally oblivious like yourself? Aggie is making the same point your are (Dude, the economy sucks) but using data to back it up. Surely, you didn’t need to have an official tell you the GDP shrank .9% on Thursday to finally believe we are in a recession? I suspect you would agree with me that -.9% is bullshit that will be adjusted lower in the future.
But here’s a thing, suppose the GDP was at 7.8% and continually declined quarter after quarter until it was just 0.3% after 5 quarters? Would you call that a good economy? Even if none of those quarters were negative, wouldn’t it still feel like we regressed from where we were? If later, there were 2 more quarters of negative gdp, would you feel like the recession began just 6 months earlier or perhaps when we started falling from that 7.8% growth?
I find this interview of Manchin on the reconciliation bill rather incredibly duplicitious.
So Manchin has bought into this story of companies paying no taxes (true at some level) but all of the details of said story are a mystery to him. However, he’s going to fix it without doing any of the work to understand it. Or he pretends to not understand so he can obfuscate the wrong-headedness of what they are actually doing.
Do some research man! There may be some privately held companies in there, but the vast majority of the large companies are publicly held which means they are required to publish copious data every single quarter and annually.
“We’re correcting a tax code …” No they’re not correcting the tax code. If they were doing that they would simply change the regulation on how profits are computed. What they are doing is creating an alternative minimum tax for large corporations. So they will say that some depreciation deductions are OK and others are not. Some deductions for other taxes paid are OK and others are not. In other words, a mess.
It’s certainly surprising if Wikipedia is standing up for the truth for once, instead of imposing the progressive line on people.
Let me just vent for a second. On a personal level, it’s the insult that rankles. We can talk about Wikipedia undoing my edit and argue about them banning me last year, but saying I’m guilty of “persistent vandalism” really gets under my skin. Disagreeing with Wikipedia doesn’t make people “vandals,” and changing two words before the thought police can change them back doesn’t mean there’s anything persistent about it.
” been engaged in this endeavor for quote some time,”
Wokepedia is a leftist rag and they continually lie by changing things they don’t like. Do not believe them.
@ M Smith > “It’s certainly surprising if Wikipedia is standing up for the truth for once, instead of imposing the progressive line on people.”
@ OBH > “I am just short of amazed that anyone at Wiki has some integrity.”
My first thought as well.
Makes you wonder about the viewpoint and credentials of the editor(s) in charge of that page, and if holding the line is really about truth and integrity, or finally some basic realization that many people (at least half the country) don’t trust them on anything political anymore, and this could be the last straw.
Refer to Neo’s other post today, because Wikipedia is a part of the media.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2022/07/29/how-the-media-polarized-us/
I’m waiting to see what Merriam-Webster decides what to do.
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/10/14/orwellian-websters-dictionary-caught-changing-its-entry-for-preference-after-yesterdays-fake-outrage/
https://notthebee.com/article/merriam-webster-claims-that-youre-anti-vaxx-if-you-are-merely-opposed-to-vaccine-mandates
https://notthebee.com/article/a-chocolate-shop-in-seattle-refused-service-to-two-police-officers-and-now-i-guess-well-just-wait-for-websters-dictionary-to-change-the-definition-of-tolerance
https://babylonbee.com/news/merriam-webster-updates-definition-of-freedom-to-slavery
(One of these things is not like the others, but the Bee has a pretty good track record for prophetic posts.)
The Daily Mail post was very informative (they are sooo much longer than US media stories), but Breitbart puts the flame war in context:
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2022/07/29/ministry-of-truth-wikipedia-editors-feverishly-change-article-on-recessions-to-match-biden-talking-points/
Locking the barn door after the horse is stolen raises the question of the stable being in cahoots with the rustlers, and saving face more than demonstrating integrity.
MBunge,
We already “exist under a repressive and incompetent self-selected aristocracy”…
ObloodyHell,
Only the left’s useful idiots ever believed that the PLAN was perfect and that failure was impossible.
The Left’s ‘realists’ always knew otherwise and were and are willing to destroy as many people’s lives as is necessary to achieve a socially ‘just’ world. If billions of lives must be sacrificed, so be it.
What do you think the fertilizer reductions spreading across the world are really about? Hint; its not about nitrogen.
Rather, if the activities of humanity’s billions are at base the primary causal factor in climate change, which threatens the ability of the environment to sustain humanity’s very existence… then the very gravest of measures must be taken to reduce humanity’s affect upon the environment.
Do you think that Yuval Noah Harari, lead advisor at WEF is alone in his views? He of “What shall we do with all these useless people?”
Not so, “Yuval is praised by the likes of Klaus Schwab, Barack Obama, Mark Zuckerberg, and Bill Gates, who reviewed Harari’s latest book on the cover of the New York Times Book Review.
Harari speaks at the World Economic Forum at Davos, New York Times, Stanford, TED, and TimesTalks. At the time of this writing, his books occupied the top two slots on the New York Times’ nonfiction best-seller list.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HmY2or_0wSk
Wikipedia is untrustworthy on any political topic. I generally ignore them on things like this.
Not to mention, GDP is normally re-visited and revised in successive analyses over the proceeding months, as better and more extensive data filters back.
What would you like to bet that this will be revised to increase the negative GDP in a few weeks ?
}}} That’s interesting. I think I’ll take the zen approach and wait for the third quarter to get underway. Incidentally, the ‘GDP Now’ estimate is a positive 2.1% today.
No one “shouted and stamped their feet”.
We countered with evidence that the same lying ambulatory humaniform containers of excreta who are claiming that it’s “not a recession” WERE SAYING THE EXACT OPPOSITE until two freaking weeks ago.
WHICH IS THE ACTUAL POINT. We don’t give a rodent’s patootie if there is any measure of actual, technical validity to the argument, because THAT’S NOT THE ASSERTION THEY WERE MAKING until a week ago.
So they are self-evidently partisan hypocrites.
Sorry if this factual type of response upsets you….
Not much, though. Just saddened, because we always hate to see irrational people stick to their guns on the blatant stupid.
ok, so from now on 2 quarters of negative GDP will henceforth be called a “Biden” …
The larger problem is Wikipedia generally: it has become so useful for so many things for all of us, that we come to rely on it where before we’d have an encyclopedia (I had 3 including a 1911 Britannica) and a whole reference library (my personal library was > 6,000 volumes). And, for things that are purely historical fact driven, it’s still generally reliable, at least for those of us who already have sufficient specialized knowledge to be able to sense when it’s going down an interpretational rat hole and to evaluate the sources cited (and maybe even check them).
But, for matters that even remotely touch on the ‘political’ – which is an increasingly huge number of things – it has become absolutely unreliable.
How is the non-specialist to know which articles are useful summaries, and even have excellent insight, and which have been rewritten to suit someone’s agenda? He or she simply can’t know, which means that for serious work, NOTHING in it is trustworthy.
That’s a huge shame, as print sources with scholarly credibility are fewer and older ones harder and harder to find.
Having moved about in recent years and downsizing, I don’t have the library I had a decade ago, and many books are just on kindle….I’d recommend getting hard copies where you can (if you have space) and PDF copies of reliable or politically incorrect books (e.g., the only way to have easy access to a reliable complete copy of Churchill’s original The River War that has his views on Islam) that you can store on external media so you’re not dependent on ‘net access.
The growth of the ‘cloud’ is bringing us back to the sort of centralized computing (and hence the ability of third parties to control information access and data) we believed that the personal computer liberated us from in the late ‘80s early ‘90s… and Wikipedia has become just another easily manipulated source for MiniTrue.
Take a soma and get with the program. Or, vote the incompetents out of office, they’re rich enough already.
Even if the economy was growing at 2%, with 9.1% inflation (which is even higher than reported), what do you call that “growth”?
Bolshevikipedia.
FJB
The claim wasn’t that “the last ten recessions coincided with two consecutive quarters of negative growth.” The claim was “the last ten times the US had two consecutive quarters of negative growth there was a recession.”
So, yes, you can have a recession without two consecutive quarters of negative growth; you can’t have two consecutive quarters of negative growth without a recession.
And none of that addresses the widely repeated rule of thumb that mysteriously nobody had ever heard of starting Monday.
Good to see they’re holding the line, so far.
All requests for an Eric Ciaramella page have been gang tubbed.