Talk:2008–2012 global recession

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 March 2011. The result of the discussion was MERGE and REDIRECT.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2008–2012 global recession redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3

Frank Beck

Whatever Beck's contributions to the world of economics, he did not coin the phrase "Great Recession". Check out the NYTimes article on etymology, ref #3 in article.Mwinog2777 (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to late-2000s recession?

Shouldn't this redirect to late-2000s recession? Tisane (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A valid concern – the term, while currently used particularly to refer to the late-2000s recession, has a long history. I agree that we should direct readers to the current economic crisis, but should avoid Wikipedia:Recentism and provide historical context. A separate page on the term proper seems the best way to avoid cluttering a page on the current crisis with a long discussion of previous uses of the term.

I’ve accordingly added a prominent hatnote saying “please see (other page) for the current crisis” – hope this balances desiderata!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a brief article and unlikely to grow, I would support a merge and redirect to List of recessions in the United States, specifically the section List of recessions in the United States#Great Depression onwards, if consensus is to not have a separate article. I would not however support a merge or redirect to Late-2000s recession, for the reasons above (recentism – the term is broader than just this crisis).

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a merge with the two articles (late 2000 and List of US recessions). Dreammaker182 (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep or redirect to the late 2000s recession. Or in all honesty, that should redirect here. It will take a few more years for the name to saturate textbooks and academic journals and whatnot, but I think its coming. Well just have to wait for then I guess. Metallurgist (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have this article. Make WP:SUMMARY to here on both those pages. ... and as Metallurgist, I would agree that this may be the historical name for the time. --J. D. Redding 05:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"New Normal"

Strange to name an economic period which has only existed for around a year (less factoring in the lag of many economic indicators). Seems like a fairly bad case of recentism. --86.161.73.164 (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, there are sources, sources such as the Federal Open Market Committee, whose mission is economic forecasting and taking such action as may be necessary to avoid such nightmares. Fred Talk 20:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The First sentence of this section makes no sense. It is missing punctuation or something, I'm not sure what it is trying to convey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.111.171 (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]