Talk:Timothy Geithner/Archive 1

Edit protection

Whew! Thank you for protecting the page, finally. 128.123.249.72 (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did so reluctantly. It's unfortunate that it became necessary, but the vandalism was just too much. Alas, now some users (yourself included) will not be able to contribute constructively for a while. Frank | talk 22:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mispelling of Sonnenfeld

Carole Sonnenfeld's name is spelled incorrectly in the bio section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garnat (talk • contribs) 22:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks! Frank | talk 22:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to bio

Here's a good bio on him: [1] slipgrid (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used that link as a reference for him living in foreign countries. Thanks! Frank | talk 16:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Fed official bio, some countries are missing on the list here at wiki. Can someone fix this? Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TremontY (talk • contribs) 12:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove link to anti-semitic article

This link that follows links to an anti-Semitic news story. It's inserted so that people would read it -- not because it is a good citation source. So what if Jews make up 3 percent of the population and will have a greater representation in the Obama White house? What are they — the anti-Semites -- so upset about? Is it the Jews' fault that they succeed and rise to the top? The anti-Semites have to get over their jealousies. The Jews have always done well, no matter where they live -- as long as they're not being physically attacked. ^ "Barack Obama by his friends you shall know him", Pakistan Daily (2008-11-20). Retrieved on 21 November 2008

I agree. That article has anti-semitic overtones. The newspaper is not a reliable sourse and is very poorly written. And it's also incorrect, jews are 2% of the population. If Geithner is jewish, we should note it. BUT ONLY WITH A RELIABLE SOURCE! I'm removing it. Fermat1999 (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News scoops

I removed inclusion of which news organization reported his being offered the position in the Obama administration within the article text itself. This is an article on Geithner, not about which news outlet scoops another. The footnoted citations and references suffice as to the reportage of this 'leak' about his getting the nomination. Lestatdelc (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geithner was a TCK (Third Culture Kid), (a child raised internationally/in more than one country)

Some refernce to TCK children will shed light on some of his less clear qualities. Linking to Third Culture Kid in Wikipedia may be a good idea. 65.101.228.154 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish Newspaper

The article states that "On November 23, the choice was made official[13]." The reference is a Finnish newspaper. All the major U.S. papers (Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc.) indicate that the official announcement of Obama's economic team, including Treasury Secretary, will be made on November 24. I cannot read the current source used, but it seems to be in conflict with English-language sources. Because this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, I am removing the edit until wide coverage of the announcement occurs. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, generally. (It's not that non-English sources can't be valid, but this is major news in the United States; if an American paper can't confirm it, there's no reason to imagine a Finnish paper would be more reliable.) You are definitely correct - this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Frank | talk 15:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German American

Should it be mentioned that he is German-American?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.194.229.80 (talk • contribs)

We would first have to find a reliable source that he is of German background then decide if there's enough of connection to be considered "German-American". --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he is german-american based on his name. Wait till some proof is available online though, and it should be added to his ethnicity profile. Fermat1999 (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A surname isn't proof ie Kerry is an Irish name, but John Kerry doesn't have any Irish ancestry. Besides one of Mr. Geithner's paternal line ancestors might be adopted or if someone is one of great-great-great grandfathers was German wouldn't justify calling someone German American. Plus ethnic German who migrated throughout Europe and therefore his paternal ancestors could have been German but gone to the Russian Empire or the United Kingdom or wherever before resettling in the United States. Not stating that any of situations are true, just possible. The simple fact of a surname isn't enough. Yolanda 45 (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it is no - I agree. But is USUALLY is. I simply said that when there is proof, it should be listed. We have the proof based on the genealogy page below. He is 50% english, 50% german. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fermat1999 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This genealogy site posted a very lengthy family tree of Geithner - here. He is half German and half Anglo-Saxon. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lehman's Collapse

Noting that Geithner played an important part in the decision not to rescue Lehman Brothers, shouldn't this be mentioned? (For a discussion on Geithner's stance see here[2]. (Additionally one of the links mentions his refusal to convert Lehman into a bank holding company, the same action he later took with Goldman and Morgan Stanley. Doesn't this deserve a mention?) Has anyone found further information about the nature of his role and what course of action he advocated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rxtreme (talk • contribs) 00:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that it is a blog entry (generally not acceptable), a more thorough reading, and a click-through to the original article (which is cited in this article as well) reveals that it's not so cut-and-dried. "Refusal" is a strong, definite word; the links actually describe the deliberations as "opaque". Also, to characterize these decisions as being Geithner's (by writing "same action he later took") is perhaps a stretch; I don't think we have any reason to believe that was a unilateral decision by anyone, let alone specifically Geithner. Still, if we have reliable sources to say so, let's evaluate them here. Frank | talk 03:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This quote appeared in a New York Times editorial today: "At the time of its bankruptcy, he, along with Mr. Paulson, appeared to be the most vocal in supporting the government’s refusal to bail out the firm, according to people involved in various meetings." [3] (Another factoid that may be worth including in the article: "It was Mr. Geithner, not Mr. Paulson, for example, who put together the original rescue plan for the American International Group.") The BBC's profile of Geithner [4] includes the following: "He played a pivotal role in the intense negotiations which took place before Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, and also helped forge the deals involving AIG and JP Morgan."

As to the attempt to convert Lehman to a Bank holding company, here's the direct quote from the NY Times article [5] I was referencing: "But in an hourlong conference call with government officials, Mr. Fuld’s hope was dashed when the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Timothy F. Geithner, refused to change rules to enable quick benefit from the change Mr. Fuld had sought." If there are contradictory sources I can understand your reluctance to include one point of view, but the article should mention that Geithner played a role. Additionally it should probably lay out the different reports about his position regarding the potential bailout. --129.98.199.152 (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking office as Secy of the Treasury, when??

We shouldn't be saying 'January 20, 2009', folks. The Senate hasn't comfirmed Geithner (yet). GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat vs. Democratic

As the official name of the party is the "Democratic Party", not the "Democrat Party", I'm tweaking the wording in the Infobox as such. Use of "Democratic" is consistent with the overwhelming majority of (if not all) similar articles. If anyone wishes to revert this, I ask that this be discussed here, preferably first, as such a change would seem to go against very broad consensus across the encyclopedia. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table For Yeas and Nays In Senate For Confirmation

Would that add to the article? Spinach Monster (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you're all fine with it. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this until the table actually made it into the article. I reverted it because it is not encyclopedic; it is sufficient to note what the vote was without littering the page with each individual senator's votes. This information is available elsewhere and is not very encyclopedic. The article is about Geithner; not who supported his nomination in January 2009. Too much WP:RECENTISM, and while the table looks nice, the data it shows are mainly only useful for political purposes, which we aspire to avoid around here. Frank | talk 19:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RECENTISM is an essay, not a policy. Just because something is available elsewhere doesn't mean it's not encyclopedic. The section about his confirmation is enhanced by knowing who voted for him, the vote tallies are already there with or without the table. Spinach Monster (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-lawyering doesn't change the way things are generally perceived around here; such a table implies that the confirmation vote of each senator is of major importance in a cabinet officer's article, which I disagree with, obviously. This is equivalent to placing individual precinct voting results in political officeholders' pages. It's just too much information.

Also, as a practical matter, adding over 5K to every cabinet member's page is going to have an impact on the project; these pages are already among the most viewed pages in the project, and the bigger they are, the longer they take to load. How about a separate article, like Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet, with a link from each individual's page? I'd not only support that, I'd help out in building it. It could expand to prior cabinets as well. Frank | talk 19:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to work with you on that article, but just one thing: no one person is the ultimate authority on what's encyclopedic or how we do things around here. Consensus decides that. I'm glad to submit to consensus, but one person does not make consensus. Spinach Monster (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Online interaction doesn't permit me to convey the proper tone for my best response to this, so I'll pass. Suffice to say that you can determine whether or not I'm committed to consensus and improvement of this encyclopedia pretty well just by looking at this very talk page and its associated article. I note you've also looked at my talk page...and we have a new article to build. Frank | talk 19:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secretary of the Treasury Nomination

Sorry if I don't use the proper wikitext formatting - it is late and I've never done this before. Anyway, the following sentence contains an incorrect date, and I am not able to edit: "He was confirmed in the U.S. Senate with sixty in favor and thirty-four opposed on January 26, 2008." In fact, this just occurred yesterday, January 26, 2009. 03:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Error in confirmation date

{{editsemiprotected}}
There's an error in the date Timothy Geithner was confirmed by senate. It should be January 26 2009 instead of 26, 2008.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drochili (talk • contribs)

I searched and searched and searched but couldn't find this error so I'll assume this has been fixed already. I fixed a minor error that I found though. Please replace the editsemiprotected tag if I missed the date error you are pointing to and its still there. –Capricorn42 (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back Tax Issue

I deleted the line about the IRS returning payments, the article cited DOES state that the IRS will return payments from closed tax years; however, the context applied in this article is misleading. The IRS will not accept payments to clear liabilities that extend beyond three years, but they will accept the money regardless. This is important to mention because if it comes up in his nomination hearing, the effort to demonstrate he paid the full amount despite the fact the IRS declared it late and considers some years as non-paid can be to his benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.247.190 (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the rather politically biased link, and extensive citations, to an article on "Politico". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.161.232 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York Federal Bank

Is he still President? I assume that he's resigned the position since SoT is probably a full-time job but the Bank's website hasn't been updated. Dirtybutclean (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtybutclean (talk • contribs) 03:05, 27 January 2009

Glenn Beck

I normally wouldn't have to do this, but...since it is locked...

It is Glenn Beck not Glen Beck. If someone wants to fix this...Mr2b (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. Famspear (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Patterson

Mark Patterson should be mentioned. Badagnani (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some context as to who he is and why he should be mentioned? (Some cites too?) Thanks! Frank | talk 13:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Article is a Whitewash Regarding his Tax Problem

Here is a fellow put forward as superbly qualified to be Secretary of the Treasury who is incompetent to even do his own taxes. The issue which purportedly tripped up Geithner was stunningly simple, and one which many, many average people handle correctly. It is a stunning assertion to say that Geithner, even aided by TurboTax, couldn't figure out how to pay the taxes he owed, but then in the next breath say Geithner is the only person who can pull America out of this economic quagmire even thought Geithner has no M.B.A. or Ph.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Group of Thirty

Geithner is no longer a member of the Group of Thirty. 98.226.178.84 (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's listed on http://www.group30.org/members.htm and as Secretary of Treasury is likely to remain. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]