Talk:Timothy Geithner

message: For a good, long while, there seems to have been a regrettable fuss made in this page as to whether Geithner should be labelled and classified as "Jewish" or an "American Jew". (This all started, if I am not mistaken, through a Pakistani news article that was trying its best to be antisemitic - though perhaps it didn't quite get the music right.) This all should have ended with a reference to the BLP policy; if religion is a private matter, how much more so is racial classification?
This all ended, not out of any sort of principle or policy, but, rather, because somebody posted a list to a genealogy showing that Geithner descends, on one side of his family, from English people - apparently of the Christian religion - 
and, on the other side, from Germans - apparently also of the Christian religion. This is probably not the best way to end the discussion, but - all is well that ends well.
However, what did that lead to? Now somebody added two tags for Geithner - "English American" and "German-American". We have absolutely no evidence showing that Geithner's background - as opposed to his biological descent - was in any sense "German", or, for that matter, any more "English" than that of any other English-speaking U.S. citizen. We also have no evidence that he wishes to be cataloged as such.
If this becomes a trend, it might make sense to bring this up in an administrator's noticeboard and make the matter be explicitly mentioned in the BLP policy (which, for now, only treats religion and sexual orientation, it would seem). These labels are potentially misleading, amount to an imposition on living individuals and - by virtue of being highly ambiguous and conflating several different concepts - have no encyclopaedic value. Feketekave (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. If you had stated this was the reason for removing those tags, we could have avoided the back and forth. The flippant reason given in the original removal of the category tags, that "these labels are nonsense in this generation" was where this went off the rails. Making the edit summaries legitimate explanations for the edit, and not snark would be helpful going forward. Lestatdelc (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't fully understand this. An American who is descended from people from Germany is a "German-American". Whether he had any German influence in his life is entirely irrelevant. john k (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That only makes sense if (1) his European background was only German, and (2) if it had anything to do with anything. More likely, like most Americans whose ancestors have been here awhile, he's Anglo-German-Irish-French-Dutch-Swedish-whatever, in which case any label is meaningless. But more important, does having a (probably) German surname affect his economic policies, his social attitudes, or his ability to do whatever job he holds at the moment? If not, his supposed ethnicity is irrelevant. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

text:  But, how far back do we go when we choose an ethnic label for a person’s info box? What if there's German, English and Jewish histories in the family. Do we start labeling a person a "German-English American Jew"? And what if that person holds no importance to their lineage and has never publically spoken about it, is not famous or known because of it and it has never been brought up in public discussion other then by speculative sources? The entire situation becomes a comedy. In the traditional manner of the word. Dogsgomoo (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This obsession with every person's ethnicity/religion/ancestry in Wikipedia has really become extremely silly. I think, FWIW, that anyone's background should only be mentioned if it has relevance to what he or she has achieved, i.e. to the article about him. Is Andy Garcia a "Cuban-American" actor?  So says Wiki. Is David Copperfield a "Jewish magician?" Ditto. Barack Obama's race ought to be mentioned because it is noteworthy. John F. Kennedy's religion ditto, and Joe Lieberman's religion as well. They are relevant facts. But in the vast majority of cases, such information is not only irrelevant, but arguably skews the article in an inapposite direction. And, yes, Osama Bin Laden's religion and ethnicity of course fit the principle I suggested. But I cannot systematically re-write hundreds of sentences in articles, especially when my suggestion has no authority, but I do think that Wiki ought to arrive at a consensus on this issue, as it usually sticks out in the first sentence(s) of most articles about a person. 66.108.146.59 (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial comedy 

message: It seems reasonable, absent evidence to the contrary, that a senior official of the Clinton administration and a nominee for an even more senior position in the Obama administration, shares the political party of those presidents of the United States.  Cabinet officers not members of the president's party (C. Douglas Dillon, William Cohen, or Norman Mineta) are usually identified as such.
So far, the crispest citations I've found stop short of calling him a Democrat.  Some mention his close association with the Democratic policies of the Clinton administration.
But his association with the current administration's policies is balanced by his close connections to the centrist Democratic policies of President Bill Clinton and Mr. Clinton's best-known Treasury secretary, Robert E. Rubin. Mr. Geithner served under Mr. Rubin as well as Mr. Summers at the Treasury Department in the 1990s, and rose to be under secretary for international affairs. 
The New York Times, Nov 22, 2008 v158 i54502 pA1(L)
Geithner said to be choice; Wall St. cheers.(Timothy F. Geithner)(National Desk) Calmes, Jackie.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2008 The New York Times Company
Geithner, who began his Washington career working for Henry Kissinger and numbers Alan Greenspan among his tennis partners, will be part of an Obama economic team that seems solidly anchored in mainstream Democratic thinking.
USA Today, Nov 24, 2008 p01B.  
Hope amid gathering gloom: pick for Treasury secretary.(MONEY) Lynch, David J.; Kirchhoff, Sue; Hagenbaugh, Barbara.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2008 USA Today
Byline: David J. Lynch, Sue Kirchhoff and Barbara Hagenbaugh.
http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC?vrsn=149&dcoll=iac&locID=chan86036&frmml=1&c=4&ste=41&docNum=CJ189682077
If Mrs. Clinton is taken from the Team of Rivals model, Mr. Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, is from the Team of Neutrals.
He's no liberal, said a former colleague at the Treasury Department, where he managed the American response to the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s.
At the time Mr. Geithner developed a reputation as the ultimate pragmatist, putting together a package of more than $100 billion in aid to halt the financial contagion. That turned out to be a training session for his role, a decade later, in the bailouts of Bear Stearns, A.I.G. and the injection of nearly $350 billion in Congressionally authorized money, whose exact use has become something of a political football.
Mr. Geithner grew up in Asia -- in Tokyo, New Delhi and Bangkok -- and keeps his ego well in check. He asks a lot of questions, but does not have Mr. Summers's overwhelming -- some say overbearing -- personality.
He clicked with Obama, one outside adviser said. If you think about it, their sort of cool, distant styles are alike. 
The New York Times, Nov 22, 2008 v158 i54502 pA1(L)
The Candidate of Change Chooses Experience.(National Desk)(NEWS ANALYSIS)(Barack Obama) Sanger, David E.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2008 The New York Times Company
http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC?vrsn=149&dcoll=iac&locID=chan86036&frmml=1&c=5&ste=41&docNum=CJ189582844
But inference may not suffice for Wikipedia.--AndersW (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. At most what we have here is an inference, so titling him as a Democrat is Wikipedia:Original research.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BINGO.  He's a Democrat, per an already cited source.
A Democrat and a relative unknown outside the world of high finance, Geithner has worked closely with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. ...
--AndersW (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democrat or not 

message: The Boston Globe says otherwise Here.  Parler Vous (edits) 10:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say in that article anything about his party affiliation? Lestatdelc (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its kind of buried, but it mentions that according to voter records in his town, he was once a Republican but now has no party affiliation.  Parler Vous (edits) 04:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Which is why I posted here instead of changing it outright.  Its possible the first article is wrong, since the Globe one I cited seems to have done more research.  Parler Vous (edits) 04:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a pretty good reference to claim he's an independent. john k (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, guys, it's entirely possible that Mr. Geithner simply doesn't give a damn about partisan political labels. Unless he SELF-identifies, I don't think it's legitimate to be assigning him arbitrarily to one political corral or another, based on who hires him. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I don't particularly care for TNR as a reliable source this story from November 05, 2008 has "Around this time, he also registered as an independent, having been a moderate Republican." From the reading it seems "this time" is around 1993/1994. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Democrat 

message: The opening paragraphs of an article should be a summary.  These aren't.  I think this needs to be re-written.
Timothy Franz Geithner [pronounced /ˈgaɪtnər/] (born August 18, 1961) is the 75th and current United States Secretary of the Treasury, serving under U.S. President Barack Obama. He was previously the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
This is OK, it states facts and history.
Geithner will be directing the nation's economic recovery from the worst financial crisis in three generations, a task that could define the first two years of Obama's term. Specific duties include directing how $350 billion of already existing Wall Street bailout money is to be spent, then making the case to Congress and the public if more is needed. In addition, Congress is working on an $825-billion economic recovery package that dedicates about two-thirds to new government spending and the rest to tax cuts. Geithner will be playing a big role in disbursing that money.[2]
This is problematic for me.  Whether or not it is NPOV, it is time-dependent and will have to be revised in a major fashion.  This should be moved down-article.
Geithner's nomination came under fire due to his failure to pay over $30,000 in taxes in the past. Geithner was able to receive Senate confirmation but he remains under deep criticism for not following the rules of the agency he now oversees.[3]
I don't have any problem with this other than it is focused on recent events.  Some of the bio should be re-iterated up here.  Here is where a picture of the man should be established.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markle the WikiGnome (talk • contribs) 11:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the same things and had the same thoughts as you. The Barack Obama article could serve as a model in this sense in that the lead goes up to his inauguration in January. I've run out of the time this weekend that would be needed to write a good summary. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragraphs 

message: Is this the same Treasury Secretary that Obama needs to defend from resignation demands? For reading this article, one would presume that after he got confirmed everything in the Treasury Department was running just fine.  That is so far from the truth the entire article fails the NPOV test.
Someone familiar with the realities of the financial world needs to rewrite massive portions of this article. It is so far below standard it is not funny.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.194 (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my understanding that WP:NPOV applies to the tone or slant of the article itself. If the article comes up short in that area then be bold and fix it. If you see that the article is not accurate then again, be bold and fix it. If you follow WP:BLP and the policies it references strictly then no one should have a problem with fixes, or even a complete rewrite. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: I had one thing removed, but there's a bigger problem

message: What I don't understand is why Geithner is called a central banker.  The definition of central banker seems to indicate that Ben Bernanke holds that role.  I looked it up because I was trying to figure out what each of them do.  I suppose they work rather closely together but I just barely understand that the federal reserve banking system includes regional banks that serve as a clearing house for commercial banks and maybe credit unions.  If Ben Bernanke heads  up all that, how does it interact with the Secretary of the Treasury, if at all?  Maybe I need a whole course in Economics 101.Activadvocate (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Not sure if I'm in the right place here; if I was supposed to start a new subject, please forgive me

message: AIG bouneses have a part in this article. shouldn't we put a link to the article? i would, but i don't know how.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.37.35 (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added this at Timothy Geithner#AIG bonuses. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone provide a link to the AIG 

message: The NY Times published a large article on Timothy Geithner including over 600 pages of his calendar.
:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/business/27geithner.html
I don't have time to mine the thing for stuff that could be useful to the WP article though. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting NY Times article on Timothy Geithner 

message: special ref - "Eight Days", New Yorker Sept 14, 2009, pages 58-81 by James Stewart summarizing what occurred in the eight days Sept 15-23, 2008 with heavy interviews by James Stewart of Paulson, Bernanke, Geitner - with article still not doing much but skimming the surface and YOUR OWN conclusion they (Bernanke, Paulson, Geitner) did know what was was happening then , did not understand what was occuring the past year and still do not ... and this is lack of knowledge of Paulson, now Geitner and all along Bernanke is important info to add to this article for this discussion of Tim Geitner as the present secretary of the US Treasury ... 
... as there has been in Geitner, Paulson, Bernanke understnading no indication (see ref)
of understanding at all of what is occurring in the financial crisis and the past year and now as we tip toe toward double dip and nose dive down... Tipa Kanoo n Tyla II 69.121.221.97 (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geitner understnading of financial crisis

message: Does he suffer from Trichotillomania? Where are his eyebrows?Lestrade (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, and this is not a forum. Gage (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lestrade, this is a fine, KEEN insight ... we can expect a balding Geitner, if not billard ball soon... note also the manic manic Oh four four, (dad a clear manic manic -as bipolars can
be always high and not have down phase, so then a "manic manic") - dipso fein doodla 69.121.221.97 (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Disorder

message: I question the authenticity of the signature in the infobox. The source given for it is Fox News; I can't tell from that just where Fox obtained it.  It is radically different from the signature that appears in an April 20, 2009 letter to Elizabeth Warren, a PDF of which is on the financialstability.gov website that is run by the Treasury Department (the signature is on page 3): http://www.financialstability.gov/docs/Ltr-to-Warren-re-EESA_42009.pdf
If the discussion page for this article is not the proper place to raise this question, please direct me to the place it should be raised. Thanks! --LBourne (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it looks like the signature currently displayed in the infobox actually is an authentic signature, even though it's very different from the one on the letter to Elizabeth Warren cited above. It appears in a PDF document on the web site of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the March 20, 2008 "Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting" which constitutes part of the 2007 Annual Report (http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/annual/annual07/letter.pdf).  I'm content to let it be someone else's decision what, if anything, to do about his having two such radically different signatures; I'll only mention that I think it's likely that the one that ultimately appears on the currency is probably going to be closer to the one on the Warren letter, for whatever that is worth. --LBourne (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is that signature authentic? 

message: Hi, I've got a pretty pedantic question. In this article (as well as in the sources cited) Mr. Geithner "earned an M.A. in international economics and East Asian studies from Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in 1985.[6][8]" But on the school's website and in its literature, the MA offered is in International Relations/Studies, with concentrations in International Economics and East Asian Studies (in his case). As I'm unfamiliar with IR/IS lingo, is it normal to refer to one's concentrations as the MA itself? Am I missing something? See the SAIS website:   TheSlowLife (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAIS M.A. Question 

message: Why are you hiding facts associated with Geithner's acts during the bailout? People (US at least) need to know the facts about the fellow who controls the Treasury. His actions have piqued the interest of at least three Congressman, and the fact that Congress has requested that he testify speaks volumes...
"Efforts by the New York Federal Reserve Bank to limit disclosure about the transactions have come under fire in Congress, and current and former top Fed and Treasury Department officials, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, are set to testify to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday, Jan. 27." http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/201001191529DOWJONESDJONLINE000420_FORTUNE5.htm
Perhaps a firm date on his appearance is still not enough to meet your standards. Will you be deleting this critique of your censorship also?
Jeffrey Walton
noloader, gmail  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.226.177 (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Fat&Happy

message: Under Nomination / China --
The first sentence has garnered a 'citation needed', and I disagree.  
The sentence says "Geithner adopted a confrontational stance" which I see as a characterization.  I see the subsequent sentences in the paragraph as substantiating the chacterization.  4 of the 5 subsequent sentences have citations.   
But, I'll defer to the 'experts'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.64.62.132 (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe citation not needed. (Nomination / China) 

message: Can the original editor or somebody else explain the reasoning behind placing "Unspecified" for his religion in the Infobox?
It seems to me there are two possibilities here:
# Use of the description "Unspecified" conveys, or is meant to convey, information not provided by leaving the entry blank. In that case, unless there is a citation of some reliable source to back up this "extra" information, the entry should be deleted.
# Use of the description "Unspecified" has no meaning beyond what is conveyed by leaving the entry blank. In that case, the entry is redundant (and fairly non-standard from what I've seen in BLPs), and should be deleted.
Comments? Fat&Happy (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the earlier threads above. Usually the resistance to the fact reporting on this just gives way and a brief statement of whatever the persons jewish background is (e.g. see talk pages for Mark Zuckerberg, Bernie Madoff or countless others) or a clear statement of a lack thereof settles the matter. Looks like this is one where some heels were dug in. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion - recent edit 

message: that he never worked for Goldman Sachs? 68.2.137.33 (talk)
:Although I have heard everyone from Republican senators to Michael Moore stating on camera that he has, in fact Timothy Geithner has never worked at Goldman Sachs.  Abrazame (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  why not let him tell you this on his own? http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread14486.html --Alexander.stohr (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The New York Times agrees http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/geithner-haunted-by-a-goldman-past-he-never-had/?_r=0 Michaelaoash (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it true

message: In the past week I have found three $1 bills with "TAX CHEAT" written on them next to Geithner's signature, presumably in reference to his "personal tax issues".  Since each bill came from a different source and had different handwriting, this suggests some widespread campaign.  It would be quite coincidental otherwise.  Is there some kind of organized effort to mark bills this way?  And if so, is it notable enough to add to the "Personal tax issues" section of the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.61.91 (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is an organization doing this.  They have a website at taxcheatstamps.com.  It may be notable because they have been featured by the national news media.  I saw an MSNBC segment on them a week or two ago, and there is another news clip featured on the website.  I'd be hesitant to add this to the article myself, out of fear of being targeted by the IRS - apparently the IRS audited the owner of taxcheatstamps.com right after he started the website.   At least I'm anonymous - you made the mistake of posting here using your trackable IP address.  :)  TimBuck2 (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: TAX CHEAT

message: He is a German-American Jew, isn't he? Why not make that clear? In a country so affected by religion in domestic policy and foreign policy, why on earth would you not include a person's religious background when that person is directly affecting those policies 101.51.239.199 (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It has about as much relevance to the article as the fact he disdains seatbelts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.197.226 (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Nope. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/06/tim-geithner-not-a-jew/18248/ Michaelaoash (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post his religion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Timothy Geithner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090123061453/http://www.foxnews.com:80/politics/first100days/2009/01/22/geithner-want-double-check-taxes/ to http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/22/geithner-want-double-check-taxes/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130105013841/http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-timothy-geithner-treasury-secretary-resign-20130104,0,5125183.story to http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-timothy-geithner-treasury-secretary-resign-20130104,0,5125183.story
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Timothy Geithner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081009165354/http://www.group30.org:80/bios/members15.htm to http://www.group30.org/bios/members15.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: CBS News thought it was noteworthy to contrast Geithner's nominal stance against payday lending usury during his time at Treasury with Warburg Pincus's Mariner division's heavy involvement in it. Should we? EllenCT (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Washington Post article mentioned there goes into more detail . However, I don't know if this should be included. There are quite a few articles that discuss this issue, but as far as I can tell they were all published within a single week in July, 2018. Is there lasting coverage? Is this important enough to be covered in his biography? Right now there's only a single sentence mentioning that he's the president of Warbug Pincus. Bringing in controversies in such a minimal section would be giving to much weight to them. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The stark contrast is noteworthy in my opinion, and I'm leaning towards including it. EllenCT (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predatory lending at Warburg Pincus