Talk:Timothy Geithner

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)

Jewish?

Please stop trying to suppress the fact that the man is Jewish. This is relevant to personal life and people have a right to know this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.144.190 (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is this phenomenon here on Wikipedia. Some group of people here seem overly keen and obsessed to "claim" every single Jew out there. Just look at it - even if the person is remotely Jewish, he will be categorized, tagged, labeled inside-out, as if it is the most important piece of information out there. Many others, especially the Anglo-Saxon people get completely ignored in that regard. Question is - who cares if he is a Jew or not? He is a human being, an American, and history will show whether he is a good one. 75.3.159.195 (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Tocino 21:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I disaree... neither John Alden's or George Washington's religion is mentioned in their Wiki pages. What "rule/standard" are you promoting here? Christians are not labeled & Jews are? DEddy (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

George Washington's religion (Episcopal) is, in fact, mentioned on his wikipedia page. john k (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it true, though? I'd like to see some substantiation although I do agree that, if true, it is part of his biography. 128.123.249.72 (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop editing the truth! Citation right here http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/8219-barack-obama-by-his-friends-you-shall-know-him.html

Nobody is suppressing anything, and "truth" is not the issue. Remember the mantra: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter if he is Jewish or any other religion...what matters is what we can cite in a reliable source. Please also keep in mind WP:BLP.  Frank  |  talk  21:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that, not only is the Pakistani agency originally cited not a reliable source, but also that the only people talking about Geithner's supposed Judaism are anti-semitic hate sites. Neither Peter nor Timothy are Jewish names, so I would like to see some verifiable evidence that meets wiki standards. 128.123.249.72 (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is some evidence that suggests that Geithner is NOT Jewish: his marriage is reported in the NYT and he and his wife were married by a United Church of Christ minister. 128.123.249.72 (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when are Pakistani sources banned? Stop being discriminatory. Also does this look like an anti-Semetic website? [1] What probably happened is that his wife is Church of Christ, so they had a Christian wedding instead of a Jewish one. --Tocino 21:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, blogs are not reliable sources, especially for BLP articles.  Frank  |  talk  21:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, his notability is for financial matters. Unless he has said he's Jewish (or Buddhist, or animist, or ....) I don't think wikipedia should assign a religion to him. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 21:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Most politicians/top government officials have their religion in their infoboxes, especially in America where there is more religious diversity. --Tocino 21:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that this will have no effect, but it is the wrong thing to do. Unless someone self-identifies their religion, or their religion is important somehow to their notability, we shouldn't go around labeling people. We don't, for example, put party affiliation in the infoboxes of writers, so why should we put religion in the box for an economist?--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Henry Paulson, Michael Mukasey, Condoleezza Rice, Michael Chertoff, John W. Snow, Paul O'Neill... and so on. They all have their religions in their profiles. We know his religion so why hide it? Isn't this an encyclopedia? --Tocino 22:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't know his religion unless he has expressed his religious views. You can argue that Jewish is an ethnic group but, just because someone was born a Jew does not mean that he is Jewish in the sense of religion. He could have decided to become a Buddhist (not unusual these days). The choice of religion expresses a view about god and about spiritual matters that is independent of what particular religious group you're born to. (BTW, for what it's worth, Geithner was married by a Reverend, not a Rabbi. What does that say about his religion?)--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, but that doesn't mean you can use any Tom Dick or Harry blog you find. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 22:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again the Pakistani source is not a blog. It's a news agency. Please read the damn source. --Tocino 22:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And where do you get the slighest idea that that is a reliable source? Think again. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 22:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at the homepage. It is presented as a news site, not a blog. I have no reason to think they are lying. Do you? --Tocino 22:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no more reason why that isn't a reliable source than any other News agency. Calling it a tom fick and harry blog is just bananas.

If Geithner is jewish, then it should be listed, as religion is for virtually every prominent politician in America that has precided over the last 10 or so years. But to my knowledge, there is no reliable information stating it yet - so unless there is a reliable source, it should not be listed. Jewish is also not simply a religion. Being of jewish background, I can assuredly tell you that it also has an ethnic-cultural label to it. I'm an atheist and even neutral on the israeli-palestinian conflict - but am still considered jewish by family and jewish friends, and ultimately consider myself one 'racially' if you will. Fermat1999 (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If he's a politician, maybe, but he's not a politician. He never ran for office. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference that he's jewish myself. But if he is jewish, it should be noted. Whether he ran for elected office or not is immaterial - he is someone representing the economy of the United States with alot of power. People want to know about him, and if he takes the job, his religion and ethnicity should be noted (as it is for virtually all cabinet members). I believe he belongs to the unitarian church myself - once proof of that is found, his religion and ethnicity (german, jewish, english, irish, whatever) should be listed. Obama's wife did not run for office, but her ethnicity is noted.Fermat1999 (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Pakistani "News" site is more accurately an opinion site, as the piece about Obama's "friends" does not take a neutral position regarding the persons identified as Jewish. Geithner may be Jewish but I've yet to read any veriable evidence to confirm this. However, Paul Volcker is listed as Jewish; he is not. John Kerry's parents were listed as Jewish converts to Catholicism. His grandparents converted, not his parents. Rahm Emanuel is listed as an Israeli citizen; he is not. John Podesta is included as Jewish; I've read nothing to confirm this. Madeleine Albright, who apparently didn't know her parents were born Jewish until she was in her sixties, is referred to as "infamous." It is a mistake to assume that a website that calls itself a "News Agency" is a news agency or that a country few Americans know much about has the same news standards we do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.188.250 (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The above editor said "or that a country few Americans know much about has the same news standards we do." -- It might be worth pointing out that Wikipedia is not an American-centric encyclopaedia and America is not the benchmark for what is deemed a reliable source. And it's further ridiculous to cite it as beign an opinion site when most if not all media sites in the world carry opinion. We'd have no sources left at all by that criteria. And the user called BaldPark who reverted my edit on the basis that it's vandalism please assume good faith. Thankyou!! Vexorg (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"-- It might be worth pointing out that Wikipedia is not an American-centric encyclopaedia and America is not the benchmark for what is deemed a reliable source."

Actually, if you'd check the (English) Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia" you'd see that American participation in Wikipedia outweighs that of all others in the English-speaking world. Wikipedia, while available in multiple languages and to multiple users, was created by Americans. Be that as it may, there's a difference between being a legitimate News Agency that offers opinions, and being an Opinion site that offers its opinions as News. Incidently, I never said America was the benchmark for what is deemed a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.188.250 (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I accept responsibility as the editor who reverted your edits as vandalism. I have been doing same on this article for over 24 hours now; it's getting a little tedious. To keep adding something to an article - especially a BLP article - that is clearly not properly cited is a problem. If you were the fourth or fifth person to do so before it has been called vandalism, I apologize for that characterization, but this is a community, with standards. His religion and/or ethnicity may be relevant, but we do need citations from reliable sources.  Frank  |  talk  01:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

He is not Jewish. See my blog entry based on an email from his father-in-law: "Geithner (is) not Jewish, (he was) raised Episcopalian, but (is) hardly religious now.... " Your source is my blog: http://tzvee.blogspot.com/2008/11/is-either-timothy-geithner-lawrence.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzvee (talk • contribs) 02:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

First, blog entries are not reliable sources. I am reasonably sure the blog in question said he is Jewish just yesterday, which would support the reason why they aren't acceptable. Also, for what it's worth, the assertion on that blog that he was listed as Jewish is misleading, as those edits were reverted very shortly after being entered a number of times. Finally, if you have a reliable source that says he is Episcopalian (or whatever!), please share it with us. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  04:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure of the source of my information - Geithner's father-in-law. You had misinformation in this Wikipedia entry for several weeks prior to Friday. I have corrected the record now as best I can whether you accept it or not ;>) Tzvee (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And we are suppose to blindly accept your word since you are the author of that blog? Not calling you a liar, but this is a clear case of original research with unverifiable self-referential sourcing. Lestatdelc (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Tzvee - I should have written reliable source rather than just "reliable source". You (or I) might personally know his father-in-law, or even Geithner himself, but that doesn't qualify. This is an encyclopedia.  Frank  |  talk  11:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Franz Geithner? Sounds German, not Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.213.246 (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

First, there most certainly are people who are both German and Jewish; second, we don't go by what it "sounds" like; we go by what is verifiable, from reliable sources.  Frank  |  talk  11:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

By your rules of sourcing 80% of Wikipedia should be suppressed.Tzvee (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's probably true, but we are more careful with the rules when we are dealing with the inclusion of potential contentious information concerning a living person (see WP:BLP). In any case, the article in its current state, with no mention of religious background is probably the best way to go until someone comes up with a reliable source (per WP:RS). Better safe than sorry.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So we are "suppressing" that he isn't Jewish? By that 'logic' must be suppressing that he isn't Zoroastrian as well. Lestatdelc (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where you're coming from. We are "suppressing" everything unless it is backed up by a reliable source. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit protection

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

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)

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)

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

Link to bio

Here's a good bio on him: [2] slipgrid (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[3]. (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)

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)

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." [4] (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 [5] 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 [6] 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)

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)

Democrat or not

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)

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)

---

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. ...

Cho, David (22 November 2008). "Obama Picks N.Y. Fed President Geithner as Treasury Secretary". Business. The Washington Post. p. A1. Retrieved November 23, 2008. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)


--AndersW (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Racial comedy

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) Allen Roth

Pakistan Daily is a reliable source and it says that Geithner is Jewish

Pakistan Daily

I think it is wrong to not consider the Pakistan Daily as a reliable source. If we label it as unreliable, then CNN, FOX News, BBC, IHT, New York Times ect are also not reliable sources. We should update this article accordingly with this encyclopedic information regarding Geithner's religion. Ijanderson (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the openly racist tone this article adopts ("kosher credentials" etc.), it is certainly not a reliable source. --RCS (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is zero reason to accept your claim that Pakistan Daily is at all a reliable source and on par with or on the same level of veracity as CNN, Fox, NYT, etc. - Lestatdelc (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This article as reliable is laughable. "By his friends you shall know him", referring to Jews as "the tribe", "that only about three percent of the American population are Jewish, their heavy concentration in the corridors of power is, of course, purely coincidental!". Anybody who argues that article is reliable needs a good check in the head. Grsz¹¹ 04:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, RCS and Grsz are correct. Tvoz/talk 05:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Lestatdelc (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, missed your earlier comment above - you're correct too. Tvoz/talk 05:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries, has happened to me before as well. - Lestatdelc (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

We have had this issue before. The issue for most of us isn't really that the Pakistan Daily isn't reliable (which, by the way, it really isn't, at least on this issue) but that it is not a suitable source for Wikipedia. When we take a source that classifies people in a certain way, and we copy this classification based on the source, we are doing something non-neutral even if the source is reporting correctly on the data it uses to ascertain this classification: we are accepting and adopting the source's basic mindset and habits of classification, with whatever they imply.

It's interesting that this sort of thing has come to the fore before when the "Jews" category (or similar ones) have been used to conscript living individuals (or non-living ones whose lives have not been dedicated to Judaism or the Zionist project or Israeli politics or what have you) in order to further what seems to be self-glorification of a teenager variety ("look at all these Jewish Nobel prize winners!" - Protestants and Catholics included).

So far, most of these categories have been allowed to stand, though some have been deleted. It is not the end of the world if things remain as they are, but, for consistency's sake if not anything else, this may be a good moment to have a good discussion on whether these categories, as currently used, are encyclopaedic - or ethically defensible, for that matter.

(And, yes, the latter issue matters; that's why we are spending our time writing here.) Feketekave (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. I do agree that, if we manage to keep the label out of here, we should also keep it out of here, say. The reliability of the Pakistan Daily vs. other sources is an unclear and distracting matter, and not what is really at issue here. Feketekave (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a Democrat

The Boston Globe says otherwise Here. Parler Vous (edits) 10:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say in that article anything about his party affiliation? Lestatdelc (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

The reference in the article (Cho) states he is a Democrat, as does the infobox.  Frank  |  talk  22:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

This seems like a pretty good reference to claim he's an independent. john k (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Table For Yeas and Nays In Senate For Confirmation

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Mark Patterson

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

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)

Opening Paragraphs

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)

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)