Talk:Alan Greenspan

Request for comment
The dispute is over a comment that is in the body of the article and a user wants it also in the lede and another editor wants it removed as undue weight. 21:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

here is the disputed comment...

After 2001, then-Senate Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, then-House Minority Leader Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, and others harshly faulted Greenspan for statements they saw as overly supportive of the policies of President George W. Bush. In 2004 Business Week Magazine said that his policies were leading to a potentiall-disastrous housing bubble. Greenspan has denied blame for the late 2000s recession.

---


 * Strong remove Negative Op-ed material doesn't belong in the lead. Push your POV later in the article if you must.  Scribner (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I'll acknowledge it's negative, much of the rest of the intro is glowingly positive. The tone is factual, not POV. It's important enough for the lede because such criticism of a Fed chairperson is unprecedented for the first part, and its the largest recession in 75 years for the second part, and Wikipedia readers should have more information about such weighty matters, not less. DanielM (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that text that uses a stating-the-facts tone can still be biased by sins of omission, etc. &mdash;harej (talk) 06:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove The information is already in the body of the article, it is not being totally removed, only the duplicated comments from the lede, where the individual comments are given undue weight by their prominence in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support The article becomes unbalanced without the material which has been summarily deleted: Greenspan " ...was lauded for ... ", " ... "was the leading authority ...", and he admits he was "partially" wrong, etc. We should be even-handed rather than apologetic.  Let's face it, his work is controversial. Fconaway (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see this information as worthy of being in the lede anyway; it's a detail, and the lede is supposed to be an overview.
 * Remove Or, rather, an argument can be made to keep the info in the article but not in the lead. The lead is no place for negative editorial opining especially when the opining is coming from Reid/Pelosi who are in no way, shape, or form recognized experts (they don't even display basic competency) on economics, commerce, monetary policy, etc. L0b0t (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove The lede is the wrong place for it.  It would also be the wrong place for "glowing" praise.  Short simple, say who he was, and save the rest for the body of the article.74.64.107.49 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

-- Section removed per consensus. This edit violates WP:ASF, please read this policy section if in doubt. Scribner (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As a last resort in the face of seemingly intractable differences we agreed to take all the negative and all the positive information from the lede. Some had a particular problem with opinion-based negative information, that's not to say editor POV, it's to say that they had a problem with verifiable criticism by prominent persons of Greenspan. Others found that the information was properly included. There was no consensus at all that the material violated any Wikipedia policy. At the end the best we could work out was to take out both the positive and the negative, leaving an uninformative lede that is not even a skeleton. I hope someone improves it, but it's probably better if a fresh editor tackles it. DanielM (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Pelosi/Reed comment
For those pushing this unbalanced edit: Greenspan is on record as stating his beliefs that Congress is to blame in large part for the subprime crisis. So, if this edit is included, the Greenspan quote blaming Congress will need to be included for factual balance. They blame one another and the current edit isn't representing that fact. Scribner (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I support that, assuming that you can reliably source what you just said. It's an okay solution IMO. DanielM (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please not in the lede. This dispute from greenspan should be added into the body of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Scribner referred to getting some balance in the lede, which I agree with. If this text were to be removed from the lede, that would result in a seriously unbalanced lede that says Greenspan "was lauded," was "the leading authority," was nicknamed "the maestro," presided over "years of strong economic growth," and so on. In short it'll be a misleadingly positive, indeed glowing, and uninformative lede that doesn't tell Wikipedia readers much accurate at all. DanielM (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is already a criticism in the lede...I know from Scribners comments that he is looking for a slim and trim unopinionated lede. That is also my opinion, a clear and unopinionated lede mentioning the major points but without the details. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I recall you deleted that other criticism in the lede. May I ask why that paragraph is okay with you now, but yet you fault this paragraph? I find that a disagreement with this person Brooksley Borne is much less notable than the comments of Pelosi and Reid and Business Week's take on Greenspan's role in the housing bubble. DanielM (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did indeed take the other detail out as well, and it is true that I am actually still in favour of that edit you linked to, however there is no support for that edit from anyone...so..I am looking for the next best thing. I have investigated the pelosi and reid comment and found it to be a detail and I suspect the B borne critisism is also a detail. You are right, I am still for my edit which removes all detail from the lede, after that I am in a compromise to get whatever small opinionated detail that I can out of the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

To try a different tack, since we don't seem to be reaching consensus, I'd say that if the negative, opinion-based stuff (Pelosi, Reid, and Business Week too if it can be called opinion-based) is taken from the lead, then the positive, opinion-based (and much less solidly cited) stuff should go too. That would be the uncited "he was lauded for," was nicknamed "the maestro," was "the leading authority," and the suggestion that his tenure consisted entirely of "years of strong economic growth." This is not an ideal outcome, but like you I would like some sort of compromise. I'll also note that one or more of those who participated in the RFC suggested both the positive and negative should go. DanielM (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Daniel, everyone... please stop the pointless reverting, lets rise above that, there is nothing desperate to be added or removed, I agree with you, let us take all the op ed out, the nancy and... comments and the he was lauded for stuff should I agree also go. Let someone good at that rewrite the lede as a simple neutral overview and offer it for acceptance, I will accept that. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead is no place for opinion, positive or negative, it should be a very short, factual, concise descriptor of the subject of the article. No praise, no criticism, just who or what the subject is. L0b0t (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed LObot, would you write a simple introduction for appraisal? Please. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Being bold, I've excised all opinion from the lead. IMHO the lead should be no more than a sentence or two.  The article body is the place for the details.  What do others think?  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done, I was just making the exact same edit and you edit conflicted me. All the other stuff is in the body of the article, I like it a lot. Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly support this clear consise edit, suggested by Daniel and actioned by LObOt, and I urge others to support it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A definite improvement. My only complaint is that the lead is now a bit short for an article of this length. But any expansion should be neutral material, such as mention of other important positions he held before becoming Fed chair. --RL0919 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I support "as is" or with slightly more npov factual content and I commend the good faith shown by all those involved. Hope it sticks.  Scribner (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * edit conflict, Yes, it does look a little small for such a man of power and position. Any other positions can be added. Otherwise a lede like this draws you to read the article to find out more. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, after reading WP:LEAD it does seem a little sparse. When the lead is fleshed out, however, let's keep opinion & editorializing out of it.  We should have a broad enough overview of the article to let readers know what they will find but keep it simple enough that they will have to actually read the article.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Biography/Dissertation
Does anyone besides me find the tangent about Greenspan's dissertation to be an extremely odd addition to the biography section? Is there anyone who has serious objections to it being removed? Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the deleted information about the dissertation. There are only two sentences and two citations that you removed. I find it relevant that Greenspan had all public copies of his dissertation removed. I also find it relevant that the dissertation discussed household spending and bursting housing bubbles. There have also previously been numerous incorrect statements on this page (and several books) suggesting that Greenspan did not write a dissertation, or that there are no known copies. They are documented in the revision history and are apparently common enough to comment on. These additions bear on his oversight of the largest housing bubble in the last 80 years, and also corrects two misconceptions using two well sighted articles. If there is a better place than his bio, which discusses his dissertation, to place these comments then please place them there. Kurthr (talk) 8:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Kurthr, I think you are mistaken about the obsenity, it was the work of an ip not Nwlaw as far as I can see. I do agree with Kurthr that the dissatation story and the two citations is not trivia and I think it should be replaced. I read it and found it interesting and informative. Off2riorob (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The dissertation may have a place in the article, but it seems out of place in the biography section. The whole section reads like a summary, except for this one instance where it dives into detail. If the biography isn't going to into any detail about the 20 years of Greenspan's tenure as Fed Chairman, I'm not sure why it should start giving information about his dissertation. There are a ton of interesting and informative facts about Greenspan's life that are not in the biography section. Perhaps the thing to do would be to move a reference to it to the housing bubble section, where the information about the dissertation discussing such a bubble would seem more relevant. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a read and it looks ok where it is (to me) if you want to move it look to see if there is any support for the move. Off2riorob (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with riorob but it's not a life or death situation on the page - it just seems odd to me. Other opinions?Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Kurthr has replaced the content with the edit summary of...(Replaced commentary on Greenspan's disseration after apparent vandalism as cited in talk.) I think this should be redacted. Off2riorob (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for misreading the change history as vandalism by Nwlaw63, when it was simply his version that was being reverted to. I don't think I can remove the comment in the change history, but would happily see it redacted by others. I have removed the unfortunately reference in this talk page, and hope that is appropriate. Kurthr (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, thats cool, its easy done, you did not name anyone in the edit summary and have removed it here, so no harm done. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Greenspan's comments today
Are the reported comments regarding the financial crisis happening again worthy of inclusion? here [] Off2riorob (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Yes I believe so. Recent thoughts by Greenspan. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-08/greenspan-sees-slow-recovery-is-concerned-if-stocks-drop.htmlJoycenyupimco (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Dubious housing bubble dates
According to the article: Alan Greenspan is blamed by the followers of the Austrian School for creating excessive liquidity which caused lending standards to deteriorate resulting in the housing bubble of 2004-2006 and the market meltdown beginning in 2008.

These dates are ridiculous. The housing bubble began well before 2004. The boom that became a bubble began in 1998. We were clearly in bubble territory by 2001. See http://housingbubble.jparsons.net for evidence. You can also check Robert Shiller's housing data at http://www.irrationalexuberance.com. The financial crisis began in August 2007. Furthermore, Austrian School economists are not the only people who blame Greenspan. --JHP (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Housing Bubble
This section seems to be lacking in NPOV: In a speech in February 2004,[66] Greenspan suggested that more homeowners should consider taking out adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) where the interest rate adjusts itself to the current interest in the market.[67] The fed own funds rate was at a then all-time-low of 1%. A few months after his recommendation, Greenspan began raising interest rates, in a series of rate hikes that would bring the funds rate to 5.25% about two years later.[68] A triggering factor in the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis is believed to be the many subprime ARMs that reset at much higher interest rates than what the borrower paid during the first few years of the mortgage.

I read the Feb 2004 speech and it doesn't seem to draw the exact conclusion above that homeowners should rush out and take out ARMs. He has bold caveats in the following sentence that they have to be able to manage interest rate risk and seems to be talking about the long run. FYI, it may still be true that over 30 years (the term he talks about in the speech) the overall cost may be lower if you can handle the temporary higher payments. I realize this is a raw political topic still with us, but it serves the proponents interest to be more NPOV. I would rather see multiple speeches/testimony where he favors ARMs broadly, coupled with scholars that conclude his favor of this enabled the banking industry to push this thereby crashing the economy which is the clear implication of this paragraph. There is a strong cause-effect implied here but actually this is still hotly debated. Even reading the speech I was a little surprised because he had to know interest rates were going to go up from the 1% they were at. The word "recommendation" is a bit pejorative in this context if you read the speech. I am not in favor of removing this, rather adding to it and improving. All these facts could be rewritten in a more NPOV tone. Anyone agree?

Well I waited a day doesn't look like anyone is watching this article. I found a few interesting articles that requite the Greenspan Feb 2004 speech. It's interesting that one of them was written before the bubble burst. But they don't seem to quote his caveats so it seems a bit out of context. Also nobody says this was Fed policy which is probably a more important point. My problem with it is that afik Greenspan not admitted to this mistake... he has admitted to some mistakes but not this one. KrugmanBurryGreenbe (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There are still people watching this article, but for a time, editing had been domineered by someone (who shall remain unnamed) who would intimidate others into keeping a low profile. After this person's permanent banning (for repeated WP:BLP violations), this particular article talk page still is in gradually recovery towards a community of civil discourse.  Many discouraged editors simply turned their attention elsewhere.  Reify-tech (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Unclear or inaccurate statement
The statement in the biography section "He said he himself had to make such compromises, because he believes that "we did extremely well" without a central bank and with a gold standard.[22]", seems inaccurate to me after reviewing the link cited. Greenspan does not say that he had to make compromises because the USA did well without a central bank and with a gold standard, he claims that compromise is an important part of a democratic society. Also, attaching a date to the period when the USA was without a central bank and with a gold standard would increase the clarity here.--76.17.30.247 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section
The criticism section of this article is littered with POV statements, and unreasonably long compared to the career section. Per WP:CRITS, I think we should keep it in perspective and try to incorporate it into the article. --Artoasis (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. This section should consist of a summary of major criticisms leveled at Greenspan by other significant thinkers, not a forum for criticisms of him. ATM it reads like Fleckenstein's book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.180.242 (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is unfortunate that the following relatively neutral commentary was peremptorily removed from the article:

Greenspeak
Regardless of their political or economic views, many critics have complained that Alan Greenspan's public pronouncements have been obscure, convoluted, and arcane, making it very difficult to decipher what he has said. The terms greenspeak or fedspeak have been used to describe this obfuscated way of (possibly not) communicating.

As of 2011, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas website still maintains a "Greenspeak" page with dozens of excerpts from Greenspan's statements as head of the Federal Reserve Bank, each with a pointer to the full text of his statement. The University of Virginia Writing Program Instructor Site offers some quotations from Greenspan, with a suggestion that students be given writing exercise assignments of clarifying their expression. A public relations firm cites an example of "Greenspeak" as the statement of one of the "master practioners of creative ambiguity over the years".


 * As the article stands today, the term "Greenspeak" is not mentioned even once. This is quite remarkable, since the widespread appearance of this term was inspired by the subject of the article, namely Alan Greenspan. It is as if the article about baseball player Yogi Berra did not mention his famous "Yogiisms".  The strange absence of any mention of Greenspeak is a disservice to readers (WP:RF), and has a taint of "ideological correctness".   It is also a deliberate ignoring of part of Greenspan's legacy in the culture at large. Reify-tech (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources used were garbage or irrelevant. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The first source referenced above consists entirely of quotations from Alan Greenspan's official statements, with pointers to the complete context of each quotation. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas would seem to be a very legitimate and credible source.  The other sources are a program of instruction in clear writing at a respected university, and a reputable public  relations firm in California.   These mainstream sources are not "garbage or irrelevant". Reify-tech (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The term "Fed-speak" was mentioned in the quote box and "see also" section. It is an interesting antidote (and the sources are fine), but I think the detailed discussions are better left for the Fedspeak entry. Also, I moved the unsourced section to the talk page per WP:BLPREMOVE. --Artoasis (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the sources are not fine, and a look at them shows how obvious that is. The Fed "Greenspeak" ref is completely uncritical of Greenspan. Since I said this before, I'll expound. "Greenspeak" is more likely an affectionate heading given to a standard Dallas Fed page soemthing not at all unusual, as evidenced by | this current Dallas Fed page of current Fed Chairman Bernanke, which, as exactly is the case with the Greenspan page, has quotes of the chairman linking to the full text of the speechs. POV has to used to call it criticism, and we would have to assume that the Dallas fed is the habit of insulting Fed chairmen. Furthermore this is the only source of the UVa source, so that ref is a duplicate. Moreover, the UVa ref is actually the product of a contest and the winning entry was from a grad student William Raabe, it's not a scholarly paper vetted by per review. And we don't know who headed the excercise page as Greenspeak. It wasn't Raabe, his excercise never mentions Greenspeak, except in the url link to the Dallas Fed page, and I assume he had nothing to do with the construction of the page. Finally, regarding the only source that explicitly uses Greenspeak as a pejorative is the Tom Arnold, the president of Mediaprep - a most unnotable and unremarkable writer. Since when has cute stuff from a PR firm been used as a RS? Really, the irony of "reputable" and "public  relations firm" being joined in the same sentence. Have a look at their | clients page. Quite a wall of shame there; Countrywide Bank is included. The Fed and UVa refs have been used for WP:Synth, and the PRs CEOs post  can't be used as a RS. Greenspeak can earn a seat at the WP table when good sources have been found. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe I didn't make myself clear before. When I said "fine", I only meant for the Dallas Fed material (not the PR firm). Greenspeak does not belong in the "criticism" section. It's a technique employed by the Fed to intentionally obfuscate their comments. And in that sense, the Dallas Fed source is legitimate. But as I said, it's better to leave the details on the "Fedspeak" page. - Artoasis (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For the puposes of this article it's irrelevant that in truth Greenspan's rhetoric, to say nothing if the man's shameful legacy, is nothing to be proud of. My point, and I believe I carefully explained it, was that no RS states that Dallas Fed was disparaging their chairman. WP:SYNTH is needed to draw that conclusion that the Fed was making comment on their chairman's speaking style. Which is exactly what the wrongheaded editor had done. To restate, The Dallas Fed accorded to to Bernanke and his rhetoric the same regard - minus any affectionate term for his style of speech. Wherever the citation should go, it is in error.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

An update: The Greenspeak set of quotes is nowhere to be found any longer on the Dallas Fed page. Anyone have a copy? I'm curious to take a look. I have no reason to believe any of the quotes are inaccurate, we might check his book for corroboration. I don't think the writing school source is that useful.

Nevertheless I agree with general tenor that any article on Greenspan without mention of Greenspeak and Fedspeak is incomplete. My impression is that it was one of several things he is most well known for. Yes we can leave the long detail for that WP page but there should be some mention of it and perhaps some of his most famous quotes, controversial or not. By the way, Greenspan himself has taken ownership of both the terms Greenspeak and Fedspeak and has his own explanation in many primary sources, least of which his and Shiller's books. See Fedspeak for details. I found a good Washington Post article and interview on this as well see the citations. So I don't think it's controversial that he uses those specific terms and practices the art. Whether the results of it is good, bad or indifferent is a matter I can't opine on, but opinion seems widely held that he was very skilled at the art. I think it ought to be mentioned with some balanced criticism. Clearly he thinks it was a good thing from writings and interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbe (talk • contribs) 01:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Try the Wayback Machine or other internet archive sites. Reify-tech (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The movie world
Is there another Alan Greenspan, who produced Donnie Brasco (film)? Or is this the same guy? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the same person. --RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Matt Taibbi's comments
Matt Taibbi called Greenspan a vain "classic con man" and a undistinguished economist who, through political savvy, "flattered and bullshitted his way up the Matterhorn of American power and then, once he got to the top, feverishly jacked himself off to the attention of Wall Street for 20 consecutive years." Taibbi said Greenspan had "established himself as an infallible oracle, and a lot of it had to do with his ability to seduce key media figures, sometimes literally." Taibbi reported a Wall Street term called the "Greenspan put" which "meant that every time the banks blew up a speculative bubble, they could go back to the Fed and borrow money at zero or one or two percent, and then start the game all over", thereby making it "almost impossible" for the banks to lose money.
 * Not sure how the refs got lost, but hey, stuff happens. They are now back as they were in the first place. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please check the source again? I couldn't find the quote in the interview. Thanks. - Artoasis (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a ref, let me know what else may still need attention. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If we are going to have a section listing only criticism of Greenspan's performance as Fed chairman, can we at least stick to serious, original views of people who have some notability in economics/finance, instead of junk written by the likes of Matt Taibbi, who came out 10 years after events happened and recycled old criticisms into a hyperbolic piece of popular journalism. Why are you giving that such undue prominence and why did you delete the criticisms of Ron Paul and others? Karpouzi (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Karpouzi, Taibbi has spent years covering Wall Street, and you don't point to any lack of credentials that would de-legitimize Taibbi. Furthermore, he is widely read, not by some illiterate, unseemly crowd, but by millions. He uses facts when he writes. While I generally support much of what Greenspan did as Chairman of the Fed Reserve, he deserves some blame for the lack of regulation that occurred at the tail end of the Clinton years. This article accurately quotes Greenspan self-criticism on that matter. V Schauf (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Read "The Greatest Asshole in the Universe" by Taibbi, he does't think our current near depression, which is in great part due to AG's ineptitude and dereliction, is something that happen 10 years ago. Taibbi is an extremely notable and accurate reporter on economics/finance. Just ask Mark Spitzer. Speaking of junk, the removal of the self-published Lew Rockwell blog material was explained in edit summaries. We need RSs here. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the problem with Taibbi's criticism is undue weight. I have put a request at WT:ECON. Hopefully more editors will participate in this discussion and eventually reach a consensus. Cheers.--Artoasis (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Outside view from Wikiproject Econ member. I think the Taibbi criticism should be mentioned. But it is currently overweight, and shouldn't stand in a sub-section by itself. For example, Krugman's criticisms are likely more notable (being from a Nobel prize winning economist). I suggest adding a bit more to Krugman's criticisms, and trimming the Taibbi criticism to be slightly shorter than the amount of space given to Krugman. LK (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Outside view, not a project member. The argument against, that criticism comes 10 years later, sounds dangerously recentist when we're discussing a historical figure in politics and economics, where everything takes a few years to implement and a few years to have an effect and a few years for anybody to notice the effect and a few more years for anybody to connect the dots.  Having said that, giving it its own section as if Matt Taibbi made some monumentally notable breakthrough in analysis of the man and his policies is undue weight; further, much of the section is unhelpfully vague.  Most people's success in life is due in some part to flattery in one form or another; and a good many people employ some bullshitting as well, to some extent.  Vanity is next to Godliness in America.  Among consenting adults, who hasn't seduced people, sometimes literally.  That doesn't shed much light on the man biographically and it doesn't say a thing about how he did his job and his effect on policy and the economy of the nation and the world over a period of decades.  I'm not defending Greenspan, I'm saying it seems like it's Taibbi who is feverishly jacking himself off to the attention of Rolling Stone readers, and we need to cut to the money shot here.  Why does Taibbi think Greenspan is the biggest asshole in the universe, as in concise examples in a sentence or two; we don't need the chapter title, we need the justification, if it's cogent and credible and disinfected from Taibbi's spunk.  "Classic con man", "political savvy", "established himself as an infallible oracle," absolutely the "Greenspan put" comments, that's what I see as relevant here.  I agree with LK, Taibbi's testosterone is not more notable or relevant than Krugman's criticisms.  Abrazame (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was after merely reviewing the section in question. Upon a quick skim of the article, I'm surprised to find Greenspan's own recanting of his former ideological certitude to be buried at the end of a long paragraph.  When someone admits their driving principle for four decades of really affecting the world and world leaders was wrong, that seems to me to deserve it's own subsection, not Matt Taibbi's foaming at the mouth over it.  I mean that both from the standpoint of the man's own story arc and from the standpoint of the light it casts on everyone who fell for—and still foists—that ideology, both in historical hindsight and in today's and tomorrow's movers and shakers.  Abrazame (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Per consensus, I have tried to trim down Taibbi's comments and merge them into the "Late 2000s recession". Indeed, the "criticism" section needs some copy editing, ideally a rewrite.--Artoasis (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else have problem with the phrase, "Late 2000s recession"? It implies the end of the 21st century, which won't be accurate for another sixty to seventy years.  It is intended to mean late in the first decade of the 2000s, which is admittedly a cumbersome replacement, but that's no excuse for an imprecise phrase like "Late 2000s recession". Edgewise (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't access the article but the Financial_crisis_of_2007–08 is linked in the paragraph. Maybe rename the section Great recession? Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Good resource
 Go  Phightins  !  13:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Checchi's comment on this article
Dr. Checchi has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"the scetion on objectivism is totally unrelated to the previous historical account and the following evaluation of his policiies. It would rather gain if one could separate accounts (often uncontroversial) and policy evaluation (highly controversial, especially on Greenspan long office."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Checchi has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : Daniele Checchi & Gianni De Fraja & Stefano Verzillo, 2014. "Publish or Perish? Incentives and Careers in Italian Academia," CEIS Research Paper 323, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 07 Aug 2014.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Why did Greenspan not serve in World War II???
Why did Greenspan not serve in World War II??? He was the perfect age - he graduated from high school in 1943. Doesn't make sense. Did he have connections that enabled him to sit out the war??? Thanks in advance to anybody who knows.Betathetapi545 (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In The Age of Turbulence, he says he was classified as unfit to serve because of spot on his lungs that doctors thought might be tuberculosis. --RL0919 (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

lists of books
why can't each book appear in only one list per page instead of once for each below:

references

works cited

bibliography

other readings

It would be in service to the reader and also reduce maintenance to list each work once.Scranton (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * References, Works cited, and Further reading should be non-redundant, because they are all part of the citation system for verifying the information in the article. For example, if a "Further reading" item is used in a reference, then it should be removed from "Further reading". This particular article has assorted inconsistencies around how the citations are handled, so cleaning up redundancy within those makes sense. For example, I just fixed this inconsistency. A list of books written by the subject, on the other hand, is not part of the citation system – it is part of the article's informational content about the subject. So occasional redundancy between the citations and a list of the subject's works is normal. The only place I would suggest removing those is from "Further reading", since it should be obvious that the person's own works could be further reading for understanding that person. --RL0919 (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Description of former wife
Hi the wikipedia article describes ex-wife as Artist, the ABC News story referenced says art student. What do you think should Wikipedia article get changed to reflect the source?Scranton (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * She was a student when they married, but a professional artist afterwards, so this would be partly down to how time-bound we want the description of her to be. Since artists don't have to be professionals anyway, I'm fine with 'artist' as a generic description. An even better question is why random journalism pieces are being used to source this type of information for someone who has multiple full-length biographies written about him. I've replaced some of the news cites (and one to Ancestry, a perennial source to avoid) with a couple of the better bios. I expect there are many more cases where the sourcing could be similarly improved. --RL0919 (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Neoliberal?
This article has a side bar and a box at the bottom referring to Neoliberalism. Yet, the word "neoliberal" is never mentioned in the article. Do many sources call Greenspan a neoliberal? If this is the case, it should be included in the article. Otherwise there's no need for the boxes. Joe vom Titan (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In any case having both the sidebar and footer navboxes is redundant, so I've removed the sidebar. Probably the footer should go also if there is no discussion of the topic in the article. --RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)