Talk:Inside Job (2010 film)

Criticism
This is going off something already stated below, but most Wikipedia articles, particularly those dealing with any sort of controversial topic, usually have a 'criticism' section if indeed, any such criticism which achieves notability guidelines exists.

While I'm not sure the film is a 'controversial polemic' as indicated by the respondent below, even if it is, that should not excuse Wikipedia from presenting a criticism section, especially since the overall presentation of this article does NOT indicate that its subject material is quite adversarial and/or argumentative; a reader might be misled into believing that the film is a DOCUMENTARY, while it more appropriately falls into an opinionated expose - the difference between the two usually being the presentation of factual evidence and history without an overarching persuasive argument in the DOCUMENTARY (Say a documentary about how airplanes are built) and the presentation of a persuasive argument (esp. a political one) meant to forward a particular interpretation of the material.

Worth noting that I actually love this film, but I was quite surprised because I actually came to the Wikipedia page for it to read about criticism (as there is of course, legitimate issue to take with some claims in the film), and didn't find a section about it, while there usually is one. I don't have any sources extant, but I am sure that a criticism section is appropriate. 79.97.71.19 (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Overlay but not core
The movie details the sytematic buildup of factors that contributed to the financial crisis of 2008 like an overelay of the factors involved, but does not get at the core of the problems at all, and so leaving that out and as yet, 100 % unexpressed, any of that core. And that core details a situation that was far far worse than anyone has yet published. kareem geebaz abdullah mofa sr 69.121.221.97 (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

PraY tell what lies beyond totally irresponsible (predatory) loans being made married to woeful regulation, that constitutes any deeper core? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.96.4 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"Controversy" section
"Conservative analysis of Inside Job concludes that the strong liberal-bias of the director, narrator, and actors are obvious." -- This is not encyclopedic in the least. If an author wants to note conservative criticism of the film there are ways of doing it besides stating "liberal-bias is obvious". The contributor should edit this section or it should be removed.Shavedice (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am just a random reader and I felt that a controversy or criticism section would be good to have. Just for the record. --212.50.147.101 (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Any suggested sources? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A Controversy section seems superfluous in this article - the whole film is a controversial polemic. The Reception section seems like the appropriate place for other views, such as the American Spectator quote which is already there. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Add Regulator (economics) ?
Add Regulator (economics) wikilink? 99.181.136.193 (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Note: reincluded wp links to privatization, economic growth, investment bank, deregulation, savings and loan (S&L) as all are useful links. These are clearly confusing topics for the general public (the readers of wp), hence the links. 99.181.136.193 (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The wikilinks are of relatively ordinary words or terms that shouldn't be included per WP:OVERLINK. Please stop adding them back in. A better use of your time would be to trim the plot section per WP:FILMPLOT. I've posted a tag, and if no one does anything soon, I will severely cut it back. There is far too much detail in the plot. This is not an article about the subject matter of the documentary, but an article about the documentary film itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Retain clarifying wikilinks ...
* In the 1980s, investment banks went public and the U.S. financial industry exploded. A 30 year period of deregulation (1981-2011) was inaugurated.
 * notably with the privatization of its banks
 * From 1940 to 1980, the United States experienced 40 years of economic growth without a single financial crisis because the financial industry was tightly regulated.
 * In the 1980s, investment banks went public and the U.S. financial industry exploded. A 30 year period of deregulation (1981-2011) was inaugurated. But by the end of the 1980s, savings and loan (S&L) deregulation had caused hundreds of S&Ls to fail, resulting in taxpayer losses of about $124 billion.
 * Part II: The Bubble (2001-2007) The housing boom was the biggest financial bubble in history.
 * Morgan Stanley did the same thing. (Both firms are being sued for fraud by pension funds.)
 * In 2005, IMF economist Rajan delivered a paper, "Has Financial Development Made the World Riskier", at an event where many of those identified in the film were present. See Raghuram Rajan, Larry Summers, for example dismissed the paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NanooGeek (talk • contribs) 16:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this what you intended Special:Contributions/NanooGeek? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

99.181.145.99 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Part III: The Crisis By this time, warnings were being sounded by advisors to the Federal Reserve (the Fed) and the FBI, which was seeing a rise in mortgage fraud. Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman and author Charles R. Morris sounded public warnings.
 * On October 4, 2008, President George Bush signed the $700 billion bailout bill, but global stock markets continued to fall.
 * More than 10 million migrant workers in China lost their jobs. Foreclosures in the U.S. reached unprecedented levels,
 * In the U.S., major banks are now bigger and more powerful than ever before. In the wake of the crisis, the financial industry (notably through the Financial Services Roundtable) doubled-down on anti-reform efforts through its 3,000 Washington lobbyists. (external link)
 * Payments for commissioned studies such as this are generally not disclosed, thus creating a conflict of interest.
 * Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (HR 5660) ... from "thwart her" (At the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Brooksley Born attempted to regulate derivatives, but officials such as Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Arthur Levitt, Larry Summers and Sen. Phil Gramm joined forces to thwart her)
 * Systemic corruption (in quotes)
 * What does this have to do with anything? I again remind you this is an article about a film, not about the underlying subject matter of the film.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * About a Documentary film in an online Encyclopedia ... Why not use hypertext that paper does not have?  Emphasize the positives of Wikipedia.  99.181.157.60 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's against guidelines - WP:OVERLINK.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Add Liberalism in the United States wikilink to describe "liberal" too. 99.181.128.190 (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Although badly indented and probably misplaced, that one probably should be in the article, as "liberal" means different things in different cultures. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno, but I revised the sentence to match the source better, thereby avoiding the issue of the word "liberal". Sometimes, when we link things, we inject POV by the link. In other words, by "defining" a common word like "liberal", we presume what the source means by its use. I don't think in this instance that was too big a problem, but it's one of the reasons I don't like wikilinking common words (in addition the guidelines themselves). Anyway, the whole thing is moot after my wording change. It wasn't easy to sum up that article, by the way.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He's WP:OVERLINKing again. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This was removed by Special:Contributions/Bbb23 also (During this period, elite prostitution rings and strip clubs thrived within blocks of the New York Stock Exchange due to the patronage of “Wall Street” types, often spending corporate money.) from Special:Contributions/140.139.35.250. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is what was in quotes Ferguson has described the film as being about "the systemic corruption of the United States by the financial services industry and the consequences of that systemic corruption." 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest adding wikilink for (Icelandic: Draumalandið) with the English title: Dreamland (2009 film). 99.181.134.238 (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikilink Lobbyist. 99.109.124.5 (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A Chairman of the Federal Reserve wikilink would be helpful. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Link Charlie Rose (talk show) for context. 99.181.145.108 (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Credit rating would be a useful wikilink. Has certainly been in the U.S. news lately.  97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A wikilink to S&L (Savings and loan association) would be helpful to the reader. 99.181.138.168 (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Lobbyist
 * Perhaps, although a bit obvious.
 * Chairman of the Federal Reserve
 * OK, but only if important to the film, rather than the subject of the film.
 * Charlie Rose (talk show)
 * Again, only if important to the film, rather than the subject of the film.
 * Credit rating
 * No chance.
 * S&L = (Savings and loan association
 * Perhaps, but it would be better to just write "Savings and Loan", without a Wikilink.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis is not too detailed
On the Synopsis page it said that this is "too long" and too detailed. This is a particularly important article and is not too long. One could have a very brief Synopsis and a "Detailed Synopsis". Having watched the film, I find it important to have it detailed. It seems to be a Documentary which is non-partisan but containing material the U.S. media seem reluctant to touch.

--Hez (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the synopsis is not too long. It is actually concise considering how much more detail is in the film. Valerius Tygart (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a film. It is not an article about the subject matter of the film. The synopsis needs to adhere to guidelines. I've left it a fairly long time with a warning template (which I've restored), but it will be cut down to a synopsis, not a thesis. As an aside, to call this movie non-partisan is absurd. The movie has a very strong point of view and expresses it aggressively. Whether one agrees with it is a separate issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't just a film, it is a specific type (Documentary film) about a potentially complex topic. Here in the USA the general media has constantly told the public this is way too complex to understand.  After watching this well-made film (it deserves the awards it has received) I have greatly improved my understanding of these topics.  Do not reduce this article to some lame meaningless sound-bite, and if the wikilinks are keep it will help in shortening the explanations for the content of this documentary.  64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes! \\(^o^)// Thank you "64".  99.181.128.152 (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Bbb23; I find the synopsis way too long at the moment. It's not supposed to be an article on the financial crisis, it's an article on a film. At the moment, there is undue weight on one aspect of the film (the content). We can compare to Trembling Before G-d - another article on a documentary film that is already listed as a featured article. The word count there for the background + synopsis is just over half what the synopsis is for this article. Yes, different articles will have slightly different requirements, but at the moment, this synopsis is excessive. The main point of having plot/synopsis sections is to "complement" and provide context for the rest of the information in the article. It's not supposed to be a substitute for watching the film. -- Beloved Freak  16:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Special:Contributions/64.27.194.74. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the thorough synopsis. Whether I agree with this film's point of view is irrelevant. Bbb23 you say that "the synopsis needs to adhere to guidelines." Where are these guidelines, and are they mandatory or merely suggested? Pinetalk 00:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:Pine; this film covers complicated, wide-reaching, sometimes esoteric topics, and needs appropriate content coverage. WP:AUDIENCE 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the synopsis if overlong. It is, however, overlinked, and the anon (now represented by 64.27.194.74) is working hard to increase the overlinking.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The synopsis needs to be trimmed to 700 words or less. It is over twice that length right now. Policy states Wikipedia articles about both works of fiction and nonfiction need to have only a concise summary, and we are not being concise here. Think about it; a nonfiction book will have a ton of information about a given topic, much more than a documentary film can provide, but we still keep a description of that work limited to a concise summary. We're not supposed to repeat as much of the work as possible in this encyclopedia. We're supposed to provide coverage about the work from secondary sources, and the summary description is intended to provide context for that coverage. The summary cannot be overly detailed. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Where are these guidelines, and are they policy or merely suggestions? Pinetalk 23:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:FILMPLOT.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. After reading WP:FILMPLOT, WP:How to write a plot summary, and WP:AUDIENCE, I think there is a middle ground. FILMPLOT states that plots should be 400-700 words "unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range," and this film's complexity seems appropriate for an exception. However, this plot summary should not try to be an alternate version of the Wikipedia article "Late-2000s recession," and I agree that the summary contains more detail than necessary. Some of the details in this plot summary would be entirely appropriate for inclusion in "Late-2000s recession" so I suggest that we cut some details from this article and move them to "Late-2000s_recession." Cutting down to 700 words may be too much but we can do at least some reduction in detail. Pinetalk 00:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Compromise is always appealing, but in this instance, I'm not sure it's viable. First, the recession article is really a separate issue from this film article. Whatever you or others think is reasonable to add to the recession article should have no impact here. Second, although I read the guideline's language about complexity, I don't think this movie is as complex as others do. Many non-documentaries have immense detail, but the plot section can still convey what the film is about without setting forth all that detail. The same is true here. Finally, I suspect that at least some of the editors who favor the excessive detail do so because they agree with the movie's messages, but this article is not an expose of the financial problems of the U.S., it's just an article about the film. If there is secondary coverage about the film's message (pro and con), a limited amount of that would be appropriate (there is already some of that in the Reception section), but the plot summary is way too long and can easily be reduced to under 700 words. This is not a political article - it's an article about a political film - a significant difference.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pine, please see WP:PLOT as well; my mention of summary descriptions comes from there. WP:FILMPLOT draws on that policy. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 01:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to make a project out of trying to cut the plot section to 700 words, I think that they should do so but post it here or in a page on their userspace for discusson and consensus before changing the article itself. Pinetalk 03:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should they do that? Whatever they write below 700 words will comply with the guidelines and the policy, which is what matters. The greatest honor a Wikipedia article can bestow on a work is to provide comprehensive coverage about it from secondary sources. This article does not do that; it goes on at length about the work itself with very little solid coverage. That's why the summary's length is inappropriate. Bbb23 has the right of it; it is a political film, not the history of each element highlighted the documentary. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Pine. 99.112.212.108 (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the proposal that a self-selected user should write a summary of under 700 words and replace the current content of the plot section with his or her summary. Policy on WP:Consensus applies here. This plot summary is the subject of a discussion among multiple editors here, and the right thing to do is to wait to make major changes until there is a consensus. Currently there is not a consensus for change, and until and unless such a consensus emerges, the plot section should stay as it is. The discussion above shows multiple editors objecting to shrinking the plot summary. Speaking only for myself, I am open to considering someone's draft of a replacement which we can discuss and might gain consensus, but I'm not sure that other editors are even willing to go that far because they believe that the detailed plot summary's value is important enough for an exception to the 700-word guideline. Those in favor of shrinking the plot summary to 700 words will need to persuade those who object that their proposed substitute is sufficient. Pinetalk 08:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pine, WP:CONSENSUS says that policies and guidelines are established consensus. You need to provide a valid reason for why the plot summary should not be concise and not be under 700 words. In some cases, with non-linear films, a larger word count is appropriate. However, we have a word count that is more than twice the maximum range of normal plot summaries. In addition, the summary is disproportionate in size to the rest of the article body. Look at an example like American Beauty (film), where the plot summary is a very, very small part of the article body. This summary needs to be cut down. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The synopsis is down from over 1,500 words to over 900 words. I think that there needs to be more an overview for each part. Policy (WP:PLOT) says, "Articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents." We really need coverage from secondary sources addressing the documentary, since this way we can explore certain claims of the documentary in detail. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Erik. I've trimmed from your 974 words to 723 - and removed the tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 and Erik, I am disappointed that you made major changes to the plot summary when there isn't a consensus on this talk page about the interpretation of relevant policies and guidelines for the article. I have fewer concerns about the substance of your edit than I do about how it was done. Pinetalk 09:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I don't agree with it, there is a clear consensus that the plot should have been trimmed. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone here may be interested in this WT:FILM discussion about plot summaries. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Arthur that there was a clear consensus, but I've read the replacement plot summary twice and I'm reasonably satisfied with the substance, so I won't revert. I would have supported it if it had been discussed first per my request above. Again, my concern is much more about the method than the substance, but I won't press this issue further unless another editor feels strongly enough to do a revert. Pinetalk 07:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why "trim" Art? 50.42.182.54 (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Bbb23's edits appear exessive to me. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Add: appearance by Maria Bartiromo
Add: appearance by Maria Bartiromo. 99.35.14.190 (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Code of Ethics resource WSJ
Stung by 'Inside Job,' Economists Pen a Code of Ethics 12.October.2011 by Justin LaHart for the Wall Street Journal, excerpt ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Defending a Recent Reversion
I just reverted a removal of my edit, which put in the film's allegation of academic conflict of interest and pushing of corporate interests. For the description not to contain this point which is made at length during the film seems like a significant oversight - the criticism that I was adding 'controversy' and not plot seems perverse - the film is making controversial points, and a description here should say what they are, not edit out those that are controversial. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is the length of the plot (WP:FILMPLOT), and any addition of material is problematic. Part of the problem is the way you worded it. In any event, I've left it in but tweaked it a bit, partly to avoid the claim characterization (everything is a claim in the film) and partly to shorten it. Hopefully, you're okay with the wording. I've even left in the cite, although I don't think cites are generally appropriate in a film plot.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your wording is fine - Thanks for your work here. The conflict of interest issue was a major point of the film, and I just thought it odd not to be mentioned at all. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Obama's advisors
This sentence seems odd to me if no context is given about the role of these economists: "Martin Feldstein, Laura Tyson and Lawrence Summers were all top economic advisers to Obama." It should be included what other information about them is presented in the movie. For example, as is quoted above at Code of Ethics resource WSJ from the Wall Street Journal: "Harvard University's Martin Feldstein, [...] served on the board of American International Group Inc. in 2008 (AIG), when the government saved it from the brink of collapse". Galant Khan (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No actors but interview partners
A list of people with their (former) affiliation who where interviewed in the film could be a useful piece of information. --Gunnar (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inside Job (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100224070822/http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=60 to http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=60

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Root cause
This film does not even come close to identifying the root cause of the 2008 collapse. To identify the key player, the director would have to begin with Eugene Ludwig. A name never mentioned in articles and discussions about the financial collapse who was in fact the architect of the policies that spawned the collapse. Eugene Ludwig was appointed by Bill Clinton to the innocuous position of Comptroller of the Currency in 1993. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-01-22/business/fi-1645_1_banking-industry According to the OCC webpage: "He spearheaded the Clinton Administration's efforts to modernize the banking industry by allowing banks to engage in a wide variety of new activities and to operate under a less burdensome set of rules and regulations. And he led the government's efforts to reform the Community Reinvestment Act and more vigorously enforce the fair lending laws. Ludwig's activities led to a tremendous increase in lending to - and investment in - America's low- and moderate-income communities." https://www.occ.treas.gov/about/who-we-are/leadership/past-comptrollers/comptroller-eugene-ludwig.html. That is putting it mildly, and furthermore this director never connects the dots directly from Eugene Ludwig to stepped up vigorous enforcement of the CRA to the creation of MBS (mortgage backed securities) and CDO's (collateralized debt obligations) to the adoption of investing policies by major stakeholders such as pension funds, insurance agencies, brokerage houses, etc in these dangerous and deceitful MBS - all of which derived from the creative mind of one Eugene Ludwig. Eugene Ludwig was the sole person responsible for the tactics used and policy changes in the 1990's the FORCED banks under the threat of heavy government sanctions to lend to UNCREDITWORTHY customers. The CRA under Ludwig created QUOTAS for the industry to lend in "distressed communities" As the banks initially resisted the demands of the Government to make risky loans, the Government created INCENTIVES for the banks to comply. As reflected in a L A Times article dated September 8 1993: "Comptroller of the Currency Eugene A. Ludwig, who is among the nation's most important banking regulators, said he was "appalled" at the scarcity of bank branches in South-Central Los Angeles and promised that the Clinton Administration will push for a mixture of incentives and enforcement measures to ensure the number increases." "He is a law school classmate and friend of President Clinton's who says he is the "point man" in Clinton's effort to put teeth into the CRA. Newer, tougher CRA regulations will be put in force early next year, Ludwig said, including the use of "testers" or undercover loan applicants to check for discrimination." "Banks that open inner-city branches will be rewarded with the right to sell insurance, a right that is now restricted to banks that open offices in towns with populations of no more than 5,000, he said in an interview during his tour. Those banks will also receive "better ratings when they are evaluated for permission to expand." http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-08/business/fi-32914_1_south-central-community A follow up article dated November 16, 1993 further clarified the pressure Ludwig exhibited on Banks that did not comply with his new policies: "Banks that open inner-city branches will be rewarded with the right to sell insurance, a right that is now restricted to banks that open offices in towns with populations of no more than 5,000, he said in an interview during his tour. Those banks will also receive "better ratings when they are evaluated for permission to expand." http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-16/business/fi-57433_1_community-reinvestment-act — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:AD04:DB00:ED7A:9872:36C5:E280 (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)