Talk:Lawrence Summers

Bias?
Holy effin' shitake... This article is extremely biased against Summers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.63.111 (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you really think that? The Academic Economist part doesn't have one single citation nor one single critic! I would like to hear you when someone get the time to explain his pivotal role in the de-industralization of the United States and his complete sold-out of strategic enterprises (Magnequench sounds familiar?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.193.202.98 (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Political Correctness at Harvard
It is impossible to discuss this fellow's tenure at Harvard without discussing the Political Correctness which is pervasive there. I don't say this as any particular fan of Summers, but it was Harvard's opposition to freedom of thought which brought him down. And, without freedom of thought, a university devolves into something less than an open forum for debating ideas with which one might disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.144.158 (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack
I removed this:

In January 2005, Summers gave a speech at an NBER conference which explained the reasons that tenure offers to females at Harvard have been dropping steadily under his administration. It appears that Summers is a misogynist who goes so far as to use anecdotes about his own daughter to denigrate the potential of women.

I consider this to be entirely POV. Feel free to describe the issue, but an introduction followed by a conclusion, with no evidence, is not what Wikipedia needs. &mdash; PhilHibbs | talk 16:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel that the description of what Summers actually said is accurate. This account hedges and softens it. I would like to paraphrase what the Boston Globe reported at the time of the talk, as I think that's accurate. Eperotao (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there are some issuse with the change you just made . First of all is accuracy to the source used.  The article clearly says he had three possible explanations and you changed that to two.  The second is your reference to math scores in 2008.  This is unsourced (your only reference is from 2005).  I don't object to a change in this section, but it needs to be done correctly.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also these changes were made in the lede, which should be a brief summary of the entire article. If there's a need for more detail I think it should be in the controversy sevtion down below.  I think the lede should be reverted to it's previous version, however I've no current objection to possible work in the controversy section.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been puzzling over what the three were supposed to be. I have read and read and so far can find only two arguments. What's the third? I can give a reference for the math scores. This was well covered in the media. I can delete the 88% sentence, though I think it's pretty relevant in terms of why people reacted so strongly to him and why it was faculty more than students who were upset. This story has a lot of context, I think. Eperotao (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not happy with the lead section as it was and would not like to see a reversion. Among other things, it gives an inaccurate account of what he actually was arguing and also characterizes it as "speculation," which is hardly the word for deliberately "provocative" statement to the effect that women are naturally dummer than men. Is there room for compromise here? Eperotao (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe there's a separation in what you see as the second reason. #1 is the time working.  #2 is the lower math scores.  #3 is the speculation of #2 being caused by innate differences or whatever wording he used.  On the 2008 info if it belonged the source would be required.  However does it belong here at all.  This is his biography and the controversy was that he made the statement.  Is the fact that 3 years later test scores rose really a key part of the story of his life?  IMHO it definitely doesn't belong in the lede.  And to be used later on we need to be careful of synthesis.  (see WP:SYNTH.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a talk that forced someone to resign from a position as president of Harvard University definitely belongs in the lede. Yes. This is an encapsulation of what is interesting and of note about him. There was never any real controversy about point number 2 and I didn't feel he belabored it particularly in his talk. It's like saying, "Two, the sky is blue, and, three, it's blue because of the work of space aliens." is that really two points? Further, after reading his talk -- and apparently there WAS a transcript from somewhere, although not from an unbiased source--I couldn't separate out three points.  Can you point me to the separation??


 * The stated reason for the math score differential was the thing he said that was controversial. Got to go. Eperotao (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You may not be seeing the difference between two and three, but the source you're using says three. You can't just overrule your own source just because you don't understand it.  Also I'm not saying that the fact that he made the comments shouldn't be in the lede.  I'm saying that (unsourced) commentary based on 2008 statistics doesn't belong in the lede.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's entirely accurate to label Summers's talk as "speculation." The media reports say he offered several possible explanations for the under-representation of women and included differences in aptitude as one possible explanation, without specifically endorsing any one explanation. That's the very definition of "speculation." The language you've added is too strong, suggesting that he specifically endorsed the "women have lower aptitude" view rather than presenting it as one possibility. Binarybits (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read his speech you'll see that he was definitely endorsing a particular point of view, which was that women's shortage of aptitude at the high end (to paraphrase Summers) was innate. He spent 5000 words on this. While not entirely direct, his meaning was clear. He was trying to argue for innate inferiority and when challenged, trying to at least sow doubt. The speech, with his answers to questions, is about 5600 words. Eperotao (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

More on 2005 talk
I question whether this news blurb about the talk in 2005 deserves coverage in an encyclopedia. It was a few comments at a closed conference attended by a small collection of scholars. The NYTimes article mentions that no transcripts were recorded because the conference was intended to be off the record so that people could say controversial things without being misunderstood. Consequently, the public only has some idea of what he actually said, and very little idea of the context. I move that the paragraph and external link be removed. MOE37x3 17:23, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It was very widely reported (just check http://news.google.com/ ) and therefore noteworthy in the context of an article about the man. The fact of being off-the-record comments widely publicized or taken out of context is not relevant; there have been many such cases in history that have become newsworthy.  It deserves a single, balanced paragraph. -- Curps 17:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Not everything that is very widely reported for a day belongs in an encyclopedia entry about a person's life. This is something that would probably not even make it into a biography of the man, much less an encyclopedia entry. I think that this will only be "newsworthy" in an encyclopedic sense if it has some impact beyond a bunch of people complaining about it and a bunch of newspapers reporting about it for a day. MOE37x3 21:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, any biography would almost certainly mention it. The remarks put him at odds with some of his own university professors, and any biography chapter on his time as Harvard president could hardly avoid mentioning it. He has a reputation for speaking frankly and boldly and risking misinterpretation on occasion (eg, the Summers memo), and for not shying away from confrontation (Cornel West).  Any biography would explore this side of his personality and analyze the episodes involved.


 * You seem to be arguing that people made too much of the remark and it wasn't really a big deal. I tend to agree that it shouldn't have been a big deal, except people did make a big deal out of it and it thereby became noteworthy.  Often things like this take on a life of their own.  Again, it deserved a brief, balanced mention. -- Curps 21:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * When the president of Harvard University claims that women don't succeed in science and engineering at places like Harvard because he thinks they are intellectually weak and that it's not something they can do anything about, that's significant. He's not just some guy blabbing over his barbecue with his buds. I don't agree that too much was made of it. It would be like a U.S. secretary of state criticizing the people of some other country, saying they are lazy, devious or dumb, and that it's innate.


 * Also, this was not a brief "remark" made in the midst of some other point, a misunderstanding, or a slight overstatement. "Gosh, I didn't mean to say that!" He spoke at length and he knew exactly what he was saying. His talk is more than 5600 words, roughly the equivalent of a 15-page paper, most of it supporting his argument that women are innately inferior intellectually. He was talking to some of the most educated women in the world, and the evidence was and is not on his side at all. Even if the people in the audience had politely ignored him, it would have been a great story.  So, what I'm saying is that the story wasn't just about people's reactions, it was about his messing up. Eperotao (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Binary bit has reverted a big chunk of my contribution. (1) How is it a POV infraction to show that Summers' arguments were untrue? (2) How can academic papers can be construed as "original research" by me? These are authoritative sources. I would like to see a more persuasive justification for this reversion, which otherwise appears merely petulant. Eperotao (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an article about Summers, not about the aptitude of women. These two paragraphs tell us nothing about Summers, they simply give us one set of opinions (yours, presumably) about something he said. If you can find sources that specifically discuss and refute Summers's words, that could be appropriate for this article. But sources that simply discuss women's aptitude without reference to Summers are off-topic. Binarybits (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The two paragraphs told us that Summers was wrong in what he was saying. Perhaps I erred in not showing better that it was well known that he was wrong at the time he said it. He made much of having consulted people at the conference and made it sound as if what he was saying was endorsed by the presenters, but there was evidence presented at the conference that refuted what he was saying, evidence he was either unaware of or chose to ignore. Either way, that tells me a lot about the man. Eperotao (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the whole point: it's not appropriate for a Wikipedia article to declare some points of view wrong, even if the editors believe them to be wrong. Rather, the article should be written from a neutral point of view, informing the reader of all relevant viewpoints that can be supported by reliable sources. Since this is an article about Larry Summers, "relevant" means related to Larry Summers. Sources that simply give an opinion on women's aptitude for math and science, without specifically referencing Summers, are off-topic, and it's not consistent with NPOV to include them. Binarybits (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Material deleted by binarybits on June 4, 2009:
 * Summers' arguments have been rebutted on several grounds. For example, the math and science scores of girls have steadily improved over the last several decades . A 2008 paper in Science reported that U.S. girls were doing just as well on math tests as boys . This change from a large difference to no difference over just a few years demonstrated that the cause of the difference was not innate. And although the Science paper reported that boys' math scores still vary more than girls' math scores, with twice as many white boys above the 99th percentile as girls, the pattern was reversed in Asians, where it is girls who are over represented among the highest math scorers.


 * A second paper, presented in the afternoon at the same conference where Summers spoke, showed that high math scores do not predict success in math, sciences and engineering. The paper "Is the Science and Engineering Workforce Drawn from the Far Upper Tail of the Math Ability Distribution?" showed that two-thirds of college-educated white men in math, science, and engineering have math SAT scores below 650 (with the same earnings advantage as men with higher math scores). More generally, the paper's author concluded, "the demographic composition of the science and engineering workforce cannot be explained by the distribution of attributes measured by these standardized tests of mathematics."

Eperotao (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is much more important to make sure that Summers' statements are described accurately.

Opinions of others can be put in other articles. I made a couple of edits to remove the word "innate", because Summers did not actually say that. Roger (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * True, he just implied it that it was innate by asserting that things people think are socialization are not. The obvious alternative to socialization is genetics, which he also implied with his "baby truck" story. Eperotao (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You may think that a genetic explanation is the obvious alternative, but there are other possibilities, and Summers did not say anthing about genetics. Stick to what he said. Roger (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Pinker
Huangdi: Your one-word justification for removing Pinker's strong defense of Summers, "mischaracterized" is cryptic and unhelpful. Can you explain why this deserves to be removed? MOE37x3 15:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I reinserted a copyedited version pending a real reason for its removal. jdb &#x274b; (talk) 19:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Controversies
I realize that Summers is a controversial figure but I find it incongruous that an encyclopedia biography should devote almost twice as much space to "controversies" as it does to the rest of his life and career. The body of the article is virtually a stub. Shouldn't his life be expanded and, most particularly, the controversy section edited down? I'm not suggesting deleting material, just editing it. I don't want to do this without some comment. WBcoleman 02:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The notion that Summers is a controversial figure is not POV. When he withdrew as a candidate for Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, news coverage in a Washington Post [| article], a New York Times [| article], and many others. It would be worthwhile to add a paragraph to the beginning of the section on controversies that details the extent to which he is viewed as a controversial, and even polarizing figure. -Steven Gjerstad

I agree. I work in economics research in Summers' field and would be happy to add a piece to the article describing some of his contributions to economics (Summers is a brilliant economist). I would like some positive feedback to this idea before going to the trouble. - Graham Stull, www.grahamstull.com


 * Please tell us what his notable work is. You don't hear much about it in the economics journals these days. It's not that brilliant.  You should engage in more objective reporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.92.200 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do! - Fluxdrip, 23 March 2006

As the majority of Harvard students and professors outside of the Arts and Science school favored Summers should that be given equal weight. Also there is no mention that Cornell West was criticized for not serving his students and race had nothing to do with it.Tannim 20:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"many women and those concerned with women's issues took offense and brought increasing pressure on Harvard, possibly contributing to his resignation."...possibly ? NPOV is that he was forced from office by women's groups. SPCGuru 01:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)SPCGuru

Wikipedia has been taken over by vested interests. This article is just an advertisement for Larry Summers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.92.200 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

See article By Beth Healy Boston Globe Staff / April 3, 2009 http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/04/03/ex_employee_says_she_warned_harvard_of_risky_moves/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddriver66 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed this paragraph:

"During Summers' tenure, many Harvard alumni responded by writing letters and declining to donate in response to the various controversies. After the Harvard Corporation accepted Summers' resignation, some pledged contributions were canceled but other contributions were made in celebration of his resignation. Some donors were disappointed by the Harvard Corporation's failure to stand up to the college faculty but some donors were impressed by the decision. Ultimately, there has been no consensus amongst the alumni, students or faculty of Harvard University regarding Summers' tenure. Despite the negative controversies that his conduct and words often created, Summers led some initiatives at Harvard that have continued to benefit the University."

It's a lot of hearsay with no citations, and not particularly relevant (in my opinion) as it essentially says that some people supported him and some people didn't. Seijihyouronka (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me. Binarybits (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Party Affiliation
Larry Summers has worked in both the Clinton and Reagan administrations. Does anyone know what his official party affiliation is? 152.17.125.18 18:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC) A Democrat - Matthew238 04:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious affiliation
Is he a jew (since his uncle apparently is)? -- 129.13.186.1 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter? 72.78.159.131 09:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It matters if you are not listing it for some reason. He is in fact Jewish. I wonder which other Obama admin have now had their religion/ethnicity(Judaism is both) magically wiped from Wiki. We should be of course much more concerned about their Banking and Wall Street connections being masked, but let's just ignore such things....and fiddle.--72.38.141.22 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC) The article lists that he was Harvard's first Jewish president, if I am reading correctly Neil Leon Rudenstine was president before him and also Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.88.181.72 (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Race Card"?
The article states: "In 2002, Summers controversially used the race card, stating that a campaign by Harvard and MIT faculty to have their universities divest from companies with Israeli holdings was part of a larger trend among left-leaning academics that is 'anti-Semitic in effect, if not in intent.'" How is this "[using] the race card"? Are Jews a distinct race? Can he not critique such a policy without concern as to race? It makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.146.110.32 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Differences Between Males and Females Section
I reverted the removal of the item below from this article. In my mind, this is useful information because it is the sort of information that is good to know in weighing whether Summer's comments can be faily characterized as a lack of support of women's education. Of course, this doesn't provide a blanket excuse for any negative comments he might make about women.

"On the other hand, Summers, when he was Chief Economist of the World Bank, famously promoted the idea that investing in a woman's education was the "single most efficient investment that the Bank can make." Consequently, the World Bank invested millions of dollars in the 1990's on improving women's education in the world. This has, arguably, contributed a great deal to narrowing the gender education gap around the world." Antonrojo 19:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the final sentence of this paragraph: "This has, arguably, contributed a great deal to narrowing the gender education gap around the world." This is really POV, in that it is pure speculation and not substantiated by any evidence Ribbit 16:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Ribbit Yes 'Jews' are a race. I cannot believe such an ignorant question was just asked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.255.45 (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Aside from the assertion's incorrect placement in the discussio, the question was not ignorant at all. The term "race" has varying sociological and anthropological definitions. At least some (perhaps most) of these definitions would not consider Jews to be a race, but would instead regard the group as an ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.36.205 (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

World Bank Memo
The section on the world bank memo was long and convoluted, and cited very few sources. There's another article on the memo (though whether there should be is another debate entirely), so I pointed the discussion in that direction. I then removed the text from the memo, which I don't think belongs on this page (and might not belong in Wikipedia at all), cleaned up some of the prose, and added references to a bunch of the quotes in the section.

When searching for a source for the controversy surrounding the memo, the best I could do was to find recent newspaper articles making reference to it. Since it took place in 1991, it's not too surprising that much of the discussion isn't online; However I think the articles do a good job of describing what took place. Still, 'primary sources' would make a nice addition. - Fluxdrip 23 March, 2006

I think a short writeup of the memo (excerpt) is good; until I just now read Summers memo, I had no idea that it was just a part of a longer memo with a very different point.

Being in its own short article is probably right; the brief summary here hits the point and counterpoint, and is good. - Greg Price 20:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Derek Bok accession
Summers is still the President of Harvard University, and will remain so until July 1. I don't know who changed the succession box, but please don't do it again until Summers actually leaves office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.29.10 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Differences between males and females" -> Sex and intelligence
I cut down the section on Summers' women-in-science controversy to a very terse summary and a main link to the appropriate section of Sex and intelligence. The latter has all the content of the old section here (if I do say so myself -- I wrote its present version =) ) and seems the right place for it.

Meanwhile I trimmed references that have expired with age, made sure the important ones were kept in the new version, and removed them from here.

If there's a template better than main for linking to a section, please apply it.

Greg Price 00:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobel laureates in economics?
"Summers is ... the nephew of two Nobel laureates in economics" -- From Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel: "Although it was not one of the awards established in the will of Alfred Nobel, the economics laureates receive their diploma and gold medal from the Swedish monarch at the same December 10 ceremony in Stockholm as the Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature. ... The prestige of the prize derives in part from its association with the awards created by Alfred Nobel's will, an association which has often been a source of controversy. The prize is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics or, more correctly, as the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics." -- (a) Since this prize is not actually "a Nobel Prize", do we need to clarify the wording in the article? And (b) perhaps even more importantly, is there even any point in bothering to include in this article information on whose nephew Summers is? We don't seem to do this in other biographical articles. -- 201.78.233.162 13:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's doubtful that Summers will ever get a Noble prize. This is just propaganda from Harvard sources. His father, Robert Summers, has done more for economics with his development of the Penn World Tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.92.200 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It was also doubtful that Paul Krugman, an economic commentator and social critic who did some real economics a long time ago, would ever win the prize, but he did. If Krugman deserves a prize then Summers deserves two.  Krugman's prize was political, a sop to the left wing after years of awarding Nobels to conservative and classical liberal economists.  I would not put Summers at the top of my list for the Nobel but he is certainly a second-rank if not a first-rank candidate.  Also, everybody in the profession calls the economics prize the Nobel Prize although the correct name is as posted by user 201.78.233.162.  Finally, anyone interested in intellectual history will find it worthwhile to know that Summers has not one but two Nobel Prize-winning uncles; it helps you understand the man. 71.247.77.179 (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Larry Siegel

I would find it more interesting to know who these two uncles were... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.125 (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As you'll find looking at history, it is VERY important to "include in this article information on whose NEPHEW Summers is". It's actually the most important thing, in the mafia world we are living, to know who is someones godfather... isn't it?

puff piece
This article is puff piece written by Harvard insiders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.208.65 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole article, and the ridiculously long lead section, in particular, seem -- at first glance -- to be the product of a bunch of Harvard academics (for and against Summers) and largely written by Summers, himself (or his promotional agent). At this date, not exactly what I'd expect from a serious Wikipedia article about a prominent politician/academic.


 * ~ Penlite (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No quotes from his speech?
It's hard to understand what the "women-in-academia" controversy was about without actually citing...anything. In fact, how is this allowed in wikipedia at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.172.152 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The speech was made to an audience of scientists at a private conference. It was neither recorded nor transcribed, and there were no journalists present.  Further, Summers was not reading from a script but was instead using notes he had prepared.  There is thus no source from which anyone can find direct quotes.


 * The speech is an appropriate topic for this article. If direct quotes were available it would be prudent to include them, but the unavailability of one type of evidence does not make the speech any less worthy of inclusion in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.232.225.147 (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I think the Boston's Globe's reporting is sufficiently objective to count as a source of what he said, since both Summers and the audience pretty much agree on what he said.


 * http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire/


 * "Summers spoke during a working lunch. He declined to provide a tape or transcript of his remarks, but the description he gave in an interview was generally in keeping with what 10 participants recalled. He said he was synthesizing the scholarship that the organizers had asked him to discuss, and that in his talk he repeated several times: ''I'm going to provoke you."


 * He offered three possible explanations, in declining order of importance, for the small number of women in high-level positions in science and engineering. The first was the reluctance or inability of women who have children to work 80-hour weeks.


 * The second point was that fewer girls than boys have top scores on science and math tests in late high school years. I said no one really understands why this is, and it's an area of ferment in social science," Summers said in an interview Saturday. Research in behavioral genetics is showing that things people previously attributed to socialization weren't" due to socialization after all."


 * It is no longer true that high school boys perform better on math tests than girls and the disappearances of this gender gap is evidence that the differences that used to exist did not have a genetic basis but were in fact the result of educational differences.Eperotao (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Specious reasoning: The differences are a well-established scientific fact. Outside of feminist and politically correct circles, the alteration in test score is considered mostly a result of altered tests; in particular, that the difficulty of the tests have diminished to the point that a non-trivial mathematical ability is no longer needed. Speaking as a mathematician: What is called math at the pre-college level has very little to do with real math---and is incomparably easier.88.77.154.117 (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reinstatement a prank
Several sources, including the Harvard Crimson, have stated that the email announcing that Summers would be the next President was a prank by the Harvard Lampoon. Considering the lack of press coverage and the suspect phrasing of the email, that's pretty much clear by now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.42.50 (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Rewrite Needed
Can someone knowledgable and agenda-free please rewrite this article? I've read my share of wikicrap, and this page ranks up with some of the worst. It's half hatchet job, half revisionism... 72.78.159.131 09:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Summers' deal with Harvard is obviously controversial, but this page is tremendously biased in its focus on the negative. Summers is one of the most successful economists in our history and deserves a thorough rewrite here...


 * I agree... TEN YEARS LATER, it still looks that way, in my opinion. One of the worst Wikipedia articles I've seen on a major U.S. public figure. Not sure if anyone has ever tried to clean this mess up, and bring it into conformance with the WP:NPOV and WP:BLP standards, or if they have and vandals have simply undone (or overwhelmed) their editing.
 * ~ Penlite (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

POV tag?
I removed the POV template from the article because there was no discussion of it on this talk page. If somebody still thinks the article needs the tag, please explain the reasoning here so it can be discussed. --Sapphic 22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just added a POV tag. The article throughout seems to attempt to portray Summers' departure as some kind of power grab by the liberal arts professors. And the article seems to go out of its way to talk repeatedly about the good things Summers was trying to achieve ("more math and science") and the negative consequences of his leaving ("hundreds of millions of dollars in donations lost"), often without attribution or source.

I don't think this point of view is plausible. For example, one of the sharpest critics of Summers has been Lewis, a professor of engineering; you can be sure that Lewis didn't criticize Summers for wanting to teach more math and science. And the fact that a sitting president of Harvard was voted out by the faculty is unprecedented and cannot be explained away with some implied anti-scientific struggle of the liberal arts professors.

I think this article needs to be streamlined substantially, not only to make it more neutral POV, but also to give it a better structure. For example, the initial summary shouldn't have a lenghty paragraph on the reasons and consequences of his resignation, it should just state that he resigned amidst controversy. His tenure as president of Harvard should be discussed in a single section, and that section should provide the major views for why he had to resign with sources. If there is anything substantial to be said about the consequences of his resignation, that needs to be carefully documented as well; merely "losing hundreds of millions in donations" is not enough, since Harvard may also have gained in donations as well--and those figures need to be documented.

Jcarnelian (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've tried to clean up a few things:


 * I've removed the discussion of the details of his resignation from the summary. If any vital information was lots, this information should go into another section.


 * I've removed an irrelevant digression into the British parliamentary system.


 * I've removed an unsourced claim that Summers was "strongly supported" by the board


 * I've moved the reference to Steven Pinker into the "sexes" section


 * I've removed the paragraph that talks about the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions by Summers supporters; it was unsourced, and it did not consider the overall financial impact on the university. I also don't see it as being relevant to the Summers' controversy.

Jcarnelian (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, one more bigger edit: I have removed the section "Other factors in the opposition to Summers": it contained no sources and apparently just reflected the opinions of the writer. The section had been tagged since December 2007 for these violations. Even as an unsourced editorial, it didn't make much sense; for example, how did efforts by Summers to expand Harvard's international programs make him controversial?

Jcarnelian (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, after all those edits, I have removed the POV-check flag again; I think the article is now generally OK, although there may still be some smaller parts that need a POV-check or cleaning up.

Jcarnelian (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted one more tendentious remark: "Summers is an ardent proponent of free trade and globalization, and frequently takes positions on a number of politically-charged subjects. This, along with his direct style of management, made him controversial as President of Harvard, particularly among his colleagues in the humanities and social sciences." Again, this is unsourced, and it implies that people in the humanities and social sciences are automatically opposed to free trade, globalization, or a "direct style of management". I have no idea whether that is true for the Harvard faculty, but if you put in such statements provide sources.

Jcarnelian (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The wording of the "anti-semitism" section originally suggested that Summers was controversial due to an anti-semitic attitude by faculty; actually, Summers was controversial because he accused others of being anti-semitic. (I haven't found a good news source for his statement, but a Crimson opinion article verifies that Summers made this accusation.)

Jcarnelian (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cabinet speculation
Deleted section on 'speculation' of Treasure Department secretary; keep it off Wikipedia until it is fact. Until then it's gossip and speculation and belongs in Wikinews. 65.215.94.13 (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Subsection "differences between the sexes"
The sources for this section were jumbled. Certainly



is no source on the intense public reaction to Summers' speech? I've replaced it with the link to the press article that indeed describes the reaction, and had been a second link to the speech itself. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've also reformulated the summary of the speech. I think the current version is closer to the speech's content (at least going by the official transcript). Markus Poessel (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Conservative"
Larry Summers has now held senior positions in two Democratic administrations, and the New York Times describes him as a liberal. If we're going to label him a conservative, I think we need some sources explicitly saying so. Binarybits (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish heritage
Some people seem to be under the impression that it's somehow inappropriate to mention Summers' Jewish heritage. I'm not aware of any explicit Wikipedia polices on the topic, but a quick perusal of Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Timothy F. Geithner, Eric Holder, Ray LaHood, Susan Rice, Ken Salazar, Eric Shinseki, and Tom Vilsack suggests that Wikipedia commonly discussed the religious or ethnic heritage of senior Obama administration officials. So I'd like to see a more detailed explanation of how, exactly, it's inappropriate to mention Summers's heritage. Binarybits (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside the fact that you need sources when you add things to a page, this is an interesting point. Ken Salazar's page includes assertions that he is a "12th generation American." Nineteenth century biographies routinely began with a geneology often going back hundreds of years, but routinely three or four generations. Is that where we are going with all this? Confining the discussion to Americans, do we now write about everybody's grandparents, giving space to consideration of which ones attended mass, which immigrated form Albania?  What are the implications of distinguising one economist form another on the grounds that one is Catholic, one Jewish and one a "12th generation American?"   My impression is that generally we have mentioned parents only  when the parents are notable.   And ancestry and religion only when it is relevent to the career.  Frankly, giving this kind of space to which cabinet officer or politician or economist has French blood and which one is a "12th generation American." gives me the creeps.Historicist (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Verifiability is a fair point. It's easy to find references to the fact that he's Jewish; I don't see an obvious citation for the details about his mother. So unless others can find better sources, I think it would be reasonable to simply add a sentence about him being of Jewish heritage without going into detail about his grandparents. With that said, I don't think "gives Historicist the creeps" is a a reasonable standard for removing material from Wikipedia. Many people consider a public figure's ethnicity of interest, and such information is frequently reported by reliable sources. Therefore, it should go in Wikipedia absent a good reason to exclude it. Binarybits (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Unsourced information is not acceptable for addition to articles. One can either source the "facts" about his grandmother/mother to reliable secondary sources or not include them. Hipocrite (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, that's what I said: we can easily find reliable sources for the fact that he's of Jewish heritage, and leave out the details about his grandmother. Binarybits (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree - in a WP:BLP, we need good reasons to include material about the subject. It's no enough that it's verifiable. So I'd like someone to make a good argument for describing Summers's heritage before including it.  And it's perfectly reasonable and ethical for us to be sensitive to stereotypes that have historically been used commonly by racists and thugs (i.e. Jewish bankers and moneylenders).  --ElKevbo (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please be more specific about which part of WP:V is violated by mentioning that Summers is Jewish? I'm not seeing it. Binarybits (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Most well written bios include mention of the person's ethnicity under a family section or the like. As long as it is properly sourced it is ok. There seems to be some interpretation that ethnicity needs to be somehow notable in order to include it, but that only applies to the lead sentence or section which makes sense. Anyways, Tom 04:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction: was not succeeded by Joe Stiglitz
I corrected the fact that Larry Summers was succeeded as Chief Economist of the World Bank by Michael Bruno, not by Joe Stiglitz. On Stiglitz's page, it is already correct that he was preceded by Michael Bruno, not by Summers. David Ellerman (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag
Space is found for every left-wing criticism of Summers, but little room is made for the more common praise of him across the political spectrum. THF (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. I hope that you, or someone famiiar with his career,will take the time to do that.Historicist (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to cite your sources.--Sum (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We still don't have sources for his "praise of him across the political spectrum", which is the only justification given for the unbalanced tag.--Sum (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoping to improve the balance, I added a defense of Summers from Slate, written during the sex/intelligence uproar in 2005, that suggests he was the victim of a show trial. 17:09 17 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.8.103 (talk)

He doesn't believe in the US economy, put most of his money in bonds
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-12/summers-vote-of-no-confidence/ 71.131.23.192 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is silly. Municipal bonds are US investments.  You don't have to be invested in stocks to be a patriot.Bond Head (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- not the "Letters to the Editor" section of your local paper. Keep your political opinions out of this forum, please.
 * Penlite (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Resignation and controversy
I removed the statement linking the controversy to the later resignation because while the two are likely connected, unless Summers states this was his reason for resigning his post, it is specualtion on our part that it was his motivation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.133.66 (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Biographical information missing
After his stint in the Reaganomics brain trust, he returned to Harvard to serve as one of the university’s youngest professors. In 1988, he was Michael Dukakis’s chief economic advisor. This much the article acknowledges. But the article entirely omits one phase of his career. In 1990, Lithuania, a restive Soviet republic seeking independence, hired Summers to advise on that country’s economic transformation. This was Summers’s first opportunity to put his theories into practice. The results were literally suicidal: in 1990, when Summers first arrived, Lithuania’s suicide rate was 26.1 per 100,000 and falling. Just five years after Summers got his hands on Lithuania’s economy, the suicide rate nearly doubled to 45.6 per 100,000, worse than any other ex-Soviet republic in transition. In fact, it was the highest suicide rate in the world, suggesting something particularly harsh and brutal about the economic transition in that country as opposed to the other former Soviet republics in similar transition phases. In 1992, after just two years of Summers-nomics, Lithuanians voted the communist party back into power, the first East European nation to do so. Dog Whisperer (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Great idea! The "edit" button is at the top of the page. Binarybits (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Memo
There's been a sustained campaign to cast the Pritchett/Summers memo as a serious policy proposal rather than a work of satire (which is what both of its authors say it was). AFAICT this is based entirely on innuendo.

For example, before I edited it the section said "There is no documentation that the report was meant as humorous until that time, and it remains the only claim Summers has ever made about satirical authorship." Given that this was a private memo never intended for public consumption, it's totally unsurprising that there's no "documentation" about its authors' intentions, or that it has a different character than his public writing.

Wikipedia's role is to fairly summarize reliable sources, not to inject our own suspicions into the article. If there are reliable sources disputing Summers and Prithcett's claims that the article was a work of satire, we should mention those. But we shouldn't insinuate this based on the suspicions of Wikipedia editors. Binarybits (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Quote below Signature
What is with the quote about banks below his signature? Is that an appropriate and relevant place to put that? -- An d Re w 19:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the lead
Regarding the sentence in the lead that reads -


 * "Summers has also been criticized for the economic policies he advocated as Treasury Secretary and in later writings."

This really ought to be expanded on or deleted. Saying "he's been criticized for economic policies" is incredibly vague. What economist/politician hasn't at some point been criticized for economic policies? NickCT (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The lede is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article, so being vague or unspecific there may not necessarily be wrong, if the specifics is clear in the relevant sub-section(s) of the article. However, I don't think the sentence is a good summary of what the article says about his time about Treasury Secreatary, so I agree it should go or be expanded. And since this is a BLP, the best thing is probably to delete it for the time being, and then it would be good if someone wrote a new paragraph about his time as treasure secretary and in NEC. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Interest Rates if appointed
If appointed as Fed Chair, Summers would stick with what the Fed policy currently is. Bond buying would taper if unemployment rates dip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.135.3 (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not a place for political opinions, except as related to the actual content of the article (what should or should not be written about the subject, as objective, neutral (WP:NPOV) information, consistent with Wikipedia aritcle guidelines). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- not the "Letters to the Editor" section of your newspaper. And it is not an economic forecasting venue.
 * Penlite (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there any source saying Lawrence Summers' religion is "None"? Bus stop (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Raghuram Rajan and Lawrence Summers
It was mentioned with a small note that Rajan had talked at a convention in 2005, and that Summers said he was misguided. What it didn't state was that Rajan warned about the financial crisis in 2008 and said that too much loans could lead to a bubble, and that afterwards Summers called him a "luddite", which refers to British workers after the industrial revolution that protested against machines. Which has made the word into a nickname for people that are against technology. So he called the man that predicted the financial crisis three years earlier a technology brake.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.202.200 (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Source: http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2013/08/06/six-things-you-need-to-know-about-raghuram-rajan/

Lead inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines
The lead (lede), prior to my edits today, was completely inconsistent with Wikipedia guidance (WP:LEAD). Lede sections are supposed to be short summaries of the article -- only about FOUR paragraphs or less, according to WP:LEAD, and, in the case of living persons, focus on summarizing their basic identity and principal roles in the FIRST paragraph.

The prior lede -- even in the crucial first paragraph -- absurdly over-emphasized details about his Harvard academic identity and career, and underplayed his most significant roles in world affairs: U.S. Treasury Secretary (Under Pres. Clinton), and '''principal economic advisor to Pres. Obama.''' Simply absurd.

Further, the numerous, voluminous lede paragraphs (which I did not edit, but someone should) completely violate the entire WP:LEAD concept of a Wikipedia "lede" ("lead"), which is SUPPOSED to be a SHORT SUMMARY of the article. Instead, the current lead section is an entire Wikpedia article in itself -- and largely unsourced.

In fact, absurdly, the "lead" of this article is longer than the combined lead sections for the Wikpedia articles on two U.S. presidents for whom Summers worked. Get real.

Most of the current lead section needs to be stripped, or severely condensed -- and reduced to Wikipedia WP:LEAD standards.

~ Penlite (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Please document statements from substantial online sources, or don't post.
This article has been severely abused by various commentators ("editors" seems an unfairly generous term) who have used this article as a political platform to make unsubstantiated statements (including countless statements with NO reference citations of corroborating online sources).

Wikipedia is an "online encyclopedia," validated by reference citations citing external sources (very preferably from reputable, relatively neutral (WP:NPOV) sources, such as articles in major news media, peer-reviewed articles in academic journals, or official documents of institutions and agencies relatively neutral on the subject -- or making precise statutory filings subject to substantial public scrutiny and accountability (e.g.: Official quarterly filings of labor statistics, rather than vague, partisan presidential speeches on the topic).

'WIkipedia'' is NOT a place for undocumented claims, nor "I saw it myself" statements. Editors should not be their own sources. Controversial statements -- ESPECIALLY about living persons (WP:BLP) -- should be accompanied by supporting references linking to online articles from relatively neutral, professional and very substantial sources.' (e.g.: The New York Times or Wall Street Journal'' -- not a political-faction magazine, nor a student newspaper.)

All other material is appropriately subject to deletion, consistent with Wikipedia guidelines.

~ Penlite (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lawrence Summers. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202095633/http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/former-steering-committee-members.html to http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/former-steering-committee-members.html

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) 16:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawrence Summers. 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/20081203160404/http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/050171.html to http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/050171.html

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) 06:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawrence Summers. 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/20090506001221/http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/voices/transcript/?content=20070215 to http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/voices/transcript/?content=20070215

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) 19:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

calling the Winklevoss twins (indirectly) assholes
At issue is the quote "One of the things you learn as a college president is that if an undergraduate is wearing a tie and jacket on Thursday afternoon at three o'clock, there are two possibilities. One is that they're looking for a job and have an interview; the other is that they are an asshole. This was the latter case." He doesn't say "The Winklevoss twins are assholes" directly, but he does imply it indirectly. Regardless, it seems to me that Wikipedia is full of quotes from article subjects disparaging other people and those quotes seem to be fine, so what's the problem with this one? Examples:
 * Mojo Nixon: Mojo Nixon calls the members of Metallica assholes.
 * Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric Moncassin: Moncassin calls Richard Virenque an asshole
 * Duncan D. Hunter: Hunter calls the President an asshole

There's probably a lot more, and obviously there's hundreds, if not thousands, of quotes disparaging other people while using words other than "asshole". So I don't think there's any rationale for removing this quote that doesn't even directly call the twins assholes. It's pretty harmless. I request a reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SUNY osw98 (talk • contribs)
 * I will address the quote in the context of the present article first. The addition of the quote attributed to Summers regarding the Winklevoss twins directly disparages them. Since the quote does not add any value to the article other than to disparage them, it is a violation of WP:BLP. We can get just as much information (that Summers wanted no part of their lawsuit against Zuckerberg) without the disparaging comment.
 * As to other examples of the use of disparaging quotes in Wikipedia, I will start by arguing that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally a poor argument. However, taking each example in turn:
 * The quote from Mojo Nixon is no more useful in its context than Summers' quote in this article. I may consider addressing that (or I may not; the discussion at hand is about this article).
 * The quote from Frédéric Moncassin is relevant to his biography because it directly relates to his status as an outsider in the cycling world.
 * The quote from Duncan D. Hunter regarding Trump is relevant because it gives insight into his political position.
 * If Summers' quote in this article added insight into his character or provided any useful information, it would be fine to include. As it is, it does not add any insight, and serves only to disparage, and therefore should not be included. This is, of course, my opinion, which is why we are having this discussion. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, obviously I disagree with that opinion. I already knew about the quote years ago, from the coverage it received, and when I googled it, there's many many sources for it, and with that amount of coverage, it seems like there isn't a problem with including it. Again, just because he's disparaging someone, how does that disqualify me from including it? It provides insight into his opinion of the Winklevoss twins which was a widely publicized incident and featured in a movie made about Facebook that featured both the twins and Summers being portrayed in a based-on-real-life scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SUNY osw98 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC) Also, you said "If Summers' quote in this article added insight into his character" - it does, it shows that he's a no-nonsense guy who regarded the two students coming to him with a complaint a certain way.
 * I believe we're at an impasse: you believe the quote adds value; I do not. I will seek a third opinion through WP:Third opinion. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

So I read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I think I understand the policy. It states that "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." The quote isn't "information" about the Winklevoss twins. It's an opinion of the twins given freely and publicly by Larry Summers. Also, nowhere on that page does it state that you can't add quotes that disparage other people (expected, since I've read plenty of pages that include such quotes). It does say you can't create an attack page, or add images that are intended to disparage the subject, but obviously neither of those apply here. So I think my addition is well within boundaries, especially considering that I could easily find a dozen sources for it, because it was so widely reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SUNY osw98 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion
Howdy hello folx! I came across this at WP:3O. I have not edited this article before or interacted with y'all, so I hope you'll accept me as a neutral third party. Looking at the quote and the article, I don't think it adds much value to the article. I think this is an issue of WP:BLP and WP:DUE. This quote is cherry picked, and I see no reason why it is any more relevant or due a quote than any other about the matter. The real problem here is not that the quote disparages the Winklevoss twins, but that it reflects only negatively on Summers, and seems to have no value beyond making Summers look bad. There are wayyyy too many BLPs that put undue coverage on events that make their subjects look bad. This quote is not particularly relevant or helpful, and I do not think it should be included per the above policies. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input! If you're satisfied with this response, I'll consider this matter closed.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 01:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Dispute on inclusion of "cismale" and replacement of "American" with "Jewish-American"
Why did you revert my changes on Lawrence summers without giving an explanation or acknowledging my comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.99.144 (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edits because they, while assumed to be in good faith, were unconstructive and not encyclopedic. — Twassman &#91;Talk·Contribs&#93; 22:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * my comment that you did not bother to acknowledge was\
 * "he is a public figure, describing him as American implies he represents America. which marginalizes minorities"
 * as for being constructive; that is your opinion, in my opinion it is accurate and justified, in fact by not doing your part, you become part of the problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.99.144 (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * That is simply not how nationality works. See MOS:CONTEXTBIO — he is an American national, and can definitely be referred to as such. — Twassman &#91;Talk·Contribs&#93; 23:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * His nationality is American, but he is also Jewish and cismale, therefore he can be referred to as an Jewish cismale American, Do you think he would support dumping toxic waste in Africa if he was an African American?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.99.144 (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * While I do not disagree with you on the facts, Wikipedia has a Manual of Style which dictates how Wikipedia articles should be written. It states that new abbreviations should not be invented, and that, as Summers is not notable for his ethnicity or sexuality, it should not be in the lead. Therefore, your edits were clearly against the Manual of Style, and I reverted them accordingly. Do you think a third opinion would be helpful to resolve this situation? (Also, please sign your posts with four tiles, like this: ) — Twassman &#91;Talk·Contribs&#93; 19:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I moved the discussion to the talk page. Please let me know if you still believe your edits should be implemented so that we can resolve this issue. — Twassman &#91;Talk·Contribs&#93; 23:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Harvard Hedge Fund Allegations
Ronny Unz has posted some of his thoughts and feelings but more importantly a historically accurate but very brief inspection of Summer's career washouts:

"Now I am hardly someone willing to defend Summers from a whole host of very serious and legitimate charges. He seems to have played a major role in transmuting Harvard from a renowned university to an aggressive hedge fund, policies that subsequently brought my beloved alma mater to the very brink of bankruptcy during the 2008 financial crisis. Under his presidency, Harvard paid out $26 million dollars to help settle international insider-trading charges against Andrei Shleifer, one of his closest personal friends, who avoided prison as a consequence. And after such stellar financial and ethical achievements, he was naturally appointed as one of President Obama’s top economic advisors, a position from which he strongly supported the massive bailout of Wall Street and the rest of our elite financial services sector, while ignoring Main Street suffering. Perhaps coincidentally, wealthy hedge funds had paid him many millions of dollars for providing a few hours a week of part-time consulting advice during the twelve months prior to his appointment. "

WP:UCRN
When is he ever referred to in WP:RS as "Lawrence Summers"? Larry, please! There are countless examples, but this came through within the last hour. Harfarhs (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with this comment. I hesitate to change it myself as I'm relatively new to WP, and not sure what the convention is for commonly used nicknames, but I think the vast majority of people know him as Larry Summers, as do reliable sources (here's another) Jameson Nightowl (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Trilateral Commission member
Larry Summers is a member of the Trilateral Commission 24.145.20.191 (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)