Talk:Michael Froman

Role in Bank Bailouts
The theory about him bringing together Geithner and Summers are well documented. Is the misunderstanding on your defintion of the word, 'theory'? Anyways censorship is worse than criticism, besides nothing non-factual is being posted. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.219.53 (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just after posting links on the Taibbi story on wikipedia, many sources have pulled their story from their sites. This is conclusive evidence that there is organized censorship being conducted by his legal team. Please cache all stories on this subject -they don't last long at all on mainstream sites. Links to mirrors have been provided for now. -thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.219.53 (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are you calling it a theory? Did it happen or didn't it? If it happened, then why is it a theory?


 * By the way, the difficulty in Taibbi's piece is that it is a rant. Much of the information he got from articles other reporters had written, and much of his rant is speculative. Kingturtle (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. read this. Kingturtle (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Shall we iron out a good copy here before we put it in the article? Kingturtle (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

--

How much do you agree?


 * Forman was working with citi when he was setting up Obama's team
 * Forman brought in people who were not involved during the campaign
 * Summers and Geithner has connections with Rubin his mentor
 * Rubin his mentor was responsible for deregulate policy and Froman was doing damage control for him.
 * All these men have agendas that were similar to Froman and not something Obama expressed during his campaign.

btw it's called a theory because it describes something. 61.17.222.98 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems you have more of an issue with Obama's flip flopping than with Froman. Can you explain why this is significant to Froman's bio? And can we use sources other than the Rolling Stone article? That piece is a mish mosh that was poorly fact checked. Kingturtle (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have issues with Obama. I just agree with Taibbi that this looks like an old boys club. You can add your own line for criticism/response to the Rollingstone story. Froman's role is of an advisor and most of his work takes place behind the scene. This story is the best attempt so far at a detail profile of the real Froman. Taibbi' response 61.17.32.51 (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

We can't put into Wikipedia articles things that "look like" something. Kingturtle (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you want to put it under a category for criticism? If not why is it that you thinks this person is beyond criticism? 61.17.32.51 (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Ask your question differently. Kingturtle (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You do realize that it is perfectly normal to include critical views on wikipedia. 61.17.32.51 (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, critical views are fine. I'm still lost as to what the story is here. So there's an old boy's network. And Froman is part of it. Is that the story? Kingturtle (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The story provides insight to his contributions and connections. It doesn't suggest he was violating anything, just how the current policies came about. You can include references to errors in Taibbi's story if you want. 61.17.32.51 (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what we need is much simpler text, more to the point. Why is this important? What is the major issue? Kingturtle (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as no perspectives (including Taibbi's) are omitted I don't mind a simpler text. 61.17.32.51 (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You know the issue more than I do. Why is this important? What is the major issue? Kingturtle (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many who will find the story useful. Wikipedia should include all info on a subject. It is not the purpose of wikipedia to determine which perspective is superior and eliminate all other perspectives.  61.17.32.51 (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me. I am not asking whether it is useful. I am asking for a summary of the useful information. This seems like such a minor story. Froman is a business man who, without breaking any laws, gained authority. Why is this such a big deal? Kingturtle (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Froman. 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://archive.is/20130616002852/http://white-house-staff.theblaze.com/l/1047/Froman-Michael-B to http://white-house-staff.theblaze.com/l/1047/Froman-Michael-B

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) 19:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

"Played a significant role in choosing key staff members of Obama’s administration"
What about this story:

https://observer.com/2016/10/obama-makes-first-appearance-in-wikileaks-receives-admin-list-from-big-banker/

on A Wikileaks email in which shows Froman "played a significant role in choosing key staff members of Obama’s administration"? Isn't this relevant? I suggest it be included as one of the most pertinent facts about Froman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.226.17 (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)