Talk:Timothy Geithner

Post-Treasury Career
This 2020 article mentions a CEO position at Warburg Pincus: Meet the Customer Service Reps for Disney and Airbnb Who Have to Pay to Talk to You

Jewish?
Why are you trying to hide that he's jewish? Are you ashamed? There is no reason to hide this information. Information is not yours to determine what should be known and what shouldn't. If he doesn't want people to know things about him, he should be a priavate citizen. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zodiacww (talk • contribs) 04:27 (UTC), 15 January 2010 -> It is a new policy for wikipedia, which is jewish owned, hiding now all jewish origins in all banking people as 80% of CEOs of financial industries and 50% of the 1% wealthiest are jewish, as it was the case in Weimar Germany, so after the crash of 29 and the crash of 2008 there is an obvious fear that they are made accountable as it was the case in Germany, so the old proud 'Ashkenazi' origin becomes now 'american-german', or 'greek' (Dillon) etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.58.238.165 (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop trying to suppress the fact that the man is Jewish. This is relevant to personal life and people have a right to know this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.144.190 (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is this phenomenon here on Wikipedia. Some group of people here seem overly keen and obsessed to "claim" every single Jew out there. Just look at it - even if the person is remotely Jewish, he will be categorized, tagged, labeled inside-out, as if it is the most important piece of information out there. Many others, especially the Anglo-Saxon people get completely ignored in that regard. Question is - who cares if he is a Jew or not? He is a human being, an American, and history will show whether he is a good one. 75.3.159.195 (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Tocino 21:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disaree... neither John Alden's or George Washington's religion is mentioned in their Wiki pages. What "rule/standard" are you promoting here?  Christians are not labeled & Jews are?  DEddy (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * George Washington's religion (Episcopal) is, in fact, mentioned on his wikipedia page. john k (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


 * Also, his notability is for financial matters. Unless he has said he's Jewish (or Buddhist, or animist, or ....) I don't think wikipedia should assign a religion to him. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 21:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Most politicians/top government officials have their religion in their infoboxes, especially in America where there is more religious diversity. --Tocino 21:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that this will have no effect, but it is the wrong thing to do. Unless someone self-identifies their religion, or their religion is important somehow to their notability, we shouldn't go around labeling people. We don't, for example, put party affiliation in the infoboxes of writers, so why should we put religion in the box for an economist?--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Henry Paulson, Michael Mukasey, Condoleezza Rice, Michael Chertoff, John W. Snow, Paul O'Neill... and so on. They all have their religions in their profiles. We know his religion so why hide it? Isn't this an encyclopedia? --Tocino 22:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't know his religion unless he has expressed his religious views. You can argue that Jewish is an ethnic group but, just because someone was born a Jew does not mean that he is Jewish in the sense of religion. He could have decided to become a Buddhist (not unusual these days). The choice of religion expresses a view about god and about spiritual matters that is independent of what particular religious group you're born to. (BTW, for what it's worth, Geithner was married by a Reverend, not a Rabbi. What does that say about his religion?)--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but that doesn't mean you can use any Tom Dick or Harry blog you find.  Grsz  11   →Review!  22:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again the Pakistani source is not a blog. It's a news agency. Please read the damn source. --Tocino 22:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And where do you get the slighest idea that that is a reliable source? Think again.  Grsz  11   →Review!  22:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the homepage. It is presented as a news site, not a blog. I have no reason to think they are lying. Do you? --Tocino 22:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no more reason why that isn't a reliable source than any other News agency. Calling it a tom fick and harry blog is just bananas.

There's no reason to hide that he's jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zodiacww (talk • contribs) 04:27 (UTC), 15 January 2010

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


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


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

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

Rahm Emanuel is an Israeli citizen. He proudly stated that he served in the Israeli Army, Although, and probably to avoid getting stripped of his US citizenship, he hastened to add: "In A clerical capacity." Notwithstanding, the US law does not make that distinction. Of course it is not possible for a non-citizen to serve in the Israeli Army - or any army for that matter - excepting the special French 'Foreign Legion' set up for the purpose of recruiting hardened international criminals, and Bud Abbot and Lou Costello! Some wonder where was Mr. Emanuel during the December 2008 Gaza massacre, when the Israeli reservists were called up. He claimed he went off on a vacation to Africa! An interesting choice of a place and time. Must have been quite enjoyable!

BUT: why should the religion of anybody be an issue? I can understand the problem posed by Mr. Emanuel's and his Irgun Gang father, but he chose to make it a problem, and if the Treasury Secretary is a Jew or not, is his own business! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.27.198 (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above editor said "or that a country few Americans know much about has the same news standards we do." -- It might be worth pointing out that Wikipedia is not an American-centric encyclopaedia and America is not the benchmark for what is deemed a reliable source. And it's further ridiculous to cite it as beign an opinion site when most if not all media sites in the world carry opinion. We'd have no sources left at all by that criteria. And the user called BaldPark who reverted my edit on the basis that it's vandalism please assume good faith. Thankyou!! Vexorg (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

Verifiable source? Do you know how many times I've seen anti-Arab slander on Wikipedia supported only by citations to pro-Zionist websites, like MEMRI, etc. You people are too much. When its anti-Arab, you'll cite David Duke as a credible source, but when it's anti Jewish, it must have the imprimatur of Hashem himself. You people disgust me, and that's why my family and I no longer rely upon this pro-Zionist cesspool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.114.72 (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not just say he's jewish with a "citation needed" notation? That seems to be the order of the day when it comes to the Arab-bashing on this site. No "reliable" citation is needed; in fact, no citation is needed at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.114.72 (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is good reading and exactly the same applies to pro/con Arab related BLP articles. If you run across someone who seems to have difficulty understanding the concepts then consult Questions for advice on how to best proceed. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 23:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer to the question is that Timothy Geithner is not in the least bit Jewish. I am good friends with his son, Ben and I eat lunch with him every day at school. I asked him and he said that his father is not Jewish. There you go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.103.28 (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Is The Jewish Chronicle, the oldest Jewish newspaper, published since 1841, an acceptable source to Wikipedia?

http://www.thejc.com/articles/analysis-the-american-election (See second item, fourth paragraph.)

It's probably a realistic bet that The Jewish Chronicle has some inkling of who is a Jew and who isn't.

The fun begins! How will this cite be rejected? My suggestions to Wikipedia:

1. Invoke the "this story appeared bylined online = blog = invalid" shtick. This means most of The New York Times Online is invalid, too, of course.

2. Point out that the story is listed under "Analysis," therefore it's an op-ed and invalid. Never mind that Geithner's Jewish status is not presented as opinion, but as a fact backing up an analysis.

3. Point out that the story doesn't have a cite. Never mind that this absurdly implies that every cite must have a cite, stretching back to infinity. (No cite is a cite if it states something wiki editors dislike?)

4. Point out that Geithner is nowhere in the world quoted as declaring: "I, Timothy Geithner, do affirm and warrant that I am Jewish" by affidavit and as reported in a valid source such as the dead-tree version of The New York Times.

5. Claim that The Jewish Chronicle is disreputable.

6. Suggest that citing the The Jewish Chronicle is antisemitic.

7. Simply ignore the cite and repeat "Geithner is Church of Christ/Episcopalian/(whatever)" as if Jewish is exclusively a religious category. Never mind that it isn't, that by that reasoning, the conversos were not other than Catholic the moment they converted.

8. Delete this post for a technical violation. Any technical violation. "Bad faith," "Bad attitude," "Bad tone," "I got a bad feeling about this" are good ones, being all-purpose.

9. Give some really far-out reason - like claiming that the owner of The Jewish Chronicle married Nasser's niece (without a cite).

Seriously though, Geithner is Jewish, and so what? Now that it has a good cite, will Wikipedia do the right thing? Weigelscream (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No the Jewish Chronicle is NOT a good source in this case. They explained that they were reporting rumors about who might get a job-they listed lots of names--this was before Geithner was picked and he was very little known. Once he was nominated and became known they did not call him Jewish. Rjensen (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry on the long delay. That was a good article and seems to answer the Jewish question. However, we can't use it per #4 in the list. BLP is about categories but could also be viewed in light that by stating a person's religion that we are in affect "categorizing" them. In this case TFG has not self-identified nor are his beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.


 * However, that may be weaseling a bit on my part and so let's look at The Jewish Chronicle Online because, as you noted, they probably have a good handle on who is Jewish or at least appears to be. The first thing I did was to look for other mentions of Geithner and there's only one other article which does not identify Geithner as Jewish. He's practically a rock star in the financial world and yet thejc only has two mentions of him? Contrast that with Rahm Emanuel with 100 articles including How Jewish is Rahm Emanuel?. Of course I shoot myself in the foot with David Axelrod who only gets two articles plus one comment. One of those articles is the same one that mentions TFG and the other is about Axelrod.


 * I tried to see if the author of that article, Shmuel Rosner, has any about Geithner but the Google results are painful as it has hundreds of hits but mainly because of the sidebars on web pages and not the article content. I gave up and e-mailed him as it's possible he used Wikipedia which has said Geithner is Jewish on and off.


 * I see the goal here, per WP:BLP, is to get it right. This means #3 above also applies, particularly for BLP. We chase down the cites until we get to a reliable and verifiable source. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 07:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Geithner is a common name in certain parts of Germany. There was just a policeman in a crime watch programme on TV. He came from the same region as G. grandfather did.--109.91.72.35 (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Racial comedy
For a good, long while, there seems to have been a regrettable fuss made in this page as to whether Geithner should be labelled and classified as "Jewish" or an "American Jew". (This all started, if I am not mistaken, through a Pakistani news article that was trying its best to be antisemitic - though perhaps it didn't quite get the music right.) This all should have ended with a reference to the BLP policy; if religion is a private matter, how much more so is racial classification?

This all ended, not out of any sort of principle or policy, but, rather, because somebody posted a list to a genealogy showing that Geithner descends, on one side of his family, from English people - apparently of the Christian religion - and, on the other side, from Germans - apparently also of the Christian religion. This is probably not the best way to end the discussion, but - all is well that ends well.

However, what did that lead to? Now somebody added two tags for Geithner - "English American" and "German-American". We have absolutely no evidence showing that Geithner's background - as opposed to his biological descent - was in any sense "German", or, for that matter, any more "English" than that of any other English-speaking U.S. citizen. We also have no evidence that he wishes to be cataloged as such.

If this becomes a trend, it might make sense to bring this up in an administrator's noticeboard and make the matter be explicitly mentioned in the BLP policy (which, for now, only treats religion and sexual orientation, it would seem). These labels are potentially misleading, amount to an imposition on living individuals and - by virtue of being highly ambiguous and conflating several different concepts - have no encyclopaedic value. Feketekave (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. If you had stated this was the reason for removing those tags, we could have avoided the back and forth. The flippant reason given in the original removal of the category tags, that "these labels are nonsense in this generation" was where this went off the rails. Making the edit summaries legitimate explanations for the edit, and not snark would be helpful going forward. Lestatdelc (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't fully understand this. An American who is descended from people from Germany is a "German-American". Whether he had any German influence in his life is entirely irrelevant. john k (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That only makes sense if (1) his European background was only German, and (2) if it had anything to do with anything. More likely, like most Americans whose ancestors have been here awhile, he's Anglo-German-Irish-French-Dutch-Swedish-whatever, in which case any label is meaningless. But more important, does having a (probably) German surname affect his economic policies, his social attitudes, or his ability to do whatever job he holds at the moment? If not, his supposed ethnicity is irrelevant. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But, how far back do we go when we choose an ethnic label for a person’s info box? What if there's German, English and Jewish histories in the family. Do we start labeling a person a "German-English American Jew"? And what if that person holds no importance to their lineage and has never publically spoken about it, is not famous or known because of it and it has never been brought up in public discussion other then by speculative sources? The entire situation becomes a comedy. In the traditional manner of the word. Dogsgomoo (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This obsession with every person's ethnicity/religion/ancestry in Wikipedia has really become extremely silly. I think, FWIW, that anyone's background should only be mentioned if it has relevance to what he or she has achieved, i.e. to the article about him. Is Andy Garcia a "Cuban-American" actor? So says Wiki. Is David Copperfield a "Jewish magician?" Ditto. Barack Obama's race ought to be mentioned because it is noteworthy. John F. Kennedy's religion ditto, and Joe Lieberman's religion as well. They are relevant facts. But in the vast majority of cases, such information is not only irrelevant, but arguably skews the article in an inapposite direction. And, yes, Osama Bin Laden's religion and ethnicity of course fit the principle I suggested. But I cannot systematically re-write hundreds of sentences in articles, especially when my suggestion has no authority, but I do think that Wiki ought to arrive at a consensus on this issue, as it usually sticks out in the first sentence(s) of most articles about a person. 66.108.146.59 (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Allen Roth

Calling someone Jewish is deemed anti-semitic now? What an absolute joke. But I suppose it's a nice piece of political capital to play with, a nice smear attack. Look to yourselves before judging others. I suppose that Jewish article where they suppose he's Jewish was an anti-semitic attack as well. Pathetic, but no less unexpected. There's also a lot of reverse racism going on from some of his supporters to disparage the Pakistani article simply because it was Pakistani, no less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.246.138 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 6 July 2009

Modes of thought and expression can be shared by anti-semites, by philo-semites of the stupid persuasion, by writers for parochial Jewish bodies, and by people who are trying very hard to be anti-semites but aren't quite getting the music right. The wording chosen by such people is unacceptable in a mainstream encyclopedia in all cases. Feketekave (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

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

I think it is wrong to not consider the Pakistan Daily as a reliable source. If we label it as unreliable, then CNN, FOX News, BBC, IHT, New York Times ect are also not reliable sources. We should update this article accordingly with this encyclopedic information regarding Geithner's religion. Ijanderson (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the openly racist tone this article adopts ("kosher credentials" etc.), it is certainly not a reliable source. --RCS (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. There is zero reason to accept your claim that Pakistan Daily is at all a reliable source and on par with or on the same level of veracity as CNN, Fox, NYT, etc. - Lestatdelc (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This article as reliable is laughable. "By his friends you shall know him", referring to Jews as "the tribe", "that only about three percent of the American population are Jewish, their heavy concentration in the corridors of power is, of course, purely coincidental!". Anybody who argues that article is reliable needs a good check in the head.  Grsz  11  04:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly, RCS and Grsz are correct. Tvoz / talk 05:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Lestatdelc (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, missed your earlier comment above - you're correct too. Tvoz / talk 05:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, has happened to me before as well. - Lestatdelc (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I don't get what the big deal is -- the Pakistani site doesn't say that Geithner is a Jew, only that he is Jew-ish, and aren't we all at least a little Jew-ish? ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.93.130 (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL - that's a good one. FWIW - I've concluded the Pakistan Daily article can't be used as a reliable source for establishing Timothy Geithner's religion.
 * They don't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (see Reliable sources)
 * The (unknown) authors are not generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand which is Timothy Geithner's religion. (see Reliable sources)
 * There's no evidence the authors have access to the primary sources for Timothy Geithner's religion and thus would not qualify as a reliable secondary source. (see No original research)
 * The information provided in the article regarding Timothy Geithner's religion can't be verified. (see Verifiability)
 * I can't find the policy/guideline at the moment but I thought there was one that said it's better the subject is the main topic of an article as it's more likely there was fact checking. For example, an article entirely about Timothy Geithner has a better chance of getting it right than one where the main topic was something else and Timothy Geithner is only included as part of a list of names.
 * Last, and also the most important, is that it appears that Timothy Geithner has never self-identified his religion nor is the topic relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life. (see Biographies of living persons)
 * It's possible that this WP article, or a copy of it, was a source for the Pakistan Daily article. There was an edit war under way at the time and the WP article stated Jewish and/or Judaism from November 6th to 9th and from November 13th to the 18th, 2008. The article is dated the morning of November 20, 2008. Another thing that seems suspicious is they spelled his name as "Timothy Franz Geithner", which is prominent on the WP article, indicating the authors were not aware that he is far more well known as "Timothy Geithner" or "Timothy F. Geithner" (the name used on both his NY Fed bio at the time and now on his Treasury bio). --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 09:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Using his full name is nothing suspicious at all, maybe in your mind. It's a part of professional etiquette. Maybe I'm anti-semitic now for posting this. And yes his full name is "Timothy Franz Geithner", oooh suspicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.246.138 (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If the Pakistan Daily routinely used full names then I would have expected them to use Timothy Franz Geithner. However, of the 13 names in the article they used the standard/common names for 11 of the 13 people mentioned. Timothy Franz Geithner was one and Rahm Israel Emanuel was the other case where much less common versions of a person's name were used. I agree, the full name business is not much of a clue but it is one that points to Wikipedia as a likely source for including Geithner on the list of Jews that may be part of the Obama administration. There is zero evidence the author of the Pakistan Daily article can be used as a reliable source for setting the issue of Geithner's religion. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 09:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Democrat or not
It seems reasonable, absent evidence to the contrary, that a senior official of the Clinton administration and a nominee for an even more senior position in the Obama administration, shares the political party of those presidents of the United States. Cabinet officers not members of the president's party (C. Douglas Dillon, William Cohen, or Norman Mineta) are usually identified as such.

So far, the crispest citations I've found stop short of calling him a Democrat. Some mention his close association with the Democratic policies of the Clinton administration. But his association with the current administration's policies is balanced by his close connections to the centrist Democratic policies of President Bill Clinton and Mr. Clinton's best-known Treasury secretary, Robert E. Rubin. Mr. Geithner served under Mr. Rubin as well as Mr. Summers at the Treasury Department in the 1990s, and rose to be under secretary for international affairs. The New York Times, Nov 22, 2008 v158 i54502 pA1(L) Geithner said to be choice; Wall St. cheers.(Timothy F. Geithner)(National Desk) Calmes, Jackie. Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2008 The New York Times Company Geithner, who began his Washington career working for Henry Kissinger and numbers Alan Greenspan among his tennis partners, will be part of an Obama economic team that seems solidly anchored in mainstream Democratic thinking. USA Today, Nov 24, 2008 p01B. Hope amid gathering gloom: pick for Treasury secretary.(MONEY) Lynch, David J.; Kirchhoff, Sue; Hagenbaugh, Barbara. Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2008 USA Today Byline: David J. Lynch, Sue Kirchhoff and Barbara Hagenbaugh. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC?vrsn=149&dcoll=iac&locID=chan86036&frmml=1&c=4&ste=41&docNum=CJ189682077

If Mrs. Clinton is taken from the Team of Rivals model, Mr. Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, is from the Team of Neutrals.

He's no liberal, said a former colleague at the Treasury Department, where he managed the American response to the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s.

At the time Mr. Geithner developed a reputation as the ultimate pragmatist, putting together a package of more than $100 billion in aid to halt the financial contagion. That turned out to be a training session for his role, a decade later, in the bailouts of Bear Stearns, A.I.G. and the injection of nearly $350 billion in Congressionally authorized money, whose exact use has become something of a political football.

Mr. Geithner grew up in Asia -- in Tokyo, New Delhi and Bangkok -- and keeps his ego well in check. He asks a lot of questions, but does not have Mr. Summers's overwhelming -- some say overbearing -- personality.

He clicked with Obama, one outside adviser said. If you think about it, their sort of cool, distant styles are alike. The New York Times, Nov 22, 2008 v158 i54502 pA1(L) The Candidate of Change Chooses Experience.(National Desk)(NEWS ANALYSIS)(Barack Obama) Sanger, David E. Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2008 The New York Times Company http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC?vrsn=149&dcoll=iac&locID=chan86036&frmml=1&c=5&ste=41&docNum=CJ189582844 But inference may not suffice for Wikipedia. --AndersW (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. At most what we have here is an inference, so titling him as a Democrat is Original research.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * BINGO. He's a Democrat, per an already cited source.

"A Democrat and a relative unknown outside the world of high finance, Geithner has worked closely with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. ..."

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

Not a Democrat
The Boston Globe says otherwise Here. Parler Vous (edits) 10:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Where does it say in that article anything about his party affiliation? Lestatdelc (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Its kind of buried, but it mentions that according to voter records in his town, he was once a Republican but now has no party affiliation. Parler Vous (edits) 04:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The reference in the article (Cho) states he is a Democrat, as does the infobox. Frank |  talk  22:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why I posted here instead of changing it outright. Its possible the first article is wrong, since the Globe one I cited seems to have done more research.  Parler Vous (edits) 04:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems like a pretty good reference to claim he's an independent. john k (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, guys, it's entirely possible that Mr. Geithner simply doesn't give a damn about partisan political labels. Unless he SELF-identifies, I don't think it's legitimate to be assigning him arbitrarily to one political corral or another, based on who hires him. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While I don't particularly care for TNR as a reliable source this story from November 05, 2008 has "Around this time, he also registered as an independent, having been a moderate Republican." From the reading it seems "this time" is around 1993/1994. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 07:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Opening Paragraphs
The opening paragraphs of an article should be a summary. These aren't. I think this needs to be re-written.

''Timothy Franz Geithner [pronounced /ˈgaɪtnər/] (born August 18, 1961) is the 75th and current United States Secretary of the Treasury, serving under U.S. President Barack Obama. He was previously the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.''

This is OK, it states facts and history.

''Geithner will be directing the nation's economic recovery from the worst financial crisis in three generations, a task that could define the first two years of Obama's term. Specific duties include directing how $350 billion of already existing Wall Street bailout money is to be spent, then making the case to Congress and the public if more is needed. In addition, Congress is working on an $825-billion economic recovery package that dedicates about two-thirds to new government spending and the rest to tax cuts. Geithner will be playing a big role in disbursing that money.[2]''

This is problematic for me. Whether or not it is NPOV, it is time-dependent and will have to be revised in a major fashion. This should be moved down-article.

''Geithner's nomination came under fire due to his failure to pay over $30,000 in taxes in the past. Geithner was able to receive Senate confirmation but he remains under deep criticism for not following the rules of the agency he now oversees.[3]''

I don't have any problem with this other than it is focused on recent events. Some of the bio should be re-iterated up here. Here is where a picture of the man should be established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markle the WikiGnome (talk • contribs) 11:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw the same things and had the same thoughts as you. The Barack Obama article could serve as a model in this sense in that the lead goes up to his inauguration in January. I've run out of the time this weekend that would be needed to write a good summary. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 23:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I had one thing removed, but there's a bigger problem
Is this the same Treasury Secretary that Obama needs to defend from resignation demands? For reading this article, one would presume that after he got confirmed everything in the Treasury Department was running just fine. That is so far from the truth the entire article fails the NPOV test.

Someone familiar with the realities of the financial world needs to rewrite massive portions of this article. It is so far below standard it is not funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.194 (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's my understanding that WP:NPOV applies to the tone or slant of the article itself. If the article comes up short in that area then be bold and fix it. If you see that the article is not accurate then again, be bold and fix it. If you follow WP:BLP and the policies it references strictly then no one should have a problem with fixes, or even a complete rewrite. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 06:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm in the right place here; if I was supposed to start a new subject, please forgive me
What I don't understand is why Geithner is called a central banker. The definition of central banker seems to indicate that Ben Bernanke holds that role. I looked it up because I was trying to figure out what each of them do. I suppose they work rather closely together but I just barely understand that the federal reserve banking system includes regional banks that serve as a clearing house for commercial banks and maybe credit unions. If Ben Bernanke heads up all that, how does it interact with the Secretary of the Treasury, if at all? Maybe I need a whole course in Economics 101.Activadvocate (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Activadvocate

Can someone knowledgeable post more relevant information on this guy
Too much attention is being put on superficial data in an attempt to reveal some sort of conspiracy, instead of getting more factual data that demonstrates Geithner's capabilities in running an economy as large as the U.S's. This guy is playing such a pivotal role in the world today, does his personal tax issues really merit more attention and space in the article than his background in economics?

Geithner was a director at the International Monetary Fund. What did he do there? He was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York! Any information on that?

Can someone provide a link to the AIG
AIG bouneses have a part in this article. shouldn't we put a link to the article? i would, but i don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.37.35 (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I added this at Timothy Geithner. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 09:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

more info on tim geitner
factual summary surrounding AIG loan

In September 2008, when AIG was searching for sources of funds. Geitner announced and had it published in NYC papers that he WOULD NOT loan them/AIG anything ... a position many today would laud him for.

EXCEPT

AIG insured millions of US mortgages and trillions of derivatives, positions so large that if AIG failed, it would have caused a market collapse globally. In Fall, 2008 GEITNER DID NOT KNOW THIS as evidenced by hispublicly stated position to not loan anything to AIG.

THEN after being informed of these critical facts, the loan to AIG was made in 1/2 a day. AND Geitner repeatedly points out that AIG and the fact that without that loan those globsal markets would have collapsed, attempting to use those facts to support his expertise, when at that time he did not know anything about AIG and had announced publically he would NOT make a loan to AIG.

And with out that loan to AIG is is agreed a depression would have occurred.

Please compare these facts to last sentence of paragraph 1.1 in article "Early Life" wherein Sec Paulson says Geitner knows markets;but as above establishes, Geitner knew nothing about AIG's role in markets.

larry de riv a tive IV —Preceding signed comment added by 69.121.221.97 (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.97 (talk)


 * If AIG said this and Timothy Geithner said that on various specific dates then it's likely it was all documented in one or more of the newspapers. Dig up the papers with the exact statements from AIG and/or Timothy Geithner and it stands a good chance of being useful as a foundation for adding stuff to the Wikipedia article. Anything else in the news is pretty much speculation and opinion by parties that were not directly involved in the AIG bailout. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 05:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You jcould not be more "directly involved" in the loan that was turned down and refused than to reverse that turn down decision and cause the loan to be made and at the same time, that info did not just save AIG but saved all global capital markets. That is NOT speculation and that is not opinion and that is NOT being  indirectly involved ... Hiram Mason 35th degree, All Seeing Eye !! 69.121.221.97 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC).


 * BTW, are you signing with four ~ ? I was surprised a robot came along and needed to date the comment.


 * The very top notice on this talk page is about biographies of living persons. Unfortunately, a 35th degree, All Seeing Eye is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. :-) Can you point me to a URL for an article that documents this direct involvement? Thanks. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 19:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Think through Marc what you are saying as the all seeing eye is the boss himself and there is NO Other

source of anything, including truth...


 * see also Systemic Risk AIG and Babble —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.97 (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting NY Times article on Timothy Geithner
The NY Times published a large article on Timothy Geithner including over 600 pages of his calendar.
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/business/27geithner.html

I don't have time to mine the thing for stuff that could be useful to the WP article though. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 05:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Geitner understnading of financial crisis
special ref - "Eight Days", New Yorker Sept 14, 2009, pages 58-81 by James Stewart summarizing what occurred in the eight days Sept 15-23, 2008 with heavy interviews by James Stewart of Paulson, Bernanke, Geitner - with article still not doing much but skimming the surface and YOUR OWN conclusion they (Bernanke, Paulson, Geitner) did know what was was happening then, did not understand what was occuring the past year and still do not ... and this is lack of knowledge of Paulson, now Geitner and all along Bernanke is important info to add to this article for this discussion of Tim Geitner as the present secretary of the US Treasury ... ... as there has been in Geitner, Paulson, Bernanke understnading no indication (see ref) of understanding at all of what is occurring in the financial crisis and the past year and now as we tip toe toward double dip and nose dive down... Tipa Kanoo n Tyla II 69.121.221.97 (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Disorder
Does he suffer from Trichotillomania? Where are his eyebrows?Lestrade (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Lestrade


 * No, and this is not a forum. Gage (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Lestrade, this is a fine, KEEN insight ... we can expect a balding Geitner, if not billard ball soon... note also the manic manic Oh four four, (dad a clear manic manic -as bipolars can

be always high and not have down phase, so then a "manic manic") - dipso fein doodla 69.121.221.97 (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that signature authentic?
I question the authenticity of the signature in the infobox. The source given for it is Fox News; I can't tell from that just where Fox obtained it. It is radically different from the signature that appears in an April 20, 2009 letter to Elizabeth Warren, a PDF of which is on the financialstability.gov website that is run by the Treasury Department (the signature is on page 3): http://www.financialstability.gov/docs/Ltr-to-Warren-re-EESA_42009.pdf

If the discussion page for this article is not the proper place to raise this question, please direct me to the place it should be raised. Thanks! --LBourne (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, it looks like the signature currently displayed in the infobox actually is an authentic signature, even though it's very different from the one on the letter to Elizabeth Warren cited above. It appears in a PDF document on the web site of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the March 20, 2008 "Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting" which constitutes part of the 2007 Annual Report (http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/annual/annual07/letter.pdf). I'm content to let it be someone else's decision what, if anything, to do about his having two such radically different signatures; I'll only mention that I think it's likely that the one that ultimately appears on the currency is probably going to be closer to the one on the Warren letter, for whatever that is worth. --LBourne (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

SAIS M.A. Question
Hi, I've got a pretty pedantic question. In this article (as well as in the sources cited) Mr. Geithner "earned an M.A. in international economics and East Asian studies from Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in 1985.[6][8]" But on the school's website and in its literature, the MA offered is in International Relations/Studies, with concentrations in International Economics and East Asian Studies (in his case). As I'm unfamiliar with IR/IS lingo, is it normal to refer to one's concentrations as the MA itself? Am I missing something? See the SAIS website:  TheSlowLife (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

intro changes
I've added details, refs and context to the inro but people keep changing it back to the vague, partisan, unreferenced version.Zodiacww (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not exactly. The edits are inconsistent with the purposes of an article lead, and as written generally inappropriate for an NPOV encyclopedia.

The original CBS reference was removed without explanation.

The Reuters article on G7 you cited does not use the words "collusion", "regulation" or "stimulus" at any point, much less the descriptive "collusion…regarding global regulation and stimulus".

The WSJ article on FNMA and FHLMC contains criticism of administration proposals, but no mention of an unlimited debt ceiling. There is mention of lifting the cap on government backup funds; this criticism might be legitimately mentioned – as critical opinion – in the detail of an article on the FMs, but has no place in the lead of an individual biography. The comment on ownership of 97% of mortgages is unsupported by the cited sources, and in any case would still be inappropriate for the lead in an individual bio.

The NYT article is primarily a compilation of opposing opinions, which again are legitimate for inclusion – as such – in a detail section on Obama's or Geithner's policies, but not as undisputed facts and not in the lead, which is meant to be a summary, not a detailed discussion. And again, there has been a bit of POV interpretation, since "enable it to regulate risk across the financial system" isn't quite the same as "ultimate economic authority". Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, what you keep changing it to has no source material, is full of presumptions, and is taken straight from the white house talking points memos. I'm sorry if you don't like what Geithner is doing, but you can't pretend it isn't true. What you keep changing it to is 100% PPOV and nothing substantial. As for the word "collusion", the article didn't use a lot of words but it is still an accurate term based on Wiki's own definition of collusion. Also, I deleted the CBS source because it was opinionated. Zodiacww (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if what I revised does not belong in a bio intro, then neither does what you revised because I only reworded and clarified what you wrote.Zodiacww (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No need for POV interpretations in the intro. CZmarlin (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * then quit doing it.Zodiacww (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The WSJ article mentions the debt limits being "uncapped" which also means "unlimited" as something with no cap has no ceiling.Zodiacww (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep posting... the NYT article talks about the regulation regime he is proposing, but I could look for one more specific to only that, if you want.Zodiacww (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Zodiacww, stop reverting this POV into a biography, much less its lead, or you will be temporarily blocked from editing. Abrazame (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would I be banned for doing what I'm supposed to do, ie, revert your Point of View into a biography of a living person. The things you keep changing it to are loaded with pretence and opinion and aren't even true in the first place, such as the automibile industrial's survival is being managed by Geithner. As a detroit resident, I can tell you that he is overseeing the nationalization, not survival. "Survival" is a Point of View. He's not restructuring the banks and whatnot, he's restructuring the regulatory regime. You can't say "he's overseeing the recovery of the morgtage market" because that is not what he's doing. He's purchasing the morgatge market through Treasury's GSE's (which he controlls). If there were a market recovery for him to manage, he would not need to buy these mortgages in the first place, so you can't say he's managing a recovery. That is POV, a guess, and not referenced at all. Next is, he's not responsible for "relations" with foreign governments, the State Dept is. He is responsible for "colluding" or "negotiating" with them to setup a global regulatory regime, which I will find and site for the article. Basically, you're trying to be political and whitewash this. You can not tell me, whatsoever, that my changes don't belong because they say the exact same thing you said DOES belong, only I said it more accuratly and without political preference. Last is, I'll conceit the word "scandel" but "issues" do not convey the contentiousness or controversy sourounding him regarding these issues, which is why you prefer to use that word, it would seem. I will file some sort of grievence against you for partisainship and mischarachterising the truth, and vandleism if you ban me. If you think what I wrote needs to be refined, refine it, but DO NOT revert back to that garbage. Thanks.Zodiacww (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Hard to know where to begin. Okay, you're gonna need to crack a dictionary and look up the word collusion, which is not a synonym for negotiation. Next, assuming good faith on your part (as you're expected to do in return), I'd ask you to reexamine your assertion that "nationalization" has nothing to do with POV, yet "survival" is a point of view. If a destitute person has no health care and so when she passes out in the street someone calls an ambulance and she's rushed into the emergency room, it is taxpayers and insurance customers (average people) who pay her hospital bill. That does not mean she has been nationalized, yet it does mean that she has survived. "Nationalization" to the extent it could be said by some quarters to have happened in the auto industry is coincidental to ensuring its survival. You may notice that Ford happened to have rolled over its debt and divested itself of Jaguar and Land Rover a couple years prior to the crash; you may also notice that Chrysler—the only privately-held major U.S. automaker—was married to Fiat (ironic name); you may also notice that GM is the only other automaker we're talking about, and that the car quotient (as discerned from the financing and operational aspect) is still being run by people like Bob Lutz and Ed Welburn, who were in their positions throughout the decade. Whether that's a good thing or a bad is not our place to decide, but it's not like we've got Howard Dean and Robert Byrd designing Chevrolets. So not only has the government not nationalized GM, but GM is not "several ... participants in the automobile industry", it is one participant with several brands and scores of models. Beyond that, the Bush administration — of which Geithner was not a part — had begun giving the automakers millions and billions, it was merely the Obama administration that actually attached some conditions to those billions. So adding this to Geither's biography is particularly absurd.

Further along that tangent, however, the U.S. government put a lot of money into Chrysler toward the end of the Carter administration and it revitalized the entire auto industry, resulting in the introduction of the minivan (arguably the precursor to today's SUVs) and other bestselling models all of which were smaller and more fuel efficient than the '70s boats. Chrysler paid the government back early and whatever nationalization you might envisage in that episode was over rather swiftly and painlessly. The word is tossed around a lot as populist hyperbole, not unlike the appellation "czar", yet it's conversational usage and not being used literally, encyclopedically, at least not by anybody who is sensitively informed about the experiences of governments that really do nationalize industries. The suggestion that this time around the intervention is any different (with respect to motives/intentions for nationalization) than the late '70s is especially out of touch considering that the major banking institutions — which were also bemoaned in certain circles to have been "nationalized" — have all paid back the entirety of their TARP money—with interest—effectively exiting "nationalization" with the government's blessing within a year's time. Similarly, GM is expected to go public in 2011. Whether all goes as smoothly as with the Chrysler of the 1980s remains to be seen, but some government power grab it ain't.

As to your general misreading of the article, I would point out that when we say "He is currently dealing with multiple high visibility issues, including the survival of the automobile industry, the restructuring of banks, financial institutions and insurance companies, recovery of the mortgage market, demands for protectionism, President Obama's tax changes," etc., we are not saying that banks and insurance companies have been completely restructured, we are not saying that the mortgage market has recovered, indeed we are not saying that any protectionism or tax change has gone into effect (I'd venture an educated guess that Obama has altered taxes far less than the last five presidents at this point in their presidencies), we are merely stating that dealing with these issues are major bullet points on his agenda.

I would point you to | this diff by Fat&Happy for a sentence-by-sentence taste of what's wrong with your revert. I note that you have thus far reverted your POV, by my count, seven times in a day and a half, including six times in the first day. I empathize with your comment about filing "some sort of grievence" (sic), but there are rules prohibiting contentious reverts against consensus, particularly in cases where a POV is being pushed and especially when that pushing is being done in the biography of a living person. I would recommend you read WP:3RR, but then someone posted that at your talk page two days ago and it doesn't seem to have affected your edits here as you have reverted this same material several times since. Your seven, then, are more than twice the limit on contentious editing in the face of substantive and rather blatantly obvious objections. I think, not unlike the issue with the article, that you're focusing on the wrong thing: the idea that we are telling you that this is a blockable offense more than twice over, rather than on the idea that we haven't actually blocked you for it yet a single time. Don't misunderstand that fact, however, as this sort of grievance will be applied to you upon your next revert of all or any of the material you have thus far contributed here, or any similar pattern with different material going forward. The best way forward for you at this point is to give the situation some open-minded thought, read the links that have been provided for you, understand what not only we but the article is really saying, and present neutral and WP:Reliable sources for any changes you'd like to make in the article on this talk page first, for the purposes of discussion and consensus-building. Abrazame (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the lady goes to the doctor, she hasn't been nationalized, but her health care has. Also, he hasn't been trying to keep the industry in a state of "survival" as Ford and many others have no bailout. You can say, and I'll accept, that he's overseeing the survival of the unions, but the companies went bankrupt and were taken over by the government. That's not survival, it's nationalization. If they go public in 2011, maybe we can change it (read about Amtrak, same with them). I didn't say the banks were nationalized, you're saying that to throw off the topic. I also didn't say it's a power grab, I said what it is. You're POV is interpreting it that way.


 * The way it was worded had geithner being lionized as some hero, some rescuer of things.


 * I'd object that you're objections are substantive... they weren't. They were threats, not objections. Read that stuff above again. You reverted to POV, not I.


 * Don't misunderstand, I won't back down. Zodiacww (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please understand that no one contributor has ownership of a Wikipedia article and guidelines are to be followed. This means the removal of your interpretation of events and the tangential detail ... all are inappropriate for BLP leads. Thank you. CZmarlin (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Fat&Happy
Why are you hiding facts associated with Geithner's acts during the bailout? People (US at least) need to know the facts about the fellow who controls the Treasury. His actions have piqued the interest of at least three Congressman, and the fact that Congress has requested that he testify speaks volumes...

"Efforts by the New York Federal Reserve Bank to limit disclosure about the transactions have come under fire in Congress, and current and former top Fed and Treasury Department officials, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, are set to testify to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday, Jan. 27."

Perhaps a firm date on his appearance is still not enough to meet your standards. Will you be deleting this critique of your censorship also?

Jeffrey Walton noloader, gmail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.226.177 (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe citation not needed. (Nomination / China)
Under Nomination / China -- The first sentence has garnered a 'citation needed', and I disagree. The sentence says "Geithner adopted a confrontational stance" which I see as a characterization. I see the subsequent sentences in the paragraph as substantiating the chacterization. 4 of the 5 subsequent sentences have citations. But, I'll defer to the 'experts'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.64.62.132 (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Religion - recent edit
Can the original editor or somebody else explain the reasoning behind placing "Unspecified" for his religion in the Infobox?

It seems to me there are two possibilities here: Comments? Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Use of the description "Unspecified" conveys, or is meant to convey, information not provided by leaving the entry blank. In that case, unless there is a citation of some reliable source to back up this "extra" information, the entry should be deleted.
 * 2) Use of the description "Unspecified" has no meaning beyond what is conveyed by leaving the entry blank. In that case, the entry is redundant (and fairly non-standard from what I've seen in BLPs), and should be deleted.


 * Look at the earlier threads above. Usually the resistance to the fact reporting on this just gives way and a brief statement of whatever the persons jewish background is (e.g. see talk pages for Mark Zuckerberg, Bernie Madoff or countless others) or a clear statement of a lack thereof settles the matter. Looks like this is one where some heels were dug in. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it true
that he never worked for Goldman Sachs? 68.2.137.33 (talk)
 * Although I have heard everyone from Republican senators to Michael Moore stating on camera that he has, in fact Timothy Geithner has never worked at Goldman Sachs. Abrazame (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * why not let him tell you this on his own? http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread14486.html --Alexander.stohr (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The New York Times agrees http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/geithner-haunted-by-a-goldman-past-he-never-had/?_r=0 Michaelaoash (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

TAX CHEAT
In the past week I have found three $1 bills with "TAX CHEAT" written on them next to Geithner's signature, presumably in reference to his "personal tax issues". Since each bill came from a different source and had different handwriting, this suggests some widespread campaign. It would be quite coincidental otherwise. Is there some kind of organized effort to mark bills this way? And if so, is it notable enough to add to the "Personal tax issues" section of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.61.91 (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is an organization doing this. They have a website at taxcheatstamps.com.  It may be notable because they have been featured by the national news media.  I saw an MSNBC segment on them a week or two ago, and there is another news clip featured on the website.  I'd be hesitant to add this to the article myself, out of fear of being targeted by the IRS - apparently the IRS audited the owner of taxcheatstamps.com right after he started the website.   At least I'm anonymous - you made the mistake of posting here using your trackable IP address.  :)  TimBuck2 (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Post his religion
He is a German-American Jew, isn't he? Why not make that clear? In a country so affected by religion in domestic policy and foreign policy, why on earth would you not include a person's religious background when that person is directly affecting those policies 101.51.239.199 (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It has about as much relevance to the article as the fact he disdains seatbelts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.197.226 (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/06/tim-geithner-not-a-jew/18248/ Michaelaoash (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Timothy Geithner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090123061453/http://www.foxnews.com:80/politics/first100days/2009/01/22/geithner-want-double-check-taxes/ to http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/22/geithner-want-double-check-taxes/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130105013841/http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-timothy-geithner-treasury-secretary-resign-20130104,0,5125183.story to http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-timothy-geithner-treasury-secretary-resign-20130104,0,5125183.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Timothy Geithner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081009165354/http://www.group30.org:80/bios/members15.htm to http://www.group30.org/bios/members15.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Predatory lending at Warburg Pincus
CBS News thought it was noteworthy to contrast Geithner's nominal stance against payday lending usury during his time at Treasury with Warburg Pincus's Mariner division's heavy involvement in it. Should we? EllenCT (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post article mentioned there goes into more detail . However, I don't know if this should be included. There are quite a few articles that discuss this issue, but as far as I can tell they were all published within a single week in July, 2018. Is there lasting coverage? Is this important enough to be covered in his biography? Right now there's only a single sentence mentioning that he's the president of Warbug Pincus. Bringing in controversies in such a minimal section would be giving to much weight to them. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The stark contrast is noteworthy in my opinion, and I'm leaning towards including it. EllenCT (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Article needs updating
When I first came by this article today, my first hint that something is amiss came from the short description. It currently says he's a central banker and politician. If anything, that line should contain the word "former".

Then, in reading the infobox, I noted it still refers to his website as a link to a government site that makes no mention of him.

Is it time to refresh this page with current info? — TadgStirkland401  (TadgTalk) 17:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)