This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alan Greenspan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 11, 2006 and August 11, 2007. |
Archive 1 April 2004—March 2007 |
The dispute is over a comment that is in the body of the article and a user wants it also in the lede and another editor wants it removed as undue weight. 21:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
here is the disputed comment...
After 2001, then-Senate Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, then-House Minority Leader Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, and others harshly faulted Greenspan [1] [2] for statements they saw as overly supportive of the policies of President George W. Bush. In 2004 Business Week Magazine said that his policies were leading to a potentiall-disastrous housing bubble. [3] [4] Greenspan has denied blame for the late 2000s recession. [5] [6]
Section removed per consensus. This edit violates WP:ASF, please read this policy section if in doubt. Scribner ( talk) 16:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
For those pushing this unbalanced edit: Greenspan is on record as stating his beliefs that Congress is to blame in large part for the subprime crisis. So, if this edit is included, the Greenspan quote blaming Congress will need to be included for factual balance. They blame one another and the current edit isn't representing that fact. Scribner ( talk) 17:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
To try a different tack, since we don't seem to be reaching consensus, I'd say that if the negative, opinion-based stuff (Pelosi, Reid, and Business Week too if it can be called opinion-based) is taken from the lead, then the positive, opinion-based (and much less solidly cited) stuff should go too. That would be the uncited "he was lauded for," was nicknamed "the maestro," was "the leading authority," and the suggestion that his tenure consisted entirely of "years of strong economic growth." This is not an ideal outcome, but like you I would like some sort of compromise. I'll also note that one or more of those who participated in the RFC suggested both the positive and negative should go. DanielM ( talk) 17:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone besides me find the tangent about Greenspan's dissertation to be an extremely odd addition to the biography section? Is there anyone who has serious objections to it being removed? Nwlaw63 ( talk) 19:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I have replaced the deleted information about the dissertation. There are only two sentences and two citations that you removed. I find it relevant that Greenspan had all public copies of his dissertation removed. I also find it relevant that the dissertation discussed household spending and bursting housing bubbles. There have also previously been numerous incorrect statements on this page (and several books) suggesting that Greenspan did not write a dissertation, or that there are no known copies. They are documented in the revision history and are apparently common enough to comment on. These additions bear on his oversight of the largest housing bubble in the last 80 years, and also corrects two misconceptions using two well sighted articles. If there is a better place than his bio, which discusses his dissertation, to place these comments then please place them there. Kurthr ( talk) 8:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Kurthr, I think you are mistaken about the obsenity, it was the work of an ip not Nwlaw as far as I can see. I do agree with Kurthr that the dissatation story and the two citations is not trivia and I think it should be replaced. I read it and found it interesting and informative. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Kurthr has replaced the content with the edit summary of...(Replaced commentary on Greenspan's disseration after apparent vandalism as cited in talk.) I think this should be redacted. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for misreading the change history as vandalism by Nwlaw63, when it was simply his version that was being reverted to. I don't think I can remove the comment in the change history, but would happily see it redacted by others. I have removed the unfortunately reference in this talk page, and hope that is appropriate. Kurthr ( talk) 09:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Are the reported comments regarding the financial crisis happening again worthy of inclusion? here [ [2]] Off2riorob ( talk) 13:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Yes I believe so. Recent thoughts by Greenspan. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-08/greenspan-sees-slow-recovery-is-concerned-if-stocks-drop.html Joycenyupimco ( talk) 16:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
According to the article:
“ | Alan Greenspan is blamed by the followers of the Austrian School for creating excessive liquidity which caused lending standards to deteriorate resulting in the housing bubble of 2004-2006 and the market meltdown beginning in 2008. | ” |
These dates are ridiculous. The housing bubble began well before 2004. The boom that became a bubble began in 1998. We were clearly in bubble territory by 2001. See http://housingbubble.jparsons.net for evidence. You can also check Robert Shiller's housing data at http://www.irrationalexuberance.com. The financial crisis began in August 2007. Furthermore, Austrian School economists are not the only people who blame Greenspan. -- JHP ( talk) 21:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This section seems to be lacking in NPOV:
“ | In a speech in February 2004,[66] Greenspan suggested that more homeowners should consider taking out adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) where the interest rate adjusts itself to the current interest in the market.[67] The fed own funds rate was at a then all-time-low of 1%. A few months after his recommendation, Greenspan began raising interest rates, in a series of rate hikes that would bring the funds rate to 5.25% about two years later.[68] A triggering factor in the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis is believed to be the many subprime ARMs that reset at much higher interest rates than what the borrower paid during the first few years of the mortgage. | ” |
I read the Feb 2004 speech and it doesn't seem to draw the exact conclusion above that homeowners should rush out and take out ARMs. He has bold caveats in the following sentence that they have to be able to manage interest rate risk and seems to be talking about the long run. FYI, it may still be true that over 30 years (the term he talks about in the speech) the overall cost may be lower if you can handle the temporary higher payments. I realize this is a raw political topic still with us, but it serves the proponents interest to be more NPOV. I would rather see multiple speeches/testimony where he favors ARMs broadly, coupled with scholars that conclude his favor of this enabled the banking industry to push this thereby crashing the economy which is the clear implication of this paragraph. There is a strong cause-effect implied here but actually this is still hotly debated. Even reading the speech I was a little surprised because he had to know interest rates were going to go up from the 1% they were at. The word "recommendation" is a bit pejorative in this context if you read the speech. I am not in favor of removing this, rather adding to it and improving. All these facts could be rewritten in a more NPOV tone. Anyone agree?
Well I waited a day doesn't look like anyone is watching this article. I found a few interesting articles that requite the Greenspan Feb 2004 speech. It's interesting that one of them was written before the bubble burst. But they don't seem to quote his caveats so it seems a bit out of context. Also nobody says this was Fed policy which is probably a more important point. My problem with it is that afik Greenspan not admitted to this mistake... he has admitted to some mistakes but not this one. Krugman Burry Greenbe ( talk) 23:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The statement in the biography section "He said he himself had to make such compromises, because he believes that "we did extremely well" without a central bank and with a gold standard.[22]", seems inaccurate to me after reviewing the link cited. Greenspan does not say that he had to make compromises because the USA did well without a central bank and with a gold standard, he claims that compromise is an important part of a democratic society. Also, attaching a date to the period when the USA was without a central bank and with a gold standard would increase the clarity here.-- 76.17.30.247 ( talk) 01:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The criticism section of this article is littered with POV statements, and unreasonably long compared to the career section. Per WP:CRITS, I think we should keep it in perspective and try to incorporate it into the article. -- Artoasis ( talk) 06:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of their political or economic views, many critics have complained that Alan Greenspan's public pronouncements have been obscure, convoluted, and arcane, making it very difficult to decipher what he has said. The terms greenspeak or fedspeak have been used to describe this obfuscated way of (possibly not) communicating.
As of 2011, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas website still maintains a "Greenspeak" page with dozens of excerpts from Greenspan's statements as head of the Federal Reserve Bank, each with a pointer to the full text of his statement. [7] The University of Virginia Writing Program Instructor Site offers some quotations from Greenspan, with a suggestion that students be given writing exercise assignments of clarifying their expression. [8] A public relations firm cites an example of "Greenspeak" as the statement of one of the "master practioners of creative ambiguity over the years". [9]
An update: The Greenspeak set of quotes is nowhere to be found any longer on the Dallas Fed page. Anyone have a copy? I'm curious to take a look. I have no reason to believe any of the quotes are inaccurate, we might check his book for corroboration. I don't think the writing school source is that useful.
Nevertheless I agree with general tenor that any article on Greenspan without mention of Greenspeak and Fedspeak is incomplete. My impression is that it was one of several things he is most well known for. Yes we can leave the long detail for that WP page but there should be some mention of it and perhaps some of his most famous quotes, controversial or not. By the way, Greenspan himself has taken ownership of both the terms Greenspeak and Fedspeak and has his own explanation in many primary sources, least of which his and Shiller's books. See Fedspeak for details. I found a good Washington Post article and interview on this as well see the citations. So I don't think it's controversial that he uses those specific terms and practices the art. Whether the results of it is good, bad or indifferent is a matter I can't opine on, but opinion seems widely held that he was very skilled at the art. I think it ought to be mentioned with some balanced criticism. Clearly he thinks it was a good thing from writings and interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbe ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there another Alan Greenspan, who produced Donnie Brasco (film)? Or is this the same guy? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 22:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Matt Taibbi called Greenspan a vain "classic con man" and a undistinguished economist who, through political savvy, "flattered and bullshitted his way up the Matterhorn of American power and then, once he got to the top, feverishly jacked himself off to the attention of Wall Street for 20 consecutive years." Taibbi said Greenspan had "established himself as an infallible oracle, and a lot of it had to do with his ability to seduce key media figures, sometimes literally." Taibbi reported a Wall Street term called the "Greenspan put" which "meant that every time the banks blew up a speculative bubble, they could go back to the Fed and borrow money at zero or one or two percent, and then start the game all over", thereby making it "almost impossible" for the banks to lose money.
No, Karpouzi, Taibbi has spent years covering Wall Street, and you don't point to any lack of credentials that would de-legitimize Taibbi. Furthermore, he is widely read, not by some illiterate, unseemly crowd, but by millions. He uses facts when he writes. While I generally support much of what Greenspan did as Chairman of the Fed Reserve, he deserves some blame for the lack of regulation that occurred at the tail end of the Clinton years. This article accurately quotes Greenspan self-criticism on that matter. V Schauf ( talk) 18:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Per consensus, I have tried to trim down Taibbi's comments and merge them into the "Late 2000s recession". Indeed, the "criticism" section needs some copy editing, ideally a rewrite.-- Artoasis ( talk) 17:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
[3] Go Phightins ! 13:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Checchi has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
the scetion on objectivism is totally unrelated to the previous historical account and the following evaluation of his policiies. It would rather gain if one could separate accounts (often uncontroversial) and policy evaluation (highly controversial, especially on Greenspan long office.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Checchi has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 17:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Why did Greenspan not serve in World War II??? He was the perfect age - he graduated from high school in 1943. Doesn't make sense. Did he have connections that enabled him to sit out the war??? Thanks in advance to anybody who knows. Betathetapi545 ( talk) 20:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
why can't each book appear in only one list per page instead of once for each below:
references
works cited
bibliography
other readings
It would be in service to the reader and also reduce maintenance to list each work once.
Scranton (
talk)
18:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi the wikipedia article describes ex-wife as Artist, the ABC News story referenced says art student. What do you think should Wikipedia article get changed to reflect the source? Scranton ( talk) 19:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
This article has a side bar and a box at the bottom referring to Neoliberalism. Yet, the word "neoliberal" is never mentioned in the article. Do many sources call Greenspan a neoliberal? If this is the case, it should be included in the article. Otherwise there's no need for the boxes. Joe vom Titan ( talk) 16:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alan Greenspan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 11, 2006 and August 11, 2007. |
Archive 1 April 2004—March 2007 |
The dispute is over a comment that is in the body of the article and a user wants it also in the lede and another editor wants it removed as undue weight. 21:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
here is the disputed comment...
After 2001, then-Senate Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, then-House Minority Leader Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, and others harshly faulted Greenspan [1] [2] for statements they saw as overly supportive of the policies of President George W. Bush. In 2004 Business Week Magazine said that his policies were leading to a potentiall-disastrous housing bubble. [3] [4] Greenspan has denied blame for the late 2000s recession. [5] [6]
Section removed per consensus. This edit violates WP:ASF, please read this policy section if in doubt. Scribner ( talk) 16:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
For those pushing this unbalanced edit: Greenspan is on record as stating his beliefs that Congress is to blame in large part for the subprime crisis. So, if this edit is included, the Greenspan quote blaming Congress will need to be included for factual balance. They blame one another and the current edit isn't representing that fact. Scribner ( talk) 17:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
To try a different tack, since we don't seem to be reaching consensus, I'd say that if the negative, opinion-based stuff (Pelosi, Reid, and Business Week too if it can be called opinion-based) is taken from the lead, then the positive, opinion-based (and much less solidly cited) stuff should go too. That would be the uncited "he was lauded for," was nicknamed "the maestro," was "the leading authority," and the suggestion that his tenure consisted entirely of "years of strong economic growth." This is not an ideal outcome, but like you I would like some sort of compromise. I'll also note that one or more of those who participated in the RFC suggested both the positive and negative should go. DanielM ( talk) 17:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone besides me find the tangent about Greenspan's dissertation to be an extremely odd addition to the biography section? Is there anyone who has serious objections to it being removed? Nwlaw63 ( talk) 19:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I have replaced the deleted information about the dissertation. There are only two sentences and two citations that you removed. I find it relevant that Greenspan had all public copies of his dissertation removed. I also find it relevant that the dissertation discussed household spending and bursting housing bubbles. There have also previously been numerous incorrect statements on this page (and several books) suggesting that Greenspan did not write a dissertation, or that there are no known copies. They are documented in the revision history and are apparently common enough to comment on. These additions bear on his oversight of the largest housing bubble in the last 80 years, and also corrects two misconceptions using two well sighted articles. If there is a better place than his bio, which discusses his dissertation, to place these comments then please place them there. Kurthr ( talk) 8:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Kurthr, I think you are mistaken about the obsenity, it was the work of an ip not Nwlaw as far as I can see. I do agree with Kurthr that the dissatation story and the two citations is not trivia and I think it should be replaced. I read it and found it interesting and informative. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Kurthr has replaced the content with the edit summary of...(Replaced commentary on Greenspan's disseration after apparent vandalism as cited in talk.) I think this should be redacted. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for misreading the change history as vandalism by Nwlaw63, when it was simply his version that was being reverted to. I don't think I can remove the comment in the change history, but would happily see it redacted by others. I have removed the unfortunately reference in this talk page, and hope that is appropriate. Kurthr ( talk) 09:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Are the reported comments regarding the financial crisis happening again worthy of inclusion? here [ [2]] Off2riorob ( talk) 13:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Yes I believe so. Recent thoughts by Greenspan. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-08/greenspan-sees-slow-recovery-is-concerned-if-stocks-drop.html Joycenyupimco ( talk) 16:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
According to the article:
“ | Alan Greenspan is blamed by the followers of the Austrian School for creating excessive liquidity which caused lending standards to deteriorate resulting in the housing bubble of 2004-2006 and the market meltdown beginning in 2008. | ” |
These dates are ridiculous. The housing bubble began well before 2004. The boom that became a bubble began in 1998. We were clearly in bubble territory by 2001. See http://housingbubble.jparsons.net for evidence. You can also check Robert Shiller's housing data at http://www.irrationalexuberance.com. The financial crisis began in August 2007. Furthermore, Austrian School economists are not the only people who blame Greenspan. -- JHP ( talk) 21:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This section seems to be lacking in NPOV:
“ | In a speech in February 2004,[66] Greenspan suggested that more homeowners should consider taking out adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) where the interest rate adjusts itself to the current interest in the market.[67] The fed own funds rate was at a then all-time-low of 1%. A few months after his recommendation, Greenspan began raising interest rates, in a series of rate hikes that would bring the funds rate to 5.25% about two years later.[68] A triggering factor in the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis is believed to be the many subprime ARMs that reset at much higher interest rates than what the borrower paid during the first few years of the mortgage. | ” |
I read the Feb 2004 speech and it doesn't seem to draw the exact conclusion above that homeowners should rush out and take out ARMs. He has bold caveats in the following sentence that they have to be able to manage interest rate risk and seems to be talking about the long run. FYI, it may still be true that over 30 years (the term he talks about in the speech) the overall cost may be lower if you can handle the temporary higher payments. I realize this is a raw political topic still with us, but it serves the proponents interest to be more NPOV. I would rather see multiple speeches/testimony where he favors ARMs broadly, coupled with scholars that conclude his favor of this enabled the banking industry to push this thereby crashing the economy which is the clear implication of this paragraph. There is a strong cause-effect implied here but actually this is still hotly debated. Even reading the speech I was a little surprised because he had to know interest rates were going to go up from the 1% they were at. The word "recommendation" is a bit pejorative in this context if you read the speech. I am not in favor of removing this, rather adding to it and improving. All these facts could be rewritten in a more NPOV tone. Anyone agree?
Well I waited a day doesn't look like anyone is watching this article. I found a few interesting articles that requite the Greenspan Feb 2004 speech. It's interesting that one of them was written before the bubble burst. But they don't seem to quote his caveats so it seems a bit out of context. Also nobody says this was Fed policy which is probably a more important point. My problem with it is that afik Greenspan not admitted to this mistake... he has admitted to some mistakes but not this one. Krugman Burry Greenbe ( talk) 23:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The statement in the biography section "He said he himself had to make such compromises, because he believes that "we did extremely well" without a central bank and with a gold standard.[22]", seems inaccurate to me after reviewing the link cited. Greenspan does not say that he had to make compromises because the USA did well without a central bank and with a gold standard, he claims that compromise is an important part of a democratic society. Also, attaching a date to the period when the USA was without a central bank and with a gold standard would increase the clarity here.-- 76.17.30.247 ( talk) 01:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The criticism section of this article is littered with POV statements, and unreasonably long compared to the career section. Per WP:CRITS, I think we should keep it in perspective and try to incorporate it into the article. -- Artoasis ( talk) 06:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of their political or economic views, many critics have complained that Alan Greenspan's public pronouncements have been obscure, convoluted, and arcane, making it very difficult to decipher what he has said. The terms greenspeak or fedspeak have been used to describe this obfuscated way of (possibly not) communicating.
As of 2011, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas website still maintains a "Greenspeak" page with dozens of excerpts from Greenspan's statements as head of the Federal Reserve Bank, each with a pointer to the full text of his statement. [7] The University of Virginia Writing Program Instructor Site offers some quotations from Greenspan, with a suggestion that students be given writing exercise assignments of clarifying their expression. [8] A public relations firm cites an example of "Greenspeak" as the statement of one of the "master practioners of creative ambiguity over the years". [9]
An update: The Greenspeak set of quotes is nowhere to be found any longer on the Dallas Fed page. Anyone have a copy? I'm curious to take a look. I have no reason to believe any of the quotes are inaccurate, we might check his book for corroboration. I don't think the writing school source is that useful.
Nevertheless I agree with general tenor that any article on Greenspan without mention of Greenspeak and Fedspeak is incomplete. My impression is that it was one of several things he is most well known for. Yes we can leave the long detail for that WP page but there should be some mention of it and perhaps some of his most famous quotes, controversial or not. By the way, Greenspan himself has taken ownership of both the terms Greenspeak and Fedspeak and has his own explanation in many primary sources, least of which his and Shiller's books. See Fedspeak for details. I found a good Washington Post article and interview on this as well see the citations. So I don't think it's controversial that he uses those specific terms and practices the art. Whether the results of it is good, bad or indifferent is a matter I can't opine on, but opinion seems widely held that he was very skilled at the art. I think it ought to be mentioned with some balanced criticism. Clearly he thinks it was a good thing from writings and interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbe ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there another Alan Greenspan, who produced Donnie Brasco (film)? Or is this the same guy? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 22:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Matt Taibbi called Greenspan a vain "classic con man" and a undistinguished economist who, through political savvy, "flattered and bullshitted his way up the Matterhorn of American power and then, once he got to the top, feverishly jacked himself off to the attention of Wall Street for 20 consecutive years." Taibbi said Greenspan had "established himself as an infallible oracle, and a lot of it had to do with his ability to seduce key media figures, sometimes literally." Taibbi reported a Wall Street term called the "Greenspan put" which "meant that every time the banks blew up a speculative bubble, they could go back to the Fed and borrow money at zero or one or two percent, and then start the game all over", thereby making it "almost impossible" for the banks to lose money.
No, Karpouzi, Taibbi has spent years covering Wall Street, and you don't point to any lack of credentials that would de-legitimize Taibbi. Furthermore, he is widely read, not by some illiterate, unseemly crowd, but by millions. He uses facts when he writes. While I generally support much of what Greenspan did as Chairman of the Fed Reserve, he deserves some blame for the lack of regulation that occurred at the tail end of the Clinton years. This article accurately quotes Greenspan self-criticism on that matter. V Schauf ( talk) 18:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Per consensus, I have tried to trim down Taibbi's comments and merge them into the "Late 2000s recession". Indeed, the "criticism" section needs some copy editing, ideally a rewrite.-- Artoasis ( talk) 17:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
[3] Go Phightins ! 13:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Checchi has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
the scetion on objectivism is totally unrelated to the previous historical account and the following evaluation of his policiies. It would rather gain if one could separate accounts (often uncontroversial) and policy evaluation (highly controversial, especially on Greenspan long office.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Checchi has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 17:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Why did Greenspan not serve in World War II??? He was the perfect age - he graduated from high school in 1943. Doesn't make sense. Did he have connections that enabled him to sit out the war??? Thanks in advance to anybody who knows. Betathetapi545 ( talk) 20:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
why can't each book appear in only one list per page instead of once for each below:
references
works cited
bibliography
other readings
It would be in service to the reader and also reduce maintenance to list each work once.
Scranton (
talk)
18:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi the wikipedia article describes ex-wife as Artist, the ABC News story referenced says art student. What do you think should Wikipedia article get changed to reflect the source? Scranton ( talk) 19:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
This article has a side bar and a box at the bottom referring to Neoliberalism. Yet, the word "neoliberal" is never mentioned in the article. Do many sources call Greenspan a neoliberal? If this is the case, it should be included in the article. Otherwise there's no need for the boxes. Joe vom Titan ( talk) 16:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)