Talk:Peter R. Orszag

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



CBO biography gone[edit]

Orszag's CBO biography at http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/organization/od.htm is no longer there. May not be a dead link, but his biography has been removed. It now features the acting director, and other staff. Wayback machine (internet archive) did not retrieve one of the several old copies. http://web.archive.org/web/20071016051437/http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/organization/od.htm If no other ambitious Wikipedia editor finds a working link there, how should we mark this on the article page? AndersW (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google problem[edit]

Just to head off if anyone comes asking, yes, it does appear that Google's description of this link caught the page during an unfortunate period of vandalism, but it obviously appears to have been removed from the article. Joshdboz (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

Somebody please remind me:

Why should I know or care about this individual's religious affiliation? What exactly is the religious relevance of being Budget Director? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youssef51 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the same reason you'd want to know about his two children... --78.92.33.92 (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is, none. There is a distinction, anyhow. His having two children is presumably a public fact, even though his family life is private. His religion, if any, is a completely private matter.
Moreover, all we know is that somebody has made an assumption, presumably based on the fact that his last name is Hungarian. This is an odd kind of racism, if anything. Feketekave (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the obsession with ethnicity/religion is unnecessary. But it seems it is convention to list all such data for all high ranking politicians and bureaucrats. So here's a source anyway: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Peter_Orszag.html TheFireTones 13:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an in-Wikipedia trend that can be reversed; it is not a common encyclopaedic convention, and I, for one, would argue that it is somewhat unencyclopaedic. As for that website - wouldn't it claim anybody who could possibly be claimed (and who arguably belongs to the light side of the force)? Feketekave (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, actually. This source isn't great - I did a scan on the net for something better to no avail. I can't decide whether or not to remove it. As to the trend, I doubt it could be reversed (just look at any notable person's article). In some cases (not this one) the information is valuable. If you feel it should be removed; do so. TheFireTones 17:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating - a closer inspection indicates that the source I posted cited wikipedia as *its* source! Strangely circular. At any rate I am removing all such references to the issue (I'll further point out I did not originate them). Thanks, TheFireTones 18:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone does find a credible source, however, a revert could be in order. Thanks, TheFireTones 18:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ack! I knew that that source wasn't perfect, as I've argued myself on occasion, but didn't occur to me I'd have to read to the bottom to find out he got it from wikipedia. Good anecdote for times when I don't think that source is reliable. Also agree noting religion is a convention and that with decent source belongs there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that listing religion is not needed unless it is somehow relevant to the article. It's hard to say how "religious" a person actually is without supporting evidence anyway; for them, it could be like listing their favorite soup flavor. To state it so prominently might suggest an affiliation where none exists.129.2.167.219 (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's neo-nazis baiting Jewish people. Muslims for example have avoided this. 173.48.198.37 (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bianna Golodryga[edit]

She should have her own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.7.10 (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Milanos[edit]

There is a dispute regarding the inclusion of Mr. Orszag's relationship with Claire Milanos. The relationship has been widely reported and is verifiable. Several editors have included the relationship. IP address 98.221.146.142 has continuously deleted these revisions. 96.231.74.2 (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this guy get off while Tiger Woods can't? That shit belongs in as long as it's properly sourced. --204.191.44.205 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 'sex scandal'. Orszag is a publicly acknowledged father of two children from a previous marriage, a father of a child with Ms. Milanos, and is currently engaged. The article itself does not name any children - their names may not be notable but the fact that for a year Mr. Orszag was acknowledged as one of the most eligible bachelors in DC, was noted to have several dates with notable women, fathered an illegitimate child and is currently engaged to a 'Money Honey' of ABC is notable. It is customary in most biographies of living persons to acknowledge/mention that they have children and ex-spouses. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people keep removing mention of his children? It seems a small point. Is there something I'm not getting here? Why should it not be mentioned?QuizzicalBee (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I believe this information is being removed by either Peter Orszag himself or someone close to him. I believe the information should remain in the article because this was discussed in several media outlets, including the Daily Show and the Washington Post. Personal behavior is topical especially for political candidates, and if Orszag were to ever stand for election this is something people should know. The person who is deleting it is invited to write it himself, but the information does need to be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auroraline (talk • contribs) 07:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Security Reasons"[edit]

Note the material being removed is properly sourced. If there is truly a security issue please contact OTRS. --NeilN talk to me 03:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish religion[edit]

The religion parameter doesn't show in the infobox but just in case someone wants to mention his religion in the article, here's a potential source [1]. --NeilN talk to me 16:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph needs reworking[edit]

He co-authored a paper titled "Implications of the New Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Risk-Based Capital Standard" with Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz in 2002 in which they inferred that "on the basis of historical experience, the risk to the government from a potential default on GSE debt is effectively zero."[9] However, they did correctly note there that "the risk-based capital standard, while based on a hypothetical economic shock significantly more severe than anything that the economy has actually experienced over the past forty years, may fail to reflect the probability of another Great Depression-like scenario."

There's no context as to why these conclusions are important and the paragraph is filled with jargon unfamiliar to the average reader. Reliable sources should be found that discuss the paper, otherwise the paragraph should be removed. --NeilN talk to me 16:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whole article needs reworking[edit]

There is no context as to why the conclusions of the paragraph beginning "Orszag criticized "loosey goosey" criticisms of the Democratic health care bill's ability to contain costs." Yet it is included, ostensibly to push the liberal agenda. By "reliable" do you mean sources that agree to limit their contribution to the obviously slanted tone of the article? If you do not think that people knowing the person charged with handling 1.4 trillion dollars has made serious errors in economic analysis then perhaps you need to consider something other than part time journalism as hobby. Do you consider readers too ignorant to understand the paragraph? If so then what possible harm could it bring? To quote a reliable source "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." You do consider Shakespeare reliable I assume. Try this link for starters from The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080930_Binder1.pdf—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.227.138 (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that paragraph as it's a copyright violation of the article it was sourced to. Yes, the paragraph I noted above does not tell the average reader why the conclusions are notable. And no, Shakespeare is not a reliable source for most topics :-) --NeilN talk to me 04:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oddity[edit]

There were several questions asked you have failed to address. Should I assume you cannot or that you will not? As you seem to fancy yourself an expert on every topic that has been discussed one must wager on will not. An even more perplexing issue is where was your red pen when the paragraph containing copyright violations was added? Is this your first time reading the entire article? Is protecting readers from something they may not understand (as they must be a bunch of ignorant brutes) more important than protecting them from copyright violations?

With all due respect, if any, I must disagree with your assessment of Mr. Shakespeare as a reliable source on the human condition. Also this is a serious matter, so you may wish to refrain from the use of emoticons. Your arrogance reveals much, it is unfortunate that arrogance is one of the hallmarks of ignorance.Pcoppney (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where was your red pen? As the one who objected to the passage, I would have thought you would have put in some effort, seen the copyright infringement, and removed the text before the article was protected. We are all volunteers here, if you see a problem, fix it. It is also unfortunate that you twisted my words in order to strike a condescending tone. I said Shakespeare is not a reliable source for most topics. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Five pillars and contribute constructively and civilly. --NeilN talk to me 16:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears some of us are a different class of volunteers. Are you seriously suggesting that anything I removed would not have been summarily restored? Really? There was nothing condescending about my tone, you in fact did decide to employ the childish use of text messaging habits. If you are embarrassed that is your issue. I twisted none of your words; given that all of our discourse has transpired in a very narrow band it is difficult for me to believe you did not realize the topic was your actions. You have yet to answer the questions. I will assume you refuse to do so. I suggest you take yourself a little less seriously. Just to clarify that last sentence was intended to be condescending in tone.Pcoppney (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if you pointed out the copyright violation and removed the text it wouldn't be restored. What on earth makes you think otherwise? What specific questions were you referring to? The ones which involve straw man arguments or soapboxing? By reliable sources I mean reliable sources (I've provided you the link again). As for serious errors in economic analysis, provide some reliable sources that clearly back up that statement. We don't add unsourced synthesis to articles. Lastly, either "this is a serious matter" or I can "take [myself] a little less seriously" - you might want to come up with a consistent preference. --NeilN talk to me 03:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously and ideologue as the whole article is nothing but an advertisement. In reviewing the history of the article anything that casts a shadow of doubt on the abilities of the subject is removed. My economic analysis is not flawed. I hold degrees in Finance and Economics and would be glad to debate the analysis I provided. However since I have already asserted my analysis you will first have to provide a lucid and complete rebuttal. "You don't know what you are talking about" will not be considered lucid and complete for these purposes. You have yet to answer most of the questions. You can try to reframe the question and move the target all you like that does not change anything. My assumption that you are unable or unwilling stands.
As for logic regarding the serious nature of the matter, you may have a disconnect. Your syllogism is flawed as there is no connection between your capabilities and the importance of the matter. Perhaps your emotion has gotten the best of you.
Another question (which I doubt will be answered); when you use the word "we" above exactly to whom do you refer?
Actually, I don't have to rebut your analysis and this isn't the place to debate it as we (the Wikipedia community) have a policy against original research. I've listed several other policies on your talk page, Wikipedia:Five pillars is also a good place to start. I have answered your questions; if you feel I have not, please clarify them. --NeilN talk to me 15:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of information on divorce, children[edit]

Someone has repeatedly removed information on Orszag's divorce, children, and previous relationships, while it was properly sourced, but is not removing unsourced statements that are favorable or neutral. I see a number of reports here on the talk page of this occurring. I do not know the motivation, and it's not my place to assume, but I have sourced the information multiple times and written it back into the article, while removing some unsourced information about family. There can be no question that he's issued statements on the matter. Any further removal of this information I'll take as, at best, editing with a conflict of interest of some kind. — chro • man • cer  08:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive cites[edit]

@Patapsco913: Please read WP:OVERCITE. We don't need excessive references to tabloid-like sources. --NeilN talk to me 14:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

There's a reason why the label is called Spouse(s) (plural). We list biographically relevant information such as past marriages in infoboxes. --NeilN talk to me 18:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To editors removing Personal life section[edit]

This is a biography and like other Wikipedia biographies and biographies found in other mediums, we focus on what the subject is notable for but we also include personal details (if sources can be found) like where the subject was born and grew up, details of parents, and any marriages/partnerships and children. This is not agenda-driven but rather basic biographical information. --NeilN talk to me 01:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both NeilN and Shalom11111 appear to be quite agenda-driven. Please review their posts for (a) references to religion, with a decidely anti-semitic overtone and (b) a clear agenda to include references and citations to tabloid stories. BoratLA (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)BoratLA[reply]

Jewish is an ethnicity as well as a religion; I don't see a source referring to Orszag's religion only that he is Jewish. His prior marriage and fathership of a child with Clare Milonas is well documented in reliable sources. Which of these are "tabloids"Patapsco913 (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC) How come everyone wants to remove properly sourced content and not follow protocol and discuss on the talk page?Patapsco913 (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three reliable sources that Orszag is Jewish

  • Eden, Ami (December 29, 2009). "Mazal tov: Peter Orszag and Bianna Golodryga". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Retrieved 6 November 2013.
  • Jewish Daily Forward: "The Exodus" by Nathan Guttman September 30, 2010
  • The Jewish Week: "Tim Boxer At Jewish Women's Foundation" May 17, 2012
Also please read WP:BLP for the policy of Biographies of Living People. And read the Manual of Style Policy for BLP's at WP:MOSBIO. Having the personal life section is fine as long it has references and citations to news and/or other reliable and verifiable sources. Mentioning the religion and the other things you mentioned are fine as well. Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A whole bunch of socks who were removing the info just got checkusered and blocked. --NeilN talk to me 04:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So for the non-socks are we agreed the Personal life section is appropriate and adequately sourced? --NeilN talk to me 04:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Undisclosed paid' tag cut / rolling back banned sockpuppets[edit]

Was going through the banned sockfarm for Lazard (comment), looks like this page's {{Undisclosed paid|date=October 2023}} was added for same reason, so gave it the same treatment. I'm about to roll back (manually) the banned puppets noted by User:MarioGom (i.e. all those listed here), once that's up, will cut the tag too. Rationales/exceptions below, diffs in no particular order:

  • Diff1 - BeekeeperRed. Not changed by me. They made some minor date/tense changes, already overwritten since then.
  • Diff2 - BeekeeperRed. Not changed, since it was already deleted by someone else.
  • Diff3 - BeekeeperRed. REVERTED. Their edit removed first sentence, making it fit WP:LEAD much worse. I re-added "is an American banker and former government official" but changed to "is an American business executive and former government official."
  • Dff4 - PeterMadigan. REVERTED. Their edit added a press release and bloated promotion announcement, I replaced and streamlined with a NYT source already on page.
  • Diff6 - HauntsQuants. I REVERTED, mostly. Their edit was mostly corporate fluff about Lazard from 2021 to 2023, and an article dump of articles that didn't mention Orszag at all, or only in passing (which I removed after checking the sources weren't useful in some other way). Their edit also removed some unsourced content about Argentina, which I didn't alter, since it seems trivial. I also re-added some source names removed for no reason, and a Bloomberg article removed for no reason ("Lazard Hires Citigroup's Orszag for Mergers, Acquisitions"). I left a shortened version of the double revenue detail they added, since the articles focus on him.
  • Diff7 - HauntsQuants. Left alone, since it just changed one staged photo for another.
  • Diff8 - TardyMarmot. Left alone, since it changed infobox type from officeholder, which seems appropriate since he's no longer an official now.
  • Diff9 - TardyMarmot. Left alone, it was more infobox fiddling.
  • Diff10 - TardyMarmot. I left alone. Their edit cut Ideas24, which I didn't re-add since it wasn't mentioned in the source anyways.
  • Diff11 - TardyMarmot. REVERTED. They cut Russell Sage Foundation for no reason, so I re-added with vague tense.
  • Diff12 - TardyMarmot. REVERTED, in part. Their edit cut all mention of Orszag's weekly column for Bloomberg - so I re-added a shortened past tense version. I left the position update and Bloomberg article they added to the lead unchanged, and also kept out some fluff they cut.
  • Diff13 - TardyMarmot. I left alone. The edit made some minor changes that were changed later anyways by others.

24.184.68.237 (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving this page[edit]

Also, could someone who likes archiving things do this talk page sometime? It's getting very big. 24.184.68.237 (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_R._Orszag&oldid=1209545441"