Talk:David Malpass/Archive 1

POV
I cleaned up some of the peacock language. So please help. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone outside of the subject's family or genealogists be interested in who his wife's father or grandfather were? 156.98.118.115 (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

David Malpass may have been a student of economics, perhaps has participated in a number of discussions regarding economics, but why is he called an economist. He apparently has not earned a PhD in economics. Without that level of education, it would not seem terribly likely that he has an understanding of the complex modelling used by economists. On Wall Street these days, even a bachelors degree emboldens some to claim that they are economists when they clearly are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.35.62 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Please tell me why you think the inclusion of quotes form Mr. Malpass's Op Ed pieces in the Wall Street Journal should be excluded from this article? Or why the fact that Bear Stearns' share price dropped 94% the last year Malpass was the firm's chief economist is controversial, but his out-of-the mainstream political and economic views are not controversial? Or, if it is a matter of interest, why his team's awards are interesting? or why his wife's lineage is?```

The WSJ is one of the most respected economic publications. Why isn't Wikpedia including a balanced representation of his op-eds/forecasts in this publication? This biography seems to only want to include quotes and articles that espouse Malpass's current OPINIONS on the economy and the role of the Federal Government, while hiding his past forecasts, which were proven to be wrong, and which resulted in the downfall of Bear Stearns. The article portrays Bear Sterns as a victim of the financial crisis, and makes it sound like the Federal Government was responsible for it being sold at 6% of its value. Malpass was the Chief Economist, and he made some very wrong bets on the economy and THAT caused the downfall of Bear Stearns. Bear Stearns was the first major firm to fail, and was instrumental to the events that led to the crisis, not vice versa. You can include as many correct forecasts by Malpass as you can find, but that will not change the FACT that he was a major player in the financial crisis and that certainly deserves space in his biography if anyone is to take Wikipedia seriously as an unbiased source.

Discretionary sanctions
Please read the notice at the top of this page carefully.

Bear and historical forecasts
I've removed the material inserted by. The information in the lead was not referenced by the NYT and Malpass was not mentioned in the source at all. Note, I'm not contesting the Bear Stearns issues, simply that just by being true, it doesn't necessarily need to be covered in the way it was presented in a biography of a living person. Additionally, I'm not sure highlighting individual WSJ articles where he has been wrong neccesary. Seems like it could be WP:UNDUE coverage. I'm pinging because they raised this article on the BLP noticeboard first, and I'm assuming they like me don't really have a strong view one way or another on this economist, so another outside perspective could be useful. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * According to news reports, David Malpass is one of President Trump's top economic advisors and so his viewpoint could have a significant impact on the future economic policy of the United States. I understand he is also tasked with helping staff the senior appointed position in the Treasury Department. I believe it is of interest to U.S. citizens and the world generally that this economic advisor to the President has been so dramatically off-base in his past predictions. If someone influential in the public eye makes public predictions that are far outside the mainstream consensus and publishes those off-base predictions in one of the most widely-read and respected financial publications in the world, the Wall Street Journal, where their viewpoints could have very real world impacts, then I think they should not be surprised or offended that their own words are brought to light when they are trying to influence public policy again. That expert's public voice should be heard in the context of his past public statements and their accuracy. If someone has other public statements he has made that turned out to be accurate, then they should include them in the article, cited as mine are, with the appropriate data to show their accuracy. That would be fair and balanced.


 * The NYT article was quoted because of its reference to share price. One of the people who undid my mention of Bear Stearns had edited the article to spin the firm's failure as "under the urging of the Federal Government" and portray the firm as an innocent victim of the larger Financial Crisis. In fact, Bear Stearns was at the leading edge of the crisis, being the first major firm to fail during the crisis, and was a key player in the events that led to the crisis. I think the drop in share price demonstrates with provable facts that this was a catastrophic firm failure and not some mild precautionary merger. Swizzer (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, but this article is about Malpas, not about Bear Stearns. The NYT article did not mention him and the WSJ articles are bad predictions he has made, sure, but I'm also sure that most people who write opinion pieces on the economy have made numerous bad predictions. It goes with making predictions. We don't necessarily need to cover them in the article, which is a biography on him. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

He was the top economist at the Bear Stearns when it was doubling and tripling down on the subprime market. The firm's collapse was caused primarily by that doubling and tripling down. Presumably, the firm was listening to its top economist when they made those investments and became the first major firm to fail in the historic Financial Crisis. So the firm's performance is relevant to his bio and it's certainly relevant to the public, given its impact on the people whose money Bear Stearns was investing and the economy as a whole.

With regard to his forecasts (not predictions: that's what psychics do) being off, we're not talking about his forecast being off by a coupe tenths of a percentage point. In the middle of 2008, when most economists were predicting a significant recession, Malpass very publicly declared that there would be 3% growth in the second half of that year. In fact, GDP declined by 8.2% in the fourth quarter. That's an 11 percentage point difference between his forecast and reality. Them in 2012, he predicted a recession in 2013, when the reality was 3 more continuous years of growth and counting. I don't know if there's a record for Presidential economic advisors being so magnificently wrong, but I think Malpass must be in the running. This makes it noteworthy.Swizzer (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources commenting on his track record of making wrong forecasts, or is all we have a synthesis of his primary source columns and economic data? If it is the latter, it would be inappropriate for a biography of a living person in my opinion. At least in the way it was presented, which was wholly negative. I'm unsure of his forecast models, but I'm assuming you don't become the chief economist of a major company without making some right along the way. Only covering the negative based on primary source synthesis is inappropriate.


 * Re: the Bear Stearns language, the article already notes that it was forced to be sold during the financial crisis. He was the chief economist there. People can read about the crisis in the article about Bear Stearns or the crisis itself and draw their own conclusions from that. This article is about him, not about the financial crisis. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Tony, Malpass and others like him were instrumental in creating the Financial Crisis. Why do you want to hide that? The article mentions some awards he won in the years leading up to Bear Stearns' failure. Other than that, I have yet to find any evidence of success in his economic forecasts, and I have looked. If information about someone is negative, it doesn't mean it should be excluded. And it doesn't mean there has to be a corresponding positive piece of information, if none exists. That would be a ridiculous requirement. If someone finds where he has publicly made accurate forecasts, then, by all means include that. I can't find any.Swizzer (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want to hide it. I really don't care that much about this person, and have no connections. I just put it on my watchlist after another user brought it to the BLP noticeboard. All I care about is that this follows the WP:BLP policy. The inclusion of the original research involving primary sources is definitely not in line with WP:BLPPRIMARY. If his wrong forecasts have been the subject of sustained coverage in reliable primary sources, then it might be acceptable to include it. Synthesizing his columns with other primary sources is original research, and is not in line with Wikipedia's policies, especially towards living people.


 * I've removed the section about the awards, because they are unreferenced, and I think that including them in the lead is a bit promotional. Our articles should strive for neutrality and balance, and while they can be improved, I think the current version does a decent job of striking that balance. His role at Bear Stearns before the collapse is noted. This article is about him, however, not Bear or the collapse. If there is sustained coverage of his role that mentions him in reliable sources, then it might be worth including, but we do not have that yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Tony, I'm afraid your reasoning is all wrong here, unless you're saying that the Wall Street Journal is not a reliable source or not a source with significant coverage? I have seen numerous citations by other published sources of the specific op eds I cited. The fact that one of the American President's top economic advisors publicly made multiple horrifically bad economic forecasts is worthy of mention. I have cited the source, which is an extremely reliable one. There is no reason whatsoever not to include this information. The public has a right to know that one of the American President's top economic advisors has a terrible track record of predicting the economy. And Wikipedia is a good place for them to find out about it.Swizzer (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note to thank Tony for the ping, and to note that I've been away since just before then so haven't had chance to comment. I will hopefully be able to read this over properly and comment in detail within the next 36 hours or so. But, just at a first glance, "The public has a right to know..." is a shaky argument in an encyclopedia project where WP:GREATWRONGS, although only an essay, reflects common practice regarding what articles are for. MPS1992 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

So, you don't think that the fact that one of the top economic advisors to the U.S. President has been horribly wrong in his past economic forecasts is worth mentioning? "Nothing to see here, just move along"? Swizzer (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article mentions Bear Stearns and the collapse, links to the articles for them, and with your recent addition of the 6%, makes it clear that Bear Stearns did not end up in good shape. I'm fine with the 6% addition because it is directly mentioned in the NYT source, and seems to be reasonable to give further clarity for anyone who wasn't alive during the crisis. The fact that this man is an economic advisor to Trump has no impact on our WP:BLP policy, because Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. We are here to present a factual and neutral biography of notable people and events in an encyclopedic form. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not trying to "right a wrong". I am trying to include facts. His op eds in the WSJ are facts. The GDP numbers that show his estimates were wrong are facts. The facts are not in dispute here. The facts are there. For some reason, certain people want those facts to be excluded. It is incumbent upon those people who would argue to exclude this information to show that the publicly verifiable track record of the subject's economic forecasts is irrelevant to the biography of that subject, who is giving economic advice to the President.Swizzer (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry but the role of Wikipedia editors is not to read through primary-source facts and decide which are of sufficient importance to merit prominent mention in a biography of a living person. If a history of poor forecasting were so significantly obvious in the life of such a well-known and -- now -- well-examined public figure, then you can be sure that multiple reliable sources would have talked about it. Until they do so, Wikipedia will not do so.


 * I do appreciate that you are concerned about some of the people now in government in the USA. You would certainly not be alone in that. But the suggestion "certain people want those facts to be excluded" is an unwise distortion of what is happening here. I have no enthusiasm for Trump's government, and I have no reason to think that Tony does either. Quite likely, both of us are even more opposed to what Trump is doing than you perhaps are. But neutrality is what we aim at here. MPS1992 (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean excluding anything unflattering to the subject. If a subject is positioned as an authority in a field, which his position advising the President on economics certainly does, then his public pronouncements in that field of expertise certainly should be relevant for inclusion in the article on him. If others can find reputably published forecasts by Malpass where he was close to accurate, then, by all means, include them. I haven't found any. But, if all his publicly available forecasts actually demonstrate his lack of expertise, then that's not a reason to exclude them. What you seem to be saying is, if other published articles have referenced those highly erroneous forecasts, then that would make them noteworthy and worthy of inclusion in the article. Until recently, Malpass had not been in a highly visible position for a while, so it is natural that people have not been commenting recently on his past forecasts. But, according to your criteria, if I find such references, then that would justify their inclusion in the article.Swizzer (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That's not correct. Rather, coverage in reliable sources may be necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. MPS1992 (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, as you've seen with the 6% thing, no-one here is arguing in favor of "excluding anything unflattering to the subject". MPS1992 (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The WSJ is one of the most respected economic publications. Why isn't Wikpedia including a balanced representation of his op-eds/forecasts in this publication? This biography seems to only want to include quotes and articles that espouse Malpass's current OPINIONS on the economy and the role of the Federal Government, while hiding his past forecasts, which were proven to be wrong, and which resulted in the downfall of Bear Stearns. The article portrays Bear Sterns as a victim of the financial crisis, and makes it sound like the Federal Government was responsible for it being sold at 6% of its value. Malpass was the Chief Economist, and he made some very wrong bets on the economy and THAT caused the downfall of Bear Stearns. Bear Stearns was the first major firm to fail, and was instrumental to the events that led to the crisis, not vice versa. You can include as many correct forecasts by Malpass as you can find, but that will not change the FACT that he was a major player in the financial crisis and that certainly deserves space in his biography if anyone is to take Wikipedia seriously as an unbiased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.31.40 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you do for a living, MPS1992 and TonyBallioni? TonyBallioni, you seem to edit Wikipedia full-time; you've made 500 edits just in the past 20 days. That's 25 per day. I am an economist, and I can tell you that there is no better method of establishing credibility as an economist than reason and data. Mr. Malpass also claims to be an economist. Economics is a science; a young science, but a science. And, as such, evidence and reason are the guiding principles for the profession. Approximately half of this article is Mr. Malpass's unsubstantiated ideological opinions on the topic of economics. I added one of his opinions, published in one of the most respected publications in the world and almost certainly the most respected publication in which Mr. Malpass has ever written: the Wall Street Journal. I then added facts, data actually, to show how well those opinions held up in the real world. How on God's Green Earth could anyone object to that?

Then, as justification, you stated: "If a history of poor forecasting were so significantly obvious in the life of such a well-known and -- now -- well-examined public figure, then you can be sure that multiple reliable sources would have talked about it. Until they do so, Wikipedia will not do so." Then, when I offer to supply such sources, you say that's not enough. Please tell me, what are your criteria for inclusion, then, oh wise one and decider of what is significant?Swizzer (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't do Wikipedia full-time, I just keep busy when traveling for work and I have down time. To your point about your expertise and the WSJ/forecasts: Wikipedia is a tertiary source. That is what makes it valuable. We have policies against original research. If you want to publish a peer reviewed article in a reputable journal analyzing Mr. Malpass, you are free to do so, and someone else might decide to add it to his article. Right now, we just have you synthesizing primary sources for us, and adding them to a biography of a living person in an overtly negative way. Wikipedia in general does not support this. I don't know how else to explain this, as I think  and I have done our best to explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines here. The current consensus here is opposed to inclusion of your content, and I don't think that the article as a whole is trying to hide anything.  TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

First you say the information about his most public forecasts cannot be included because it is not significant. Then, when I offer to show that it is significant, you change tactics: 1) You claim: that the information I added is original research. The additions quote a highly reputable publication in which Mr. Malpass made an op ed. If you like, I can point you to dozens of Wikipedia pages about people where those people are quoted in articles they wrote and interviews they gave. Those examples would include this article itself. Every single section in the "Economic and public policy view" section does so, without critique and without any substantiation for those ideological views. Or are you saying that we cannot quote government statistics? I can show dozens of Wikipedia articles where this is done with no claim of "controversy". You claim that I am "analyzing" Mr. Malpass and that this is forbidden on Wikipedia. However, I am not doing any such thing. I am stating what he said about specific government numbers and then stating what those numbers factually were. No interpretation; I am not analyzing. 2) You claim the additional information is not flattering to the subject and therefore must be excluded. Wikipedia requires the articles to be objective. Everything I added is objective. Your selective editing is what is not objective and explicitly so. You claim the new information cannot be added because it is not flattering to Mr. Malpass. Deleting something objectively factual just because it isn't flattering is the definition of "biased". It's positive bias, not negative bias, but it is bias. Wikipedia does not require biographies to have a positive point to counter every negative point. Charles Manson's biography page on Wikipedia does not exclude all the horrific things he did because the people who added those facts about him didn't also add counterpoints to them. That's ridiculous.

Nothing you've said holds together when you scratch beneath the surface. You never said what you do not a living. Swizzer (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * To possibly break the logjam, here's a source (Salon.com) that is covering the topic of Malpass's tenure at Bear Sterns: "Trump Taps Bear Stearns Economist Who Said Not to Worry About Credit Crisis for Key Treasury Job". Possibly more is available; see for example, Mother Jones: "Trump's Economic Adviser Said the Economy Was Fine—Right Before It Imploded". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As always, thank you for your skill in finding sources when sourcing can be found. I'll see if I can incorporate it in fitting with BLP policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @Swizzer: "Quoting the subject's own op eds" to draw a conclusion not present in sources is considered original research and is against policy. But if the sources talk about Malpass's past predictions, as long as we consider them RS, then the info could be added, as TonyBallioni suggests. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added information based on Coffman's sources . TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not draw any conclusions. I quoted the Mr. Malpass, such as many, maybe even most, biographical Wikipedia articles do, in a highly reputable source, with a link to Mr. Malpass's WSJ op ed. I then quoted facts clearly related to the content of that article. No conclusions. No analysis. Fact from highly reliable sources. But, if you prefer references to his forecasts, I am adding one from the New York Times.Swizzer (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Economic and public policy view
Why are these statements by Malpass in articles he's written being included? It seems to be promotional of his ideas with no external validation or reference. Doesn't this the "original research" standard apply to them? I will delete, unless I hear why not.Swizzer (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur; this does not belong unless covered by 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've went ahead and removed them. If someone can find them in third-party sources they can be added back. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Update?

 * could you explain what you thinks needs updating? Otherwise I'm going to remove the tag since it was unexplained. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * President Trump has nominated the subject for Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, but the article says nothing about it.--Mr. Guye (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Be bold then! :) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also,, I can't find any sources confirming that he actually has been nominated or confirmed. Only rumors that he was going to be. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Malpass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012011549/http://www.newmountainfinance.com/our-team/david-r-malpass to http://www.newmountainfinance.com/our-team/david-r-malpass
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://article.nationalreview.com/437065/david-malpass-runs-for-senate/raymond-j-keating

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2018
The word subsequently is misspelled ( subsquently )in the beginning paragraph.CalliopeMuse (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC) CalliopeMuse (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done –Ammarpad (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2019
Change photo to this one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/worldbank/47490403962/ Buerba (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As the image is released under a non-commercial clause it would only be allowed if no free alternative were available. – Þjarkur (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (Relicenced as CC-BY-SA on April 8th) – Þjarkur (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2019
Replace the photo with Mr. Malpass official World Bank President: https://www.flickr.com/photos/worldbank/47490403962/

It is available in Flckr under CC-BY-SA Buerba (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Þjarkur (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal Information
Under personal details, it's listed as Mr. Malpass having 3 children. According to his official World Bank profile, it states he has 4 children. The Wikipedia page should reflect the accurate number as listed in his World Bank profile.

100.15.231.83 (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)