Talk:John M. Reich

IndyMac Bank Failure

FredEthelMertz, please explain why you have repeatedly deleted this section in the article. As OTS Director, John M. Reich was responsible for overseeing his agency's mission to supervise savings associations in order to maintain their safety and soundnes. The failure of Indymac Bank on his watch should be included in this article. Coasting (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, FredEthelMertz - a person who shows surprisingly intimate knowledge of Mr. Reich's positions and a remarkable ability to recount them without citations - will almost certainly be back. That the regulatory and financial history of IndyMac not be told in detail or context is very important to some people. Note the controversy on the IndyMac entry itself. I just had to go out and dig up the numbers from the 10-Q myself. Ridiculous, but it shows how Wikipedia can turn a citizen into a journalist when need be. --Dlawbailey (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, why doesn't this page come up on a Wiki search?--Dlawbailey (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute/BLP issues

This page has been edit protected to stabilize the situtaion and allow time for material to be correctly discussed here. As this is a Biography of a Living Person, any and all controversial and/or potentially libellous information must be completely sourced to highly reliable independent sources. There cannot be any original research or synthesis. Please use the time to set out what can and cannot be included. If a resolution is reached before the protection expires then please contact me or apply for unprotection at RFPP. Mfield (Oi!) 06:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the substance of the dispute? I would be happy to correct it - but I'd have to know it first. Every opinion attributed to Mr. Reich comes from his own words. Every judgment about the propriety of his agency's actions comes from a combination of the most-trusted financial journalists AND his agency's own parent department's findings. Mr. Reich AGREED to the findings himself in a letter to Treasury. Not only that, any fair assessment of FredEthelMertz series of edits finds an editor who is trying put different "spins" on such things as Mr. Reich's resignation - for example, calling that resignation an "early retirment" and then backing off the characterization. This goes to credibility and neutrality. Moreover, it is the FredEthelMertz edits that are unsourced, not mine, and there has been no specific dispute as to the correctness of any of my sourcing.--216.254.24.133 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Dlawbailey (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside how the dispute got to this point, the only thing that matters is that material included in a BLP be notable, verifiable and accurate. The best thing to do would be to start a section below and list out all the sources of new information, with a brief summary of what the source directly says about the subject. Ensure that all viewpoints are included. Then write a neutral section that uses the information from all sources and add it below for comment. Be sure to only make claims that are directly supported by the references, and do not draw, or synthesize, any conclusions of your own. Stick to the facts as reported by highly reliable sources and, assuming the information is notable, which it should be if a major newspaper has reported it, then it can be included in the article. If the material is an any way controversial (or potentially libellous even) then every source needs to be double checked and the proposed section should be agreed on by consensus BEFORE any of it is added to the live article. Simply put, stick to the facts, don't draw any conclusions, and if in doubt, double check the sourcing and ask for another opinion. Mfield (Oi!) 21:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Time does not allow discussing issues on a daily basis. A BLP is intended to provide facts and, although an editor may feel their facts are substantiated, by producing only those “facts” that support an opinion, it is no longer truly accurate. If strong opinions exist, a blog or other chat device would be a valid location for those discussions – not a BLP.FredEthelMertz (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

FredEthelMertz, You have'nt "discussed" anything. You haven't cited any problems with the citations. You haven't made any case as to balance. You are assiduously silent, other than cutting and pasting. But thanks for inspiring me to do more research. Mr. Reich is a very, very interesting figure in the financial crisis. --216.254.24.133 (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. As in the case with my contributions, FredEthelMertz simply "undid" every one of them. Furthermore, it seems strange to me that FredEthelMertz is only interested in editing this one article.Coasting (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked FredEthelMertz to disclose any COI and explain the reasons for using an SPA to edit this article. Mfield (Oi!) 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Did not complete five-year term at OTS

FredEthelMertz, why don't you want this fact mentioned in the article? Not only did he not finish his five-year term, but he left the agency during one of the most challenging economic periods in U.S. history. In his own words, "It is not a good time for OTS for me to leave ... but it is a good time for me."[1] Coasting (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

More than that, the present article cites a source that says Mr. Reich "retired" but cites a source daying he "resigned". This ignores the historical record on his resignation--Dlawbailey (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sections At Issue

Let's go item-by-item.

First:

"Mr. Reich took the oath of Director of OTS on August 9, 2005 and continued in that capacity as well as serving as a member of the FDIC Board of Directors until he resigned on February 12, 2009 and stepped down February 27, 2009."

- This is true per the citation already on the page, which now states the situation incorrectly.

From Regulation and Reform:
"An ardent foe of regulatory red tape, Mr. Reich dedicated much effort and public testimony toward reducing regulatory burdens on financial institutions and, beginning in 2005, led a three-year interagency review of all federal bank regulations, mandated under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996."

- Undisputed, rephrased by FredEthelMertz to include Reich's leadership on EGRPRA, totally supported by cite.

"Then Director of OTS, championed more regulatory independence and discretion for his agency in the cause of efficiency and regulatory burden relief. ."

- Fair description per Mr. Reich's own testimony to the Senate, as cited here, as well as the following citation including Mr. Reich's own description of his own opinions about his own agency.

"On July 21, 2008, following the subprime mortgage meltdown and failure of IndyMac Bank but before the failures of Washington Mutual and AIG Financial Products - all three regulated by OTS - Reich described his agency's "Financial Institution Reform Initiative":"

- Historical context is right and characterization of his agency's regulatory role is right per arguably the two most-trusted sources in financial journalism. Describes Mr. Reich's own characterization of his own agency's actions in public, per following cite.

I believe Congress should help create a level, scrupulous and well-regulated playing field so consumers and investors have confidence in the transparency, fairness and integrity of all mortgage originations. The standards of the under-regulated segments of the market must be raised to the level followed by the federally regulated segments. All entities that originate home loans should be required to comply with basic credit principles, such as conducting a reasonable assessment of each borrower’s ability to repay.

- This represents the leading "key" to financial mortgage market reform and stabilization, per Mr. Reich himself, in public, to an industry group, as reported in their publications and the Treasury department's files.

"In those same remarks, he described the role he felt his agency should play:

Selecting a strong regulator to monitor this new level playing field is critical for

protecting consumers and restoring market confidence. I won’t pretend to be a disinterested party, but I know that the OTS has the most extensive expertise of any regulatory agency in the oversight and supervision of mortgage banking operations and I believe the OTS is in the best position to assume federal authority to regulate the

currently unregulated players in mortgage banking.

- Again, quoting Mr. Reich himself, buttressing previous characterization of Mr. Reich's multiply-stated opinion that OTS should have a broader purview and characterizing his opinion of the state of OTS at this critical juncture in history.

From Role In IndyMac Bank Failure and Controversy:

"The failure of IndyMac Bank on July 11, 2008, was the fourth largest bank failure in United States history"

- Establishes notability, undisputed, reliably cited, necessary for context, Reuters.

"Prior IndyMac's failure on July 11, 2008, the bank had come to rely heavily on higher cost, less stable, brokered deposits, as well as secured borrowings, to fund its operations and focused on stated income and other aggressively underwritten loans in areas with rapidly escalating home prices, particularly in California and Florida. "

- Publicly released final assessment of IndyMac by the FDIC after months of investigation and conservatorship while Mr. Reich was on the Board of Directors,.

"On June 26, 2008 Senator Charles E. Schumer publicly released letters he had previously sent to Reich's agency and others, suggesting that IndyMac bank was in danger of failing and that the danger was being ignored. In the weeks that followed, Director Reich blamed Schumer's release of the letters for instigating IndyMac's collapse.."

- On Schumer, from CNN, well-known. Mr. Reich's blaming is a direct quote, also found in his remarks to the American Bankers Assocation, as cited above.

"On July 21, 2008 Mr. Reich described "interference with the regulatory process by reporting and disseminating speculation about the condition of financial institutions, thereby undermining public confidence in those institutions and causing serious harm" as a contributor to the failure of IndyMac as well as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Lehman Brothers."

- Direct quote, as cited.

"On December 22, 2008 Mr. Reich removed his agency's western director, Darrel W. Dochow for allowing IndyMac to backdate a capital infusion of $18 million from its parent company so that the bank would appear "well capitalized" in its 10-Q for the period ending March 31,2008."

- Matter of public record, reliably cited here and supported by subsequent cites.

"According to a source with knowledge of the incident, at another point Mr. Dochow limited the scope of a review by OTS regulators of IndyMac's portfolio of loans and other assets, overruling the advice of others in the agency"

- Reliably cited here, same source as above.

"Mr. Dochow played a central role in the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s, overriding a recommendation by federal bank examiners in San Francisco to seize Lincoln Savings, the giant savings and loan owned by Charles Keating. Mr. Reich called the backdating irregularity “a relatively small factor” in the collapse of IndyMac."

- On Dochow, matter of undisputed public record and reliably cited. On backdating, Reich's own words, reliable citation.

"Mr. Reich resigned on February 12,2009 and stepped down February 27, 2009 "

- Matter of public record, reliably cited, see above.

"amidst the Treasury Department's reports on, and continuing audit of backdating at IndyMac and four other institutions."

- Undisputed matter of public record, reliably and multiply cited per below.

"Scott Polakoff, OTS senior deputy director and chief operating officer under Mr. Reich became acting director on his departure, but on March 26, 2009 Polakoff was removed and placed on leave by United States Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, amidst an announced further review and investigation of the backdating scandal by the U.S. Treasury's Inspector General.""

- Undisputed matter of public record, reliably and multiply cited.

"A report from the Treasury Department's inspector general released February 26, 2009 cited laxity at the OTS under Reich for exacerbating the estimated at $10.7 billion in FDIC losses from the IndyMac failure as well as the estimated $270 million in losses suffered by uninsured depositors. Commenting on the report, Inspector General Eric Thorson dismissed Reich's claim that Senator Schumer's letters caused the failure. Marla Freedman, the assistant inspector general for audit, detailed a pattern of IndyMac's excess risk-taking and abuse of the lending process and the OTS's consistent failure to act. Mr. Reich said in a letter to the inspector general that he agreed with the agency's filings."

- Matters of public record, reliably cited, from a major newspaper initially sympathetic to Reich's view of the IndyMac situation Includes Reich's own accession to the Inspector General, completing the picture of where the story began and what has changed.

In the absence of material disagreements with these points or their value as biography of this critical figure in the world financial crisis, I feel they should be restored in their entirity and then edited through the normal process. --Dlawbailey (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree, both Dlawbailey and myself have put forth a great effort to make contributions to this article and we have both sourced them where needed. The article should be restored to Dlawbailey's last edit and an explanation on the discussion page should be required of any editor who chooses to discard or reword another editor's contribution.Coasting (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have now left a message on the disputing editors talk, I am going to wait 24 hours for engagement here. If there is no engagement forthcoming, and as all editors have been made aware of the relevant policies and guidelines are none of the material proposed is in violation of WP:BLP, I will remove the protection. The protection is not designed and was implemented to protect one side of the debate, only to stop the warring and allow some breathing and explaining time. Having been given that time and encouragement to respond and engage, any further unilateral removal of cited content or edit warring will not be tolerated. Mfield (Oi!) 20:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

References

RfC: Libellous? Cited and Notable? How To Improve?

The subject of the biography led an important agency at an important time and was involved in happenings of great controversy.

As noted on Mfield's talk page: Time does not allow discussing issues on a daily basis. A BLP is intended to provide facts and, although an editor may feel their facts are substantiated, by producing only those “facts” that support an opinion, it is no longer truly accurate. If strong opinions exist, a blog or other chat device would be a valid location for those discussions – not a BLP. FredEthelMertz (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As a follow up to that, it may well be that a lot of this material is too specific and specialized for a biography article, but would be perfectly acceptable for example in an article on the failure of IndyMac. BLPs are supposed to be an article that summarizes the life of the subject, and subjects in such prominent positions are going to be dealing with issues that receive broad international coverage every day of the week. It is unreasonable to list every dealing they have made, especially if it is all very recent, as there is no time past yet to put these facts into historical significance. By allocating too many column inches to something that seems important to a section of society may well put undue and unfair weight on that issue. Mfield (Oi!) 02:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

FredEthelMertz's is unresponsive to the RfC. The primary question is whether these facts are notable and well-cited. I contend they are, and this editor makes no credible counter-contention, using only "finger quotes" to challenge the validity of well-cited edits. The idea that because there are strong feelings about an issue it is only the stuff of "blog or other chat device" is meritless. My edits do not constitute "opinion" but a relating of notable, reliable reporting expressing the consensus of expert, regulatory and journalistic *conclusion* about an issue - N.B. "consensus" and "conclusion". If FredEthelMertz feels that this is not the consensus, he must offer some credibly-cited conclusions that differ.

Finally, FredEthelMertz characterized my edits and those of Coasting as "libellous". That is a very serious charge and unless some evidence that it is true is put forward, I believe it is totally outside the bounds of Wikipedia's standards. I find it to be an insult and utterly baseless.

Mfield, in your capacity as a moderator, I'm addressing you directly. Tell me if that's not appropriate. Your argument is more reasonable but:

1) As to "recentness": such a standard would have to answer to such things as the inclusion of Secretary Geithner's tax issues, Kathleen Sebelius's tax issues and the voiding of Ted Stevens conviction, to name a few recent events included in biographies.

2) As to excessive detail: The notion that this is in some way a listing of "every dealing" of Mr. Reich is not correct. Can anyone name a more important issue than IndyMac in which Mr. Reich played a prominent role, about which there is such an extensive public record, particularly regarding Mr. Reich's own actions and opinions? I think not. The backdating scandal simply tipped the scales to the point where Mr. Reich made himself the story. The purpose of the length of my edits was to carefully characterize the most-agreed-upon facts of Mr. Reich's involvement accurately with proper context, so as to fairly gather the record.

3)As to historicity: This is HIS record. Nobody is making it up. These were the people he put or left in charge. These are his opinions. And, as I wrote you, these edits are in response to the culmination of an extensive investigation by the Treasury Inspector General's office. The IG has *made* his report. That report is now a matter of history. Mr. Reich has responded to this investigation several times, finally agreeing with the filing and stepping down.

4)As to significance: How big should IndyMac be here? Well, I think a reasonable characterization (only for the purposes of a discussion) as to the significance of IndyMac in Mr. Reich's career would be that IndyMac ended Mr. Reich's career at OTS. That's fairly significant. It ended his deputy's career at OTS. It ended Mr. Dochow's career at OTS when the S&L scandal did not. It's a big story. As to Mr. Reich's self-association with the regulatory, financial and issues of economic philosophy surrounding IndyMac, he has been conspicuous and outspopken in characterizing his beliefs on his agency's role and what he felt it should be, the financial system generally and IndyMac specifically. Mr. Reich has been a key proponent of a consistent viewpoint, borne out in his opinions and actions before and after the failure. The directorship of the OTS was the culmination of a long career with a consistent arc and IndyMac is far and away the biggest story of that directorship - certainly with this level of public interest and reliably-citable material available.

5) As to balance: Within the article itself, per above, I feel the article as it stands now is plainly, radically unbalanced, devoting column space to worthwhile facts, but facts of little concern to anyone relative to the IndyMac issue. As to balance within Wikipedia and with respect to popular interest, what is the rational standard by which the IndyMac story is portrayed as it is on Senator Chuck Schumer's bio and not even mentioned on Mr. Reich's? History - in the person of Treasury's IG and the extensive investigation - has discredited the IndyMac claims against Schumer - certainly those of a CNBC anchor or an investor. I was happy to keep them there because, as I wrote you, they express one view of the public mind - not a well-substantiated view, but a popular view. But any suggestion that Mr. Schumer's minor role in IndyMac is encyclopedic because it's popular and Mr. Reich's enormous, direct responsibilty for IndyMac is important only to a "section of society" fails prima fascie.

6)Has enough time passed? Well, if you personally want to pursue one "time passing" standard of historical judgement on IndyMac, try and take out the IndyMac references at Schumer's biography and note the reaction of the Wikipedia community. I suggest they won't take it well.

Thank you for your attention to this article--Dlawbailey (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's OK you have made your points, the thing now is to let other people make theirs. There are no emergencies on Wikipedia. The article is protected whilst the issue is resolved and nothing is going anywhere. People come and go at different times and you have to give people time to respond. If there is no serious additional input from other editors within 24 hours then there are other avenues that can be pursued to solicit impartial and experienced opinions on what is appropriate for inclusion. I am keeping out of the content dispute here to stay impartial and am just reminding people of policies and processes. It is my responsibility as an administrator to make sure that our WP:BLP policies are upheld and that is what brought me here in the first place. I am going to stay out of it beyond making sure that the dispute gets calmly and comprehensively settled. Mfield (Oi!) 05:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. I admit that I was a little unhappy with the "libellous" thing. I take the points and wanted to respond to them, um, let's say, in a complete way.--Dlawbailey (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok good, FWIW, nobody ever said that you were being libellous, all that was mentioned was that our guidelines clearly err on the side of making sure that any information that could be *potentially libellous* be properly cited and verified. On BLP articles, we err on the side of caution for the legal and moral protection of the subject and the editors, the intellectual protection of the readers, and the reputation of the encyclopedia and community as a whole. Mfield (Oi!) 05:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing your comments on the article. What started as a Google search for background information on Mr. Reich, and finding a Wikipedia page full of IndyMac information, has now apparently turned into a bit of a firestorm. It was never my intention to get into a debate and it was likely my lack of familiarity with Wikipedia’s editorial systems that spurred the firestorm. For that, I apologize.

Watching the comments and the ambitiousness of the editors, it is understood that there are very strong feelings about the IndyMac issue. It does appear, however, that the blame for the failure is being placed in one spot. Yes, there is blame at the regulatory level; however, the IndyMac failure began years ago with the development of sub-prime mortgages, and the eventual decline in the housing market. Banking regulators in current years did not entirely cause the recent bank failures…fingers can be pointed at a number of Congressional committees, past regulatory decisions, mortgage brokers, bank CFO’s, etc., and the roots go back several years.

On a random note, I am searching for (and hope to find soon!) copies of Mr. Reich’s speeches to the Florida Bankers Association (July 2008), the New York State Bankers Association (October 2008), and the American Bankers Association (November 2008) in which he informed the audiences that he would be retiring once the new Administration was in office.

Although I believe that several of the “facts” provided by the editors are out of context and their meaning is, therefore, misconstrued, I do not have the time to debate each item. I do ask, however, that the following be considered (as referenced by Mfield): •The materials are too specific and specialized for a biography article, but would be perfectly acceptable for example in an article on the failure of IndyMac •BLP’s are supposed to be an article that summarizes the life of the subject •It is unreasonable to list every dealing that they have made, especially if it is recent, as there is no time past yet to put these facts into historical significance. •By allocating too many column inches to something that seems important to a section of society may well put undue and unfair weight on that issue. Arguments have been posted on this page regarding the above bullet points; however, the inclusion of substantial information on IndyMac does tend to shift this from a BLP to a single-subject article. I ask that Mfield considers this when evaluating the amount of content to be allowed on the page.

Regards to all - FredEthelMertz (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I won't be considering what amount of content is allowed on the page at all in as far as it is not the job of administrators to make content decisions beyond the enforcement of policy. Content is decided by guidelines and consensus amongst editors and that means anyone who takes an interest. That needs to be handled in line with WP:BIOGRAPHY guidelines, notably taking into account WP:UNDUE. That is what the purpose of this discussion on this page is, to figure out what should and should not be included. I would say that each item does need to be debated, as the only way to address them properly is to devote that time to them and that respect to the process of consensus. Maybe not all of the points will merit inclusion but they cannot be written off summarily as a whole. Mfield (Oi!) 00:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to FredEthelMertz concern about "blame for the failure" I suggest altering the section title I put forward before to "Involvement In IndyMac Controversy". Beyond that, I frankly don't see an item among my edits that "blames" Mr. Reich for anything. Rather, as far as I can see the edits recount either Mr. Reich's own statements or the situation or admitted actions of people Reich kept in positions of high authority (Dochow) or hired himself (Polakoff). Unless he finds an instance of inappropriate "blame" I don't see how he can build consensus for whatever is his interpretation.

I'm happy for the complaining editor to add ALL the context he wishes and would enthusiastically encourage him to do so. I suspect he has significant expertise. I would suggest to FredEthelMertz that he may find the speeches he desires at the OTS website under "speeches". I have read about half of these speeches today, downloaded them and find them interesting, even notable. They demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the challenges facing banking and consistent philosophical view. As it was the first, big, multi-agency-involved failure, the written record on IndyMac shows our nation's evolving understanding of what went wrong in the financial system and Mr. Reich's writings are there right at the center. --Dlawbailey (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

and that is all good, just make sure that information you are proposing to include is the kind of information that adds directly to the readers understanding of the subject of the article - which is the point of a bio article, and is not content that would be better integrated into Indymac#Collapse or Subprime_mortgage_crisis or one of the many related articles. A biographical article can not go into extreme detail about everything and needs to take a balanced overview of a career. The rest of the article is fairly short, and trebling its length with information about one episode in the life of the subject would possibly be placing undue emphasis on it. Is the subject known mostly for his role in the IndyMac affair? If the answer is no then the proportion of the article dedicated to it needs to remain in keeping with that assessment. Mfield (Oi!) 02:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. And I want to apologize to FredEthelMertz if my tone or intensity made him feel insulted or his viewpoint demonized in any way. I hope FredEthelMertz will stay around and help put Mr. Reich's ideas and his tenure at OTS into perspective, and possibly even help tell more of the story of IndyMac. Mr. Reich really is an interesting character, I find personally, as I read more of his writings. The record shows us a stalwart proponent of and advocate for community banking, himself a community banker for 23 year. Mr. Reich has also had much to say about important trends in banking at arguably one of the most important times in the history of banking. There is also a clear ideological viewpoint. Sadly for everyone, IndyMac and the subsequent fallout really are the biggest story of this career - as far as I can see. The interesting thing to me is how it all connects. When I got into this I felt that the record here was simply way out of balance without something about Indymac and IndyMac is a story that I have put a lot of time into understanding. The more I've looked into Mr. Reich, the more I think that his is a notable and important story. This is not the forum for a "story" but I want to help create a good bio here on this central figure in the financial crisis. --Dlawbailey (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, YES, the subject is known mostly for his role in the Indymac affair. As has been pointed out, the failure of Indymac is the fourth largest bank failure in US history; it is of particular importance because of the cost to the FDIC, uninsured depositors and employees of the bank. At the time of Indymac's failure, I didn't know what the OTS was, nevermind who it's Director was. The failure of Indymac is the most notable event involving the OTS and it occurred at the highest point of Reich's career, when he was Director OTS. We'll always remember Obama for his tenure as President, and we'll always remember Reich for his tenure as Director OTS. I don't know enough about his agencies involvement with Indymac to be able to say that he could have prevented it's failure, but what has come to light is that the OTS could have and should have shut down Indymac two month's earlier or come up with a viable plan to reduce the impact of it's failure on the FDIC, uninsured depositors and employees of the bank.Coasting (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

With a few days under the belt of Wiki-learning, it’s quite obvious that the other editors on this page are certainly more skilled and knowledgeable about research, editing, and processes. And credit is certainly due for the extent of effort and commitment to the subject. A brief review of Wiki-policy provides the following excerpts:

Subject: BLP: Undue Weight – Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints.

Subject: Biographies of Living Persons - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Given that the subject currently has 5 lines of text dedicated to his entire career, the length and volume of information regarding the IndyMac issue appears to conflict with Wiki-policy of BLP and Undue Weight. From the inexperienced to the experienced…how can the two sides meet and comply with policy?FredEthelMertz (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, FredEthelMertz,

1) As to the material itself, you can't just imply that edits contain material that is "titillating" or "sensationalist," you have to make the claim on a rational basis.

2) As to total length, if you want to make the case that Mr. Reich is not a notable person, do so, but it seems to me that by any rational standard, he is a major figure in one of the most-important stories ever.

3) As to balance, all Wikipedia entries are, in a sense, always incomplete. Whatever you want to add to create balance, go ahead and add, but if your purpose here is simply to keep the entry short and thereby exclude certain well-sourced content, forget about it. That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. I have invited you to add content on Mr. Reich and continue to do so. Indeed, I have sourced content that you have added. Nothing you add will be ignored and nothing has been. There have been disagreements as to characterizations, but that's the process.

4) As to your final question, what I plan to do is add *significant* new entries citing Mr. Reich's words and actions on community banking, nontraditional mortgage products, holding company regulation, the importance of a "level playing field" in the mortgage industry, and where he perceived risks to the system. Sound reasonable?--Dlawbailey (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dlawbailey -

1) To provide significant text to a controversial subject is sensationalism - an effort to draw attention or provide imbalanced emphasis. You're right, "titillating" does not apply here.

2) Notable is not the question; and “one of the most-important stories ever” is an opinion. It is an important story, but perhaps not one of the “most important stories ever.” Some people may be of the opinion that "most important stories ever" relate to world-wars, landing on the moon, etc.

3) My purpose is not to keep it short; it’s to ensure balance. The addition (to the short BLP page) of just the IndyMac issue was unbalanced. If you’d like to add that information on the site, it is your responsibility to add equal and balanced reporting to the page. I can absolutely add edits and information – and, if done, will result in additional balanced reporting - not to balance what you wrote.

4) All things considered, I think we’re actually nearing the same wavelength. Your proposed topics to balance the article sound reasonable. In reality, I’m impressed with your research, your desire to gain more knowledge of the larger picture, and your interest in ensuring clean journalism (but I’ll never admit it!).

FredEthelMertz (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

FredEthelMertz -

1) Yours would be a fair point on sensationalism if you pointed out something about the material in the edits that was sensational in any way and if you suggested some other specific material that should be included for balance. You can't just object to the presence of material without a rational basis. These edits were not about Mr. Reich's personal life, or some momentary story but about his public life and involvement in the biggest financial institution failure of this crisis about which there is significant, citable material - and a scandal to boot!.

2) This is a space where editors can share opinions. I am one of those who thinks that the financial crisis has the extremely unfortunate potential to be an even bigger story than it is now. I think this is not an uninformed opinion, but I share it only because it goes to notability. I also share my personal reaction to Mr. Reich because I want to be completely upfront about any prejudices I may be developing. Personally, I'm sorry for Mr. Reich. I really am. I don't know him, never met him, never met anybody who's met him other than possibly my Congressman and I don't exactly know my Congressman very well. The prominence of bank regulators has risen dramatically. Sometimes being in politics really sucks. What do you want from me? He's a successful guy who - in my personal view of this moment - seems to have fallen in with the wrong crowd and gotten ahead of himself. I'm sure he can get on the side of the angels and make things better for himself, if he cares to. Nobody's trying to hurt anybody. It's just about people trying to tell history.

3) Your point begs the question (and somehow I think you're a person who knows what that phrase actually means). I do not accept your contention that the page was unbalanced in the direction you suggest. I'm certain that the page was indeed unbalanced - in exactly the opposite direction. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, it is only my responsibility to create a page that is balanced in my view, while respecting the well-cited work of other editors. There are no absolute standards for doing that and you cite none. There are standards of community behavior. When you added text, I sourced and *added* to it, as well as redacting. So long as normal Wikipedia standards apply, a significant entry citing events surrounding the IndyMac controversy should and will be on this page, unless a consensus is reached that it should not be. I feel certain that you can add to that effort and, somehow, that it would be a good idea.

4) I appreciate your kind words and hope you understand that I am serious. I think a consensus is developing and would ask you to look down to the "new material" section to discuss a question I have. --Dlawbailey (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

How To Handle New Information?

My questions are two about this article: [2].

1) Is ProPublica considered a reliable source?

2) In the .pdf of the letter from Mr. Reich to Secretary Geithner, Mr. Reich makes, it seems to me an achingly obvious mistake in simple arithmetic. He states that a Prompt Corrective Action would not have been necessary in May because an $18 million equity injection from IndyMac's parent company raised IndyMac's total risk-rased capital ratio from just under 10% to 10.26%. However, he also acknowledges that IndyMac had suffered downgrades on assets it held which, actually referring to a section in IndyMac's 10-Q where the company admits that the April downgrades would have lowered their risk-based capital to 9.27%. Relevant 10-Q section is here [3].

Is it "original research" to simply add and, more importantly, subtract numbers from publicly-available sources? --Dlawbailey (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is original research. Editors can't draw such conclusions as they may not be in possession of all the facts. You can certainly state with sources "Mr. Reich stated that a Prompt Corrective Action would not have been necessary in May because an $18 million equity injection from IndyMac's parent company raised IndyMac's total risk-rased capital ratio from just under 10% to 10.26%. He also acknowledged that IndyMac had suffered downgrades on assets it held which, actually referring to a section in IndyMac's 10-Q where the company admits that the April downgrades would have lowered their risk-based capital to 9.27%.", and leave readers to draw conslusions. But you can't infer or deduce anything from the various facts and place it in the article as a conclusion, you need a reliable source to have made that conclusion for you. Mfield (Oi!) 20:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable enough. I wouldn't have concluded that a PCA should have been done (although Treasury's IG did conclude that, if on a more-complex basis than I can quite get - yet) So would something like this be fair(dates are not yet precise)?: In a letter to Secretary Geithner concerning the backdating, Mr. Reich concluded that the backdating of the May 9 equity contribution should not have been allowed. He further concluded that a Prompt Corrective Action was not necessary on May 12, when IndyMac finalized its capitalization report to OTS, because the contribution had been made. raising IndyMac's risk-based capital from just under 10% to 10.26% and that a PCS would have, at that time, been retroactive. At the same time, acknowledged IndyMac's warning on its 10-Q that an April downgrade of IndyMac's assets would have brought their risk-based capitalization down to 9.26%, had it been applied to the financial quarter ending in March. Mr. Reich did not explain in this letter why the May 9 equity contribution raised IndyMac's capitalization above the minimum level to be considered "well-capitalized" but the April assets downgrade did not lower it below that level, in the eyes of OTS." - or words to that effect. --Dlawbailey (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hang on, what about this:

We believe, however, that OTS should have taken PCA in May 2008 based on information in IndyMac’s 10-Q filing for the quarter ending March 31, 2008. In that 10-Q, IndyMac reported that its total risk-based capital was 10.26 percent at the end of the quarter, which was above the 10 percent threshold for well capitalized. However, IndyMac included a disclosure that during April 2008, Moody’s Investor Service and Standard & Poor’s downgraded the thrift’s ratings on a significant number of mortgage backed securities including certain of those issued by IndyMac and for which IndyMac retained interest. IndyMac also stated that had the downgraded ratings been applied to the balance sheet as of March 31, 2008, its total risk based capital would have been reduced to 9.27 percent, which is below the 10 percent well capitalized threshold. OTS, therefore, could have used this information to downgrade the thrift to the lower capital level and implemented PCA.

- as it comes from the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Treasury - would that be okay? If so, I think I'll compare Mr. Reich's sentiments about his agency's actions with that - in briefer form, of course. It seems to me that Mr. Reich has made a large and personal effort to be outspoken and tell an important story about OTS, IndyMac and the financial crisis. I feel his bio should tell his side of the story - in context. --Dlawbailey (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I might have drowned this question out, but do the editors feel that ProPublica is a credible source? Why or why not?--Dlawbailey (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems credible to me. ProPublica is a non-profit newsroom led by Paul Steiger, the former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal. It depends on consistency in getting it's stories published and broadcast by traditional news organizations to instill confidence in donors to secure sustainable funding.Coasting (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Coasting, for the research on that. I thought it was good journalism, but I feel mmore comfortable now. Also, I hope you don't feel that I'm giving your parts of the discussion short shrift, here. It's just that you and I haven't really had a material difference as far as I can see and I guess argument always gets more attention than agreement.

Here's something I would like to get editors' opinion on. Looking at the IndyMac Treasury IG report, and this report from Fitch http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/FraudReport8Nov07Fitch.pdf (cited in a piece by William K. Black). Speaking freely here, and in the interest of generating discussion and research, I am interested in Mr. Reich's relationship to underwriting standards and community banking Mr. Reich was a community banker and an advocate for it, who seems to have seen community banking underwriting standards as superior and I agree. Community banks are the ones left standing. What went wrong? What's the story there? Material events? Opinions? How does a person who spend so much of his life as a community banker and who warned about poor underwriting standards outside community banks get into a position where he's (arguably) defending one of the worst/biggest underwriters in American banking? What's the conflict between a man who speaks highly and supportively of, for example, Community Reinvestment Act banking, and his party, who came to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for the system's failure? There seems to have been rampant fraud and an unsustainable business model given "conduit" underwriting. Mr. Reich seems to have seen bakning another way. It seems to me that there's an important dynamic here. How do we lay out those relationships and to what extent? I find material mainly in his speeches at OTS, so far.--Dlawbailey (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I too haven't found much information on Reich, it just goes to show what an obscure agency the OTS is. The relationships you mentioned are interesting. I think they deserve to be mentioned in the article, but I still think the focus of the article should be his role in the Indymac Bank failure.Coasting (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your points again, but I'm learning more about OTS - but you have to dig through a lot of junk. Unless Mr. Reich gets real darn busy writing another chapter to his career - like maybe getting together with people trying to tell the story about how much fraud is in the mortgage market - IndyMac is clearly a culmination. The interesting thing is how the other elements point towards that signal failure. Of course I'm sure that Mr. Reich just looks at it as a career - did this, did that, did the other thing. But I think history makes the notable actors in history and not the other way around (if that makes sense). In another time, A big bank failure at the end of an OTS director's career would not be that notable. Now it's really, really, really notable. I mean we have George Soros coming out today saying - again - that the world financial system has failed - past tense. It's already happened. Whether or not one accepts that interpretation of events, everyone who was in charge during that failure should expect high levels of scrutiny. IndyMac is the first, real, detailed chapter of that failure. Up until now we've been dealing with a lot of macroeconomics and political rhetoric. There are people who've gotten away with a lot of crap - Paulson is just so appalling I think people are simply trying to forget him. Besides, you knew you were hiring a shark with that guy. Geithner? Don't get me started. To me, the guy is a nothing at a time when we really need somebody extraordinary. --216.254.24.133 (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I couldn't agree with this last entry more. Low underwriting standards and CRA are all part of the failure in this equation. From what I hear about mortgage fraud, 80% of it was at the institution level. Surely regulators would have been aware that the numbers weren't adding up. Of course, whether he was up for the job or not, Reich was at the helm when tough decisions had to be made. Reich leaving office before his term was up caught my attention. I mean Gates stayed on as Secretary of Defense because of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, why wouldn't Reich finish his term at the OTS during one of the most challenging economic periods in U.S. history?Coasting (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I just noticed this in the New York Times: "The Downfall of a Regulator" - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/business/09views.html . I dunno, Coasting, maybe we were onto something here. You just get that feeling like: "Hey, what the heck is going? Something's not right." It's all about underwriting. Apparently we all just have to completely drop our natural assumption that banks protect themselves the underwriting process. They didn't because they essentially became issuers of unregulated securities. Strangely, Reich seemed to know it, at some level. He warned about underwriting publicly when other's didn't - if not, to be sure, as completely or forcefully as he might have. It was like the ideology and the money made everyone dismiss what they were seeing. I'm telling you, somebody like Reich or one of the bank execs or someone is going to start talking about where the bodies are buried and sell three million books.--Dlawbailey (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Post-Lock Edition

With no sustained objections to the material cited, I have restored my last edit before the controversy. I have added material on Mr. Reich's concern for community banking and his April 6, 2006, remarks about underwriting and nontraditional lending. I plan to make more edits in the future.--Dlawbailey (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John M. Reich. 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/20110721062604/http://files.ots.treas.gov/87117.pdf to http://files.ots.treas.gov/87117.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721062708/http://files.ots.treas.gov/87112.pdf to http://files.ots.treas.gov/87112.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419101451/http://www.ustreas.gov/inspector-general/audit-reports/2009/oig09032.pdf to http://www.ustreas.gov/inspector-general/audit-reports/2009/oig09032.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John M. Reich. 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/20111005041952/http://files.ots.treas.gov/87169.pdf to http://files.ots.treas.gov/87169.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100321154128/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087 to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a_NjQg96RSdk

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)