Talk:Harald Malmgren

Death on 13th Feb 2025

Pippa Malmgren has just reported her fathers death on twitter , 14 Feb 2025 - https://x.com/DrPippaM/status/1890418724022178099 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Foum 2 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Malmgren's Wiki page should not and will not be deleted by such trolls thanks to Jimbo Wales' intervention this morning on X, 4\24\25, but the page itself is a disgrace. It is incomplete,neglects his role in the Cuban Missile Crisis and his many important posts in the government. it also focuses on his ties to Japan with disgraceful and frankly snide implications of impropriety scandal and unproved allegations re Ribicoff, who respected and liked him. The fact that he was recruited by MIT president Karl Taylor Compton at age 14 is also neglected. His comments about UAP are in no way deserving of negative judgment by lesser people like Velella. That issue will be decided one way or the other despite contrary opinions. Telling the truth is Wiki's only brief and in this it has failed dismally. 80.232.114.118 (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Telling the truth is Wiki's only brief Wrong. See the Wikipedia policy WP:NOT. The essay WP:TRUTH is also worth reading. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Multiple issues with this article

This article gives every indication of being an autobiography - this is strongly deprecated in Wikipedia.

There is not one reference to support the whole thing. There is no formatting of any hint of compliance with the manual of style. In its present state, despite its lofty ambitions it would qualify for deletion as an sourced biography of a living person. It needs fixing fast or facing deletion.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been searching on tall the established search engines and found only an author intent on selling his books. None of the supposed important facts have any references for them. I suspect a Walter Mitty type hoax here  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are either a lying liar telling lies, or should consider putting a halt to your Wikipedia activities until you've taken a basic internet searching how-to class. Suppafly (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Suppafly's statement in regards to Velella's activities on this domain,

while i strongly recommend this article stays in full and is further evolved to tell the story of Harold Malmgren's professional and private life depicting maybe one of our most important discoveries as a humans. Red gandalf (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Velella is an enemy of history. I hope wikipedia management investigate Velella as such. As an annual cash contributor to Wikipedia, if Velella isn't ,nvestigated 'm removing myself as a cash contributor. DarylZernick (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Not gonna donate. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

to any real Wikipedia contributors here, it's worth mentioning that these trolls are coming from a YouTube video interview of the guy Harald Malmgren. They're not objective at all. I concur that this article is not neutral and is not written in the encyclopedic style. It is indeed eligible for deletion or at least reformatting. 77.133.249.86 (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the objections and controversy should be noted instead of deleting the article entirely and erasing it from history. 2601:447:CA01:4F80:69C6:9E11:6B6A:3B92 (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Ross coulthard former 60 minutes reporter has mentioned that the deletion of this page is related to a recent interview with harald which has come to light about ufos and so this article is being targeted with deletion.as well as his daughters wiki page fyi. 2401:D006:CA06:5000:3173:ECC1:4DA4:C840 (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... Ambassador Harald Malmgren's international contributions are legitimate and can be verified easily on many academic, professional, and government documents. I strongly believe this page will be improved in a timely fashion. In the mean time, here are some hastily pulled up links to verify Ambassador Malmgren's identity:

http://www.cordellhullinstitute.org/role/principals.html

https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00721620/document

http://www.diplomaten.eu/en/news/details/gruendungsmitglied-botschafter-dr-harald-malmgren.html

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09538259600000071?journalCode=crpe20#.VSAov_nF_F4

https://books.google.com/books?id=DcHcAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1242&lpg=PA1242&dq=harald+b+malmgren+biography&source=bl&ots=EoLUQwFeP8&sig=0MxEzVve7-sgOBcDGmC8_68vUo4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-ykgVZvcD8GxsAWnsoDYDA&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=harald%20b%20malmgren%20biography&f=false

http://www.unz.org/Author/MalmgrenHaraldB

http://www.sldinfo.com/dr-harald-malmgren-2/

http://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/conferences/summit/2011/speaker-detail/675

http://su8bj7jh4j.search.serialssolutions.com.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=THE+UNITED+STATES%2C+THE+NEW+PACIFIC+BASIN+ERA+AND+VIET-NAM&rft.jtitle=Asian+Survey&rft.au=Malmgren%2C+Harald+B&rft.date=1971-04-01&rft.issn=0004-4687&rft.eissn=1533-838X&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=387&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=a10401350010&paramdict=en-US

With minimal search efforts, you will soon find that many more references to Ambassador Malmgren as well as professional publications are available. The source errors in the wikipedia entry will be adjusted as soon as possible. Viivivaike (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)V. Malmgren

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --81.155.232.18 (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed Richgel999 (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Its pretty clear that Harald Malmgren is a highly cited academic. He is is legitimate as is the entry.

Move to Harald B Malmgren?

I'm thinking we should consider moving this to Harald B. Malmgren since some of the chess player articles link here. The chess player is Harald V. Malmgren, but is universally just mentioned as Harald Malmgren. Suppafly (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. They are related by blood, but have left very different legacies. The distinction is a good idea.Viivivaike (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Externals

I removed this from the references but it is pretty excessive for external.--LedgerTom (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Daughter says online that Malmgren in 1962 had a role in the Cuban Missile Crisis

Pippa Malmgren in announcing her fathers death made a remarkable statement here:

At age 27, he successfully prevented General Curtis LeMay and the Joint Chiefs from dropping a nuclear weapon on the Soviet Union during The Cuban Missile Crisis, thus averting a nuclear catastrophe.

That would be from this part of his career as detailed on the article:

In the summer of 1962 senior White House and Defense Department officials invited him to join the Administration of President John F. Kennedy. He moved to Washington, D.C., to join the Institute for Defense Analyses (advisers to the Office of the Secretary of Defense), serving as head of the Economics Group and as head of the Economics Group of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Weapons Systems Evaluation Group (WSEG), in the Pentagon. He was known at that time as one of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's "Whiz Kids."

Is this as-is anything that can be used? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Nope. Chetsford (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Nope. That's not how Wikipedia works. Please someone lock this page before anyone tries to add such nonsense... 77.133.249.86 (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Article should be protected

Article should be protected to avoid vandalism by Chetsford. 91.159.0.187 (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

"Article should be protected" Oh it'll be protected alright. Don't worry about that. Chetsford (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The comment “Oh it’ll be protected alright” in response to a request to protect the article from your own editing raises serious questions about intent and neutrality. Given that this article’s deletion was nominated by you immediately after a controversial interview — and amid a broader pattern of similar nominations — this deserves scrutiny by administrators for potential abuse of process.

97.114.116.10 (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Clearly you're not familiar with how Wikipedia works. You can't just add anything just because you liked that so called "interview". 77.133.249.86 (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you implying this would not be one of 1000's of articles that uses the subject's own words in the article? 2605:59CA:12C9:B000:C5FB:A718:5AB:ED42 (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

As I'm the only Administrator here, and I don't have the ability to investigate myself, I suggest you file this request at WP:AN. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions. Chetsford (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked the most disruptive users from editing the article, which should hopefully stop the disruption. If it comes to the point where I have to block 5-6 people, that'll be the time to protect. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Chetsford - it's easily verified that Harald Malmgren held extensive, high level, influential positions in US government as well as academia throughout his life. These and other facets of his life qualify for notability quite easily. Your only response when this is brought up is to dismiss the comment unaddressed, in a hostile manner. Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales himself commented on the wide availability of sources, which I'm sure you're aware of. Why are you so intent on shutting discussion down, and why the emotionally charged passive aggressiveness? 174.21.135.162 (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry if anything I've said communicates "emotionally charged passive aggressiveness". It was not my intent. The written word can sometimes be imperfect in expression. Accept my apologies, etc.
"It's easily verified that Harald Malmgren held extensive, high level, influential positions in US government as well as academia throughout his life" While the page is now protected, you are still free to submit an WP:EDITREQUEST and anything properly sourced can be added. Since, as you say, this is easily verifiable information we should be able to get it up pronto. Chetsford (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Well I'll keep this somewhat professional but for the record I find your statements about your intentions, and the idea that what came across was simply a product of subjectivity/imperfection in language, the opposite of convincing. Your talk page has multiple examples of you communicating in the same way, and it's quite distinctive. 174.21.135.162 (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Chetsford, I don't think our paths have crossed, but I respect anyone who takes up the mop. I realized you've become part a very complex situation that I'm sure I don't fully understand myself. May I suggest, with sincere humility, that maybe you using the word "protection" in scare quotes as a sort of semithreat 'threat' (in their worldview at least) suggests you've begun wrestling with angry mastodons due to recent events? There's a lot of excellent Wikipedians who are now on the case: maybe let others handle this one going forward? just a thought. Feoffer (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Chetsford is doing an excellent job here, actively helping to prevent WP:FRINGE, WP:PROMO, and generally disruptive nonsense from polluting the project. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

100% agreement, JoJo. That you are active on the page is big reason of why I could even suggest that Chestford could take a wikistress break if they wanted. There's lots of eyes on this page to stop promo now. Feoffer (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a complete mischaracterization of events. Malmgren's article is being attacked as insignificant, despite his public, long term contributions to academics and the highest level of US politics, because he was ALSO involved in topics currently considered "fringe" by unpaid wiki volunteers. It's inane ideological policing and it detracts from any notion of objectivity this project has. 174.21.135.162 (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a complete mischaracterization of events. Incorrect.

Malmgren's article is being attacked as insignificant...because he was ALSO involved in topics currently considered "fringe" Incorrect.

It's inane ideological policing and it detracts from any notion of objectivity this project has. Incorrect. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

"May I suggest, with sincere humility, that maybe you using the word "protection" in scare quotes" You may not. No rational reading of my comment would suggest that. Moreover, I never put scare quotes -- or quotes of any kind -- around the word protection (except where I was directly quoting someone else, which is a requirement of attribution). Chetsford (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This man is under attack for disclosing UFO information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On his deathbed in early 2025 Harald Malmgren described his and JFKs direct knowledge and interaction with downed anomalous craft. This filmed confession was just released on April 23, 2025. Since then multiple editors have been attacking this Wikipedia page. His article has now been reduced to describing only negatively biased reporting about his work as a Presidential advisor, despite being highly revered by multiple presidential administrations. This is highly suspicious and a vicious attack on a deceased man’s legacy. Please restore the full description of his actual work without any opinionated assessment of the value of that work. 2603:6080:B200:8873:399C:B4B1:1FFC:D016 (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOV violation

What happened to this page is proof that Wikipedia doesn't care about NPOV. At all. 91.159.0.187 (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

That it was kept, you mean? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2025

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Azmyman88 (talk • contribs)

 Not done Azmyman88 - it'd be fine to add some of these things, like specific dates of employment. The problem is we have no idea what is sourced to what and at least one of your sources -- "Second Line Defense" -- is not WP:RS. In fact, "Second Line Defense" has a bio of Malmgren posted to its site that overtly sources Wikipedia itself, which creates a WP:CIRCULAR issue where we don't know what is fact and what is fantasy. We also need to know what specifically is being cited to the Irish Times article as large portions of it are unchallenged direct quotes from Malmgren himself and are, therefore, not WP:INDEPENDENT even if the source is reliable. Chetsford (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Government service

Malmgren lectured at Cornell University until he was recruited by the John F. Kennedy administration in 1962 to join the Economics Group at the Institute for Defense Analyses.

Office of the United States Trade Representative

In 1965 he became the first U.S. Assistant Special Representative for Trade Negotiations in the newly created Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and remained on the agency's senior staff through 1969.

Deputy Special Representative for Trade Negotiations

On 4 April 1972 President Richard Nixon transmitted to the Senate his nomination of Malmgren “to be Deputy Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, with the rank of Ambassador.” The Senate confirmed the appointment on 11 May 1972. He continued in that position into the Ford administration. The White House announced on 19 February 1975 that “the President today accepted with deep regret the resignation of Harald B. Malmgren as Deputy Special Representative for Trade Negotiations.”

Presidential adviser

Contemporary press reports describe Malmgren as a senior adviser to four consecutive U.S. presidents—Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford.

References

References

{{cite congressional record}} "Senate Approves Malmgren". The New York Times. 9 May 1972. p. 38. "Resignation of Ambassador Harald B. Malmgren" (PDF) (Press release). White House Press Office. 19 February 1975. Harry McGee (8 November 2017). "Meet the Malmgrens: the extraordinary family U.S. presidents turned to". The Irish Times. Retrieved 24 April 2025. "Dr. Harald Malmgren Passed". Second Line of Defense. 17 February 2025. Retrieved 24 April 2025. Azmyman88 (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• comment I'm doubtful of the "senior advisor to the President" claims. He worked in government across those administrations, but I'm not seeing anything in Google books that would indicate being at that level, not even in an informal level like Walter Jenkins was to LBJ. The Irish Times article is essentially an interview piece and it relies Malmgren himself claiming that he was a senior advisor via quotes from him. Best, GPL93 (talk)

Malmgrem's bankruptcy

In 2017, Malmgrem Global LLC, the solely owned company of Harald Malmgrem, filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy in U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The bankruptcy petition number is 17-14207-KHK (Eastern District of Virginia). Is a single sentence noting that ("In 2017, Malmgrem's lobbying business, Malmgrem Global LLC, filed bankruptcy.") WP:DUE for the section related to his business interests and permissible use of WP:PRIMARY?

(The collateral put up as part of the bankruptcy plan to Maddocks Collection Services appears to largely be personal assets like the residence, etc., so I'm assuming Malmgrem Global was just a pass-through, but that level of detail is, of course, inappropriate for a PRIMARY source as we can't interpret court documents. Though we typically can cite the very basic fact that a case exists or existed in limited circumstances for non-BLPs if the source is of reputable provenance and no interpretation is applied, as per WP:NOR. In this case it may be useful to the reader to bring a natural conclusion to an open-ended, hanging section.) Chetsford (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not so sure those details satisfy WP:DUE. It just isn't clear that it is, or was, sufficiently notable. YMMV. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Good call, JoJo Anthrax. On reflection of your point, I'm inclined to agree. Chetsford (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Character Quote

Not sure where that fits in, but Steve Dryden's assessment of Malmgren (p.164) is "Some of the STR veterans, who found Malmgren too self important and not that much of a team player, wished he would stay away from the office for good. That was unlikely. The portly, bushy haired economist, brandishing his Oxford Ph.D., did have a certain charm, particularly while spinning stories that highlighted his own role in the matter at hand, and he most certainly had a powerful intellect. He also usually got what he wanted. His reputed powers of manipulation prompted one close friend to buy a copy of The Prince to understand why Malmgren was always being described as Machiavellian." Would any part of that fit in the article? I think it's a really good assessment of him, personally. Super smart, but also prone to perhaps inflating his role. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I expanded the article a bit to include more information on what we can verify in independent sources on Malmgren's actual work in the federal government. I think the article is now a bit more balanced between his work and then his lobbying, both of which seem to be a big deal. After reading Dryden, I'm even more reluctant to trust things that Malmgren himself said he did (i.e. stop the cuban missile crisis) as it seems that he did like to play up his role. On the other hand, I think he was quite involved in GATT negotiations, among other things. Happy to discuss! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

As another example, Malmgren has said that when he was hired at Cornell, he was appointed the Galen Stone Joint Chair of Mathematical Economics, and that "They asked me to take the chair. I did not have to be an assistant professor and progress that way." (source). The only contemporary source I can find while he was at Cornell, however, lists him as "assistant professor of economics" (source), and I can find no indication of there ever being any named chair after Galen Stone. I emailed the university historian at Cornell, who also drew a blank on that position, and found a reference in the 1961-62 board of trustees budget to

"Economics:

Assistant Professors:

Malmgren, Harald (Evans Professor) 1964 $7,500"

Anyways, just thought I'd put that all down here for posterity. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the sourced quote above. Perhaps a snippet can be worked into the 'Government Service' section, sans (at a minimum) the physical descriptors. I agree with your reticence about including Malmgren's own comments/claims about himself, at least to any significant extent. CV padding is one thing. But making the unverifiable claim to have been offered, as an incoming assistant professor (!), a non-existent named chair at an Ivy League university is not only highly suspect, but raises doubts about the veracity of anything he ever said about his own professional activities. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I tried to work a portion of the quote into the 'Government sevice' section. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Cite archive for archival primary sources

Eddie891, I'm commenting here to avoid disrupting the ongoing reference cleanup. The {{cite archive}} template can format primary sources kept in an institution's archive as below:

{{cite archive |first= |last= |item=President Accepts Resignation of Harold B. Malmgren as Deputy Special Representative for Trade Negotiations [Position Appointments and Resignations] |item-url=https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7338101 |type=Press release |item-id=NAID: 7338101 |date=February 19, 1975 |page= |fonds= |series=White House Press Releases 1974–1977 |file= |box=8 |collection=GRF-0248 |collection-url=https://catalog.archives.gov/id/653576 |repository= |institution=Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library |location=Ann Arbor, Michigan |oclc= |accession= |ref=}}

"President Accepts Resignation of Harold B. Malmgren as Deputy Special Representative for Trade Negotiations [Position Appointments and Resignations]" (February 19, 1975) [Press release]. GRF-0248, Series: White House Press Releases 1974–1977, Box: 8, ID: NAID: 7338101. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.

Good luck, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Rjjiii! I knew my citation for that one was lazy haha. I went ahead and made that change. I've reached a stopping point for a bit with my work, I think -though there's still a few lazy citations in there. The thesis and journal article could use page numbers/sfn, and the national journal article doesn't actually cite the article, and the oxford gazette has others=, (among other problems, I'm sure). But real life is calling, so it will have to wait :). Feel free to make any other edits directly if you have them. All the best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Possible sources

, first resignation date Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to find RSes documenting the subject having made UFO claims. I've searched for them, but as of this exact moment, the best I could find was an unendorsed opinion piece on The Hill. I'll/we'll have to keep looking for a better source. Wikipedia is not news, we're forbidden from becoming investigative reporters / original researchers who figure out things on our own. We depend on reliable secondary sources to weigh in first, so we can craft an NPOV summary of those sources for our readers. I'll keep an eye out for future RSes on this topic, asking other do the same and bring said sources here if we find them. Feoffer (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

"Moreover, spurred by the release of Elizondo’s book, Harald Malmgren — the 89-year-old distinguished statesman, former U.S. ambassador and advisor to multiple presidents — stated last week that one of the most significant figures in CIA history informed him of “otherworld technologies” possessed by the government over six decades ago."

I guess it's something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

A couple possibly useful sources:. The New York Sun and news.com.au. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks like what we need. Malmgren's actual claim isn't really as FRINGE as it might initially appear. Per RSes, the 20th-century US intelligence community would sometimes encourage belief in aliens in order to protect top secret aircraft and such. The idea that aliens are real is FRINGE -- the idea that someone in the CIA might mislead a civilian is not. Feoffer (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

He can also just have been amusing himself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Take a fresh look at the forest

This page seems to have forgotten the big picture. It has become a criticism of how much he was paid. There is a recurring theme of saying exactly how much money Malgren was paid for consulting. And then there's the inappropriately opinionated statement, out of the blue, that he was "highly paid" "High" relative to what? by what objective measure? This whole theme of fee amounts is just not neutral. Gcherrits (talk)

I disagree- the page isn’t more than half about that topic, and there really is a wealth of sourcing describing it. It’s also not us calling the fees high, it’s a major aspect of the sourcing that Malmgren’s fees were radically high- both when compared to how much he made as a public servant, and to previous lobbyists. The specific fees are a big part of the sources, why would we remove them? Neutrality is not ignoring a controversy in a Wikipedia article, but accurately reporting what sources say. Do you have reliable sources that say his fees weren’t really high, or that offer more information on the rest of his career which we could add? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Good source of biographical details

https://cloudfront-files-1.publicintegrity.org/legacy_projects/pdf_reports/AMERICASFRONTLINETRADEOFFICIALS.pdf

I don't have time to add this info in just now so this is a reminder when I do later this week, or someone else can look at it, I don't mind. FYI p 105-107 contains a small bio of H Malmgren which adds some details not in this article such as the fact he was one of McNamara's Whizz Kids and why Malmgren didn't think his work for Japan required him to register his interests at sometimes etc. There is loads of other stuff on other trade reps too. GameKeeper (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Great find. I added back Whiz Kid status and there's lots more in the source. Feoffer (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I reverted you per WP:LEAD. And try to write a more helpful cite like. I have no idea how WP:RS this is (but according to WP it seems pretty good). It's a long document, so pagenumbers should be provided, TEMPLATE:RP or otherwise. I like it when an article sticks to one WP:REFVAR and don't mix short and long citations. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

note that this source is already cited in the bibliography, and could be called out using {{Sfn|Lewis|1990|p=}} Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Did not notice that, thanks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Now Whiz Kids (Department of Defense) are mentioned in the article body. I see no reason in that WP-article or the ref why they should be mentioned in the WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

There is definitely some more that could be added abt his role in negotiations, esp from 1972-1975, from Dryden 1995. If anyone wants to do that I would be happy to scan a few pages and send them via email. I don't really have the bandwith/interest. I also added some biographical details from Lewis but there's definitely more context that could be added to his lobbying from it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC); edited 08:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

This might help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, haha nice find :) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Later career

I'm struggling to find sources that go in depth to malmgren's career post-1980, but would like to include at least a sentence. Because he was so widely quoted, I am considering something like the following: Malmgren continued to work as a consultant in Washington, D.C. for the next several decades, until at least 2015. This is maybe a bit OR-y, but it does cite sources from about every decade to 2015, and I think the sentence would be well supported in this way. It would allow us to give a better end to his career. Thoughts? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I have seen people object to extrapolations like this, but I am personally okay with it. I think it would become less OR-y if you removed "for the next several decades" and just left it vague, if we don't have a source showing that he did this continuously. Toadspike [Talk] 19:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I would go so far as to briefly summarize what the articles have to say about the kinds of matters consulted on. BD2412 T 20:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Examiner article on Malmgren

I've expanded the section titled Claims of knowledge of UFOs, intervention in the Cuban Missile Crisis based on new reporting today from the Washington Examiner. There have been several discussions of the Washington Examiner (not to be confused with examiner.com) at WP:RSN, but no RfC (insofar as I can tell). The discussions usually seem to vector towards "additional considerations" and there's never been a clear consensus for "generally reliable" nor deprecation or unreliable. Because this is not a BLP and the specific content of the Examiner article cites sources by name, I feel safe in using it but please feel free to revert me if you disagree. Chetsford (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, my opinion is that you added way to much content based on that source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it's interesting and definitely usable, but can we perhaps condense a bit (ie the second para:

A subsequent investigation by the Washington Examiner found no documentary record that Malmgren ever held a Q Clearance. Meanwhile, Shriver's son Mark Kennedy Shriver; Lucy di Rosa, the head of the Shriver Foundation; and Shriver biographer Scott Stossel, each averred they had never heard of Malmgren. Kai Bird, the author of an acclaimed biography about McGeorge Bundy, also stated he was unfamiliar with Malmgren. Sheldon Stern, the longtime, former chief historian at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and author of three books on the Cuban Missile Crisis, said he knew of no record "on tape or paper" that would support Malmgren's assertions, which he called "ludicrous". Examiner columnist Douglas Dean Johnson concluded that Malmgren had likely "hijacked the personas of real people to serve as characters in his self-glorifying fantasies".

to:

A subsequent investigation by examiner columnist Douglas Dean Johnson found no documentary record to support these claims.

? It's not a high quality source, and I'm not sure what's added by listing all the different people who had no idea. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

No objection to truncating it. However, I am concerned we only (and severely) truncate the second part which has the effect of weighting Malmgren's fringe claims far beyond the analysis and inquiry conducted of said claims. How about this?

A subsequent investigation by Washington Examiner columnist Douglas Dean Johnson found no documentary record to support these claims and multiple historians, and biographers of those named by Malmgren, disputed the veracity of his assertions, as did Shriver's son Mark Kennedy Shriver. Johnson concluded that Malmgren likely "hijacked the personas of real people to serve as characters in his self-glorifying fantasies".

Chetsford (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

That suggested text seems fine to me. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I'd also be fine with truncating the first para, I was just too lazy to think about it myself... :) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Eddie891 - with respect to this revert, in this source Colavito is describing his own inquiry into Malmgren ("confirms something I suspected after I was unable to find significant references to him in databases of government records") in addition to his précis of Johnson's report. Chetsford (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Colavito doesn't establish that he conducted an "inquiry"- that sounds like he literally just made a google search. Your phrasing, to me, implied something much more substantial Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't infer that "databases of government records" constituted a Google search as personnel records generally aren't online and have to be FOIAed. But, in any case, what about this?

According to Jason Colavito, he was unable to find "significant references to him [Malmgren] in databases of government records" and an investigation by Washington Examiner columnist Douglas Dean Johnson found no documentary evidence to support Malmgren's claims. Historians, and biographers of those named by Malmgren, disputed the veracity of his assertions, as did Shriver's son. Johnson concluded that Malmgren likely "hijacked the personas of real people to serve as characters in his self-glorifying fantasies" while Colavito accused Malmgren of resume inflation.

Chetsford (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I still think that's overstating one sentence in Colavito's article, which is primarily just reposting Johnson's research. Sure, maybe it wasn't google, but the implication to me is that he didn't actually look very hard on his own. A search of a database is definitely not a FOIA, and I think Colavito would have specified if he did more in-depth. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not certain a direct quote can constitute an overstatement. Chetsford (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It absolutely can! To me, your proposed phrasing takes what Colavito mentions almost in passing and puts it on par with Johnson's investigation which was clearly very carefully and painstakingly undertaken. I am keen to hear someone else's opinion on this, however. Perhaps Gråbergs Gråa Sång? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

"My proposed phrasing", in this instance, is a direct quote. In many cases -- this among them -- we don't need to try to climb inside the minds of references to try to unravel hidden meanings within their writing. We can take what they say at face value. Chetsford (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Accommodating this information in the lead

The lead read (prior to the addition of the UFO/Cuban Missile material) In the late 1970s, Malmgren promoted his consulting firm as having "access to power" through his former association with Senator Abraham Ribicoff, a claim Ribicoff denied.

The addition of the new material can be included in the lead without expanding this single sentence and I have BOLD done so by rewriting that sentence thusly: Malmgren was known to have embellished and fabricated autobiographical claims related to his political connections and the nature of his government service. .

I did this based on the fact that there (a) seems to be no dispute that Malmgren embellished and/or fabricated his Ribicoff connections as he seemingly acknowledged it by means of his apology and, (b) we can correctly put the rejoinder to the UFO claims in WIKIVOICE even with only a single source as there's no WP:MAINSTREAM, seriously contested assertion he was actually a secret UFO ninja commando for JFK's ghost or whatever. As always, please feel free to revert me. Chetsford (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

secret UFO ninja commando for JFK's ghost or whatever Please try not to 'needle' or ridicule folks with alternate worldviews. Feoffer (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

WSJ report on practice of spreading false alien program stories since 1950s

On April 22, 2025, an interview with Malmgren was published where he claimed he had been been told in the 1960s that aliens were real and there was a program to study them and reverse engineer their technology. On June 6, WSJ published a story revealing a practice, dating back to 1950s, of officials falsely telling people that aliens were real and a reverse engineering program was underway. While the article doesn't explicitly mention Malmgren by name, it suggests the practice might "the basis for the persistent belief that the U.S. has an alien program that we've concealed from the American people"

It seemed to me that this material would help readers understand how 1960s people like Malmgren might come to believe a false claim of aliens, but the content was removed as UNDUE/SYNTH. Both articles describe the exact same fact pattern in the exact same time period. Seems appropriate content, introduced to rebut FRINGE claims as permitted by WP:PARITY. But what do others think? Feoffer (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is likely a connection here. I also agree with the revert that we would need a source making the connection explicit to include. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Some minor edits for readability

First, this sentence -- By 1991, Pat Choate deemed him "in the eyes of many...America's foremost trade authority," arguing that his lobbying work encouraged other trade experts to enter the field. -- seems fine, overall. However, I find it a bit stylistically jarring for the lead, in that we provide some general broad strokes before suddenly diving into an extremely detailed point enunciated by a direct quote, then continuing on with general broad strokes. I wonder if it's absolutely necessary to include this Choate quote in the lead?
Second, in the section Claims of knowledge of UFOs, intervention in the Cuban Missile Crisis do we need to include the word counts of the Johnson articles? That seems weird ... can we omit? Chetsford (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

do we need to include the word counts No, and I've edited that sentence accordingly, including the removal of unnecessary details. Mama's little baby loves shortenin'. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Seeing no objection to the first proposed change, I'm implementing it. Chetsford (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

A suggested change in the lead

Right now, a truly massive amount of text is devoted to a specific pattern of events, referenced to many sources spanning decades, to wit:

According to scholar Steve Dryden, some of the USTR workers "found Malmgren too self important and not that much of a team player, [and] wished he would stay away from the office for good" though some noted enjoyment of Malmgren's habit of "spinning stories that highlighted his own role in the matter at hand". ...

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Malmgren was part of "Japan's propaganda effort in the United States"; during the decade of the 1980s, he was "cited in 76 stories about trade issues, frequently criticizing tough legislation making its way through Congress. Yet none of the stories mentioned that Malmgren was working for Japanese clients at the time". ...

During this period, according to the Center for Public Integrity, "Malmgren never acknowledged his relationship [with JETRO] in his filings at Justice". ...

In 1978, according to the New York Times, Malmgren and his business partner circulated an ad for their consulting business which claimed they enjoyed "access to power" that could be leveraged for the commercial interests of potential clients, citing Malmgren's previous Senate work with United States Senator Abraham Ribicoff. In reporting on the affair, the Associated Press (AP) wrote that Malmgren "tried to use his connection with Sen. Abraham Ribicoff to solicit corporate clients at $200,000 each". ...

Ribicoff told the New York Times he was "shocked" at the solicitation. He noted that Malmgren and his partner "have absolutely no special relationship with me and are completely out of line to make such a representation". According to a person close to Ribicoff interviewed by The Washington Post, "if they had any access to Ribicoff, they've lost it". Malmgren said that the advertisement was "an awful mistake" and "not a good thing to do" in retrospect. ...

An investigative reportby independent journalist Douglas Dean Johnson referencing declassified FBI background reports on Malmgren from 1970 and 1971, and federal job applications Malmgren signed and certified in 1963 and 1964, disproved many of Malmgren's key claims, including claims to have been a McNamara-NSC aide and to have held an Atomic Energy Commission clearance. Johnson also interviewed multiple historians, and biographers of those named by Malmgren, who disputed the veracity of his assertions, as did Shriver's son Mark Kennedy Shriver. Johnson concluded that Malmgren "hijacked the personas of real people to serve as characters in his self-glorifying fantasies" while Jason Colavito opined that Johnson's investigation showed that Malmgren "spent a long time inflating his resume". Douglas Dean Johnson quoted leading experts on the Cuban Missile Crisis, along with contemporary documents, to document that Malmgren's story of confronting General LeMay was improbable.

Are there any thoughts about replacing this sentence in the lead:

Malmgren was known to have embellished and fabricated autobiographical claims related to his political connections and the nature of his government service.

With something more representative of the substance and breadth of how we present this in the article, such as:

Throughout his life, Malmgren was both opaque and braggadocious about his work, concealing his financial interests in certain matters, while frequently embellishing and fabricating autogbiographical claims related to his political connections and government service.

Chetsford (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Seeing no objection to this change, I'm implementing it. Chetsford (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for circling back to this @Chetsford. I generally agree with your revisions here. I'm wondering if we can emphasize that most of his exaggerations and seemingly all fabrication seems to have come later in his life. I also feel like at the moment we kinda conflate two different things here: his lack of disclosure/exaggeration while working as a lobbyist, and his fabrications (which sort of just seem to have...happened). Also, "braggadocious" feels informal to me. what about "self-aggrandizing"?

Also, thoughts on whether this would now be GA-able? I think it's more or less at that level. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree about replacing braggadocious with self-aggrandizing. I also think it's fine to rephrase that to emphasize that his habitual lying occurred after leaving government, as it seems we have six documented instances of either lying, exaggerations, or lack of candor, with five of the six occurring post-government:

• 1960s: [exaggeration] "self-important ... [and] spinning stories that highlighted his own role in the matter at hand"
• 1978: [lying] Lying about access to Senator Ribicoff
• 1970s/1980s: [candor] Commentary on trade while concealing employment by JETRO
• 1970s/1980s: [candor and/or lying (the source seems vague as to whether he lied on the NSD-1 or it was something less onerous)] Failure to register as a foreign agent
• 2025: [lying] Lying about going head-to-head with Curtis LeMay to stop the atom bombing of Cuba
• 2025: [lying] Lying about piloting a flying saucer or whatever it was
  Chetsford (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Independent journalist Douglas Dean Johnson

I'm looking at the section that cites the research done by Independent journalist Douglas Dean Johnson and respectfully I want to question if this reporting is a reliable source. Johnson himself is not Wikipedia notable and he mainly publishes on Mirador Magazine. I've been looking over the magazine and they do not seem to be a reliable source. According to the Washington Examiner (also used in the Malmgren article) it says this about Johnson's byline "Douglas Dean Johnson is an independent journalist who investigates things that interest him and publishes the results on a free blog, Mirador, and on X and Bluesky as @ddeanjohnson." A "free blog"? We don't allow blogs as RS here on Wikipedia. See [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/3415987/harald-malmgren-ufo-tales-1962-wither-under-scrutiny/]. Also used is Jason Colavito who himself is Wikipedia notable does talk about the work that Johnson has done researching Malmgren, but Colavito is also reporting on a blog, see the URL [https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/in-brief-harald-malmgrens-history-of-serial-fabrication-revealed] it says blog right in the URL. Then let's talk about the Washington Examiner which I have little knowledge of. A search on Wikipedia shows that there is a lot of conversation about this source, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+the+noticeboard+archives&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&search=washington+examiner&ns0=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns8=1] and while it does seem to be considered a RS, there seems to be some discussion about that being appropriate. I'm asking for discussion about using Johnson's work in the Malmgren article. He personally is not notable and I am questioning the places he publishes as RS. If the research Johnson has done holds up, then more mainstream publications should pick up the story, do we have that? Sgerbic (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, it’s certainly reliable for citing what Douglas Johnson said about something, which is currently all we use it for. Perhaps what you’re really asking is whether including it here is WP:DUE? I think the Washington Examiner publishing a write up and colavito covering it (he’s a reliable WP:SPS as an expert) is enough to justify inclusion, but ymmv. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I think these are reasonable concerns. If it were up to me we'd excise the last sentence of the second paragraph, which is cited to Mirador (which seems to just be Johnson's blog) and, per OP, Johnson does not seem to be a subject-matter expert citable as a primary source. I'm more okay with the Washington Examiner and Jason Colavito since both are used here inside reasonable cautionary bounds; the former seems to generally be usable for non-political claims about non-BLPs when attributed and the latter is arguably a subject-matter expert writing about a non-BLP subject of their expertise (pseudoscience, in this case). Chetsford (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, and I just cut that sentence. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)