Jump to content

Talk:Jeffrey Sachs: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 504: Line 504:
[[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 11:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
[[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 11:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


==Expansion attempts of Venezula section==
==Expansion attempts of Venezuela section==
A few comments on the recent attempts at changing the "Venezula" section:
A few comments on the recent attempts at changing the "Venezula" section:
*The brookings.edu ref is probably not usable, being self-published. Is there any general consensus to the contrary?
*The brookings.edu ref is probably not usable, being self-published. Is there any general consensus to the contrary?
Line 511: Line 511:
This article is about Sachs, so what we do report should be concise unless it's clear that references indicate otherwise. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 18:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is about Sachs, so what we do report should be concise unless it's clear that references indicate otherwise. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 18:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
:I missed this before posting my comment below. Disagree re Brookings. It’s not SPS. It’s a piece by four economists (two based at Harvard and Yale) published by a respected think tank, used with attribution.[[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 15:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
:I missed this before posting my comment below. Disagree re Brookings. It’s not SPS. It’s a piece by four economists (two based at Harvard and Yale) published by a respected think tank, used with attribution.[[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 15:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

:Sorry, is only now that I've been able to write an appropriate response. I agree that the section and the changes can be improved, specifically with the wording and with repeated content.

:However, I was expecting the issues to be more related with due weight and not the reliability of the sources. Besides BobFromBrockley's observations, I have to ask why do you consider verifikado.com unreliable? In my experience, when discussing the reliability of sources, what's common is to at least give examples on why it should be put into question. Since Verifikado is a fact checker, there shouldn't be problems with this.

:While we're discussing changes on the section, I have to point out Hausmann's description: "{{tq|Harvard economist [[Ricardo Hausmann]], '''[[Juan Guaidó]]'s representative to the [[Inter-American Development Bank]]'''}}". This is synthesis, like Weisbrot's description below, and even worse considering it is included into the main body and not a footnote. Furthermore, the reference does not make any mention of Hausmann's report ([https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-hausmann/venezuelas-guaido-pushes-to-name-new-representative-to-regional-lender-idUSKCN1QL2A6]), and the description is outdated since he resigned from the position shortly after his appointment. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


== Synthesis regarding Mark Weisbrot ==
== Synthesis regarding Mark Weisbrot ==

Revision as of 15:51, 3 July 2022

Template:Vital article

Neo-Keynesian???

In line with the previous comment about his neoliberal credentials: what makes him a neo-Keynesian? Just because he says so? Or calling for aid and debt cancellation? These surely do not. Based on his work, he is definitely a NEOLIBERAL economist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PogiZoli (talk • contribs) 23:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any justification for that label. He _is_ the world's most famous neo-liberal.Haberstr (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neo-Keynesians are essentially a subgroup of "Neoliberal" economists.VolunteerMarek 16:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These personal opinions are not suitable for this page. -- Jibal (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neoliberal Bolivia Cocaine promoter

Yet another shameless neoliberal economist being praise and claiming credit that are irrelevant. According to this paper How the economy of Bolivia became addicted to cocaine , Sachs therapy destroy the local industrial and force many into growing cocaine. And thanks to the USA appetite on drug and "war on drugs" that drive up cocaine price, the huge illegal trade (ironically) rescue Bolivia economy. Perhaps, this is a retribution to USA ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.201.6.97 (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Criticisms NPOV

Whole article is bullshit.This man is criminal genocidal lunatic.He fucked up post cold war chances for east-west relationship.Has death of millions on his hands with transition from grow to poverty to war.His "mistakes" will be seen in this light in next 50 years.

At minimum the section should be rewritten to focus on Sachs. If there are more sources, find and incorporate them properly. Unverified info should be removed until then. Right now the section is basically three paragraphs written around three main sources. As long as all the paragraphs are written and sourced so poorly, it's just going to invite more and worse. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. The wiki page is way too soft on him, far more criticism should be written — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.222.145.206 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this section is not neutral. It add's a much needed counterbalance to the rest of the article, which sings Jeffrey Sachs' praises. If anything, the rest of the article should be rewritten to take a more nuanced viwe of Sachs' 'achievements'. For example, talking of all Sachs' work advising in Russia - without reference to the harm that this caused (hyperinflation, unemployment, inequality - chaos and crime in the 90s) makes this read almost like an advertisement. Iamsorandom (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We dont "counterbalance" in articles, especially not WP:BLPs. We do need better sources, and section rewrites to better follow those sources. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the BLP policy: "Tone

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. BLPs should not have trivia sections. Balance Further information: Wikipedia:COATRACK

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.

The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."

Looks to me fairly clear from that, that balance is required. It seems to me that the right way forwards here would be to integrate the 'criticisms' section into the rest of the article; meaning that the all sections would maintain neutrality, while currently one part reads as (in my view excessive) praise while another section is purely criticism. Iamsorandom (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, we need better sources and rewrites based upon them. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This book review from the Left Business Observer might be useful. http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Sachs.html --Nbauman (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good find! --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Criticism section needs to be rewritten with better sourcing and an impartial tone. Loaded terms such as "reproach" should be avoided. The Criticism section is unnecessarily lengthy and moves the article away from NPOV by lending undue weight to the criticisms of a handful of individuals. The paragraph regarding shock therapy appears blame Sachs for negative outcomes of changes in the Soviet economy. Moreover, the article does not provide enough background information on his critics. For example, Nancy Holmstrom and Richard Smith are socialists who might not have objective criticisms (See Smith's Why Capitalism is Killing the Planet). Ajax F¡oretalk 23:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article's external links do not comply with WP:EL and have been tagged since 2009. The official website does comply with WP:EL so I have left that in place. Some of the other links may be useful as sources for information in the article so I have moved them here temporarily so people can check to see if they are useful. Please remove each link from the list as it is checked. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article for discussion - poverty reduction

Seems like the topic is worth expanding upon, but not like this. From the presentation, it looks like it was copied from somewhere else. Maybe tone-down the mention of the book, put it in the context of this article, give it a better historical context, and perhaps find some more recent references? --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty Alleviation

In his book "The End of Poverty",[1] a prominent economist named Jeffrey Sachs laid out a plan to eradicate global poverty by the year 2025. Following his recommendations, international organizations such as the Global Solidarity Network are working to help eradicate poverty worldwide with intervention in the areas of housing, food, education, basic health, agricultural inputs, safe drinking water, transportation and communications.

Jeffrey Sachs argues that low-paying jobs are stepping stones in Singapore, Hong Kong and African countries, providing a way out of abject poverty. Even low-wage plants in the garment industry, provided laws protecting child and slave labor are enforced, are an "essential first step toward modern prosperity in developing countries." [2]

  1. ^ The End of Poverty by JEFFREY D. SACHS for time.com
  2. ^ Myerson, Allen R. (22 June 1997). "In Principle, a Case For More '[[Sweatshops]]'". New York Times. {{cite news}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)

School/tradition

I am going to restore "Keynesian economics." See my comment here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to repeat and elaborate here on your comments there. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An editor remarked that Sachs does not seem to identify with 'New Keynesian': "Professor Krugman and Crude Keynesianism". This piece written by Sachs attacks Krugman's variety of Keynesianism ('New Keynesianism'); Sachs does not attack Keynesianism in general. I have to note the existence of this article: "Keynesian Economist, Jeffrey Sachs Says President Obama’s Stimulus has Failed". --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
A source that actually distinguishes Keynesian from New Keynesian is what we need to avoid WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. That is why I did not include any references to New Keynesianism in the article. I only included what the source says. [1] --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also to Gro Harlem Brundtland?

I clicked this out of curiosity. The only connection to Sachs in the article is

Brundtland adopted a far-reaching approach to public health, establishing a Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, chaired by Jeffrey Sachs, and addressing violence as a major public health issue.

Am I missing something? If not, this See also should be deleted.--Pete Tillman (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point of view and lionization

Wow. This article reads as if it was written or edited or at least influenced by some professional public relations person. There is no mention of the severe criticisms, and his defense, of his work in Russia. I don't have time to edit it right now, but articles in the NYT and New Yorker, and books by journalists and others, have been highly critical of his work in Russian and of those working with him. This needs attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.201.238 (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Building the New American Economy

I redirected Building the New American Economy (the title of Sachs' 2017 book) to this article, but feel free to expand the redirect if the book is notable enough for a standalone article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Jeffrey Sachs. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeffrey Sachs. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI Edit Request to add Citations

Hello. I am being paid (COI) by Jeffrey Sachs to improve his article. Up until now, he has had no input at all on his page, and some of it is out of date, some of it is a bit 'slapdash-edly' put together, and some content has no sources. Our overall goal is to improve this page within the rules and criteria of Wikipedia by cleaning it up, adding reliable sources, organizing it in a better fashion, and updating old information. It will be a fairly long, ongoing project. As always, I appreciate any feedback during this process. My first request is to add citations to support content in the first introductory paragraph. The reason for the request is this content currently has no supporting citations.

Text request table:

LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Current text Replace with added citations
Jeffrey David Sachs (/sæks/; born November 5, 1954) is an American economist, academic, public policy analyst and former director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, where he holds the title of University Professor. He is known as one of the world's leading experts on sustainable development, economic development, and the fight against poverty. Jeffrey David Sachs (/sæks/; born November 5, 1954) is an American economist, academic, public policy analyst and former director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, where he holds the title of University Professor. He is known as one of the world's leading experts on sustainable development, economic development, and the fight against poverty.

[1] [2] 

LeepKendall (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LeepKendall - These citations prove his credentials with Columbia University but not for the latter half of the paragraph. So I've placed the citations accordingly. Westminster88 (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Westminster88. Here are two sources you can use for the last sentence. If you could add those for me, I would greatly appreciate it! Thank you.

[3] [4]

LeepKendall (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jacobson, Lindsey (August 24, 2020). "Economists offer bleak view of President Trump's first term, citing deglobalization trends and 'protectionism'". CNBC. Retrieved September 8, 2020.
  2. ^ Yueng, Karen (November 28, 2019). "China's yuan is 10 years from ending US dollar hegemony, says economist Jeffrey Sachs". South China Morning Post. Retrieved September 14, 2020.
  3. ^ Fontevecchia, Jorge (June 27, 2020). "Jeffrey Sachs: 'This is not a game for BlackRock to get an extra percentage point – that's absurd'". Buenos Aires Times. Retrieved September 14, 2020.
  4. ^ Ryan, Patrick (February 10, 2019). "'Greedy' companies profit from digital addiction despite health impact, summit hears". The National. Retrieved September 15, 2020.

COI Edit Request to Intro Section

Hello:

I would like to request the following correction to Dr. Sachs' title with the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The reason for the request is that currently his title is incorrect. I realize the source I am providing is a primary source, however, strangely, all of the third party sources also show his title incorrectly. He is the president and not the director of the organization. I'm also adding formatting to link to the article on the Center.

LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Current text Replace with
Sachs is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and Director of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Sachs is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.[1]

Thank you! LeepKendall (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see that the line for requests is at 104, and given this a minor edit, I'm going to make the change myself. I welcome any feedback. Again, this is the only source that correctly shows Dr. Sachs' title at the Center for Sustainable Development. We will strive to find third-party verified sources for other content. Thank you. LeepKendall (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "SDSN Association Board of Directors". Sustainable Development Solutions Network. September 16, 2020. Retrieved September 16, 2020.

COI Request to Remove Content that is Contentious and Poorly Sourced - Arnhold Institute for Global Health

Hello: Jeffrey Sachs is requesting that the following content from the Arnhold Institute for Global Health section be removed from his article: “Sachs was given a part-time role equivalent to a full-time position at "$1 million per year" for the fellowship and appointed to the Executive Board. In a federal lawsuit filed in April 2019 against the Arnhold Institute and Mount Sinai for sex and age discrimination and especially against the Director of the Institute, Dr. Prabhjot Singh, it is reported that Sachs helped Singh get the job and also that Singh wrote " large parts of Sachs’ books." It is also reported that Sachs's fellowship at the Institute was thought to be "payback" for his helping Singh get the position at the Institute.[18] “ Though I realize this is not a valid reason for deletion, Mr. Sachs asked me to write here that the statements are untrue.

The reasons for this request are: 1. The court document citation is not a reliable, third-party source. Sachs is not named in the suit. There is merely a section about what others said about his fellowship, or what Mr. Singh said about book writing. 2. After an extensive search, there are no verifiable media sources that support anything claimed in this content. The one article I found in Vice Magazine repeats allegations from the lawsuit regarding the $1M, book writing. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wxqb74/celebrated-rwanda-based-nonprofit-faces-harrowing-misconduct-accusations 3. The $1M dollar reference and the content about Singh helping Sachs write part of his books are both in quotes, seeming to indicate it is merely what someone said and not based in fact or reliably supported. 4. Lastly, he feels it fits into the criteria of this Wikipedia statement; “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page.” For all these reasons, we respectfully request that this content be removed from the article. Thank you! LeepKendall (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:DonSpencer1 and User:Ibadibam: I was wondering if I might ask your assistance in reviewing this request I made 10 days ago. All is explained here. Thank you so much for your time. LeepKendall (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taking it point by point:
  1. You are correct that, as a primary source, the court document itself is not appropriate as the main source to support this or any other information.
  2. The Vice article appears to be a reliable source and contains information that in my judgement is relevant to the article here.
  3. In addition to being unattributed, those quotations are too short to be meaningful. I suggest they be rewritten to paraphrase from the Vice source.
  4. If you have reached in good faith a conclusion that this is a BLP violation, you should immediately take it to the BLP noticeboard so that an administrator can take appropriate action. An edit request is not a sufficiently expedient process to address serious content issues.
For the moment I will replace the court document with the Vice article in the reference, remove the unattributed quotations, and fix an existing issue with two sources in the same footnote, then wait for your decision as to taking it to the noticeboard. Ibadibam (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth pinging Cadbury333, who originally added this information to the article. Ibadibam (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Ibadibam for addressing my request and for thinking to include User:Cadbury333. The edit you made is definitely an improvement. I still have a few questions. 1. Vice Media is categorized as marginally reliable on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and it is the only 3rd party source that can be found. 2. If it is deemed this should stay in the article, I'm wondering if it can be worded in such a way so it doesn't infer that Jeffrey is a defendant in the lawsuit. In fact, this allegation came out in the due diligence for the complaint which is about sexual harassment.
I realize that unflattering things can't, and should not be removed from an article if they can be reliably supported. It just doesn't seem that this one meets the criteria. Except for being mentioned in the Vice article, it's hearsay. This is the only content in his article the client feels this way about. Also, one correction, the suit is against Mt. Sinai, not Arnhold.
If it is decided it should be part of his article, can we word it something more like this: In 2016, Sachs was appointed to a two-year fellowship at the Arnhold Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai at Mount Sinai Health System.[19] A 2019 lawsuit filed against Prabhjot Singh and Mt. Sinai Health System, Inc., alleged that Singh procured Sachs' fellowship for $1,000,000 per year, which Sachs denies.[20]
Thank you again for having this discussion with me. LeepKendall (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified the identities defendants, since the way I first phrased it was not accurate. The lack of a consensus about Vice means that each citation may be considered on a case-by-case basis. If you would like this citation put to scrutiny, you may submit it at the reliable sources noticeboard, though because of the sensitivity of this content I still recommend the BLP noticeboard as your first stop. Ibadibam (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for including me in this discussion User:LeepKendall User:Ibadibam I certainly have no objection to the change you made to the entry...and I made a slight edit myself, which I hope you will not object to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadbury333 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You two are awesome and I so appreciate you working this through with me User:Ibadibam and User:Cadbury333. I have one more request before I look into the BLP noticeboard option. The wording now makes it sound like the fellowship was a $1,000,000 million dollar fellowship, when in fact, the pay for the fellowship is what is in question. Could we simply change to ...the $1-million-per-year fellowship to a $1-million-per-year fellowship fee? Thanks for considering! LeepKendall (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse my ignorance, as I know very little about research administration, but what is the difference between a million-dollar fellowship and a million-dollar-paying fellowship? Ibadibam (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey User:Ibadibam. I was basically trying to say that the $1M is what Jeffrey denies, not that he had a fellowship at that institution. The accusation is that the fellowship paid him $1M, not that he was a fellow. That is why calling it 'the $1M fellowship' sounds misleading. I want you to know I'm grateful for all your help, and this is in no way a complaint. Just trying to get the statement as factual possible as we work on our case to the BLP board. We are doing research. It looks like Vice is a crowd-sourced news agency without editors. Thanks much! LeepKendall (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. The cited article was vague as to what was alleged and what was denied. I hope this edit is more faithful both to the source and to the known facts of the matter. Ibadibam (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much User:Ibadibam! Your assistance is always greatly appreciated. LeepKendall (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the concerns have been addressed above, so I am closing this ticket. If you request additional changes, please post a new request below. Z1720 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI Edit Request for new section - Academic appointments and Arnhold Institute

Hello: I would like to request adding a section to this article called Academic appointments directly following the Academic career section. The reason is he has many honorary and distinguished appointments, however, we do not plan to add them all - just a sampling. Then I would like to move the Arnhold content to that section. The reason is, it doesn't fit under career since it is a fellowship. Then, in the Academic appointments section, above Arnhold, I'd like to add the following language regarding his most recent appointment: In the spring of 2020, Sachs was appointed Tan Sri Jeffrey Cheah Honorary Distinguished Professor of Sustainable Development at Sunway University. [1]

I'm tagging User:Cadbury333 and User:Ibadibam as you have been helpful in other aspects of this article. Actually, I just thought of a question - maybe this section should be under Awards and honors like his Honorary degrees section? I appreciate thoughts on this.

Thank you for your time and consideration! LeepKendall (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Start with independent sources that are clearly not announcements. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response User:Hipal. I think this source should do the trick.
[2]
Best LeepKendall (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be based on the same press release as this source, published a week earlier. The New Straits Times version is substantially more polished and concise. Ibadibam (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC) At any rate, the edit request will be actionable when there is a specific, concrete proposal attached to it. If the proposed addition is too long for the talk page, you may draft your submission at Talk:Jeffrey Sachs/Academic appointments, if you don't already have a place for it. Ibadibam (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Ibadibam. Thanks for your input. So, if I understand correctly this statement can be added with the Straits source once I update my full proposal. Here is my proposed request.
Under Awards and honors, I would like to add a section called Academic appointments below the Honorary degrees section. Then I would like to add this new language, and then move Arnhold here without the bolded title/its own section, and delete it from his Academic career section, thusly.
=== Academic appointments ===
In the spring of 2020, Sachs was appointed Tan Sri Jeffrey Cheah Honorary Distinguished Professor of Sustainable Development at Sunway University.[2]
In 2016, Sachs was appointed to a two-year fellowship at the Arnhold Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai at Mount Sinai Health System.[3] A 2019 lawsuit against Mount Sinai and several of its staff for age and sex discrimination alleged that the fellowship paid US$1,000,000 per year and was procured for Sachs by director Prabhjot Singh (named in the lawsuit and a partner of Sachs), which Sachs denies.[4]
As always, I appreciate your guidance and assistance. Thanks much! LeepKendall (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without a better source, this is simply promotion. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there User:Hipal and User:Ibadibam: It sounds like you two may have differing opinions? If so, I would like to learn how this is different than the honorary degrees or the awards section itself? It seems this whole Awards and honors section is promotional, and created by volunteer editors. Here is one of many examples that seems the same that is already in his article. In 2009, Princeton University's American Whig-Cliosophic Society awarded Sachs the James Madison Award for Distinguished Public Service.[62]. I know one edit doesn't justify another, but I am sincerely trying to learn best practices and differing opinions. If you determine this new appointment shouldn't be added, I'd still like to request the new section of Academic appointments, and moving Arnhold there as requested in my previous post. I was not so much concerned with adding this new accolade, but rather trying to have more than one entry in this new section. Thank you. LeepKendall (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest making new requests with a far better sources. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hipal: the press release and Vice sources are already in the article (in fact the press release has been in for quite some time). The only new source offered here is the New Straits Times source, used to support new content about Sunway University. What to you would constitute a better source for this content? LeepKendall I might suggest ordering the section chronologically unless there is a particularly major honor or one that is career defining (e.g. a Nobel prize). Ibadibam (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kee, Katherine (May 6, 2020). "World-Renowned Economist Jeffrey Sachs Appointed Honorary Distinguished Professor at Sunway University". QS Wow News. Retrieved October 5, 2020.
  2. ^ a b Mustafa, Zulita (May 12, 2020). "Sunway appoints Jeffrey Sachs as honorary professor". New Straits Times. Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  3. ^ Press Release: Jeffrey D. Sachs, PhD, Joins Mount Sinai for Two-Year Visiting Fellowship, Mount Sinai Hospital.
  4. ^ Feiger, Leah (August 13, 2020). "Celebrated Rwanda-Based Nonprofit Faces Harrowing Misconduct Accusations". Vice.
I believe this request has received a response, so I am closing this ticket. If you would like new information to be added, please post a new request below. Z1720 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI Edit Request to Move Content to a New Section - Academic appointments and Arnhold Institute

Hello: I would like to request creating an Academic appointments section under the Awards and honors section, just below Honorary degrees. Then, I would like request we move the Arnhold Institute for Global Health content there. The reason is, Arnhold doesn't fit under academic career, as it is a fellowship appointment. If for some reason there is an issue with this request, I would appreciate recommendations of where to house Arnhold since it doesn't belong under career.

Thank you LeepKendall (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Ibadibam. I was wondering if you would mind assisting me with this formatting change request on this page? Thank you. LeepKendall (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse my lack of expertise, but in what way is this fellowship not part of the subject's academic career? As I understand it, it was an academic position that the subject took on a professional basis, which seems to me to be very much in the theme of the section. Ibadibam (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LeepKendall: has not responded to this question in three months, so I have closed this ticket. If they would like to post a new request they may do so below. Z1720 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI Edits to Page - Academic appointments and Arnhold Institute

Hello:

I have three edits I would like to make to improve this page. I did make several attempts to propose these with volunteer assistance without reply. These changes are straightforward. Feedback and discussion is welcome if any of these don't meet Wikipedia criteria.

Here are the changes below.

The first change is as follows:

Creating an Academic appointments section under the Awards and honors section, just below Honorary degrees. Move the Arnhold Institute for Global Health content there. The reason is, Arnhold doesn't fit under academic career, as it is a fellowship appointment. If for some reason there is an issue with this request, I would appreciate recommendations of where to house Arnhold since it doesn't belong under career.

Second change - using the same source

LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Current text Replace with
In 2016, Sachs was appointed to a two-year fellowship at the Arnhold Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai at Mount Sinai Health System. Jeffrey Sachs was a visiting part-time fellow at Mt. Sinai Medical School during academic years 2016-17 and 2017-18.

Third, Adding his website to his info box https://www.jeffsachs.org/. Thank you! LeepKendall (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI Request to Remove Content - Arnhold Institute for Global Health

Hello. I am currently in a COI/paid editing relationship with Jeffrey Sachs.

I would like to request the removal of the second sentence in the Arnhold Institute for Global Health section. "A 2019 lawsuit against Mount Sinai and several of its staff for age and sex discrimination alleged that the fellowship paid US$1,000,000 per year and was procured for Sachs by director Prabhjot Singh (named in the lawsuit and a partner of Sachs), which Sachs denied.[20]"

The reason for this request is that when this content was originally added, it was cited with the following lawsuit https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/Mount%2BSinai%2BComplaint.pdf, which is not an acceptable source according to Wikipedia. After this was discovered, the citation was replaced with a Vice article source, https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxqb74/celebrated-rwanda-based-nonprofit-faces-harrowing-misconduct-accusations. Any related content from this article, as follows, "Sachs has written supportively of Singh’s recent book, and the lawsuit against Singh also alleged that he had procured a $1,000,000 per year fellowship at Mount Sinai for Sachs," clearly states that it is based on the lawsuit. I have searched to find another source, and there is none.

Secondly, according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Vice Media is coded marginally reliable. For both these reasons, I respectfully request that it be removed. Thank you. LeepKendall (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly skimming this:
I'd like to know why sciencemag.org is hosting that document, and the history of the additions of the material to the article.
https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/mount-sinai-david-newman.html might help? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the COI request is essentially to remove all content not supported by the Mt Sinai press release? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And there appear to be related discussions and requests above. Please summarize your perspective on the previous discussions/requests. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Hipal for your reply. This may be a long response as I address each of your points.
Point 1 - I don't know why sciencemag.org is hosting this document. When I search the site, it doesn't show up. All of my other attempts to look up the lawsuit took me to sites with paywalls.
Here is the history of the Arnhold section.
On 5/8/19 User:Cadbury333 added the Arnhold section including the lawsuit content with this source: https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/Mount%2BSinai%2BComplaint.pdf
On 5/10/19 Cadbury appears to have added some clarifying language about allegations in the lawsuit.
On 9/12/19, User:70.162.15.247 (has only two user contributions) deleted the lawsuit content stating it was irrelevant.
On 9/12/19 Cadbury333 added back the deleted information about the lawsuit and additional language with statements in quotations as if they are what someone said, same lawsuit citation.
August 2020, Sachs contacted me about doing some work on his article. One thing was that he wanted that statement removed because he says it is not true.
September 2020, I found a Vice article and on 9/18/20 mentioned it when User:Ibadibam was helping me with some other edits. In graciously helping me, he replaced the lawsuit document with the Vice article. At the time, I also mentioned Dr. Sachs felt it was contentious material, but decided not to pursue this through the BLP Board.
Upon further review, I realized that Vice merely parrots what is in the lawsuit citation. Given that, I decided to request it be removed due to unacceptable citations.
I did appeal to Cadbury333 on their talk page, on 10/31/20 about removing the lawsuit language, but did not receive a response.
Point 2 - Thanks for the cut article. I read the whole thing and it has one line about Singh being hired and that he was the protege of Jeffrey Sachs.
Point 3 - I realize the press release is also not an acceptable source. If you feel that whole section should go away due to poor sourcing, I would understand. As I mentioned before, the whole article is messy and riddled with poor sourcing.
Point 4 - I think my discussion summary is in Point 1-history above. If you would like the two paragraphs from the lawsuit that mention Jeffrey, I'm happy to share them here. It is basically people interviewed about their opinion of why they thought Singh allegedly did favors for Sachs. Thank you. LeepKendall (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not relevant what source was originally used, so long as a reliable source is ultimately used to confirm the information. Vice being listed as "marginally reliable" means not that it's an unreliable source, but that it "may be usable depending on context". In this context, the information presented in the Wikipedia article is factual, and free from editorializing: Wikipedia states that there is an allegation, and a denial of that allegation, without endorsing either. (Incidentally, the quoted denial is original to the Vice article, indicating that the source does indeed add journalistic value.) To date we have collaboratively made a number of revisions to bring this content to its current, neutral state, and I don't see any further problem with it as currently worded. Ibadibam (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I found out why sciencemag.org is hosting the lawsuit information: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/global-health-institute-sued-age-and-sex-discrimination This doesn't mention Sachs at all. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the section completely given what few references we have, their quality, and that the poorest refs have the most to say about Sachs while the best has nothing to say at all. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify the problems with the sources included so far? Ibadibam (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Hipal. I appreciate all of your time working through this with me. User:Ibadibam I appreciate your help on this page, as well. The first sentence (in the two sentence section) was based on a press release from Mount Sinai, so it started out with an unacceptable source. I will let Hipal add any further explanation. I am now done with this page! Sachs decided several months ago not to pursue any further with all the work that needs to be done to clean it up. Thank you LeepKendall (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The press release is promotional and not independent. I don't believe it demonstrates any encyclopedic worth.

The Vice article is poor, and is the only reference we have with any detail. I think we should wait until better refs show up, if any do. The other refs are no help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this request has received a response and so I am closing this ticket. If you would like to add new information to the article, please post a new request edit below. Z1720 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous POV problems for a BLP

Some sections are clearly slanted towards a certain POV and recent events, especially the China sections (the article now has two of them!) which are chock full of right-wing sources like The National Review and The Washington Free Beacon. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should avoid making a loaded, blanket statement like "chock full of right-wing sources" without considering the context. I have given in-text attribution where I see appropriate. If you'd like to discuss specific sentences/paragraphs where you believe are problematic, please feel free to do it here. Normchou 💬 14:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I assume the "POV" problem with regard to these sources in the context of this article is "Sachs only toes the party line of the CCP". In that case, if there exist other sources that say otherwise, it should be incorporated here to achieve WP:BALANCE. So far, I have not been able to find such a source. Normchou 💬 14:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it should be noted that many of the "non-right-wing" sources regarding Sachs and China are nothing but direct quotes/transcriptions/paraphrases of Sachs' own, WP:BLPPRIMARY-ish opinions/statements. If there really is a POV problem to be resolved, I believe you have largely missed the point. Normchou 💬 14:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sachs clearly has strong views on US actions towards China and it is important that we first document what these are.
  • I don't mind including critiques of his views by right-wing outlets as long as we attribute them appropriately and provide a balance of opinions, including from Chinese sources if possible (Wikipedia is a world encyclopaedia).
  • I suggest that we roll the two China sections into one. Our policy encourages us to avoid separate reaction/assessment/criticism sections.
  • These sources may be useful in filling in the gaps in our coverage of Sachs views on China:[1][2][3][4][5]
  • Here are some comments on the current content of the article:
Sachs has "written articles for or been extensively quoted in Chinese propaganda outlets on at least five occasions and appeared on the state-owned CGTN's broadcasts eight times." -- I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the mathematics, but why does it matter and isn't it more important to provide details of what he said in those articles?
Sachs "has long expressed views with a forgiving attitude toward authoritarian regimes, including the Chinese Communist Party" and "routinely takes Beijing's line on a number of issues, including COVID's origins, China's role in the world, and the Uyghur genocide" -- the reader would find this comment more useful if we had actually told the reader what Sachs' views are on authoritarian regimes, COVID's origins, China's role in the world, and the Uyghur genocide. Perhaps we should do that first before providing the critiques.
"questioned whether Sachs had been paid by Huawei". -- no proof was provided for this "question". Should we be echoing this sort of unfounded claim?
"Clive Hamilton and Mareike Ohlberg comment on one of Sachs' articles in which he accuses the U.S. government of maligning Huawei under hypocritical pretenses. Hamilton and Ohlberg write that Sachs' article "would have carried more weight if he did not have such close ties to Huawei", including his previous endorsement of the company's "vision of our shared digital future"". -- Shouldn't we mention what these "close ties" are? We have mentioned that he wrote a forward to a Huawei position paper but is there anything else?
"James Carafano, a foreign policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, said that Sachs' view of China diverges from the mainstream national security consensus between Democrats and Republicans". --- a reasonable comment, except that we haven't told the reader what Sachs' view of China actually is.
Burrobert (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's revert to the last good version and work from there. A BLP should not contain poor or unreliable sources at all. Primary sources should rarely be used, and do not on their own demonstrate any weight. --Hipal (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are some out-of-the-way sources in the China section (The Washington Free Beacon, National Review, Axios, The Globalist). There are also a few more traditional sources such as Bloomberg, CNN, BBC and NBC. As I said above, I don't mind using the lesser known sources with appropriate attribution and some common-sense about how we frame what they say. We also need balance and a better exploration of Sachs' views on China. Burrobert (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Axios is a RS, which is the one I introduced yesterday, and it's secondary. All other sources I introduced are also secondary—they were added after I saw the direct quotes/transcriptions/paraphrases of Sachs' opinions with little interpretation/analysis, which are mostly WP:BLPPRIMARY. I have no complaint about removing these lesser known sources and content if Sachs' raw opinions are removed. Normchou 💬 17:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Axios is in the list of perennial sources. As far as I can tell there are no primary sources being used in either of the China sections apart from an unnecessary link to a google drive document. Any of Sachs' views that we currently mention come from secondary sources. Burrobert (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these are just Sachs expressing his views in quotes/paraphrases, which border on WP:BLPPRIMARY and/or WP:BLPSELFPUB. There is no secondary analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Normchou 💬 17:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see how a secondary source becomes either a primary source or a self-published source by documenting Sachs' views. Burrobert (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are primary sources. Interviews wrapped by short introductions and explanations aren't much better. "He said, she said" reporting is similarly poor. Ideally, we should be working with references written from a historical perspective, which are difficult to find if we're relying on just news media. Whatever sources we decide to use, if there's no larger context (historical or otherwise), it will be very difficult to determine encyclopedic worth and due weight. --Hipal (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which of our current sources would you regard as "interviews"? Which of the sources are of the "He said, she said" variety? Are you proposing that Wikipedia stop using non-historical sources such as news media? Burrobert (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying we need sources that meet quality criteria for BLP and related content policies, especially NOT in this case. --Hipal (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Raw opinions of Sachs (in the form of interviews and/or "he said, she said") can be included only if they are part of the encyclopedic content in the larger context (historical and whatnot). This would require us to supplement those views with secondary sources that provide analysis/evaluation/interpretation/synthesis. Some of the lesser known sources I've introduced are precisely doing that, although I am open to discussion about suitability within specific context. Normchou 💬 18:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by "raw opinions" in this context? Can you give the examples that you have found in the current article?
  • I can't make any sense of the phrase "part of the encyclopedic content in the larger context (historical and whatnot)".
  • Is any of this based on policy? If so, what are the references?
Burrobert (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is any of this based on policy BLP, NOT, POV, OR. --Hipal (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Raw opinions are part of the raw information/data of the subject, unprocessed and on its own insufficient for an encyclopedia. Examples with regard to this discussion include: Sachs accused the U.S. of "willfully trying to crush successful companies like Huawei by changing the rules of international trade abruptly and unilaterally"., He wrote that none of the executives of several U.S. companies which had been fined for sanctions violations were arrested., He went on to say, "The US lost its step on 5G, which is a critical part of the new digital economy. And Huawei was taking a greater and greater share of global markets."
There are a number of places where you can find explanations regarding encyclopedic content, the larger context, etc. For example, in WP:NOTEVERYTHING, A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. In WP:INDISCRIMINATE, To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. See also the fundamental community guidelines and policies listed above. Normchou 💬 19:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLP, NOT, POV, OR -- I don't see the connection. Do you have a more specific reference that applies to our discussion? Burrobert (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the difference between "opinion" and "raw opinion". Is "raw opinion" mentioned in any of our policies?
  • What do our policies say about including the opinions of BLP subjects in their bio? Any specific references?
  • Have you looked through the article for sentences beginning "Sachs wrote that … ", "According to Sachs, … ", "Sachs has said that … ", "Sachs suggests that … ", "He reasons that … ", "Sachs advocates … ", "Sachs has consistently criticised … ", "In April 2018, he supported … "?
Burrobert (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should stop paying excessive attention to policy specifics, since an experienced editor knows what these mean in principle and can apply them accordingly after seeing the context WP:PRINCIPLE. Let's try to improve the article and provide encyclopedic value by using independent, secondary sources with analysis/evaluation/interpretation/synthesis to put the information/data of the subject like the ones you listed into context. If no such secondary sources exist, then we simply trim the relevant parts and move on. Normchou 💬 15:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's pull The National Review and The Washington Free Beacon completely to start. --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Also merged the two "China" subsections. Normchou 💬 16:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the quotes and other out-of-context information make it look like something other than a section from an encyclopedia article on Sachs. --Hipal (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? Burrobert (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The China section. Every paragraph has at least one quote. --Hipal (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Trimmed some quotes and converted the rest into paraphrases. Normchou 💬 21:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Jeffrey Sachs: What about America's human rights abuses? - China.org.cn". www.china.org.cn. 18 April 2021. Retrieved 24 April 2021.
  2. ^ "World Insights: World experts say China offers inspiration for global sustainable development - Xinhua | English.news.cn". www.xinhuanet.com. 20 April 2021. Retrieved 24 April 2021.
  3. ^ "'I don't regret Huawei Twitter comments,' US economist Jeffrey Sachs says". South China Morning Post. 27 October 2019. Retrieved 24 April 2021.
  4. ^ Zhou, Cissy (28 October 2019). "Huawei Twitter comments defended by economist Jeffrey Sachs, says Donald Trump 'still wrong'". sg.news.yahoo.com. Retrieved 24 April 2021.
  5. ^ Zhu, Lia (19 April 2021). "UN expert tears into BBC on bias over rights". global.chinadaily.com.cn. Retrieved 24 April 2021.

*・°☆.。. Jeffrey Sachs wins the 2022 Tang Prize *・°☆

Sachs was awarded the 2022 Tang Prize in Sustainable Development for Leading Transdisciplinary Sustainability Science. The citation stated the award was for "leading transdisciplinary sustainability science and creating the multilateral movement for its applications from village to nation and to the world". As reported by the United Nations, the Taipei Times, PR Newswire ... [1][2][3] Burrobert (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Jeffrey Sachs Awarded 2022 Tang Prize in Sustainable Development for Leading Transdisciplinary Sustainability Science". www.unsdsn.org. 20 June 2022. Retrieved 29 June 2022.
  2. ^ "Sachs wins Tang Prize in sustainable development - Taipei Times". www.taipeitimes.com. 19 June 2022. Retrieved 29 June 2022.
  3. ^ "Jeffrey Sachs Awarded 2022 Tang Prize in Sustainable Development for Leading Transdisciplinary Sustainability Science". www.prnewswire.com. Retrieved 29 June 2022.
See WP:SOAP, WP:BLP, and WP:IS --Hipal (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A coherent explanation, rather than an intellectually lazy and meaningless alphabet-soup would be helpful. Burrobert (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unfamiliar and dismissive of policy, then you should not work on articles where it is required you understand them. If you cannot respect them, then you're going to have an incredibly difficult time with Wikipedia. --Hipal (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not very helpful. Is there a problem with including the information that Jeffrey Sachs won the 2022 Tang Prize? The United Nations, the Taipei Times, PR Newswire, Yahoo! and others all reported that Jeffrey Sachs won the 2022 Tang Prize. Why is the fact that Jeffrey Sachs won the 2022 Tang Prize a sensitive topic? Burrobert (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that you don't find basic policy helpful. --Hipal (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try another approach. The following awards and positions are sourced to the awarding bodies:

- In 2007, he was awarded the Padma Bhushan, the third highest civilian honor bestowed by the government of India.

- In 2007, Sachs received the S. Roger Horchow Award for Greatest Public Service by a Private Citizen, an award given out annually by Jefferson Awards

- From 2000 to 2001, Sachs was chairman of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health

- In 2016, Sachs became president of the Eastern Economic Association, succeeding Janet Currie

- In 2017, Sachs and his wife were the joint recipients of the first World Sustainability Award. Burrobert (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion attempts of Venezuela section

A few comments on the recent attempts at changing the "Venezula" section:

  • The brookings.edu ref is probably not usable, being self-published. Is there any general consensus to the contrary?
  • The expansion appears to have been done without noticing that the rebuttal in Americas Quarterly is already in this section, in the last paragraph.
  • As far as I can tell, verifikado.com is unreliable, and should not be used anywhere in Wikipedia, let alone in a BLP article.

This article is about Sachs, so what we do report should be concise unless it's clear that references indicate otherwise. --Hipal (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this before posting my comment below. Disagree re Brookings. It’s not SPS. It’s a piece by four economists (two based at Harvard and Yale) published by a respected think tank, used with attribution.BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, is only now that I've been able to write an appropriate response. I agree that the section and the changes can be improved, specifically with the wording and with repeated content.
However, I was expecting the issues to be more related with due weight and not the reliability of the sources. Besides BobFromBrockley's observations, I have to ask why do you consider verifikado.com unreliable? In my experience, when discussing the reliability of sources, what's common is to at least give examples on why it should be put into question. Since Verifikado is a fact checker, there shouldn't be problems with this.
While we're discussing changes on the section, I have to point out Hausmann's description: "Harvard economist Ricardo Hausmann, Juan Guaidó's representative to the Inter-American Development Bank". This is synthesis, like Weisbrot's description below, and even worse considering it is included into the main body and not a footnote. Furthermore, the reference does not make any mention of Hausmann's report ([2]), and the description is outdated since he resigned from the position shortly after his appointment. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis regarding Mark Weisbrot

Sachs' bio contains the sentence: 

A 2019 report authored by Sachs and Mark Weisbrot claimed that a 31% rise in the number of deaths between 2017 and 2018 was due to the sanctions imposed on Venezuela in 2017 ...

It is sourced to an article in the Independent. Within the sentence we have included a note about Weisbrot sourced to other articles. Some comments:

- This is synthesis as a number of sources are being merged to produce an implication that is in none of the sources. The implication is that the description of Weisbrot contained in the note invalidates the report by Sachs and Weisbrot. None of the sources say that. If the note about Weisbrot is relevant to Sachs' bio it needs to be separated from the sentence about the report.

- The content of the note is in Weisbrot's wiki, to which we have provided a link. Why would we need to include it again here? Burrobert (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely correct. Have removed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, I don’t see the rationale for removing this: The report's findings and methodology were described as invalid by the Brookings Institution. They stated that "the bulk of the deterioration in living standards occurred long before the sanctions were enacted in 2017."[1] BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Bahar, Dany; Bustos, Sebastian; Morales-Arilla, José; Ángel Santos, Miguel (May 14, 2019). "Impact of the 2017 sanctions on Venezuela: Revisiting the evidence". Brookings Institution. Retrieved August 9, 2021.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeffrey_Sachs&oldid=1096301181"