Talk:Jeffrey Sachs/Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 02:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

HIID, etc.
Was Jeffrey Sachs a Time Magazine Person of the Year? --

This is Jeffrey D. Sachs, not to be confused with a supposed former boyfriend of a Latin-American actress. See summary when that mistake was removed. --Jerzy(t) 04:34, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

En Bolivia la tesis de Jeffrey Sachs no ha funcionado a pesar de que él ha estado asesorando a los gobiernos bolivianos desde 1985 hasta el 2004. Esto demuestra que probablemente su teoria esté equivocada, tal como lo ha demostrado el premio Nobel de Economia, Joe Stiglitz. Este último menciona que las políticas al estilo Sachs y el FMI, solo sirven para hacer más millonarios a los ricos de los países pobres y a exportar sus capitales a cuentas bancarias en los países del primer mundo. Vale la pena mencionar que su teoría del "choque económico" para ajustes coyunturales, en el caso boliviano funcionó como disminución drástica de la hiperinflación que ese país sufría en 1985. Pero posteriormente sus "soluciones" que habían sido fielmente seguidas por Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, uno de los admiradores de Sachs, logró que la industria textil boliviana se redujese casi en su totalidad, que los agricultores de papa, se quedasen sin cultivos, que la economía boliviana quedase ampliamente expuesta a la evolución del exterior y así por delante.

I question the appropriateness of this paragraph:

''Sachs is also tainted by scandal from his time as director of Harvard’s Institute for International Development (HIID). Several trails resulted from allegations of insider trading and no-bid government contracts, although Sachs himself was not the direct target. In the midst of the scandal Sachs fired fellow Harvard economist Andrei Schliefer whose wife was accused of insider trading based on knowledge derived from HIID consulting contracts with Russia. While the details remain murky, some suggest that the hostility Sachs faces is the result of the gross mismanagement of HIID and subsequent conflict within Harvard.''

Whether someone is "tainted" is a matter of opinion rather than fact, so the statement isn't NPOV. Whether HIID was grossly mismanaged is also a matter of opinion, albeit one shared by many. As far as I know (and I don't claim to be an expert on the matter) the only people who see Sachs as being tainted by the HIID scandals are those who believe in guilt by association; I don't think there is any evidence that Sachs did anything improper. This paragraph also cites "some" as authority for the claim that hostility toward Sachs (and the article doesn't even say there is such hostility) stems from the HIID problems. On top of all that, the paragraph's author misspelled "trials" as "trails". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00.00.00.00 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 00 Jan 0000
 * Dunno when the above was written, but I've added HIIG material back in. It's not "guilt by association"; Schleifer's activities continued during Sachs' directorship, resulting in the boat hitting the reefs on Sachs' watch, Sachs bailing ship (in two stages), etc. And Schleifer claimed it was Sachs' responsibility... Not saying I agree with Schleifer, but Sachs' had, for over a year, assumed responsibility for HIID oversight that didn't get performed. Andyvphil 03:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment made in Criticism section
"(which the UN subsequently blocked from public access)"

- I think this statement should be deleted or edited because it is misleading. It seems to imply that that the UN statistics office is trying to hide the information.


 * 1) It is also blocked from private access as well (within the organization).
 * 2) This data can be found elsewhere within the organization and even from other companies in the private sector or NGOs as well.

I hate to nit pick, but that just isn't an issue- I will try and see if I can find the data that supposedly disappeared and try to link to it. 195.8.3.165 15:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Still haven't found it? If they didn't hide it why didn't you find it? Andyvphil 08:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will follow up on that. I think there was (finally!) a rather thorough report released by the U.N. in 2012, perhaps 2011, that I recall reading. It was publicly accessible, and not particularly favorable either. --FeralOink (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The comment below is a valid one, and needs to be considered when assessing Sachs's thesis in The End of Poverty concerning his view there that a large part of the solution to African development is to dramatically increase aid (this will be called here "the Sachs thesis" in what follows). A distinction should be made between The End of Poverty as a utopian vision, which is what it is in the light of reality on the ground in Africa and the western donors' record so far with big aid flows, and the book as a feasible policy blueprint, which it is not. What is striking, is that if it is put forward by Sachs as a feasible policy blue print then it is in harmony with his record with the ill-conceived policy of shock therapy in the former Soviet Union in the 1990s. What shock therapy and The End of History both show, (why they are consistent with one another), is their fatal lack of consideration and inclusion of the sociological basis of the context that these external, "clinical", interventions was/are applied to. A possible explanation for this, as far as can be seen from the evidence, is that Sachs is not a development economist by training, as is the case of another notable western economist, Joseph Stiglitz, who also rose to prominence internationally by changing careers from non-development economics topics to the role of chief economist at the World Bank, but without serious consequences. This lack of appropriate policy use by western advisors intervening in developing and transition countries has been noted and criticised on mutliple occasions by multiple authors to date, therefore this criticism is well documented, and based on the record of shock therapy in Russia at least, well founded. The focus on Sachs here is therefore not meant as a personal attack, but rather as critical policy analysis. The key issue though remains that it is troubling that, given Sachs's current influence in the development community, including with major western NGOs and notables such as Bono and Bob Geldof, and the visibility of the Africa issue, he is again putting forward a policy that is devoid of context, i.e. does not understand and include the context it is being applied to. And this is before considering such logistical praticalities as whether it is possible to find the large number of professionals required to administer and implement such a hugely expanded aid effort, referred to as absorptive capacity for aid. All of this discussion could be listed as an example under the law of unintended consequences, which Sachs is surely aware of; he therefore owes it to Africa to reconsider his ideas before a new aid boom turns into tomorrow's debt crisis (again) and another "lost decade".Dev economist (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You said "Sachs is not a development economist by training... [he] rose to prominence internationally by changing careers". That seems a statement of fact, not opinion, and certainly not harsh, nor critical. Sachs had no work experience, other than academia, and all at one institution! How was he qualified to be a leading adviser to Bolivia, or any other country, in 1985? He went straight from high school to Harvard as an undergraduate, immediately followed by M.A. and PhD. in 1980, then associate, assistant and tenured professor all in the span of four years, and never having left the north eastern areas of the U.S.A. (I still can't find the title of his doctoral thesis either.) Compare this to other economists who soldiered away for decades, as econometric journal editors, non-executive economists for corporations and/ or government agencies, college instructors, sojourns at multiple academic posts prior to moving up to the next level, and so forth. Just as you said Dev economist, this is not a personal attack, but rather a matter of policy analysis and its shortcomings; after all, Sachs' rise to prominence required the advocacy of many influential and well-informed decision makers.  --FeralOink (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This article omits the fact that Sachs theories about the underlying and natural existence of the market in all societies. When he was part of the advisors brought in to establish a new socio-economic system in post-soviet Russia (and most of Eastern Europe), he recommended a "shock therapy" by completely deregulating the market overnight as well as privatising large state industries and infrastructures creating a 'spontaneous order'. It quickly became apparent that the neo-liberal idea that the market is a natural aspect of human organisation was wrong. The economic downfall and the long-lasting consequences of Sachs' inspired policies in Russia and Eastern Europe have been disasterous. Sachs' utopian ideal is ridiculous, and is also being repeated in Iraq: the destruction of all pre-existing civil society in order to create a 'spontaneous order' and the result is and will remain, chaos. --Oinj 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Although this last statment is blatantly an opinion on the most part alot of academic literature on the outcomes of his work could be included in the criticism section. Whether 'shock therapy' will work in the long term is a matter of opinion, its instant effects (massive inflation, oligarchs etc.) aren't. - louis


 * While Oinj's remarks are not encyclopedic, (neither are mine ;-) ) they point to the need for more criticism of the "shock therapy" Sachs, as louis says. (There is and was plenty from the left, e.g. Edward S. Herman in Z magazine and elsewhere. and Russia experts at least)  An interesting source is Sachs himself. Sorry to not provide references or any help on the article, but recent things he has said to distance himself from shock therapy and its often catastrophic consequences in Russia and Latin America seem to me to provide a fascinatingly, umm, novel history of the period from the undisputed leader of the shock therapists. John Z 07:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the criticism section to include Sachs' shock therapy actions in Poland, backed by a book from Jane Hardy "Poland's New Capitalism". I felt it offered a look into the issue, and certainly added sorely needed criticism of Sachs' unilateral shock doctrine. This was removed as POV? I'm new to wikipedia editing, but how in the world is that POV, when it's backed by academic sources? Further, the fact that Sachs' is moving away from this shock therapy doctrine which he propagated in foreign countries as a 30 some year old economist speaks volumes of how much leeway we give economists as messiahs of truth. --Matcz 22 (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sachs "savaged" by Easterly?
"'While a hero to many, some economists also view Jeff Sachs’ proposals as dangerously naive. One of his strongest critics is New York University (NYU) Professor of Economics William Easterly who savaged End of Poverty in his review for the Washington Post.'"

Having just now followed the link to the review, I think saying "dangerously naive" and particularly "savaged" are exaggerations. The review is respectful - at times very positive - and hardly "savage". The word "danger" does appear, but not in a way you'd expect, given the sentence in Wikipedia.

To illustrate, let me quote the first and the final two paragraphs of the review, which I think fairly well capture the tone of the review:

"'Jeffrey D. Sachs's guided tour to the poorest regions of the Earth is enthralling and maddening at the same time -- enthralling, because his eloquence and compassion make you care about some very desperate people; maddening, because he offers solutions that range all the way from practical to absurd. It's a shame that Sachs's prescriptions are unconvincing because he is resoundingly right about the tragedy of world poverty. As he puts it, newspapers should (but don't) report every morning, 'More than 20,000 people perished yesterday of extreme poverty...'"

"'...Perhaps we can excuse these allegedly easy-to-achieve dreams as the tactics of a fundraiser for the poor -- someone who's out to galvanize public opinion to back dramatically higher aid abroad. Sachs was born to play the role of fundraiser. And it's easier to feel good about his sometimes simplistic sales pitch for foreign aid if it leads to spending more dollars on desperately poor people, as opposed to, say, wasteful weapons systems.'"

"'The danger is that when the utopian dreams fail (as they will again), the rich-country public will get even more disillusioned about foreign aid. Sachs rightly notes that we need not worry whether the pathetic amount of current U.S. foreign aid -- little more than a 10th of a penny for every dollar of U.S. income -- is wasted. Foreign aid's prospects will brighten only if aid agencies become more accountable for results, and demonstrate to the public that some piecemeal interventions improve the lives of desperate people. So yes, do read Sachs's eloquent descriptions of poverty and his compelling ethical case for the rich to help the poor. Just say no to the Big Plan.'"

Now, is that "savage"?

217.11.197.10


 * So you'd like... "'While a hero to many, some economists also view Jeff Sachs’ proposals as 'simplistic'. One of his strongest critics is New York University (NYU) Professor of Economics William Easterly who criticized End of Poverty as 'unconvincing' and 'absurd' in his review for the Washington Post.'?" Andyvphil 08:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

End of poverty & economics courses
"Sachs book, The End of Poverty, is used in many economics courses. [citation needed]" Don't know about a citation, but it is a core reading on the reading list of the University of York's Developmental Economics course, which I'm taking this semester. - Saluton 02:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

critics/criticisms
Removed the plug for Dambisa Moyo who is certainly not on the same level as Sachs/Easterly and whose view is not relevant for the criticism page. Her main contribution to the debate on development aid (her book) has been blasted by a number of (notable) publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.146 (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

i would suggest referencing author Naomi Klein as a critic of Sachs' work, she strongly criticises his views on sweatshops in her book 'no logo', quoting him as saying "my concern is not that there are too many sweatshops but that there are too few...those are precisely the sort of jobs that were the stepping stones for singapore and hong kong and those are the sort of jobs that have to come to africa to get them out of back-breaking rural poverty"- her criticism of these views is that, "development built on starvation wages, far from kickstarting a steady improvement in conditions, has proved to be a case of one step forward, three steps back", and that (if i interpret the book correctly) sweatshops opening up can cause food shortages as the promise of factory work lures people from farming. further (as i understand chapter 9 of the book) she claims that human rights abuses in factories and sucessful methods to subvert minimum wage laws and national tax policy in fact inhibit sustainable development.

can anyone provide clarification here- im not sure whether this would be relevant or if i have fully understood either Sachs' or Klein's point of view

78.146.209.39 13:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Klein's analysis really stands up. First, The point is that people wouldn't work in a factory unless they had nothing   better to do. A large part of the end of poverty is devoted to agricultural producitivity and problems of hunger. As western countries have gotten rich the proportion of people working in farming has fallen drastically. Those socieities now have problems of overeating rather than hunger. Second, Sachs is not the first to make this point. Third, there is enough debate about Sachs' own theories to discuss here. Fourthly, Klein isn't an economist and Sachs has more respected critics than her. AleXd (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Klein is a self-educated economist and well-informed in the subjects she discusses -- (her book No Logo on branding and marketing is far superior to the average Ph.D. thesis granted in commerce and marketing) as are many other journalists -- e.g. Linda McQuaig (Behind Closed Doors, ca. 1987, subsequently The Wealthy Banker's Wife, Shooting the Hippo, The Cult of Impotence), Connie Bruck (The Predators Ball, ca. 1990, and Doug Henwood (Wall Street, 1997, After the New Economy, 2003, and "Left Business Observer"). The appeal to credentialism in economics is particularly disingenuous  and/or pernicious because much of economic theory is ideological propaganda -- Klein's very point in Shock Doctrine (and in McQuaig's books) -- or even just plain wrong, if you read Herbert Simon (e.g. An Empirically-Based Micro-economics, ca. 1997)  I'd also note some advice from the preface of John Ziman's Advanced Quantum Theory that if you really want to learn a subject, don't read books in the subject, write them!

137.82.188.68 (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nov. 2011: I just read this page for the first time and was surprised that Kleins criticisms were not covered; especially in Shock Doctrine. I suspect both of her two books which criticize Sachs have been read by more people than any of the other critics mentioned here. Her arguments are now widely respected, and as time goes by it becomes increasingly evident that they are correct. That Sachs seems to have become more Keynesian and less Friedman-ian since his his recommendations in Bolivia and Poland (i.e. more in agreement with Klein) is no reason for ignoring his leading critic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbartas (talk • contribs) 17:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

_______________

I would suggest Dr. Micheal Hudson as an economist who's analysis of Mr. Sachs work stands up to criticism.

Debtor Nation - The Hijacking of America’s Economy

Tainted Transactions - an exchange

~17 min mark

WjtWeston (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

criticism: quantify
In the 'Criticism' section, the phrase "massively scaled-up foreign aid" is used (and later, "large", etc.) Presumably (?) this refers to the earlier statement "from the $65 billion level of 2002 to $195 billion a year by 2015". A typical reader has absolutely no sense of what is or is not a "large" number when they see values in the billions. "Large" compared to what? (Other countries aid? Emergency aid/intervention? Farm subsidies? Per-capita soda consumption?) Is there a good reference page to link to here with such information? In order to have any meaning at all to a reader, numbers in the billions need to be compared to something else. (Preferably normalized per-capita, inflation adjusted, etc.) DKEdwards 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * what about "double" the foreign aid payements? I think he claims that by himself, indeed because it is more catchy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.10.252 (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re-organisation of article
I think this article is long enough to warrant some better organisation and categories.

Firstly, make his biography part less a discussion of his work and more a factual description of his life until he became well known. A sub-section can deal with his academic career. A seperate section should be created for his work as advisor and consultant to governments, since this is a major part of his work and there are criticisms of it.

The criticisms section rambles a bit, it would be nice if it could be synthesised into four or so subsections. Perhaps they could be grouped thematically for instance Sachs is distinctive because of his emphasis on the role of physical geography as a determinant of poverty, his work on the economics of health and disease prevention and his arguments for a big increase in foreign aid to LDCs. It hink this would be superior to a grab bag of individuals who have criticised him or his work in the past. General criticism of liberal economics don't really belong here as they have a certain consensus in the profession. Unless you're going to insert them into the article of every mainstream economist.AleXd (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

- Somebody really should write more about his role in Russia's voucher privatization. Russian Minister of that time is Anatoli Chubais also used the term "shock therapy" during advertisement of this privatization method. Chubais is now a rich man himself together with a handful of so called oligarchs while the population still lives in poverty. I think this is too important to be left out in this article. People shouldn't praise this "prodigy" without accepting that he failed pretty hard in russia. 30 May 2008

Sachs work in Russia is conspicious in it's absense, and some users seem intent on removing it from "Criticisms". I reinstated it and asked for debate. Without criticism of the results of Sachs shock doctrine the happenings in Russia seems left at he was there, helped and got a medal. Some users have noted that this makes the entire article read like a straight up PR piece. If this bit needs clearing out it should be discussed here, but removal without a clear reason or discussion seems like a distortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.123.129.198 (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely undue weight now, as is all of the criticism section. Find more and better sources. Re-write it so it focuses on Sachs. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is currently three paragraphs in the criticisms section. The first covers criticism of Sachs case for continued aid to developing countries and the second is about the milennium goals for aid being hard to meassure. Only the third covers the major failings of Sachs policy advice in Russia. So if we're talking about undue weight and the two first paragraphs covers aid and the third something else, why is it the third that is removed? This makes no sense. As for the content I don't find it to be so bad enough to remove. There certainly is more to be said, but it is hardly an insignificant criticism, and the sources are to my knowledge ok. The bottom line is anyhow that the article will be directly misleading if the only thing it says about Sachs involvement in restructuring the russian economy is that he got a medal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.123.129.198 (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've repeatedly indicated, there are problems with all three paragraphs. Discussion below. --Ronz (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The new picture
I can't believe it. I went to this page half an hour ago. The pic was awful. I wrote an email to several people at Columbia telling them of the disgraceful photo. Half an hour later (two blows of a user's horn): BAM! new photo. Those guys can really move. I have been trying for a week to get a decent pic of Kamilo Beach from left wing eco-hippies at different orgs. 2 out of 20 wrote back. Way to go Columbia University!!!!

Oh, and while I'm soapboxing: Why is Sachs not President? The current leader (of earth) is the polar opposite. What's wrong with this planet? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

How much more useless could this article get
90% of Sachs' career has been implementing and advocating for quick neoliberal restructuring of developing economies. The last few years he goes off on a tear about foreign aid, and that gets 90% of the article. This is a PR piece, not an encyclopedia article. 98.204.59.229 (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Another embarrassing, probably PR firm influenced, non-encyclopedic entry.Haberstr (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Too much like an advertisement. Farmanesh (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

Poverty Alleviation
In his book "The End of Poverty", 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."

School/tradition
I am going to restore "Keynesian economics." See my comment here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to repeat and elaborate here on your comments there. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * No objection. That is why I did not include any references to New Keynesianism in the article. I only included what the source says. --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

External links modified
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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.broadbandcommission.org/commissioners.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106055431/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19900601faessay5998/jeffrey-sachs-david-lipton/poland-s-economic-reform.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19900601faessay5998/jeffrey-sachs-david-lipton/poland-s-economic-reform.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uncdf.org/english/microfinance/pubs/newsletter/pages/2005_04/news_sachs.php
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6U68ulwpb?url=http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/LST-PDAWD-2013.pdf to http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/LST-PDAWD-2013.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/File/Sachs%20long%20bio%20July%202008.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131027004615/http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story008/en/index.html to http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story008/en/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.snvworld.org/en/aboutus/news/Pages/NewsPage0907001.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/05/06/23651/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120725234903/http://blogs.bryant.edu/newsroom/?p=1114 to http://blogs.bryant.edu/newsroom/?p=1114

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

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)


 * 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.

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

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.

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


 * 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)

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

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

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)
 * 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)
 * Taking it point by point:
 * 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.
 * The Vice article appears to be a reliable source and contains information that in my judgement is relevant to the article here.
 * In addition to being unattributed, those quotations are too short to be meaningful. I suggest they be rewritten to paraphrase from the Vice source.
 * 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)
 * It's also worth pinging, who originally added this information to the article. Ibadibam (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Thank you for the clarification. The cited article was vague as to what was alleged and what was denied. I hope is more faithful both to the source and to the known facts of the matter. Ibadibam (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much User:Ibadibam! Your assistance is always greatly appreciated. LeepKendall (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

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.

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)
 * Start with independent sources that are clearly not announcements. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response User:Hipal. I think this source should do the trick.


 * Best LeepKendall (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.


 * 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. A 2019 lawsuit against Mount Sinai and several of its staff for age and sex discrimination alleged that the fellowship paid US$1 million per year and was procured for Sachs by director Prabhjot Singh (named in the lawsuit and a partner of Sachs), which Sachs denies.


 * As always, I appreciate your guidance and assistance. Thanks much! LeepKendall (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Without a better source, this is simply promotion. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I suggest making new requests with a far better sources. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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? 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Could you clarify the problems with the sources included so far? Ibadibam (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * As I said, we need better sources and rewrites based upon them. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Good find! --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 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¡ore talk 23:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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:
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Is any of this based on policy BLP, NOT, POV, OR. --Hipal (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Let's pull The National Review and The Washington Free Beacon completely to start. --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Also merged the two "China" subsections. Normchou   💬 16:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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