Talk:Jeffrey Sachs

Nordstream pipeline

Here's a better ref, though it would probably be best to wait for more to avoid NOTNEWS: https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/us-professor-hauled-off-air-over-nord-stream-pipeline-accusation/news-story/ce9349858e3bcfa63299d1c58d085e74 --Hipal (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I have added that back using this ref (and reworked the text a bit). It's also worth keeping in mind that this was based on a broadcast by Bloomberg, another RS. Regards, HaeB (talk)

...broadcast by... Exactly. NOTNEWS.

And let's not use poor references, please. This is a BLP. Let's not waste time with such trivial problems. --Hipal (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems due to me, feature piece indicates lasting impact. I also don't see how this is trivial, we always take fringe claims seriously (especially when made by people who are experts in other fields) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

this is far from a fringe theory unless you are new to how our American intel agencies work. 2605:A601:A5C9:7E00:A55A:6819:EA8E:23A7 (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Hipal: You mention BLP and POV problems in your edit summary [1] but you haven't mentioned anything about those here. Can you explain the individual BLP and POV problems? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

BLP requires that all content policies be followed strictly. I've not checked news coverage today, but so far this is a RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, and FRINGE situation. Sachs seems to using the situation for simple publicity, echoing Russian propaganda. We're not here to simply echo that publicity attempt.

We won't know if this is really due or not for months or longer. Idle speculation isn't encyclopedic information, especially on something as important as this pipeline. --Hipal (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

So what are the BLP and POV problems in the article? Mentioning more BOLD TEXT doesn't do you any good, now you need to explain both... Such as how FRINGE supports your argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't understand. Sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

What is the POV problem? You haven't mentioned POV once here outside of the edit summaries. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, UNDUE, FRINGE. Those are all POV problems. --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

And what exactly are the problems with each of those? Be precise, you need to provide the exact text and then specific reasoning for why a problem exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. The burden is on those seeking inclusion, not the other way around. --Hipal (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The statement "Sachs has suggested that the U.S. was responsible for the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline. In February 2023, he was invited by the Russian government to address the United Nations Security Council about the topic" cites a Washington Post article that covers the aforementioned UNSC meeting. With that said, the article describes Sachs as saying:

"The destruction of the pipelines 'required a very high degree of planning, expertise and technological capacity,” and to do so in the exclusive economic zones of Denmark and Sweden 'adds greatly to the complexity of the operation.' Only a handful of state level actors have both the technical capacity and access to the Baltic Sea to have carried out this action including the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, Poland, Norway, Germany, Denmark and Sweden, either individually or in some combination,' Sachs said. “Ukraine lacks the necessary technologies as well as access to the Baltic Sea.'"

This is not an accusation that the US sabotaged the Nord Stream pipeline, as the current article maintains, but a general statement about what parties are capable of doing so. If Sachs has made direct accusations of the US sabotaging the pipeline in other articles or interviews, I think they are more suited to support this claim, as much of the article's descriptions of Sachs's views on Ukraine appear heavily editorialized, if not confabulated. Die Kunst Der Fuge (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I trimmed back the content for the reasons given and think the remaining content is questionable for the same reasons. I wouldn't object to to the current content being removed completely.

As far as including "echoing a Russian government claim", I think it's the main encyclopedic context we have. Otherwise, I don't see how it's important to mention in a biography about Sachs at all: He's not saying anything original, nor an expert. It does parallel what he's done (and has been criticized for) in other sections of this article (eg China, Venezuela, and COVID-19) --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal The inclusion of the "Ukraine, Nordstream pipeline" section with "echoing a Russian government claim" as the only context given also suggests POV, since Sachs' speculation was apparently based on radar tracking and US government public statements. It has the appearance of the recently prevalent "Kremlin-sympathizer" smear POV, i.e., association fallacy. I too would support complete removal of the section or retaining a more complete summary like that found in 19:33, 18 October 2022‎ 158.82.159.130 (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Do the current references support your viewpoints? --Hipal (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the proper NPOV context given in the referenced article is this: "Prof Sachs said radars detecting US helicopters in the area, coupled with key statements made by the White House regarding Russia’s stranglehold on European energy supplies, led him to make the conclusion." I added that summary from the article nearly verbatim here: 19:33, 18 October 2022‎. You rolled it back on the grounds of SOAP, which was incorrect, and UNDUE (which I assume you mean regarding his comments as a whole, which is at least debatable). That his speculation in any way "echoes a Russian government claim" suggests a POV, guilt by association, which is contrary to BLP policy. His "speculation" should either stand alone or on the merits Sachs gave, or it should not be included. 158.82.159.130 (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

How do the references support your viewpoints? --Hipal (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This was asked and answered above. WP:BLPN if you disagree with the explanation. 68.82.180.144 (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This simply looks like personal opinion, which will not impact consensus in any way. --Hipal (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The burden is on you to demonstrate WP:NPOV when including the editorial ad hominem (e.g., association fallacy) "echoing claims by the Russian and Chinese governments" in the context of public statements made by BLP. NPOV requires the absence of editorial bias. You removed the broader context Sachs gave for his "speculation" while retaining the aforementioned red-herring. I believe you are demonstrating clear editorial bias. Yes, that is my strong "opinion". Now you may argue those points on the merits, you may not simply dismiss those concerns. 158.82.159.130 (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any further coverage of the topic by reliable sources. --Hipal (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

VOA's fact checking outlet did a piece [2] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I took a slightly closer look at the reporting. In Germany, Switserland, Austria there seems to be a broad coverage in newspapers and news media on Jeffrey Sachs's interview at Bloomberg and his opinion/accusation of the US with regard to the pipeline leaks. In English speakiung countries there coverage seems much less broad and mostly restricted to yellow press and rightwing new outlets. I added now 2 reputable German speaking sources now. The original interview on Bloomberg can be seen here: [3]. All in all the amount coverage definitely surpasses the threshold to make it notable information for our article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the two original refs, removed against consensus, along with the context from them. The new refs look inferior, though I'm unable to access a full copy of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, and am having difficulties translating it. --Hipal (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, there is no "consensus" on your injection of the notion that Sachs is "echoing" the Russians or any other gov't. It is out of context and a red herring insertion, therefore POV. See WP:BLPN 68.82.180.144 (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused now about the current point of contention. The "echoing" part is not in the article anymore and the current text is just factual descripting of what Sachs has now stated in several interviews (in particular in the Bloomberg one). All the 3 sources are currently German, one being a soso newspaper (Berliner Zeitung), the other two being papers of record in German speaking countries (Zeit, NZZ), so roughly comparable to the NYT, WAPO Atlatic or New Yorker in the US setting (Zeit is actually a weekly paper). If there is proper English source I'd suggest to simply add it to the existing one. The Bloomberg interview might be a good choice, but I couldn't find an online copy of which I was convinced that there was no potential copyright issue.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Apparently the text has changed again while I was posting. I removed the "echoing"-part again, because that is really backed by acceüptable sources and seems more of an editorial comment by a Wikipedian. Note the polygraph.info thing doesn't meet WP sourcing standard hence I removed that as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Good edit @Kmhkmh.

@Horse Eye's Back and @Hipal appear to be intent on retaining the POV red-herring "echoing claims by the Russian and Chinese governments". @Hipal has claimed a WP:CONSENSUS without advocating the merits of this particular point on this talk page or in their edit comments. Multiple users have argued against the neutrality of this additional "context" and correctly identified it as an ad hominem. BLP must remain unquestionably NPOV! 158.82.159.130 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The ip's personal opinions are irrelevant, not being backed in policy or the references. The attacks on editors may result in a block.

I'm concerned that editors are not reading this discussion.

I did some quick checking at RSN before I first added the polygraph.info ref, and it seems to be ok. Why was the it removed?

Each English reference verifies the "echoing" portion, correct? --Hipal (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

IP, something tells me that while you know what the acronym NPOV stands for you don't actually understand what that term of art means in the specific context of wikipedia. You can learn about that specific context by reading WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, NPOV requires the absence of editorial bias. The burden is on you to demonstrate WP:NPOV when including editorial ad hominem (e.g., association fallacy) like the comment in question: "...echoing claims by the Russian and Chinese governments" in the context of public statements made by BLP. (Your latest ad hominem toward me is certainly not helping your NPOV case either.)

A broader context that Sachs himself gave for his "speculation" directly from the cited news.com.au article was removed, while the aforementioned red-herring was retained (also not discussed in the original tv interview segment). This is not proportionate and has the appearance of editorial bias.

To reach WP:CONSENSUS, you may argue your position on the merits, but you may not simply dismiss those concerns. 158.82.159.130 (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Your latest ad hominem toward me Another page you should read, beside WP:NPOV, is argumentum ad hominem. Neither Hipal nor HEB used any. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Hob Gadling, welcome to the discussion. To briefly recap:

- "Sachs speculated that the U.S. and maybe Poland were responsible for the 2022 Nord Stream gas leaks." This is neutral as written. (Note, I neither agree nor disagree with Sachs' views, to be clear).

The reasoning he provided in these public comments were "radar detection of US helicopters in the area" and "statements made by the White House". "Claims by the Russian or Chinese governments" were never invoked in his comments and no evidence has been provided that he was "echoing" their claims, so how is it germane and NPOV to include? Do any/all references to editorial commentary qualify for inclusion in an encyclopedia entry, on a BLP no less? The inclusion of "echoing claims by the Russian or Chinese governments" has had implications of political POV in minds of several users, and so it is not merely my "personal opinion". NPOV is "non-negotiable". I have supported my position on the merits. The burden is supposed to be on those seeking inclusion.

- Nothing to be gained by rehashing prior ad hominem on my character - Let's make our respective cases, and do our best to address each others' concerns. 158.82.159.130 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you are telling me all this. It looks like a red herring, diverting attention from your false accusation of ad hominem, which was my point. I was just trying to tell you you should keep your discussion style clean.

Also, no need to ping me. I have a watchlist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

So POV editing against a person in an article that discredits their character without actually proving they were echoing Russia or China instead of independently reaching the same conclusion is not Ad Hominem? GustavaKomurov (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

This was about your claim Your latest ad hominem toward me. Unless you are Jeffrey Sachs, you have changed the subject and made up a strawman argument. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I brought this up weeks ago at the pipeline article and said the echoing "material" should be left out. There needs to be consensus for inclusion for it to be added here and I am not seeing it now, but that can change of course. More eyes would be welcome --Malerooster (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Editors are ignoring references, ignoring good-faith questions about policy, and harassing editors. That doesn't create consensus, and those comments should be ignored when determining what the policy-based consensus actually is. --Hipal (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

If you provide a reference to POV commentary, it doesn't cease to be POV commentary. Let's make our respective cases on the merits of the specific content being discussed, and do our best to address each others' concerns. 158.82.159.130 (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it all per the policies identified in the Oct 4-6 portions of this discussion. --Hipal (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

And Oct 7. --Hipal (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's get the references figured out

Let's get all the references figured out.

Per WP:NONENG, I'm requesting proper translations of the new, non-English references, and explanations for why they are superior to the two English refs that were originally removed, of which one remains.

I've asked for an explanation for why the polygraph.info was removed, without response. It seems ok from what I see at RSN. What am I missing?

• Blair, Alex (2022-10-05). "US professor hauled off air over Nord Stream pipeline accusation". news.com.au.
• Zhang, Legu (2022-10-07). "China Lets Nord Stream Sabotage Gossip Run Wild". POLYGRAPH.info.
• Pecatore, Lia (2022-10-18). "Nord-Stream-Lecks: kaum Fakten, dafür umso wildere Spekulationen". Neue Zürcher Zeitung.
• Kotlyarova, Liudmila (2022-10-06). "Exklusiv – Jeffrey Sachs im Gespräch: Aus diesem Grund wurde Nord Stream wohl zerstört". Berliner Zeitung.

Above are the four refs. --Hipal (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I already stated above, why polygraph.info should not be used and i also explained the reason for the non-English sources above. So as a reminder in particular with disputed content WP is required to to use highly reputed and reliable sources only. I don't see how polygraph.info fulfills that. The NZZ and ZEit are among the most reputables newspapers in German speaking countries and should hence be preferred unless we've get an English source of similar quality & reputation. This is neither the case for news au nor polygraph, though new.au might be acceptable as a source still.

To get the general idea of the content of those German newspapers you can use google translate. If you need a human and exact translation of a particular phrase, sentence or paragraph, I'm happy to do that for you. In general all 3 three German newsüapers report on the Sachs interview and that he sees the US as the most likely perpetrator of the pipeline attack (and with newspapers themselves being partially critical of that idea).

As for the content of the WP article, the only thing really disputing here, was the "echoing"-part, which in addition wasn't properly sourced due to relying on the polygraph.info source. And even with that source it imho still smacks a bit on an (inappropriate) editorisl comment by a Wikipedian. So why don't we simply stick to a (literal) description of what Sachs has said without any additional commenting on it. That at least seems the easiest and obvious solution to me and it looks a bit ridiculous to me, if we're now removing and adding the whole section, while there is only one line in it, which is a point of contention and the rest of the section being undisputed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Note the polygraph.info thing doesn't meet WP sourcing standard hence I removed that as well I don't see how polygraph.info fulfills that. Please explain. What makes you believe it should not be used? As I said, I looked. I found Polygraph.info, 53 uses in articles (including BLP articles under sanctions like this one), no deletion discussions where it's mentioned, no RSN discussions where it's mentioned, no other noticeboard discussions where it's mentioned. We can always take it to RSN, but some sort of explanation is needed.

Will you follow NONENG or not? I cannot make out the full context of those two refs. I wrote, I'm unable to access a full copy of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, and am having difficulties translating it. I'm also uncertain of the auto-translate of the other: It appears to be an interview, but I'm uncertain if that's the case, and it's unclear what are Sachs' words and opinions vs those of the author. I'm unable to determine if either is an opinion piece or something similar.

As for the content of the WP article, the only thing really disputing here No. It appears you've not read the discussion between Oct 4 and 6. Apologies for not pointing Oct 7 as well where I wrote I wouldn't object to to the current content being removed completely. As far as including "echoing a Russian government claim", I think it's the main encyclopedic context we have. Otherwise, I don't see how it's important to mention in a biography about Sachs at all --Hipal (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "will you follow NONENG", I did exactly what the policy suggests (the quality/reputation of the source being more important than the language). As I said abobe all three are basically reporting on Sachs interview. I'm not sure why you can't assess the full NZZ article (it's free), but if you provide your email address i can send you a (private) copy or you can request a copy at WP:RX.

With regard polygraph.info: It being used elsewhere on accasion isn't really an argument for it, as a lot of sources can be found in WP which according to policy should not be used, that is simply the consequence of wikipedia being an open project. Looking at polygraph.info , you might polemically speaking y consider it as US government propaganda. It seems to a fact checking site of low reputation belonging Voice of America (not a really great source either). As far as appropriate sources for disputed content are concerned, they would need to be independent news outlets with good reputation for overall reliable and correct reporting (papers of record). If you disagree with my assessment of polygraph.info you can request an assessment by other (uninvolved) wikipedians here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

With regard to Sachs exact words not being unclear. The Bloomberg interview is available on youtube (i provided a link above, the NZZ article contains another), so there you can see Sachs's own words verbatim.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

As for mentioning Sachs opinion at all. Yes I only browsed the earlier discussion superficially and apparently missed that point of contention. I agree that his particular opinion on the pipeline attack isn't necessary in this encyclopedic article and thus i have no objection against its removal. However you could make the same argument for Sachs (controversial?) opinion on Ukraine or Syria and maybe even others. This begs why mentonioning those but not the pipeline?

But with regard to describing disputed(political) views of Sachs more generally, it seems to article has the somewhat unfortunate tendency of describing a lot of controversial assessments or opinion by Sachs and then presenting a different assessment (being slightly suggestive of being the correct one). One can see that as a rather subtle spin, that should be avoided. It might be a good idea to outsource all that into a separate article, where those can be covered in more detail and depth beyond single different opinions.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

NONENG: Yes, I'm asking for a translation. You can use my account email ("Email this user"). Thank you.

Thank you for your explanation for polygraph.info. I don't know why you chose to repeat back to me that RSN would be the next step. Again, it appears you aren't reading what I'm writing.

With regard to Sachs exact words not being unclear I don't know what you're referring to. I'm concerned you still don't understand the implications of the policies that have been brought up. We don't care about Sachs' exact words. We should care about what the best references indicate as important about him, in this case having to do with his statements about the Nord Stream gas leaks.

This begs why mentonioning those but not the pipeline? I assume that the information is well referenced, so the multiple policy problems are not of concern.

One can see that as a rather subtle spin Unless it's properly supported by the references, which is what I'm assuming. This article is not a soapbox for Sachs' statements, but rather an encyclopedia about Sachs written from what high quality sources say about him.

i have no objection against its removal We could end there. --Hipal (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Well let's end it here then. I email you a copy of the NZZ article and please try google translate first and if needed I can translate specific section later. I don't want to waste time on translating the whole article if most likely nothing comes of it anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the email and agreeing to end it. --Hipal (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Political endorsements

In general, political endorsements are WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM without high-quality, independent, in-depth references that clearly indicate why the endorsements are important to the subject's life. --Hipal (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson Interview

It is imperative his knowledge of post Cold War NATO, specifically American foreign policy. He offers a level of truth backed by historical events. Americans should know what generations of our leaders have been up too. This interview is Gold and should be covered in the article. 2605:A601:A5C9:7E00:A55A:6819:EA8E:23A7 (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Unlikely, given Wikipedia's content policies. --Hipal (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible secondary source:

• Dunda, Oleg (2024-06-19). "From economist to Kremlin mouthpiece: The troubling transformation of Jeffrey Sachs". The Hill. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

That's clearly identified as an opinion article, so not usable. --Hipal (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Description of Robert F Kennedy Jr

Wikipedia power-users repeatedly undo the edits of common users to protect comments that are pejorative or reputation savaging. In this article, the description of Robert F Kennedy jr as a "conspiracy theorist", various wikipedia users have changed the language to a more neutral tone, and wikipedia power users continuously revert the edits to preserve the pejorative, reputation savaging commentary. Why is this the case?203.158.50.190 (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid focusing on editors.

The reference and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. support the description. --Hipal (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Views on Syria and Assad

A user named Burrobert modified a section that I added on Sachs and Syria. I added a section based on a New Yorker interview in which Sachs replied that he was not aware of violence against the Syrian population committed by Bashar Al-Assad, even though it is extremely well documented and widely accepted that such violence happened. Said user added an evasive quote from the article in which Sachs claims to have special knowledge of the situation. This does not in any way change the fact that he denied knowing anything about human rights abuses committed by the Syrian state, and this quote was placed there merely to mislead the reader. Contributors to this page should avoid spreading Assadist propaganda and stick to the facts. Gandalf 1892 (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not a political forum. Let's discuss the source. The meaning of the "No" answer is ambiguous. The most likely interpretation in my opinion is that Sach's disagreed with the premise of the question. Including the "No" and the follow up reply gives readers a more complete view of his meaning. Burrobert (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There is propaganda going both ways. The West is flooded with anti-Assadist Propaganda, and Assadist Propaganda until recently was part of much of Syrian sources. Did you ever consider finding a source that doesn't quote either side? GustavaKomurov (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

We don't know your personal criteria for what constitutes "anti-Assadist Propaganda", and we are using WP:RS instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Changes in the article

As Hipal has asked me to describe the intended changes, I can briefly say that I see some necessity for additional information on Sachs's childhood and upbringing, his cooperation with the Vatican, his bestsellers and the main reviews of them. In addition to that, some info must be updated. I would also like to check some of the sources, and look for better ones for the same information. I do not understand, though, why a text based on reputable sources has been reverted completely.

American Exceptionalism

In his 2018 publication A New Foreign Policy. Beyond American Exceptionalism, Sachs argues that the self-perception of the USA as an exceptional nation in the 20th century, which he sees as anachronistic, led to a series of foreign policy mistakes such as wars, regime changes and sanctions regimes. In view of the relative loss of importance of the United States on a global scale in terms of trade, industrial production and population share, Sachs warns American foreign policy not to isolate itself any further. For him, the "New Silk Road" and the Global Energy Interconnection Cooperation and Development initiative are examples of successful international cooperation for mutual benefit. Russia's transformation in the 1990s had not been appreciated by the United States, which had not helped with the transformation difficulties of the Russian economy. In addition, the expansion of NATO is another root cause of the conflict between the USA and Russia. Instead, the USA should become more involved in the United Nations, ratify outstanding conventions and rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement, increase development aid and adapt migration to the economic needs of the country.

According to Gideon Rachman's review (Financial Times), Sachs presents exceptionalism as the defining feature of the American approach to the world in the 20th century, to which Trump's "America First" ideology has added xenophobia, racism and protectionism. He sees Sachs' argument as a rejection of the assumption that America has acted as a force for good in the world. Sachs insists on the global nature of humanity's problems and therefore calls for a new commitment to the UN, climate, diseases and refugees. Rachmann sees the major flaw in his approach in the fact that he takes a harsh and skeptical view of US foreign policy, but fails to do so with regard to Russia and China. He largely believes the Russian account of the wars in Ukraine and Syria and "ignores not only the views of political decision-makers in Washington, but also those of Central European countries, the Syrian opposition and most of Syria's neighbors". He is similarly uncritical of President Xi Jinping's speeches to the Communist Party Congress in Beijing in 2017.

John Glaser (Cato Institute) sees the thesis of Sachs' "foreign policy treatise for laymen" in the fact that the self-righteous idea of being above the law, of being allowed to establish and break it, has driven US foreign policy to the extremes of international hypocrisy and relentless military interventionism. As a result, resources have been wasted, new enemies created and opportunities for peaceful cooperation missed. Glaser sees simplifications, polemics and a lack of nuance in Sachs' account, but the general thrust of Sachs' argument is both reasonable and convincing. The reviewer refers to Sachs' criticism of NATO expansion, the Iraq war and the intervention in Libya, breaches of international norms and the termination of disarmament agreements. Sachs regards the alleged threat from China and Russia as a self-fulfilling prophecy. In order to keep the USA out of a new war, the CIA would have to be restructured and Congress would have to restore its authority to decide on war and peace. According to Glaser, both Sachs' diagnosis and his prescription fit well into an evolving debate on the future of US grand strategy, in which restraint and diplomacy are important.

In her 2019 review, Anton Peez from the London School of Economics and Politica Science recurs to the definition of exceptionalism as being "‘the inherent right to make and break the international rules of the road’ – a notion of which ‘America First’ is a racist and populist variant". In foreign affairs, Peez finds Sachs's "lens of the security dilemma" helpful to argue that "‘what looks like an offensive action to [the US] may be a state’s attempt to defend itself’". However, he urges Sachs to apply the human rights standards he rightly applies to the US to Russia and China as well.

Kind regards, -- Gabel1960 (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Thank you for starting a discussion.

At least three sanction areas apply to the subject matter. We need to be extremely careful to meet the highest standards of content policies. See WP:AC/CT.

At a glance, if we have nothing but book reviews to draw upon, then it probably doesn't deserve much mention. See WP:RECENTISM.

Self-published references are inappropriate in a BLP article. See WP:BLPSPS.

The amount of detail seems rather grossly WP:UNDUE, even if the references were of far higher quality. --Hipal (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Dear Hipal, thanks for your answer. I am also aiming at the highest standards, yet I wonder why my contributions are measured by them, wheras lots of the other contents in the article do not meet the standards at all. As to WP: UNDUE, the rules say "How much detail is required depends on the subject." This is a biographical article, not a political articel. Sachs's views are relevant, even if he, as a scientist, might present a minority view. Books, especially bestsellers, as part of a person's biography, seem noteworthy, and reviews by the NYT or other quality papers seem relevant enough. Kind regards, -- Gabel1960 (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

He is not a scientist, he is an economist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I am very sorry, but economics is a social science, and he was a world-renowned economics professor. Here is a list of his research work. Kind regards,--Gabel1960 (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Who says Sach's views are relevant? --Hipal (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Just look at google scholar's statistics. 84.153.22.28 (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Please provide potential references that clearly meet BLP-quality standards. --Hipal (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

About Sachs's views on sustainable development: Kahn, Matthew E. “A Review of ‘The Age of Sustainable Development’ by Jeffrey Sachs.” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 53, no. 3, 2015, pp. 654–66. --Gabel1960 (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. RECENTISM still applies, but to a small degree. I do not have access to the journal article. The author appears to be a very reputable economics professor. Judging by the number of pages, I assume it is an in-depth overview of the book.

What content for this article do you propose based on this source? --Hipal (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I would add the main contents of the review. Gabel1960 (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Addition of Sach's views on the Ukraine War

Why was this reverted?:

--In 2024, in an interview with the South China Morning Post, Sachs shared his belief that the War in Ukraine was caused by "the US push since the 1990s to enlarge NATO to Ukraine and Georgia with the goal of surrounding Russia in the Black Sea."

Sachs himself gave an interview with the South China Morning Post and these are his words, this article was published today. Considering other points in that section are from 2022, would it not make sense to add a point from 2024 reinforcing that he holds this view? I can't understand why this wouldn't be included in the article. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Because it is an interview, which demonstrates no WP:WEIGHT alone, is a poor source per WP:BLPPRIMARY, and can be taken as soapboxing. --Hipal (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to get a second opinion on this, as this does not make sense. We have a source, an interview, from the South China Morning Post giving his opinion on the Ukraine War and who he believes is responsible for it. I believe this is relevant to the section in the article, as it is an up-to-date belief of his, the last point in the section was in 2022. To dismiss it completely because it's an interview seems incorrect to me -- as these are quite literally his words, his thoughts. How does this not demonstrate weight? Is it undue weight, why would it be, he stated his opinion? I disagree with an interview being a poor source, in this case, again, he is quite literally stating his belief. Soapboxing doesn't make sense to me either -- this is related to the Ukraine War, which has its section in the article, and his belief as to who is resposible for it. I would consider it beneficial for the article to have this up-to-date opinion here. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, actually, I think I understand now. So because this an interview, and I was pretty much quoting Sachs directly from it, that does not meet WP:N? LittleCuteSuit (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Not exactly. When it comes to what content to include in articles, the main policies are WP:NOT and WP:POV. WP:N is a guideline that applies to article topics, but it parallels the policies, just at the level of article topics. --Hipal (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand now -- thanks. Sometimes it can be a bit confusing with these policies, but I will try to understand them better. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad that clarified the policies for you. I often find them to be very confusing. --Hipal (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#"Primary" does not mean "bad"

• An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary^‡ source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements. Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name.

I wouldn't listen to Hipal, they cherry pick what portions of the Wiki policies they like to quote at any one point while ignoring others that contradict what they claim. GustavaKomurov (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Please explain why Hipal undid the changes on 16:25, 4 September 2024‎. The changes had expressed Sachs' views about the war in Ukraine (why Sachs thinks the West is partially responsible for the war). It is important for understanding Sach's controversial views that those views be expressed. Not expressing them at all lowers the value of the article. The removal was done without clear justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkerFeeler (talk • contribs)

My apologies for not noticing this comment.

This article is about Sachs, not a soapbox for his views. --Hipal (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

How is it a soapbox to merely mention Sachs' own view on a subject? GustavaKomurov (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Tendentious tone in lede

For me, mention of "scrutiny from critics" over a specific item in the summary (top) portion of the article registers strongly as tendentious. @Hipal I was surprised to see my removal of that bit reverted, as I do think it is out of place.

Being "the subject of a book" is all right with me, though again, for me not in that section. Not knowing anything about the book, it is hard for me to judge where that mention might best go.

I have never had an edit simply reverted, though an effort to remove a small article did get backed out. And is it really courteous for you to flat as vandalism an edit submitted with a meaningful comment?? What should I take as criteria for vandalism? Thank you. Crisperdue (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Best WP:FOC and drop any discussion of vandalism or the like.

The lede summarizes the article body.

WP:CSECTION highlights that it is ...best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. --Hipal (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

We agree that the lead section should summarize. In reading and writing, the emphasis on neutral tone and basic facts (in the lead section) are key from my point of view. Still, Jeffrey Sachs seems to have been the focus of multiple controversies. How about substituting a general mention of controversy for this specific item? Crisperdue (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe we could move on to what the references say in regard to Sachs and the relevant projects and organizations. --Hipal (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I will leave it to others to move forward on this topic. For me, the specifics

of that particular sentence just seemed significantly out of place. Crisperdue (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Digging into the history: It was added here by a SPA ip, likely a fan/COI of Munk. I've trimmed it a bit, moving the ref here for evaluation. --Hipal (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Duff-Brown, Beth (April 20, 2018). "The fog of development: Evaluating the Millennium Villages Project". Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). Stanford University. Archived from the original on January 16, 2022. Retrieved December 28, 2021.

Critical reception section

Per WP:CSECTION, this should be worked into the rest of the article instead of having its own ghetto section. "China" and "War in Ukraine" can go directly into the corresponding sections above. I don't know what to do with the "Economics" part. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Please make unambiguous

In "he criticized Daszak", "he" should be replaced by the name of who criticized Daszak. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Interview on foreign policy 16. Dec. 2024

I disagree with the deletion rationale regarding Mr. Sachs’s interview with Tucker Carlson. I think the nature of the view he expressed, the mainstream publications referencing it, as well as the fact that an upper bound of 35 million people on Twitter saw his comments, all make this noteworthy. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree too. User Hipal is censoring/deleting your and my contribution without providing sufficient arguments.

So, dear Encyclopedia Lu: It is clear that the interview is noteworthy.

I was not aware of the discussion here on the talk page yesterday (23.Jan 25). I thought then, I am the first to add a note about the interview, reflecting the international echo of the interview on Dec. 16th. So I added my paragraph subtitled "Israel and greater Middle East".

see here

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Sachs&diff=1271349188&oldid=1271268598

Fact is: The interview has been covered in the international press. The owner of Twitter, Elon Musk, tweeted an endorsement of the interview. see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Sachs&oldid=1263571086

Deleting my well referenced entry, including a renowed italian magazin, which lists among many remarks the so called "Clean Break" strategy explained in the interview, is not justified. There was not even an small explanatory content comment by User:Hipal on his deletion action. A "rv SOAP" is not sufficient.

U:Hipal also deleted a further mentioning of the interview, as I see now in the history. Several users have tried to place the info on the interview here.

So shall user Hipal dominate with his view this entry, deleting important info on Israel and the USA aired by Prof. J.Sachs recently.?

I opt for undoing the deletion by User:Hipal of my paragraph for a while, as the voices "pro noteworthiness" are growing. The revert status can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Sachs&oldid=1271349188

FrankBierFarmer (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I looked through all the sources, and didn't see any that demonstrated any encyclopedic value, "noteworthiness", so WP:SOAP. --Hipal (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Dear colleage Hipal. What fast answer. Now the "no encyclopedic value"

As international press mentiones the interview, and millions did see it, on a geopolitical most important issue, like the wars in the midle East, it is of encycolopedic value to be reported.

My paragraph is not WP:SOAP at all. It is NOT propaganda defined in WP:SOAP. Propagana ist distorting facts, ommitting facts. I report an important fact, a remarkable intervew.

And the wars there are facts, if you like it or not. And the content of the interview was so remarkable that the international press coverd it. FrankBierFarmer (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

You're overlooking the very first part of SOAP, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You may want to look over WP:NOTNEWS as well.

Again, none of the sources indicate encyclopedic value. --Hipal (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I have restored a briefer version containing the same information with an additional source provided by @FrankBierFarmer, as well as an additional interview that was, inexplicably, promoted by none other than the new President of the United States, despite his generally pro-Israel record. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It's certainly an improvement over the previous version. It looks like you restored your version from Dec 17, adding info about Trump. Thanks for the new reference from the Guardian. I'm not sure that it is enough to address the previous concerns. Let me look it over closely.

• Gedeon, Joseph (January 9, 2025). "Trump shares inflammatory video with crude reference to Netanyahu". The Guardian.

BLP requires we work from "high-quality sources". The Guardian meets that criteria. Do you think any of the others do? --Hipal (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The other two references provided, from an Israeli paper and from the interview itself, were intended to supplement The Guardian. I don’t quite understand why you deleted the whole section even as you posted this query on the talk page. Both entries, I think, are clearly better supported than the majority of other quotations on Mr. Sachs’s page. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

It would help to specifically identify the references you mention. I'm assuming you are referring to the Israel Hayom ref.

So, there are no other high-quality sources.

I'm not seeing much discussion about Israel Hayom at RSN, but what is there puts it in question. It's not used much in the English Wikipedia either. Given it's political leanings and the current situation in Israel, I think we need to be very cautious with it, but I wouldn't rule out using it pending others' comments.

are clearly better supported than the majority of other quotations on Mr. Sachs’s page. I agree that there are problems in this article, giving UNDUE weight to Sach's viewpoints, in violation of BLP and NOT. That doesn't mean we compound them by making a WP:CONLOCAL situation worse.

Basically we have a situation where Trump draws attention to Sachs on social media, and the press runs with it. I don't see how that is a historically significant part of Sachs' life. --Hipal (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Israel Hayom is the largest right-leaning paper in Israel (just as The Guardian is the largest left-leaning paper in the UK), although there’s a clear divide between the hard news and opinion sections, and I don’t think there’s any bias problem with the article in question.

Still, I don’t think it’s right for you to unilaterally revert those edits. When you say that there are no other high-quality sources, you’re actually discounting two. I’ve never seen that standard applied before in a decade of semi-frequent to frequent editing on this site. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The onus is on those seeking inclusion, especially in BLPs. Please review WP:BLP, WP:POV, and WP:NOT. --Hipal (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Dear User Hipal, I agree to seek inclusion. Providing content answers to the arguments of USER:EncycloDeterminate and mine will help this process. So a friendly reminder, please do so an thus follow WP:ETIQ.

To enlarge the discussion, and draw attention of more editors, thus following WP:TALK and to avoid WP:EDITWR, I propose to you add the following alert {{undue weight}} to the section instead of delting/reverting a 4th time, please see WP:4RR.

What do you think?

Kind Regards,

FrankBierFarmer (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

(I've refactored the "undue weight" template above --Hipal (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC))

Dear User:EncycloDeterminate,

Thank you for reverting the disruptive actions by User Hipal, as he/she deleted for the third time, during one month, the interview section, despite clear massive trustworthy evidence of the global reception. I just added one sentence on Clean Break with addtional trustworhty italian referecend and two Wiki-Links, I hope you endorse it. (FrankBierFarmer (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC))

I hope User Hipal stops his extremely disruptive behaviour. He has softened his words already in the talk. I hope his deletion impulses follow suite and stop here in this case.

KR from Vienna, Austria - a neutral country -

FrankBierFarmer (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Dear co-author Hipal, You provide NO argument regarding the content of my article contribution.

You do NOT answer any of my arguments here in the talk.

So you obviously have none, as you have reacted several times on me already.

This starts to be a violation of our Wikipedia Code of Conduct how discusison should be run:

[4][[foundation:Policy:Universal Code of Conduct#3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects|https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#3.3_%E2%80%93_Content_vandalism_and_abuse_of_the_projects]

FrankBierFarmer (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

You appear to be ignoring what I wrote and the policies I've identified. This is disruptive. Please WP:FOC and follow WP:TALK. At least three WP:AC/CT topics apply. --Hipal (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

If editors are incapable of following behavioral policies and guidelines, then action may need to be taken to stop the disruption here. FrankBierFarmer, please choose your further actions with care, and review WP:FOC and WP:TALK before you do. --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with consensus building thus following WP:TALK

Dear User:EncycloDeterminate, and other editors, could you provide an opinion, to my added sentence to your entry.

------------

Specifically Netanyahu follows the "A Clean Break" strategy, a strategic plan written by US neoconservatives around 1996 on his behalf, Sachs said.

---------------

see also

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Sachs&diff=1271800989&oldid=1271711473 FrankBierFarmer (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

References

First thing I want to say that was already pointed out above is that WP:ONUS applies here, especially since it is a BLP. Anyone adding back the content without consensus would be in violation of that. There is WP:NODEADLINE with Wikipedia so please allow the discussion to take place. I removed this based on WP:COAT and WP:SYNTH. He had an interview (stated in the first sentence). The rest is about Elong Musk approving of the interview? Then Trump posting a clip of it? Seems like those are more pertinent to the pages of Trump and Musk. It may be possible that something about the interview could go into this page, but not even close to what was written prior to the removal. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus appears to show that Hipal was acting against Consensus. GustavaKomurov (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Any comments on Israel

Has he said anything on Israel? [5] seems very very vocal on the subject but it did not make it to his bio. Hard comments on Zionism [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP2nwCGbE38} yet nothing in bio. Hausa warrior (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear User:Hausa warrior, see my comment above in the section on the Interview with TC on DEc. 16th. It becomes clear now over a short while, there are reliable sources reporting on the interview. FrankBierFarmer (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph "Israel and the Middle East" is totally useless. It says Sachs said something on Israel, but does not say what. Whatever he said, the paragraph says Musk agreed with it. (Or maybe Carlson contradicted Sachs heavily and Musk agree with that?) And then Trump said something about the interview, and someone called someone else a sonofabitch but it is not clear who said that about who. Trump about Sachs? Sachs about Carlson?

Wikipedia is not clickbait. I do not want to have to click on links just to find out WTF an article is talking about. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Dear HobGadling, I agree partially, as my one sentence is missing after the rollbaks by User:Hipal, thus the meaning is not clarified enough and you overlooked the central arguments in the paragraph.

Which two important assertion you overlooked:

First , that of the "Greater Israel" strategy - even a WikiLink - in the first part, and second the important "blunt" description of Netanjahu behaviour in the second part.

So your impression is not based on the facts in the sentences, maybe du to fast reading. So it is not useless, but unclear and should be improved by adding my sentence. (see thread above please)

KR, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The section is incomprehensible, and it is not made more comprehensible by you failing to explain to me what it is supposed to mean here. If you don't like the section yourself, do not defend it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Then you might want to leave it for people who can comprehend it. GustavaKomurov (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

To explain something to the reader is the job of the Wikipedia users who understand it. To point out that the explanation needs clarifying is the job of those who do not.

Why do I have to explain this simple concept to you? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Views and commentary

I can see in the page history that there's been some edit warring about the inclusion of certain views of this individual, and at present it seems like too much is included in this section. It might be good to come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included in this section. Originalcola (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. I agree, and I've tagged the section.

We're writing an encyclopedia article, not documenting his stated views. The latter is WP:SOAP. Nor are we documenting his views that received only minimal coverage. That's WP:NOTNEWS.

If there's long term coverage of some of his viewpoints or commentary on his viewpoints, not suitable for the "Scholarship, consulting, and activism", then it should be considered for inclusion in this section. If there's evidence that the views/commentary are historically significant to Sachs' life, then they are likely DUE mention. --Hipal (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for adding WP:FANPOV tag to the section. I agree with the points you've raised, at present I'm not sure about whether his views on nuclear power would qualify. It also seems quite odd to me how the amount contained in this section was similar in size to the section on his work on global economic development as a development economist by trade (and an incredibly important one at that). Originalcola (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging involved editors that haven't commented yet @Publicusername1234@EncycloDeterminate@FrankBierFarmer Originalcola (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying us of the new (continuing?) talk page section. My case for including key quotations from the pair of interviews hasn’t substantially changed from my comment here: they are no less and arguably more notable than the quotations included in previous subsections of the Views section. Additionally, it’s worth noting that the repeatedly deleted section is 112 words—deletions that appear particularly out of place given the previous section on COVID, which runs to 514. (I think we’re better off cutting 100–200 words under that entry.) EncycloDeterminate (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with having a section on Israel and the Middle East. However, I don't think the interview itself warrants that. The only thing that's mentioned of their interview is what was quoted by Trump and their discussion of Greater Israel, the former I understand the rationale for, but the latter I don't. There's also a redundant citation to a transcript excerpt. Originalcola (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe the issue at hand concerns the principles of neutrality and balanced representation in the encyclopedia. It is crucial to recognize that the inclusion of viewpoints and commentary should not be based on an arbitrary standard of "long-term coverage" alone, especially when the views in question are directly relevant to the subject's work, expertise, and current public discourse.

In this case, the views expressed by Sachs on the US Foreign Policy, specifically, have received significant and sustained attention, not only in terms of the subject's own published works, but also through the media that provide context for understanding the historical significance of those views. To exclude or downplay such viewpoints because they lack "long-term" coverage may inadvertently result in a skewed or incomplete portrayal, particularly when those views are directly tied to ongoing developments that are shaping public perception and academic discussions today.

It is vital that any contributions to this article provide a comprehensive and fair account, representing a full range of perspectives that have had substantial coverage, particularly those that are intrinsically linked to Sachs' professional trajectory. Cherry-picking topics or disregarding certain viewpoints based on subjective biases is as an attempt to undermine the integrity of the article, and in turn, compromise its neutrality.

For the sake of accuracy and fairness, it is important that all relevant viewpoints, including those which may not yet have "long-term" documentation but are still significant and continue to evolve, are given appropriate space and consideration.

In the interest of ensuring balanced and thorough coverage, I recommend that we avoid filtering content based on a rigid timeline or perceived bias and instead focus on the quality, relevance, and historical impact of the viewpoints in question. Publicusername1234 (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You mention viewpoints that are “still significant” and focusing on “the quality, relevance, and historical impact of the viewpoints in question” but the section you wrote directly stated many of the opinions and claims he had made as fact and attributed motive to statements that wasn't directly stated in either the sources or by Sachs. It wasn't written in a neutral manner and the article he wrote was the only source included (there was another citation to a blog post he made promoting the article, but that doesn't count as a separate source for this purpose), there was no indication of prominence of the argument; This was not a case of "Cherry-picking topics or disregarding certain viewpoints based on subjective biases" as you've alleged.

Inclusion/weighting in articles is determined by importance given to them in reliable sources(see WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Long-term coverage generally means greater prominence of that thing in reliable sources, which in turn leads to greater weight being placed on it in an article. If a viewpoint of his is only covered in passing in reliable sources or not at all then, even if it is incredibly important to him, it should not be included. This doesn't even have to be long-term necessarily, but it is a generally good indicator of the weight that should be put onto a certain topic and whether it should be included or not.

I would also note that it isn't clear if some of these views are directly relevant to the subject's work, expertise, and/or current public discourse. Originalcola (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

My suggestion, to avoid the walls of text, is to have anyone who seeks inclusion on any of the information to propose the wording here. We can discuss what is/isn't NPOV, COAT, etc. at that point. For now, the content was reverted per WP:ONUS. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

That seems agreeable, I would also suggest for further removal of content that the same be done. Originalcola (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "I would also suggest for further removal of content that the same be done." Are you saying that discussion is required prior to the removal of content from the page?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that was my suggestion. Originalcola (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not how inclusion works. If there is something that is challenged based on a Wikipedia guideline, it can be removed and the WP:ONUS is on the person who wants it added back. We don't leave something and determine if a challenge is right or not. Unless something was removed in bad-faith, ONUS will always apply, especially in a BLP. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Guess I might as well remove the articles and let us discuss whether to even have it first. ONUS always applies after all, even if the editing is absurd.

Yes, I know that's a hyperbolic example. I'm just showing how absurd clinging to ONUS is instead of actually being a human being and discussing things first even if policy allows you not to discuss it.

Just because you CAN delete something first doesn't mean you SHOULD. GustavaKomurov (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Needs a non-primary source?

As described in the title, we do not need a non-primary source if we are merely stating that he has said something by quoting what he says. That's actually one of the areas where a primary source IS preferred, because a secondary/tertiary can incorrectly quote the subject. A primary source can't incorrectly quote the subject, because it's the subject speaking. Whether it's true or not is another matter, but if all we're talking about is whether the subject claims X, then a primary source is preferable. GustavaKomurov (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Primary sources do not demonstrate encyclopedic value nor due weight. --Hipal (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#"Primary" does not mean "bad" page:

• An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary^‡ source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements. Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name.

If you think primary sources should never be used, you're completely incorrect. You're actually contradicting Wikipedia's own guidelines. They just have to be used carefully, and in very specific circumstances. Circumstances such as, say, an article about a person where we are talking about said person's own claims. GustavaKomurov (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Read again what Hipal wrote. It is not the same you claimed he wrote. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)