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)

• @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)

• 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)

India

I took the freedom to post a summary and my interpretation of an interview with Prof J. Sachs by CNNnews18 during the recent G20 New Delhi summit in September 2023. I think J. Sachs' analyses of the current geopolitical situation deserve some attention, but I don't share all of his views. In recent months, foreign policy interventions by the US State Department were positive, particularly the release of prisoners in Iran and in the US, as well as the lifting of some oil-related sanctions that allow Iran to purchase some essential goods for its population. I am not trying to subvert the work of US diplomats and their attempts to find peaceful solutions during a time of conflict. Thank you. ML (Zurich, Switzerland) 31.10.147.97 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

We need an independent source that demonstrates any mention of this interview or his opinions deserve mention in an encyclopedia article about Sachs. --Hipal (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. 31.10.147.97 (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Covid-19

On 19 Feb 2024 I added Sachs' responses to Garry's criticisms of his views on Covid19 origin. Both Sachs and Garry's criticisms were expressed in their letters published in PNAS (see Sach's PNAS letter and Garry's PNAS letter).

Hipal reverted my addition due to WP:SOAP, which surprised me because I didn't intend it to be a soapbox or to advocate anything. I simply intended to make the article more balanced by including both sides of the issue i.e. Sachs' reply to the points made by Garry. Since the article is about Sachs, I would think that his points would be at least as relevant, if not more so, as Garry's points (see the bulleted list of Garry's points in the Jeffrey Sachs#COVID-19 section).

Why are Garry's side of the Covid19 origin question not considered to be SOAP but Sachs' side is?

Note that this article's revision history does not show my addition that Hipal reverted because Diannaa removed it due to copyright concerns, which I agree with (however I could easily rephrase it to avoid that problem just as Garry's PNAS letter content was rephrased when it was added in the 08:14 6 March 2023 revision of this article). -- Nick Nitpicker (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't look closely at the other content. Perhaps there's more that need to be removed.

I don't currently have time to look deeply into this, but my inclination is to remove the paragraph and bullet points beginning with In May 2022, alongside his colleague,.

If independent references aren't available, it's probably not DUE. --Hipal (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement here. I studied Sachs/Harrison's article as well as Garry's and Sachs' subsequent letters and it's apparent that Garry either did not read their entire article or else he deliberately lied about it. For example, the fifth bulleted Garry accusation is clearly contradicted by what Sachs/Harrison originally wrote in their PNAS article (see this part).

Although verbiage could be added to further point out why Garry's assertions are erroneous, that would only reflect more about him than Sachs. So to make this Sachs page be more clear and concise (as an encyclopedia should be), I will delete Garry's stuff. However, instead of deleting the entire paragraph as you suggested, I will leave the first two sentences that mention Sachs/Harrison's call for an independent inquiry because that is one thing that Sachs and others have been urging for a long time and they brought up many concerning technical questions about the virus in their PNAS article.

If nobody raises any objections over the next few days, I will go ahead and make those changes. Nick Nitpicker (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Without better sources, it should be left out. --Hipal (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

These citations discuss the furin cleavage site that Sachs/Harrison referred to. Will they work?

Zhu, Chaogeng; He, Guiyun; Yin, Qinqin; Zeng, Lin; Ye, Xiangli; Shi, Yongzhong; Xu, Wei (14 June 2021). "Molecular biology of the SARs-CoV-2 spike protein: A review of current knowledge". Journal of Medical Virology. 93 (10): 5729–5741. doi:10.1002/jmv.27132. PMC 8427004. PMID 34125455.

V’kovski, Philip; Kratzel, Annika; Steiner, Silvio; Stalder, Hanspeter; Thiel, Volker (March 2021). "Coronavirus biology and replication: implications for SARS-CoV-2". Nature Reviews Microbiology. 19 (3): 155–170. doi:10.1038/s41579-020-00468-6. PMC 7592455. PMID 33116300. Nick Nitpicker (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Additional sources that discuss the furin cleavage site and other questions that Sachs covered in his PNAS article:

Should we discount the laboratory origin of COVID-19? Environmental Chemistry Letters

The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Nick Nitpicker (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

make the article more balanced by including both sides of the issue This phrase raised my POV-pushing alarm. Are you aware of WP:FALSEBALANCE? Sachs is a medical layman whose claims are rejected by the medical community. He does not get to use Wikipedia as a megaphone, just like creationists or climate change deniers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The Lancet is a medical journal that put Sachs in charge of a committee to evaluate the origin of SARS-CoV-2 so I don't think that is a fair assumption. The medical industry is not unified on the virus orgin issue by any means, just as the US intelligence community is divided on the question.

The virus is a global threat to humanity just as nuclear weapons are, which is why the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has published articles like the one I cited above, so the origin of the virus is far too important to be decided by one side of the medical community alone, which does not even have the authority to do a thorough investigation as Sachs and many others have called for. Only the US government has the necessary authority to do that. Any competent scientist can understand the furin cleavage site issue and other related questions about the virus origin.

At this time, there is not enough evidence to determine with clear and convincing evidence that the origin was zoonotic, and not due to a lab leak. I suggest everyone who has a good understanding of scientific subjects (and not just virology alone) do more reading on the issue to understand why that is. For example, see Wall Street Journal article and the others I've cited above.

In any case, this page is about Sachs and therefore his viewpoints should be at least mentioned or cited by it (if not explained by it), whether you agree with them or not. I have already agreed with Hipal above that a "tit for tat" discussion of Sachs' reply to Garry's bullet points should not be included and that the one sided bullet items should be deleted. I am simply saying that we should leave in place the first two sentences above the bullet items as well as the link to the PNAS article that explains Sachs' views in greater detail than an encyclopedia article should. Nick Nitpicker (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it in its entirety.

Without better sources, it looks too much like soapboxing and false balance. It also detracts from the content about the Lancet committee, where we do have independent sources. --Hipal (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of Garry's bulleted stuff that you did on March 6, 2024, but I don't see how also removing the two sentences before those items makes the article be more balanced and thorough, since they did include PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science) citations and simply referred to well documented Wikipedia content elsewhere about the virus' furin cleavage site being identical to the one found in the epithelial sodium channels.

Sachs' call for a full investigation into the virus origin is one of the most important issues that he has raised in the past year, especially considering that he was in charge of the Lancet committee that started an inquiry into the virus' origin, as mentioned in the Sachs page. Sachs' recent arguments are there for anyone to see for themselves by simply reading his PNAS article. Rather than detract from the Sachs page, the removed sentences simply made it be more up-to-date, by stating Sachs' current views (rather than only his past views from many years ago when he chaired the Lancet committee).

However, since you have Wikipedia:Rollback rights that exceed my editing rights, there is nothing more I can do to help resolve our divergence of opinion about what should be included in the Sachs page. Thank you for listening. Nick Nitpicker (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion about how unified the medical community is does not matter without sources talking about how unified it is. Free-market fundamentalists like Sachs always try to distort scientific consensus when it threatens their holy cow. And there are always a few scientists who put their economic ideology above the facts. On that committee, there were not enough of those, so he had to fire those who contradicted him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

You missed the point I made above. The medical community is not unified on this issue. The fact that a medical journal appointed Sachs to chair the original inquiry into the virus' origin shows that they had much confidence in his abilities and objectivity whereas others like Angela Rasmussen, who is quoted in the Sachs page, have nothing good to say about him. So the Sachs page itself shows the medical community is not unified. Sachs did not "fire" Peter Daszak but the Lancet letter was discredited due to his conflict of interest, this reference explains. Nick Nitpicker (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

To be fair the journal didn't appoint him, one of its editors did... And it wasn't an inquiry into the virus' origin... Sachs set up a task force within the commission to look into that but it was not the purpose of the commission. You've stretched the facts about as far as they can be stretched. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference to back up what you've said here? How do you know it was just one editor and that the others weren't consulted. I have presented references to back up what I've said. If you don't think the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reference is credible, can you provide any references to back that up? Nick Nitpicker (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I see no reference for the claim that "a medical journal appointed Sachs to chair the original inquiry into the virus' origin" and the sources currently in the article contradict that. Unless I'm missing something the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reference doesn't mention Sachs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This link said Sachs is the chair and if you click on the "About" button and then select the "How is a Lancet Commission formed?" button you'll see it was formed by Lancet editors (plural) and lead commissioners (so maybe the Sachs page needs correcting in that regard?). The Bulletin reference explains Daszak's conflict of interest which is why the letter was discredited.

Let's not forget what this talk page is for: It's to discuss what and how content should be included (or excluded) from the Sachs page. In other words, it's not to debate whether Sachs views are correct or not, but rather (like a good encyclopedia), to accurately say exactly what they are, and to do so in a timely and up-to-date way.

See Stay on topic section in Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. Nick Nitpicker (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

So on topic... Where in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reference does it mention Sachs? This is Sachs talk page, not Daszak's. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If you read what I said above, I did not say that the Bulletin reference mentioned Sachs. I said it explained why Daszak was the reason why the commission's letter was discredited. I cited the Bulletin reference above to reply to Hob Gadling's assertion that Sachs "fired" Daszak (i.e. it is now known that Daszak had a conflict of interest). I realize it was getting a bit off topic but Hob Gadling is the one who started down that path. Sorry for the diversion. I should've said Hob Gadling was getting off topic instead of trying to reply that way. Nick Nitpicker (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. I did not even mention Daszak. My point is still the same: that Sachs is just some unqualified person who has no standing in the medical community and his opinion is subject to WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You missed the point I made above. No, I did not. I just pointed out that your statements about how unified or not-unified it is is just your opinion. So you repeat stating your opinion and you seem to think that that counts as reasoning? You need to provide a source for "the medical community is not united" instead of your own deduction "journalists at the Lancet appointed him for something, therefore they agree with him on one specific item, therefore the medical community is not unified". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)