Talk:Arthur M. Sackler

message: According to a recent New Yorker article: “Most of the questionable practices that propelled the pharmaceutical industry into the scourge it is today can be attributed to Arthur Sackler.”  I think this should be reflected in Mr. Sackler's Wikipedia page, and I have edited it accordingly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonhomem (talk • contribs) 17:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --jmhuculak (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, TimCrown keeps erasing my entries, which are all from reputable sources (Forbes and The New Yorker).   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonhomem (talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that Forbes and New Yorker are both well-researched and very reputable. --jmhuculak (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

text: I just read the Talk page more carefully after I edited the article myself. I added the same quote that User:Bonhomem added, and that TinCrown deleted. I think the summary here of the New Yorker article, and some of the attacks on the Sacklers, miss the point of the New Yorker article: The problem with Arthur Sackler's work is not that it (arguably) led to the opioid epidemic today, but that his whole marketing strategy, which was so successful in selling drugs, led to the over-prescribing and over-use of drugs, like Librium and Valium. Another problem with Sackler's marketing strategy is that he encouraged doctors to prescribe drugs based on weaker, unscientific evidence, such as the company-funded studies, and on celebrety endorsements, described in the New Yorker story. The New Yorker article, and articles in peer-reviewed medical journals, have criticized drug marketing itself, not just the marketing of opioids. Valium addiction was a problem, but it was manageable. Opioid addiction was a life-threatening and unmanageable. But Arthur Sackler never marketed opioids. He marketed prescription drugs generally.--Nbauman (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand Nbauman's point: "But Arthur Sackler never marketed opioids. He marketed prescription drugs generally." I thought Arthur Sackler died before oxycontin, fentanyl etc. were developed. His two brothers used the drug marketing methods "pioneered" by Arthur Sackler to introduce and sell opioids. I'll check the dates, review this talk page, then re-read the article. The latter portion is tagged with "multiple issues". My goal is to resolve some or all. I'll share my findings and any edits in a new section below. NB Forbes contributors aren't WP:NPOV and WP:RS but Forbes staff articles are. Investigative reporting by The New Yorker is usually WP:RS. I hope TimCrown (TinCrown?) is no longer obstructing content additions.--FeralOink (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and content removed repeatedly 

message: Why not name Purdue Pharma when its already in wikipedia? Mr. Sackler was a major philanthropist who had not connections with Purdue at the time of his death. So Perdu merits no mention here, in my view.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonhomem (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My counter argument to that is that purdue pharma is an essential aspect of _how_ he became who he was (financially). If Henry Ford had retired from Ford Motor Co. at the time of his death, would it not be important information to include about his life?--jmhuculak (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. I think Purdue should be cited in the article Bonhomem (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not name Purdue Pharma 

message: There have been many edits here by two parties who only edit the Artie Sackler wiki page, and nothing else. I believe these are attempts to downplay controversy surrounding the Sackler family. Bonhomem (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single purpose editing 

message: There is plenty of literature emphasizing the role of A. Sackler in creating marketing/advertising practices in the pharma industry, and how this altered the drug market. I think this wikipage needs to emphasize this. Also, Sen. Kefauver's committee hearings focused on ARTHUR Sackler, not the brothersBonhomem (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies. I read the paragraph ahead of the mention of Mr. Kefauver which ended in Mortimer and Raymond. The New Yorker does indeed explain that Arthur was involved in the hearings. --SusanLesch (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

text: would you be able to improve the paragraph about Kefauver? Yesterday I made hash out of it because Earwig's Copyvio Detector found copyright problems with The New Yorker and that was the longest quotation. Today we're under 50% and the first hit seems to be a false positive. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, Susan. I hope this mark and improvement. Thank you for working on this Wiki entry. Bonhomem  Bonhomem (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A. Sackler's role in creating market-driven pharma industry; Kefauver 

message: I would like to contribute to this article but find it impossible to work around the clock. Just a word of caution to other editors because I do not want to edit war with you. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks all for the breather I am pretty much caught up. --SusanLesch (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slow down 

message: User:69Avatar69, I am going to try to restore what used to be a balanced article. Now it seems overly negative. Your efforts might be better received on a different Sackler. Thank you for your interest. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I had some confusion about that, please ignore my prior edit. Obviously the guy was smart; how does "polymath" improve the article? It seems out of context here. I still believe the inclusion sounds biased, but it is such a ludicrous label that it makes the article seem to be a PR piece from a Sackler. Easy to see through, but a disservice to the objectivity of Wikipedia. If someone is a genius, it will show through their work. Marketing drugs to doctors isn't innovative; it may be evil though. Have at it. 69Avatar69 (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your comments. This month at Portal:Minnesota I decided to feature Joseph Ray Watkins who invented direct sales and offered the first money back guarantee. Evidently you don't see marketing as a good thing. I don't either. However, some people do. We are doing old, uncensored Wikipedia a disservice to edit this out. It took me quite a while to arrive at the balance we have now. Perhaps we can agree on a version that will satisfy us both.-SusanLesch (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel the criticism section is more than adequate but I do think the polymath claim could be placed somewhere else with additional background on its source, and even the meaning of the word "polymath" (I feel a link is unnecessary since it is acting more as purely a definition which typically isn't what links are for). I try to remove biased quips I see from articles (and I consider it a public service) and in this case I was clumsy. I'll try to do better in the future.69Avatar69 (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. The link on polymath is unnecessary. I put it there so I could look it up which is stupid. See if the new placement makes more sense. Also maybe you can word that sentence a little better. I'm not exactly sure why Keefe called him one and I would like to know. Science doesn't usually include marketing genius. Thanks again. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think New Yorker articles can be both highly informative and also contain some tabloid-like hooks to interest the reader. They are a for-profit publication, after all. I'm sure this guy was interesting and smart and doesn't deserve blame, if any, for the opioid crisis, but his proximity to it both by blood and trade can't be erased. The only other sentence I think needs editing is the one saying he is talented and delighted in seeing art and science meet. First off, I think that is misleading. If he was talented in art, that would mean he was an artist, not a collector. He was 100% a collector. He was obviously talented in science, but even those claims need to be looked at closely. A cursory look at Google scholar shows he is cited, but not highly. And he delighted in seeing them meet? Look, on some level, I'm sure the Sackler clan wasn't a den of complete psychopaths; are we trying to humanize him here? What is the point of that sentence? I think it belongs somewhere else in the article too. Everything else is fine to me; it's the diction of the intro sections that, if well-written, are paramount in setting the tone for an impartial article. As a polymath myself, I believe it's almost there.69Avatar69 (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind rewriting the sentence? Agreed it could be better. He did study art (sculpture) separate from collecting. The whole psychiatry section strikes me as frightening, but unfortunately we got no help on it from WP:MED. My question (politely, were they quacks?) scrolled off their discussion. This NYT article gives an indication of what he was like. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

text: What we have now appears to be your theory of how the U.S. found itself in an opioid epidemic. Up in the lead. Something led to something that allegedly led to something. We wound up with a biased biography. Can you quote a source that supports your theory? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we don't know that if he didn't die he wouldn't have gone along with what his family did. I thought what I put down was well-written and fair. I think the current wording gives to much weight to his wife's words. And it's confusing because she's basically saying "we have no blame for this, it was the other Sacklers!" while the other Sacklers are saying "it wasn't our fault!" Basically everything that family says (including the Arthur side) needs to be assessed before being accepted. 69Avatar69 (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: All three brothers are dead. What you wrote was fine but you must remember WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Finally, his wife is not Arthur's only defender. I chose her because she came up with a succinct argument that is appropriate to the lead. The New Yorker quotes him as do ArtForum and numerous other sources. “Leave the world a better place than when you entered it.” The more I work on this article the more I like Arthur, and the more I think he was pretty ordinary. Thank you for helping me to remove some positive statements from the lead. The final lead paragraph, however, stands as it was and I will defend it as written. You know, I used to work for a famous inventor. Since then, newspapers are threatened, Google was born, most of our family records came online. There's no way we can blame the guy for everything that happened afterwards, even if it is possible to draw a line. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I tried to be careful by using words like "allegedly". You do realize that the consensus behind these people is that they are directly and indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths? Misconduct with regard to prescriptions puts doctors in jail for life. These people are currently living a life 99.9% of people in history could only dream of. I understand where you are coming from and I want to be fair too, but even this guy was a businessman first and foremost. Most doctors' creed is "first do no harm". Now think about what Arthur's priorities were. Almost all drugs have side-effects; he was involved in Valium too so there may be something bad there. I understand Wikipedia's policies and think the article is fine now. If the article becomes an advertisement for how Arthur's worldly humanism and passion for art was extraordinary and how he was the true Renaissance man who altered the course of the art world singlehandedly, I'll be back.69Avatar69 (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent bias 

message: This is probably the most comprehensive biography of Arthur Sackler currently available and it contains a number of significant revelations about his history, personal and business, currently not in the article.  For example, he had three women in his life simultaneously: a wife, a second "wife", and a mistress. His COI dealings with the FDA. etc.. -- GreenC 15:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Empire of Pain]] 

message: :
This should be expanded to explain that the so-called "tarnishing" has extended far, far beyond the opioid crisis, to include a reappraisal of his role in what Meier calls "the most controversial and troubling practices in medicine", which includes Sackler's role in the Valium crisis, the practice of special favors for doctors, the professional claim industry which promotes the assertions of pharmaceutical companies beyond the science, the funding of special interest groups, the publishing of pro-industry journals, and the "outright exploitation of scientific research for marketing".  I think limiting this reappraisal of his legacy to the opioid crisis alone misses the forest for the trees. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reputation