This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Leana Wen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm just posting to 2nd my agreement with Savonneux's removal of the neutrality template. It was there when I came to this article for the first time a few weeks ago, so I made a bunch of edits to add sources and make the tone more neutral. I have a feeling the main problem was that she was referred to as Dr Wen throughout the entire article, which can make the whole thing feel like puffery. I hadn't removed the template yet, because I didn't make it all the way through the article, but I didn't really think it needed to be there to begin with anyway. FYI to future editors, I only thoroughly worked on sources and wording in the Early life and education section. I changed the section structure and otherwise only made light edits in other sections, so the last half and the lead could probably use a one-over. I remember thinking the Career section needing updating and expanding. Most of the information had been added a few years ago. PermStrump (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@
Underthesea2012: I'm posting here to elaborate more on what I started to explain in the edit summary of my revert
here, because I'm pretty sure that I'm the one who updated the wording of that sentence weeks ago. If it wasn't me, I still prefer it, because the other version has an excessive level of unnecessary detail. Your edit summary said, "Negative, cited information added earlier was removed without explanation - added back to make this less of a CV
", In my opinion, none of the meaning was lost in my version and it contains less extraneous details, making it easier to follow. I'm not sure which parts you even think are negative. Most people will never even be considered for a
Rhodes Scholarship, so the fact that she was a finalist in 2005 is laudable and not negative in any way, shape, or form. I think it's unnecessary to mention she was a finalist in 2005 since she was actually selected as a Rhode's Scholar the following year. It's basically like saying, 'She was really amazing in 2005 and even more amazing in 2006.' If that's not the part you thought was negative, I'm totally lost. Please clarify if I've misunderstood.
As a side note, I swear I did my best to make this article sound less like a CV. I'm just noticing that a large chunk of new material was added since then, so I'll look that over in a little bit to make sure the wording is in WP's "dispassionate" tone. But after doing a lot of research when I was working on this article a few weeks ago, it genuinely seems like her life has been one prestigious and/or humanitarian experience after another (perhaps to the exclusion of other things). And I think, barring future scandals, the most accurate reflection of the vast majority of reliable sources is always going to sound kind of CV-like, which IMO, could be interpreted as a good or not-so-good thing, depending on the reader's values/priorities in life.
—PermStrump
(talk) 04:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Don’t see how inclusion of her being a finalist was negative or makes it sound less like a CV. I think including it is a bit superfluous (since she won the following year). JustinReilly ( talk) 12:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The reference for the former Who's My Doctor initiative was simply the former whosmydoctor web site. The web site is gone, it's url parked. The last posting on the associated facebook page said goodbye.
In place of the long-gone web site, I put a) a reference to a contemporaneous news article that described Wen's Who's My Doctor, and b) a link to the still-live (but no activity) facebook page.
I think Mox La Push ( talk · contribs) acted hastily when reverting this. Reverting removed the two pretty good substitute references I added and restored useless dead web site link.
I'm going to re-revert. If @Mox La Push or another editor thinks it would be a good idea to hunt up an archive of the former whosmydoctor web site, then please go ahead. I did it myself for a dead link on another page just this evening, I saw no point to that exercise for whosmydoctor, especially since I found arguably better references. But I can see how it would be defensible. M.boli ( talk) 09:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Wen has a role as a public expert on public health matters. It is hardly unusual for this to be noted in a Wikipedia article. I'm in favor of keep this material, I don't see why there is an edit war over it. (The other part of the edit war, about ending her tenure at PPA: Wen was indeed asked to quit, it is in the documenation.) -- M.boli ( talk) 17:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm adding Template:Peacock because large swaths of this article read like they were written by a PR firm. Most notably, her work at Planned Parenthood and very public firing are completely glossed over; "forced out of her job as president of Planned Parenthood in a dispute over philosophical differences and the direction of the organization amid growing political and legal challenges to abortion" is some pretty egregious WP:WEASEL. Morgan695 ( talk) 22:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Edit: 12/22/2021
While I know this may sound a bit subjective, I want to at least add credence to this suspicion. I semi-frequently, at least on a monthly basis, hear Leana Wen as a featured guest on NPR (National Public Radio Programs), I have, over the past couple of years, noticed they quite conspicuously omit her former role as the leader of Planned Parenthood. Rather, they mention only her work in Baltimore and as an ER doctor.
To further elaborate, this also tangentially supports my most recent Talk Page edit mentioning that there is no reason why the two mentions of Leana Wen's husband should not be linked to his existing Wikipedia page.
I feel quite strongly this page is being massaged, groomed, and monitored by someone at the direction of Dr. Leana Wen.
Keenlycurious ( talk) 12:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Keenlycurious
I had a change reverted regarding a precarious interview with Wen which I added in good faith. What I wrote were facts and they were reverted citing a mischaracterization. I disagree there was any mischaracterization made. Jhabdas ( talk) 17:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
[W]e need to make it clear to them that the vaccine is the ticket back to pre-pandemic life. Everybody getting vaccinated is the path back to normalcy,
If you are vaccinated, you can do all these things. Here are all these freedoms you have.She says that the trend to reopen before we reach herd immunity will cause bad things, and also lose the messaging opportunity of using reopening as a carrot to encourage immunization. Describing Wen as threatening "the natural rights of US-born citizens" is reading something into the interview which simply isn't there. -- M.boli ( talk) 20:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
You just proved my point! If you don't like the way my words are you should just put what you wrote into Wen's Wiki page. It's the exact same thing. Oh, and here's the sociopaths tweet for more context proving what you reverted as a mischaracterization was indeed accurate. https://twitter.com/DrLeanaWen/status/1370527455975505920 Jhabdas ( talk) 14:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I’m very concerned that we won’t reach herd immunity in the US because of vaccine complacency—not anti-vax people but those who need to be incentivized & see what’s in it for them. We need to clearly message vaccination = ticket to pre-pandemic life. (tweet from above)
There's a difference between persuasion and Coersion. What Wen did on screen was enough to end her career. No need to paper over her crimes against humanity. If you don't see it, I encourage you lay down your keyboard and stop editing Wikipedia. Jhabdas ( talk) 17:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I do not see any reason why the two references to Leana Wen's husband, Sebastian (Neil) Walker, should not be hyperlinked to his existing Wikipedia page.
/info/en/?search=Sebastian_Walker
Despite no reference to the middle name of "Neil" on Leana Wen's Husband's Wikipedia page it is quite easy and quick to confirm with a bit of Googling that they are undoubtedly one in the same.
Unfortunately, due to the semi-protected nature of this page I am unable to make this obvious and simple edit myself, so I hope someone who is able will be able to do so.
Cheers.
Keenlycurious ( talk) 12:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Keenlycurious — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keenlycurious ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
"She has been a leading voice in the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic" -- This is editorial and should be edited to sound neutral. The entire top section is excessively promotional and redundant with the education and career sections. The paragraphs 2 - 4 should be removed entirely or merged with lower sections. Overall, this entry is far too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.13.29 ( talk) 21:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Proposal for a section in the article itself on the minutiae of all the issues that have come up regarding Wen's changing views on the pandemic, including the petition against her speaking, those supporting her, the Aspen conference, those withdrawing from the medical orgs she's part of, etc. - including breakdowns on masking in schools, vaccination, social distancing, Long Covid, etc. Onan808 ( talk) 14:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I think there should definitely be coverage of her COVID positions (of which there is none now) and a section like this sounds like the best way to do it. JustinReilly ( talk) 12:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
She is notable as being among the few on air medical professionals who once called for people unwilling to vaccinate to be confined to their homes, similar to the controversial Zero Covid policy in China. To not mention this looks like an intentional white wash especially in 2023. 148.77.10.162 ( talk) 11:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
“Controversies” would be a better term than “scandals.” Regardless, there should be coverage of her COVID positions (of which there is none currently). JustinReilly ( talk) 12:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Leana Wen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm just posting to 2nd my agreement with Savonneux's removal of the neutrality template. It was there when I came to this article for the first time a few weeks ago, so I made a bunch of edits to add sources and make the tone more neutral. I have a feeling the main problem was that she was referred to as Dr Wen throughout the entire article, which can make the whole thing feel like puffery. I hadn't removed the template yet, because I didn't make it all the way through the article, but I didn't really think it needed to be there to begin with anyway. FYI to future editors, I only thoroughly worked on sources and wording in the Early life and education section. I changed the section structure and otherwise only made light edits in other sections, so the last half and the lead could probably use a one-over. I remember thinking the Career section needing updating and expanding. Most of the information had been added a few years ago. PermStrump (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@
Underthesea2012: I'm posting here to elaborate more on what I started to explain in the edit summary of my revert
here, because I'm pretty sure that I'm the one who updated the wording of that sentence weeks ago. If it wasn't me, I still prefer it, because the other version has an excessive level of unnecessary detail. Your edit summary said, "Negative, cited information added earlier was removed without explanation - added back to make this less of a CV
", In my opinion, none of the meaning was lost in my version and it contains less extraneous details, making it easier to follow. I'm not sure which parts you even think are negative. Most people will never even be considered for a
Rhodes Scholarship, so the fact that she was a finalist in 2005 is laudable and not negative in any way, shape, or form. I think it's unnecessary to mention she was a finalist in 2005 since she was actually selected as a Rhode's Scholar the following year. It's basically like saying, 'She was really amazing in 2005 and even more amazing in 2006.' If that's not the part you thought was negative, I'm totally lost. Please clarify if I've misunderstood.
As a side note, I swear I did my best to make this article sound less like a CV. I'm just noticing that a large chunk of new material was added since then, so I'll look that over in a little bit to make sure the wording is in WP's "dispassionate" tone. But after doing a lot of research when I was working on this article a few weeks ago, it genuinely seems like her life has been one prestigious and/or humanitarian experience after another (perhaps to the exclusion of other things). And I think, barring future scandals, the most accurate reflection of the vast majority of reliable sources is always going to sound kind of CV-like, which IMO, could be interpreted as a good or not-so-good thing, depending on the reader's values/priorities in life.
—PermStrump
(talk) 04:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Don’t see how inclusion of her being a finalist was negative or makes it sound less like a CV. I think including it is a bit superfluous (since she won the following year). JustinReilly ( talk) 12:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The reference for the former Who's My Doctor initiative was simply the former whosmydoctor web site. The web site is gone, it's url parked. The last posting on the associated facebook page said goodbye.
In place of the long-gone web site, I put a) a reference to a contemporaneous news article that described Wen's Who's My Doctor, and b) a link to the still-live (but no activity) facebook page.
I think Mox La Push ( talk · contribs) acted hastily when reverting this. Reverting removed the two pretty good substitute references I added and restored useless dead web site link.
I'm going to re-revert. If @Mox La Push or another editor thinks it would be a good idea to hunt up an archive of the former whosmydoctor web site, then please go ahead. I did it myself for a dead link on another page just this evening, I saw no point to that exercise for whosmydoctor, especially since I found arguably better references. But I can see how it would be defensible. M.boli ( talk) 09:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Wen has a role as a public expert on public health matters. It is hardly unusual for this to be noted in a Wikipedia article. I'm in favor of keep this material, I don't see why there is an edit war over it. (The other part of the edit war, about ending her tenure at PPA: Wen was indeed asked to quit, it is in the documenation.) -- M.boli ( talk) 17:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm adding Template:Peacock because large swaths of this article read like they were written by a PR firm. Most notably, her work at Planned Parenthood and very public firing are completely glossed over; "forced out of her job as president of Planned Parenthood in a dispute over philosophical differences and the direction of the organization amid growing political and legal challenges to abortion" is some pretty egregious WP:WEASEL. Morgan695 ( talk) 22:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Edit: 12/22/2021
While I know this may sound a bit subjective, I want to at least add credence to this suspicion. I semi-frequently, at least on a monthly basis, hear Leana Wen as a featured guest on NPR (National Public Radio Programs), I have, over the past couple of years, noticed they quite conspicuously omit her former role as the leader of Planned Parenthood. Rather, they mention only her work in Baltimore and as an ER doctor.
To further elaborate, this also tangentially supports my most recent Talk Page edit mentioning that there is no reason why the two mentions of Leana Wen's husband should not be linked to his existing Wikipedia page.
I feel quite strongly this page is being massaged, groomed, and monitored by someone at the direction of Dr. Leana Wen.
Keenlycurious ( talk) 12:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Keenlycurious
I had a change reverted regarding a precarious interview with Wen which I added in good faith. What I wrote were facts and they were reverted citing a mischaracterization. I disagree there was any mischaracterization made. Jhabdas ( talk) 17:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
[W]e need to make it clear to them that the vaccine is the ticket back to pre-pandemic life. Everybody getting vaccinated is the path back to normalcy,
If you are vaccinated, you can do all these things. Here are all these freedoms you have.She says that the trend to reopen before we reach herd immunity will cause bad things, and also lose the messaging opportunity of using reopening as a carrot to encourage immunization. Describing Wen as threatening "the natural rights of US-born citizens" is reading something into the interview which simply isn't there. -- M.boli ( talk) 20:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
You just proved my point! If you don't like the way my words are you should just put what you wrote into Wen's Wiki page. It's the exact same thing. Oh, and here's the sociopaths tweet for more context proving what you reverted as a mischaracterization was indeed accurate. https://twitter.com/DrLeanaWen/status/1370527455975505920 Jhabdas ( talk) 14:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I’m very concerned that we won’t reach herd immunity in the US because of vaccine complacency—not anti-vax people but those who need to be incentivized & see what’s in it for them. We need to clearly message vaccination = ticket to pre-pandemic life. (tweet from above)
There's a difference between persuasion and Coersion. What Wen did on screen was enough to end her career. No need to paper over her crimes against humanity. If you don't see it, I encourage you lay down your keyboard and stop editing Wikipedia. Jhabdas ( talk) 17:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I do not see any reason why the two references to Leana Wen's husband, Sebastian (Neil) Walker, should not be hyperlinked to his existing Wikipedia page.
/info/en/?search=Sebastian_Walker
Despite no reference to the middle name of "Neil" on Leana Wen's Husband's Wikipedia page it is quite easy and quick to confirm with a bit of Googling that they are undoubtedly one in the same.
Unfortunately, due to the semi-protected nature of this page I am unable to make this obvious and simple edit myself, so I hope someone who is able will be able to do so.
Cheers.
Keenlycurious ( talk) 12:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Keenlycurious — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keenlycurious ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
"She has been a leading voice in the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic" -- This is editorial and should be edited to sound neutral. The entire top section is excessively promotional and redundant with the education and career sections. The paragraphs 2 - 4 should be removed entirely or merged with lower sections. Overall, this entry is far too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.13.29 ( talk) 21:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Proposal for a section in the article itself on the minutiae of all the issues that have come up regarding Wen's changing views on the pandemic, including the petition against her speaking, those supporting her, the Aspen conference, those withdrawing from the medical orgs she's part of, etc. - including breakdowns on masking in schools, vaccination, social distancing, Long Covid, etc. Onan808 ( talk) 14:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I think there should definitely be coverage of her COVID positions (of which there is none now) and a section like this sounds like the best way to do it. JustinReilly ( talk) 12:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
She is notable as being among the few on air medical professionals who once called for people unwilling to vaccinate to be confined to their homes, similar to the controversial Zero Covid policy in China. To not mention this looks like an intentional white wash especially in 2023. 148.77.10.162 ( talk) 11:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
“Controversies” would be a better term than “scandals.” Regardless, there should be coverage of her COVID positions (of which there is none currently). JustinReilly ( talk) 12:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)