Talk:Leana Wen

Neutrality template
I'm just posting to 2nd my agreement with '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)

"Negative" material in article
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)

References for Who's My Doctor
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 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)


 * You're right, I was too hasty when I reverted your edit. I apologize. In any case, I checked archive.org for an archived version of the link in question and didn't find one. However, WP:DEADREF says: "Some archives currently operate with a delay of ~18 months before a link is made public. As a result, editors should wait ~24 months after the link is first tagged as dead before declaring that no web archive exists." See also WP:KDL. So, I'm going to restore the dead link but keep the useful additions you made, too. --Mox La Push (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Righto! I had never seen that note about the long lag time. Live and learn, I'll be cognizant of that in the future. Onward! M.boli (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Role as a public expert
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)


 * Can you please provide a reliable source describing Wen as a public health expert? We need to be able to verify this content. Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 's most recent revert removed a Newsweek article about Wen (not by Wen) attesting to her role, and a Congressional committee briefing where Wen was called as an expert. The edit summary said this was self-promotion. I'm going to restore the material, because I think removing was unambiguously a mistake. There were two sources that verify Wen is a public expert on public health, and I don't see anything which ran afoul of WP:NOTPROMO. But of course we can discuss here. -- M.boli (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You're right, this US News & World Report source is a good one. I was confused because you referred to it as Newsweek, but I'm not seeing a Newsweek source. With the independent, secondary coverage in US News & World Report, I don't think we need the primary sourcing of the committee briefing (unless that briefing was covered elsewhere). Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yikes! That was most careless of me. I apologize for sending you down the wrong path. I'll work a little bit on sourcing. I'm also thinking the material should be moved out of the lede and into the career section. And thanks for agreeing. M.boli (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No worries at all--I'm sorry for being too hasty in my revert. Thanks for your work to improve the article. Marquardtika (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Peacock
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)


 * I edited the article to more accurately reflect the WaPo citation. The citation said the board gave no reason for firing. An anonymous source said it was a problem of management style. Wen claimed it was a philosophical difference. It might have been a "very public firing," but the reasons were not made public. -- M.boli (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2021 (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

Mar 10, 2021 CNN Interview
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)
 * Here is the diff in question: . In the CNN interview, Dr. Wen opines that good messaging to overcome vaccine hesitancy would be: [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)
 * Wen's anodyne messaging to persuade complacent people to be vaccinated is hardly sociopathy. Neither is it a threat to civil rights. -- M.boli (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wen's anodyne messaging to persuade complacent people to be vaccinated is hardly sociopathy. Neither is it a threat to civil rights. -- M.boli (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

Link To Husband's Existing Wikipedia Article
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)


 * I found no reliable sources supporting this claim. Furthermore, the NYT marriage article reference says Wen married an IT professional. The journalist with the same name was working for Al Jazeera at the time, according to his Wikipedia article and references therein.


 * Note also the journalist is still a journalist, while Dr. Wen recently referred to her husband's IT company in Baltimore where they live. -- M.boli (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic voice
"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)

Expansion of last sentence in opener on Covid-19 positions and controversies
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)


 * Here's a good article in CNN which uses Wen as an example of the changing views and controversy in responding to treatment of COVID-19, including a comment by ethicist Arthur Caplan on the significance of the debate. Wen originally favored strict management and mandates of COVID-19 when the epidemic was up to 8,000 deaths a day, but now after the death rate has come down (to 500 a day), and people are suffering from "COVID fatigue' and resistant to further restrictions, she has argued for looser restrictions. (Although some sources say she argued for looser restrictions from the beginning.) The latest controversy is that she was invited to speak on a panel at the American Public Health Association, and 600 people signed a letter "demanding" that she be replaced. This media coverage certainly justifies mention in Wikipedia, under WP:WEIGHT. It should follow WP:NPOV. I'm not criticizing or defending Wen, but I think she is an example of an important current debate in public health, and her position, along with the opposing position, should be clearly explained.


 * In the CNN story, Caplan explained it this way:


 * "It's a division based on ethics. It's not about science. It's a fight about, what do you do at this point about Covid? Do you double down and mandate masking and mandate vaccination and insist that for schools to open, they have to improve ventilation and insist on testing? Or do you just sort of say, 'people are tired. They don't want to do it anymore. We can't make them. We'll have to live with it.'"


 * Wen, a former Baltimore City health commissioner, came into the public eye as one of the more moderate voices in public health during the pandemic, supporting some states lifting mask mandates in schools in February and deciding not to send her own children back to school with masks this fall.


 * "That's what my family has decided. Our views have changed a lot since the beginning of the pandemic, when there was much unknown about the impact of Covid-19 on children. At that time, we followed extremely strict precautions, including masking at all times indoors and only associating with others outdoors," Wen told CNN in August.
 * "For us, the turning point was after Omicron came to dominate, because it became even more difficult to avoid Covid-19 despite precautions. Getting our children vaccinated also gave us even more reassurance that we could replace masking with the protection that vaccination provides. We know our children could still get Covid-19, but the risk of severe illness is very low."


 * ––Nbauman (talk) 18:18, 7 September 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)

No section for scandals?
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)
 * The wikipedia manual of style actually tells us that "controversy" sections are discouraged. Any controversies should be added into other sections based on, perhaps, timeline of the events, or the subject of the controversies themselves. Creating a "controversies" section probably creates UNDUE weight on the negative aspects of coverage, which would not be neutral. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)