Talk:Tse Wen Chang

Unnecessary stuff?

Don't see any need for the charitable contributions section. And any mention of Immunowork (refs 6, 29, 30) feel like promotion rather than information. David notMD (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi David, what do you mean by "need," could you clarify? And ref 6 was for citing the subject's role as CEO; I thought the company's website was best for that purpose. Refs 29 and 30 described what Immunwork was about. As stated in WP:PROMOTION, "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." If you think the tone wasn't neutral, feel free to contribute and make it more neutral. Thanks. --Eli Toake (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

ET - Not so much a concern about NPOV as TMI (Too Much Information). There is no need for Wikipedia entries about individuals to have all information about those individuals. Chang's career as a scientist is central. The fact that he donated to charities is in my opinion not, unless he established a foundation that will be supporting charities, or else donated a large portion of his substantial wealth. Immunowork is clearly a work in progress. Perhaps worth of inclusion after it makes a contribution to medicine. Otherwise, the description feels like promotion, even if the content is factual/neutral.David notMD (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Understood. In that case, feel free to go ahead and remove them. For the charity, as far as I know Chun-An was a foundation for emergency needs of the poor. As to the substantial wealth part, when I next get a chance I may interview the subject about it. Until then, please make edits as you think fit. Thanks. --Eli Toake (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed charity section entirely. Rationale is that this is not relevant to why TWC as a living person is an appropriate topic for an article. Above a certain level of wealth, most people are likely making contributions to charities and may be more involved (activism, fund-raising), but this is not central to their fame or notability.David notMD (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Upon reflection, let me put here the reasons for why I included the charity section: the charity section reflects a big part of Chang as an individual, as charity at that scale is quite unusual among research scientists (charity foundations, University gardens etc.). When I interviewed the subject about his donations, he stated that it represented a substantial part of his life. While Chang is primarily known for his scientific achievements, the donation that he's made––constituting a significant portion of his fortunes––is nontrivial, and also raises him in notability. That's why I think it should be included in the article. Eli Toake (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Content is based on what WP:RS say; we give WEIGHT per what they say. The Immunowork work stuff is entirely SPS and should be given minimal weight if any; we need independent refs to give WEIGHT.Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog - understood. Note, ref 28 about Immunwork is independent. Eli Toake (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not. It is an interview. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Please consider restoring the charity section. Chang’s charity contributions are highly relevant to this article. The mentioned donations are related to his profession as a scientist and professor. The funded projects also reflect Chang’s creativity. While the other sections describe the technical side of Chang, the charity contributions reflect the humanity side of Chang and are highly relevant for an article about Chang. Eli Toake (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Restored charity section for reasons above. Eli Toake (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Please wait for consensus to restore it. This article needs a rather dramatic reworking altogether. It is great that you have acknowledged your connections here, but others have to go through and make this NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

As there were no dissenting voices for a week, I assumed that was consensus. May I ask SweetCanadianMullet, JJMC89, Doc James, and David notMD to kindly express your opinions on whether to remove the charity section? In my revised description (see below), I explained why Chang’s charity contributions are relevant.

Revising the Charity Section

Charity is an important and relevant topic for this article, because the projects Chang supported were in fact extensions of his scientific and academic work. Chang spent 30 years to develop the anti-IgE drug that helped large numbers of severe patients; the humanity aspect should be important for an article about Chang. Below is a revised version of the charity section, molded to avoid TMI and enhance NPOV, to the best of my abilities:

Chang made charity contributions to various scientific and educational projects. Among others, he made a number of donations to the National Tsing Hua University, M.I.T. and Harvard University. These include establishing a Butterfly Garden in Tsing Hua University, for the advancement of knowledge on nature and the environment; developing "Life Science and Engineering" textbooks in Tsing Hua University in Taiwan and Tsinghua University in Beijing; establishing an Eisen and Chang Career Development Professorship in M.I.T. to support assistant or associate professors in honor of Dr. Eisen; and establishing the Chun-An Foundation for Emergency Assistance in Chang's home county in honor of his father, Chang Chun-An ("Chun-An" means "all are safe").

Thank you for your patience.

References