Talk:Abdul El-Sayed

Survey

• (Summoned by bot) but also I think I was watching this page for awhile too. doctor, saying unlicensed physician is wrong and probably WP:OR, a physician is practicing, and he doesn't practice, so that would imply he is doing medical care outside the law. He did get two doctors/doctorates and skipped residency; an MD always confers the doctor title. Perhaps non practicing doctor is better wording.

User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:36, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I would also be ok with epidemiologist or public health professor. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• I agree that it's inappropriate to say "unlicensed physician" as that generally means someone who is practicing outside the law. I would suggest saying something like "Doctor of Medicine", clearly referring to the title conferred upon him by graduating, rather than his profession or ability to practice medicine. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 21:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  he did also get a PhD, which is another type of doctorate. He isn't a Physician-scientist ofc, as those do clinical practice in addition to science. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  A good question here is if sources tend to refer to him as a doctor or not. If RS don't really care it doesn't have to be in the lead. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 22:11, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  I saw the convo was dying as suddenly as it had started. Of note, whiplash, who had been pushing for a change, was tbanned. Not sure if there is still a significant appetite for an rfc User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah I think this can be settled with standard discussion. I think letting the RfC sit for a little while and unless someone comes in with other thoughts or objections I'd suggest just removing the RfC tag, picking one of the good options given, and going back to the normal consensus-building process from there to address any further concerns that may pop up. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 23:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  That's fair. It seems the discussion has not yet matured, and the edit-warring concern may have been better handled through page protection rather than an RfC.

  It seems editors have not yet made supporting arguments much in terms of how reliable secondary sources commonly describe El-Sayed under MOS:ROLEBIO. I'll leave the RfC open for a little while longer, but if there isn't much discussion, or if more people agree that "doctor" is what should be used. I'll remove the RfC tag. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Oh…wait this reply was for another convo. I was confused why it didnt post, this comment has nothing to do with this rfc. Apologies, mobile editing is hard User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:06, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Well i suppose the convo that died out anyway here as well User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Option A/Option B. He is commonly referred to in reliable secondary sources as both a physician and a doctor, so either is appropriate. The recent Politico piece seems to be a WP:FRINGE outlier in saying that he's not a physician, even in comparison to their own past reporting where they referred to him as a physician.(1, 2, 3) As if that's not enough, there's also the AP, Semafor, Detroit MetroTimes, Bloomberg, Detroit Free Press, ABC News, Michigan Advance, Oakland Post, and Deadline Detroit who all have also called him a physician. Based on these sources, he is a physician who is not practicing.

The reliable secondary sources consistently and repeatedly have called him a physician, so we cannot bring our WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH into assessing it ourselves. Epidemiologist is probably the most specific description and I am surprised that is not in the lead, considering that is his actual profession (though he is still the other things as well). Edittttor (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Option A, per what I wrote in the previous talk page section.--JasonMacker (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
• A = B > D. Oppose "unlicensed physician" in strongest possible terms; it is an unequivocal BLP violation (ie. a clearly BLP-sensitive statement not supported by any reliable sources.) The Politico piece is extremely cautiously worded - it very much does not say (or even imply) that he practiced medicine without a license, which is what moves C into the category of something we can't consider at all. The gist of the Politio piece seems to be "he was a researcher and an academic; when most people hear him describe himself as a doctor or physician they're going to picture their family doctor", which is certainly their opinion but which doesn't really contradict any version of the lead - a researcher is still a doctor or physician. The technical term for what he is is physician-scientist, which we could possibly use but which I'd want to see actual secondary sources using to refer to him first - most of them just summarize it as physician, since "physician-scientist" is a bit technical. But if we were going to use a more specific term, we'd use that one. Here is someone quoted as describing his career path that way, anyway: “Abdul is one of the most accomplished, mature and goal-directed students at Michigan,” said Ronald Koenig, director of the U-M Medical School’s Medical Scientist Training Program. “His personal warmth and caring nature, combined with his already substantial skills in medical epidemiology, indicate that he is ideally suited to the demands of a career as a physician scientist.” Epidemiologist is also an option, since it's specific area of expertise. --Aquillion (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
• Option D. He literally doesn't have a medical license AstralNomad (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
• Option D. The key definitional elements of his life are that he is an academic, a politician, and a public health expert. His MD is not terribly important today, and will likely prove even less important over time. JerryGraf (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Option B per Edittttor. I prefer doctor because I feel like "physician" more strongly suggests that he is practicing. Framl approved message (talk | thank) 14:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Option D / epidemiologist — "Doctor" and "physician" are technically defensible per MOS:ROLEBIO, but they can imply medical practice to readers. The more precise role description appears to be epidemiologist, which does not imply that he practices medicine. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option A/Option B per the numerous reasons given. Orca🐋 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option D. The other options are misleading, as they imply active medical practice. The sentence in the second paragraph saying he received "his MD" can be modified to say he received an MD degree but has not been licensed or practiced as a medical doctor. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  The sentence I referred to is now gone, and after studying this a little, I think we should just leave it out. However, the opening sentence currently says he is a physician, which is something Wikipedia describes as "a health professional who practices medicine". That, of course, is not accurate for him. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

GA review

see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   It's unfortunate that the separation of the two career sections breaks chronological order, however I think it's better than a single lengthy career section.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Apologies for leaving this for a while. Unfortunately I am going to suggest a quick fail because of recent edit warring (QF reason #4) about El-Sayed's medical credentials. I will have to receive some oversight from an experienced reviewer before I close this, so apologies for the further wait on this review.

   @Framl: don't despair, it happens, and is beyond the nominator's or the reviewer's control. It's up to you as the reviewer, but you could perhaps 1. quick-fail it now, then maybe Edittttor (talk · contribs) can wait a couple of weeks and see if it dies down, and then renominate for GA, or 2. if you're not in a hurry, you could just sit tight for a few more days, and wait and see if the fly-by edits die down. (Update: that said, it looks like the nominator has been blocked) Looks to me like it was the work of one axe-grinding editor, that was eventually fended off by others exercising good WP:BLP policing. For what it's worth, from a brief look, the rest of the criteria look mostly okay - spelling, grammar, lead layout and BLP, good references, good coverage and focus, appropriate images with tags and captions. Feel free to sing out if you'd like to discuss further, here or on my talk page? — Jonathanischoice (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Update: since the nominator has been blocked for a month, it may be prudent to go ahead and quick fail. — Jonathanischoice (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   I'm back. And the edit warring seems to have subsided. Since the reviewer has disappeared, how do we go about getting a new reviewer to take it up? Edittttor (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)