Talk:Camran Nezhat

Self-promotion?

This seems to be picked up directly from this guy's web site. What did he do before 1993? Not a very substantial article for a guy who claims to be a medical pioneer. Lou Sander 02:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The two glowing claims, "father of..." and "revolutionized..." are not supported by the reference cited. The reference, while on the surface something from a legitimate journal, appears on this guy's web site. Maybe the guy is legitimate, but this article seems to be pretty much a puff piece, taken from his own material. Lou Sander (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's much worse than that actually; the Nezrat brothers were notorious at Stanford for their experimental work which left a lot of women with colostomy bags! Lots os malpractice awards. Please, if you're a decent writer, go look this up (plenty of internet refs) and write a section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.123.202.66 (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Many improper references

This article contains many references that are either dead or do not support the claims they are said to support. Few of the references qualify as reliable sources. Many of them are from the Nezhat biography on his own business' web site. Numerous claims are not supported by any reference at all. The legitimate Nezhat biography seems to have a technical problem; its first page shows up blank, and it causes an Adobe Reader error message.

Looking into some of the better references, it seems that this man does have some legitimate accomplishments, but that many of them are colored by controversy, sealed settlements of lawsuits, and the like. Regardless of his possibly genuine accomplishments, the article appears to be mostly a self-aggrandizing puff piece, full of improperly-supported claims.

I've removed some peacock words and put fact tags on many unsupported statements. I propose to wait a while for others to fix the improper references, and if they aren't fixed, to remove the claims they are said to support. Lou Sander (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

recent corrections addressing the self-referential aspects

To the Wiki editors: Please note that I have recently corrected all of the self-referential, dead, or otherwise innacurate/impertinent/nonsensical links. The bio is still poorly written, but i won't have a chance to address that issue until some time next week.

Concerning the Stanford suspension (and subsequent reinstatement in ~Aug 2002), like other editors working on this file, I do agree that these and other controversial aspects should be addressed somehow. To this, I will be providing information that I've uncovered, including documents once classified as confidential. Hopefully this new and better researched material will help provide insight into all the various allegations, helping to distinguish, for example, between those ultimately classified by Stanford and other authorities as unsubstantiated. For example, concerning the charge of research fraud, I found that Dr. Nezhat did not even author the article for which he was accused of conducting "seriously deficient scholarship." Rather, it was authored by(with data collected by) another Stanford surgeon named Dr. Nelson Tang. As is common practice between academic medical doctors, Dr. Tang added Dr. Nezhat's name onto the article (listed last) because Dr. Nezhat allowed Dr. Tang's research staff to access his patient charts for the purposes of conducting research for that article. These data were then compiled by Dr. Tang's student researchers (some just undergraduates, working over the summer) who made a slew of errors concerning the age of the patient at the time of procedure. These sorts of errors were then described by the press as "research fraud", a claim that Stanford then downgraded to "seriously deficient scholarship." I obtained this information by reading the full report given by Stanford's ad hoc committee, information that was once confidential but that has now been released. Bjjohnson (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)by bjjohnson

I think you're on the right track here. I have a bit of outsider's knowledge of doctors, researchers, medical controversies, etc., which is why this article interests me. Intuition tells me that this guy legitimately is an important guy in laparoscopic surgery, and some of the references seem to back that up. Often, meaningful guys are embroiled in controversies on the way to becoming meaningful, and I'm betting that this is what has happened here. Also often, important doctors do a lot of self-promotion, etc. (think Chad Ochocinco). It seems as though this guy or his henchmen have done more than a little of that in this article. I'm guessing that some of it has to do with Middle Eastern culture, which might be more tolerant of this stuff than other cultures.

If you/we can get rid of the bullshit in the article, and make it into a decent factual article with a neutral point of view, you/we will have done a meaningful service to Wikipedia and its users. Keep up the good work. Lou Sander (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Bjjohnson : This thing is looking good! I wish you had a user page so we could tell a bit about you. (There's always a chance that this new, well-referenced stuff is just a lot of bullshit. Few have time to check all the references.) It also would be good to see you contribute to some other articles -- right now you are exclusively a Camran Nezhat specialist, which raises questions about why you are so interested in this guy, to the exclusion of everything else. Maybe you are inappropriately close to him. Whoever you are, and whatever your motives, you seem to be doing very good work. Also, it would really be great if we had some corroboration from an editor or two who is expert in the field. Lou Sander (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"The pioneer"

I've changed "the pioneer" to "a pioneer." None of the references call him "the," so an editor's synthesis of material to call him that amounts to original research. It's still a bit original to call him "a pioneer," but from the body of references, it seems like a fair and obvious conclusion.

I also eliminated the commas and spaces between references in the lead. This seems to me to be the usual way of handling multiple references, though I can't cite a manual of style reference for it. There are multiple instances of the comma and space format in the rest of the article. Perhaps somebody can find a style guideline about this and make the whole article conform to whatever is the preferred style. Lou Sander (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Too many primary sources?

There are a LOT of primary sources, e.g. court papers, used in this article as it stands. According to content guidelines on using primary sources, this really isn't a good thing. Somebody needs to go through the article (again) and straighten it out. IMHO the whole thing still smells like a puff piece from Nezhat and/or his buddies, though I must say it's getting better. Probably WAY too long, though. --Lou Sander (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned up the lead

I've removed some questionably reliable sources, improved and added some references. This guy increasingly seems to be legitimate, but the article still contains too much puffery and self-promotion. If he's really so great, ample high-quality medical and academic sources exist, and we should use them. Lou Sander (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking good

I just re-read this article after a long absence. Though I didn't check references or compare versions (which was maybe a big mistake), the article looks very much better than it did when I first started commenting on this page. The puffery is gone. The controversies are addressed, apparently in a proper and accurate way (though I didn't check references). My hat is off to those who so greatly improved this article. If I checked the references and they passed muster, it would doubtlessly also be off to Dr. Nezhat. Lou Sander (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)