Talk:Camran Nezhat

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Self-promotion? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Many improper references  

message: 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)
thread_title:  "The pioneer" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too many primary sources? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleaned up the lead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Looking good