Talk:David B. Samadi

Conflict of interest editing
This article has been subject to editing by people with a conflict of interest for a long time now. If you might have a COI, please read WP:COI.

Briefly, conflict of interest is managed in Wikipedia in two steps: disclosure of the conflict, and offering edits here on the Talk page for others to review instead of directly editing the article. Therefore, if you have some relationship with Dr. Samadi, please do not edit this article directly, but rather offer suggestions for content here on the article Talk page. If you are being paid to edit this article, please disclose that as well.

You can offer suggestions here at the Talk page and provide notice to the community of your request, by using the "edit request" function. There is a link at "click here" at the bottom of the beige box above -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request.Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

COI tag
The article has been tagged for COI. Please do not remove the tag unless a) you are indepedent of Dr. Samadi, and you have reviewed the article for NPOV and sourcing.  Please leave a note here when you have reviewed the article and removed the tag.  Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

SMART
i looked for recent reviews that cite SMART (here is the search): cannot find evidence that SMART is important in the field. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2015 review does not mention it nor samadi (free PMC)
 * 2014 review does not mention it nor samadi
 * 2013 review does not mention it nor samadi (free PMC)
 * 2013 review does not mention it; does cite samadi (free from publisher)
 * 2013 review does not mention it, does cite samadi
 * 2013 review does not mention it nor samadi
 * 2012 review does not mention it nor samadi

The so called SMART technique has not been adopted by anybody other than Dr Samadi. If it were that important, it would be used universally. It is all marketing hype. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.56.130 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The word "the"
If someone can explain why he does not use (or seldom uses) the word "the" then that would really help. He is a very intelligent and accomplished person so he could use "the" if he wanted to. So why does he not? Sam Tomato (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

who the hell is this guy?!
He's not well known internationally or someone who's gained any special notoriety to have a wikipdia page. He's a regular urologist, so what? any sepcial contribuations to medicine/surgery? any historic research? is he a famous media personality? I call for this entire article to be deleted as it's completely irrelevant. This isn't the yellow pages. Thank you. 212.26.7.252 (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Agreed. He is not notable. Other than his surgery fraud he's nothing but a pro Trumper who spreads conspiracy theories (not mentioned in his bio). He still pushes hydrocholoroquine on his quack-filled Twitter account. This biography should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterngard (talk • contribs) 14:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hadn't heard of him before. Nominated for deletion. Jdphenix (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

, I'm definitely a layman here, but perusing other American surgeons and Celebrity doctors on Wikipedia, I'm not seeing what's in common here. These doctors include the pioneer of antiseptic use in operating rooms and the man responsible for the first artificial heart. I agree that Dr. Samadi's SMART technique may be notable, but I can't say for sure. I'm mostly swayed by the section above on this talk page regarding the same. Thoughts? Jdphenix (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on David B. Samadi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130828212907/http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/fox-s-sexist-comments-on-women-s-healthcare-spark-outrage-172914267.html to http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/fox-s-sexist-comments-on-women-s-healthcare-spark-outrage-172914267.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2016
Dr. David Samadi's website ( http://samadimd.com/) is missing in the description. I thought it'll be useful for people browsing his wikipedia profile.

65.209.4.51 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Topher385 (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

new details on bio
Dr. David B. Samadi, M.D. serves as Chairman of Urology and Chief of Robotic Surgery of Urology at Lenox Hill Hospital since June 6, 2013 and is one of the nation's leading urologic oncologists specializing in robotics and minimally invasive surgery for prostate cancer. He is a leader in prostate cancer treatment and Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectom. Dr. Samadi is unique in that he is one of very few urologic Oncologic surgeons in the United States trained in all three primary areas of surgery-open, laparoscopic, and robotic.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evonomix (talk • contribs) 23:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please remember to sign your posts. Please read WP:MOS, and in particular WP:HONORIFIC.  The proposed content is not fully supported by the source.  Everything in Wikipedia has to be based on what we call "reliable sources." Please see WP:RS and the policies, WP:VERIFY and especially WP:BLP. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * pls define "is not fully supported by the source" Evonomix (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * First, that source is a deadlink, so it supports nothing. A typical Bloomberg profile would not contain advertising text like " Dr. Samadi is unique in that he is one of very few urologic Oncologic surgeons in the United States trained in all three primary areas of surgery-open, laparoscopic, and robotic" in any case.  But if there is a Bloomberg profile for him I would be interested to see it. I looked and didn't find one - not here and not here nor other variations. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I dont understand why do you say "a dead link". The Bloomberg profile is the second reference in the actual article. The link is this one: https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=36181474
 * Evonomix (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * the article uses the same source for other parts of the biography Evonomix (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * yes it is a deadlink. It just redirects to https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/stocks. I have removed it from the article. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * how about this link? http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=36181474&privcapId=4208858 still a dead link? I see you moved the Boston Globe as number 1 reference although it wasnt the 1st - pls clarify why? Evonomix (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I consider that your last edits, do not ensure a neutral point of view. The edits just deep link the Boston Globe article in the overall wikipedia page Evonomix (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I do consider your actions as being disruptive behavior Evonomix (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this "fair and balanced"? Evonomix (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not do "fair and balanced" - that is Fox News' motto. We do WP:NPOV.  Thanks for the correct Bloomberg link. Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * are your edits WP:NPOV ? Evonomix (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

yep. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * now that we have the correct Bloomberg link, can you go back and explain pls "is not fully supported by the source"? Evonomix (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The text is 100% supported by the source, since it has been WP:COPYPASTEd from it. Avoid stuff like "serves" and "the nation" for a start. Also, "Samadi is unique in that he is one of very few..." is a funny use of "unique". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice catch! I forget that these Bloomberg profiles are actually WP:SPS processed through Bloomberg; we should not use them for anything other than bare facts. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, so what do you suggest?
 * Does this present anything else than bare facts: "Dr. David B. Samadi, M.D. is Chairman of Urology and Chief of Robotic Surgery of Urology at Lenox Hill Hospital since June 6, 2013 and is a leading urologic oncologists specializing in robotics and minimally invasive surgery for prostate cancer. He is a leader in prostate cancer treatment and Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectom. Dr. Samadi is one of very few urologic Oncologic surgeons in the United States trained in all three primary areas of surgery-open, laparoscopic, and robotic" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evonomix (talk • contribs) 19:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * also you did replace Bloomberg references with the Boston Globe reference on bare facts - eg "Samadi is a member of the American Urological Association". Why was this necessary? and how is it WP:NPOV?
 * That content is still too close to WP:COPYVIO - see WP:Close paraphrasing. What does it include that is not already in the article?
 * I do not undertand your question about the Globe. Please clarify. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Dr. Samadi is one of very few urologic Oncologic surgeons in the United States trained in all three primary areas of surgery-open, laparoscopic, and robotic" this is not in the article Evonomix (talk)
 * the Globe reference should be used only on the paragraph presenting the bare fact about the investigation: "On March 12, 2017 the Boston Globe reported that ....". Why did you edit also other parts of the article backed by the Bloomberg reference, replacing it with the Globe reference? Evonomix (talk)
 * As I noted above the Bloomberg profile is really WP:SPS (please read that) filtered through Bloomberg. Per WP:BLPSPS we can use SPS to source basic facts, but not a promotional claim like "one of the very few". You would need an independent source for that. This answers your other question as well. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Pls explain how is this WP:SPS? It is built and published by a third party - https://marketintelligence.spglobal.com/ and filtered through Bloomberg Evonomix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep at the request of the company being profiled, SP GLobal will update the record. You can also take this to RSN if you like. Please see your Talk page btw. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Boston Globe
The Boston Globe mention is not relevant for the biography. It is an article that presents no evidence.

Evonomix (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Boston Globe is a reliable source in Wikipedia, and a strong one.  per the policy WP:NPOV we report what reliable sources say, both good and bad.  If you want to question the reliability of the Boston Globe, you can post at WP:RSN - please make sure you read the instructions there. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

New publication in El Pais
Hi,

https://elpais.com/agr/dr_david_b_samadi/a

Where can this be added? its a permanent section he has in El Pais.

thank you Mbc2017 (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing encyclopedic to be sourced from that. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is El Pais a reliable source in Wikipedia? He has a medical blog in El Pais. Isnt that relevant on his biography? Mbc2017 (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please reply on your talk page User talk:Mbc2017 before writing further here or elsewhere in Wikipedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did Mbc2017 (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * To answer your question above, sure El Pais is reliable for its reporting. But citing Samadi's blog at El Paid is what we call a primary source that is not independent. We would look for secondary, independent sources to show that mentioning this is WP:DUE (noteworthy). Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So Boston Globe writes an article about him with no evidence base and you include that. Which are the secondary independent sources backing the Boston Globe mention? El Pais publishes a medical blog with obvious relevant medical content and you need other independent sources to show that mentioning this is WP:DUE (noteworthy). Pls explain what kind of independent sources? Mbc2017 (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How odd. This is the exact same thing that prior accounts have said. Exact same thing.  I am not going to take more time replying to you.   Jytdog(talk) 01:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * its not odd - its the last entry. I was just wondering why El Pais is not a good source - maybe you can clarify Mbc2017 (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * and cool down a bit - I made no edits. I just suggested that his blog in El Pais might be a relevant piece of information to be mentioned in his wikipedia article Mbc2017 (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversies
Dr. Samadi has been the center of several controversies. The first is the Boston Globe investigation about simultaneous surgeries, which is mentioned on his page under the "career" section. There was also a recent NY Post article revealing that he was using an under-trained nurse to assist him in the OR. He has also been critized on numerous occasions for comments made on Fox News. "Controversies" should have its own section in his article. Patients researching him deserve to know. --134.174.110.6 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)