Talk:Abdul El-Sayed

Dr. El-Sayed's academic degree

He is in MD-PhD, correct? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD%E2%80%93PhD If so, it should just use the degree title explicitly, in the first sentence or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.228.120 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's more accurate that he is a PhD, MD as "MD-PhD" implies a joint degree or concurrent program, but it looks like he attended two separate institutions separately. If you're referring to making it part of his name, the article is correct to omit those letters. Many thousands of people have those letters and only the peacocks insist on using them as part of their proper name. JesseRafe (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Medical Titles as Physician Questioned

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20180610/blog026/663241/el-sayed-touts-his-doctor-credentials-but-he-never-practiced

It appears he is not a physician nor has he ever been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlassiter (talk • contribs) 06:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Physician

We need a reliable source indicating that El-Sayed is a physician if we're going to have it in the lede. Nowhere in the body of the article is this fact verified, and we have a source stating "El-Sayed is not licensed to practice medicine in Michigan". He has an M.D., but I don't see any sources stating that he's ever practiced medicine. A physician is someone who practices medicine or who is licensed to do so. Marquardtika (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

There was a follow-up to that Crain's piece, Letter to the editor: El-Sayed is absolutely credentialed to use term 'physician'. I don't have the time or interest to dredge up more than just the first hit on a Google search, but it seems like nothing more than expanding on a political smear from the campaign era. Jill Stein, Howard Dean, and Ron Paul are all listed in present tense as physicians in the ledes of their articles here. El-Sayed is called a physician all over the Internet, regardless of your personal opinion of what the definition of the word entails. JesseRafe (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

A letter to the editor isn't a reliable source. If El-Sayed is a physician, it should be easy to find a reliable source saying so--I couldn't find one after searching, which is why I started this discussion. Marquardtika (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

This could be a better description--"trained medical doctor." It gets at the fact that he has an M.D., but that he has not practiced or been licensed as a physician. Marquardtika (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

That's clunky and distracting, and I don't see how your personal definition of who a physician is should trump the common use of the word. It's a doctor. He's a doctor. End of story. Opening sentence of the Wikipedia article, "A physician, medical practitioner, medical doctor, or simply doctor is a professional who practises medicine, which is concerned with promoting, maintaining, or restoring health through the study, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, injury, and other physical and mental impairments" doesn't specify it's only treating patients, but clearly allows for a "professional who practices medicine, which is concerned with promoting, maintaining [...] health through the study [...] of disease" which is what a public health officer or epidemiologist would do. These definitions are written such that one only need fill one criterion not all of them for the occupation to apply. In fact, the article suggests how "physician" and "medical doctor" are used interchangeably. You also correctly state that a letter to the editor isn't a reliable source, but I wasn't suggesting it was. Just that your source (which is a blog, by the way) was not a reliable medical professional, just one guy's (potentially politically motivated) opinion on the strict usage of the word and trying to make El-Sayed sound like a blowhard or a liar. Some members of the medical community of Detroit responded that this was an inaccurate prescriptivist narrow use of "physician", their view is corroborated by common usage, dictionaries, and this very encyclopedia. He has an MD and he practices medicine even without tending to individual patients' maladies. JesseRafe (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jesse. This is a matter of common sense, common use English. At barest of bare minimums, El-Sayed has both degrees (PhD, MD) that confer the title of "doctor" and so he should be described in the lead. Bold removed the tag; this discussion has been open for months. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Arnhold Institute for Global Health

This information actually is not that valid, just because it is sourced. IP could be doing a better job about explaining their reasons why, but being "mentioned" in a lawsuit is not encyclopedic. It implies a guilt by association, and it's spurious at that. If there was a finding of law that would be one thing, but the suit could be dismissed entirely. Plus there is no substantive claim in the prose that El-Sayed did anything of note to warrant this mention in his biography. I think this paragraph should be removed per BLP and common sense. Discussion should take place here, rather than edit war over it. JesseRafe (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

​I was checking the given source at the same time you did and agree with you that Abdul El-Sayed is actually not mentioned there. I also was doing a dummy edit to confirm the IP removal as possibly good, you just was faster than me... Cheers, Horst Hof (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. He is a public elected official. The material in the lawsuit is relevant to his pubic record of employment and integrity, and includes information that any informed voter would want to know about the background of an elected official. I am restoring the deleted paragraph, as the reasons for its deletion do not strike me as wholly valid.Cadbury333 (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

That is blatant POV pushing. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog page for "Gotcha"s. You've plainly stated your intention of including this information solely to influence reader's perception of the subject of a BLP article, which is on its face, not acceptable. You've also added similar "sourced" material to other BLPs in what appears to be a concerted effort to disparage them with innuendo of impropriety and besmirch their reputations while tiptoeing the lines of what sourced material is. This is a tactic that cannot be allowed on the encyclopedia, especially not on BLPs. I highly advise you to reconsider your stated intention. JesseRafe (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not convinced that my wish to include this material is any more of a biased point-of-view than your wish to see it removed. Surely there is room for compromise here, no? Instead of deleting what I have written, why not propose what you see as a suitable revision?

Please refer to the first paragraph here. And to WP:BLP in general and WP:BLPCOI in particular; it simply doesn't belong. JesseRafe (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Cadbury333's point that "El-Sayed is an elected official" is factually incorrect. El-Sayed currently holds no elected office. Additionally, this, in my opinion, is strong POV pushing. The lawsuit is no encyclopedic and implies guilt by association.