Talk:Akhil Maheshwari

The new draft has been extensively revised as advised by the reviewer. The qualifications of the subject have been summarized and the qualifications have been emphasized to hopefully meet notability guidelines. Details on the development and leadership of the Global Newborn Society, which is a much needed worldwide effort to reduce infant deaths, has been added.

The new draft has been revised. Per guidance, all adjectives have been reviewed so that the biography has a disinterested appearance.

Kindly guide us on how the biography can be modified about the places of work using the google portal (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=pZkj8jsAAAAJ&hl=en). The portal has already been shown in the first reference.

01/18/2022

The review finds the section on education as unsupported. However, no medical schools/residency programs publish lists of trainees, and hence the guidance to support this section with reference is difficult to comply with. If the reviewer finds this section without support as objectionable, this whole section can be deleted. However, this deletion may make the page less interesting to read without a string of statements showing "evolution" of the expert.

In the section on faculty appointments, fresh markers have been placed. These markers had earlier been deleted following an objection from a reviewer, and now being re-inserted.

There is a fresh objection that the GNS section does not carry a reference. However, the first mention of the global newborn society in the opening line carries a reference to the website. This reference has been placed again in this section per the guidance of the reviewer.

Hope these additions answer the requests.

01/23/22

The care of newborn infants is an esoteric subject, and hence there seem to be too may external links. However, newborn care is an extremely important subject because the mortality rates of neonates are the same as those of 58-60 year old adults. Unfortunately, this information is not common knowledge. Babies don't vote, and hence the social attention to this issue has not been adequate. Hence, there are not enough internal Wikipedia pages focused on newborn care - this is in marked contrast to other areas of medicine such as cardiology, lung disease, or kidney diseases, which are a cause of death in adults. There is a need for more attention to this issue.

Please help us.

We hope that the addition of references in the see also section has solved the above issue.Jhuma1971 (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

== We had received a very constructive criticism that the page for Maheshwari should be linked to Wikipedia pages relevant to the Global Newborn Society. Our group at Rotary worked for hours to identify those and listed those. Now, most of these have been deleted! This is very important. Very honestly, we are losing some enthusiasm. The group functioning can be constructive, but it can also be harmful. There is no way to see how these links could have been harmful for Wikipedia or "favoring" Maheshwari.Jhuma1971 (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding issues with this page

Not sure what issues are raised on this page. Akhil Maheshwari is a prominent physician with tremendous contributions in the field on Neonatology. These concerns seem absolutely baseless. Iimlu9030 (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Disagree with the negative feedback posted here. Read few of his papers and really appreciate his contributions and research in the field of newborn health. Gryffindor909 (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Dr Akhil Maheshwari is a globally renowned, leading physician and researcher in the field of intestinal injury in newborn infants. I strongly believe that the article is unbiased and has a neutral point of view. All his accomplishments are verifiable on the listed web links. He has contributed extensively to all the areas of academic medicine, including patient care, research, administration, and leadership across several leading organizations and universities. The reference to published papers from his laboratory are landmark papers that are well known and often referred to in the field. These references should be included in the website because these would be of interest to all readers. I dont think that the webpage violates any issues with self published sources, contentious material, privacy, and templates. It is overall well written and I feel that the concern about a major contribution from a single source is unjust/biased. I dont feel that there are are any concerns of the quality of the projects quality. Cybernick2000 (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I see that the project has been rated as Class C, that it is useful for a casual reader but it would not be helpful for a moderately detailed study. I humbly disagree. A google search with his name can lead the reader to his accomplishments. If further details were to be included, the length of the article may become longer than a typical wikipedia page. Cybernick2000 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

If further details/content are needed, I will happily volunteer to edit the page.

Cybernick2000 (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

When it can reasonably be concluded that the template is no longer relevant, such as a

template appearing in an article that no longer documents a current event - Seabiscuit341

Per our discussion, I have removed the flag about single-author contribution. Dr Maheshwari is a renowned neonatologist with major contribution. I believe that there are no controversies about his professional stature. Please let me know if fuether clarifications are needed - Seabiscuit341 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabiscuit341 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I tried to remove the " A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". But it appears I cannot Seabiscuit341 (talk) 09:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrongful and discouraging negative feedback on the page

Dr Akhil Maheshwari is a world-renowned neonatologist and a global leader in neonatal research and advocacy. The negative comments against his page are disheartening and derogatory. The page editor should resolve any issues and safeguard the honour of Dr Maheshwari. Vinbest59 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

What GNS is doing

Neonatal mortality and morbidity is a public health concern, particularly in developing countries. I am happy to see professionals' networks such as GNS are making an impact to tackle neonatal health issues. Within short period of time, the impact that GNS has made is very impressive. Its official journal, THE NEWBORN, has been publishing peer reviewed articles over the past one year. Also, the GNS web site has been viewed by millions. Such activities by GNS will make an impact in improving neonatal outcome and I am sure members will continue to put their effort to make GNS becoming the leading professional organization that work to improve neonatal outcome. 197.156.86.199 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

COI tag (March 2023)

See Talk:Global Newborn Society where the article creator and main editor of this page says that the works on behalf of the society founded by Dr. Maheshwari. Randykitty (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I have edited some sections. I have no relation with Dr. Maheshwari. The person who placed this tag does not seem familiar with this area of science. 198.135.70.4 (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The Global Newborn Society is a completely not for profit organization. They are serving in 122 countries! Where is the need for advertisement? 198.135.70.4 (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

And to clarify further, I am not a member of this organization if that is objectionable to Randykitty. 198.135.70.4 (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, I am bothered by this flag by Randykitty. Global Newborn Society is a voluntary organization. The google page has millions of visitors. Those who become interested, join. They don't pay a dime to join.

Isn't a description of a living person by definition a biography? See the page Biography - Wikipedia. Then See the pages Bill Gates - Wikipedia. See Jim Carter (actor) - Wikipedia. See John Bel Edwards - Wikipedia. Is there some possibility of a bias in this objection? 198.135.70.4 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if you would read WP:COI. Promotional editing is not just done for financial gain. And if I look at your contributions, I only see these edits to the talk page, so I guess that you forgot to sign in. --Randykitty (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

198.135.70.4 (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)I am close follower of Wikipedia. The whole idea of commercial bias in this article is ridiculous, and maybe even insulting. One, the entire basis of Wikipedia is public information; and second, if a 501c3 organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)_organization) had commercial goals, how and why would they want to be registered in this category? I am afraid that this person(s) don't know what they are talking about, or have a personal agenda. I would urge the Wikipedia editors to intervene here198.135.70.4 (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

198.135.70.4 (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Again, in the bigger picture. why is the promotion of a 501c3 organization a bad idea? If the target audience comes to know that such facilities exist, is the society not benefitting? If nobody knows that these organizations exist, how do we leave the world a better place compared to what we got it as?198.135.70.4 (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

198.135.70.4 (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)I know that I am repeatedly posting here, but here are the 5 issues raised:

This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (March 2023) - how? Please explain further. What is the society selling here? This biographical article is written like a résumé. (March 2023) - please guide me to a biography on wikipedia that does not trace the life history. This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (March 2023). This is ridiculous. 501c3 organization and payments? A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (March 2023). Sure, I am a member of the Global Newborn Society, which is a registered 501c3 organization. This whole objection is ridiculous. Dr. Maheshwari is our leader. Will only a Martian be able to write an unbiased article?198.135.70.4 (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

---

PLEASE NOTE: I, on behalf of the Global Newborn Society and the local Rotary Club, would request Editor Randykitty to make the suggested changes so that this page looks as desired and then we can all move on. In our meetings, we have begun to wonder if this page is actually as important as it is being made out to be. Please remove the citations ASAP. It makes the whole thing look so controversial, more than it deserves to be. Clinton1000 (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Please read WP:COI. You should refrain from editing it. And I am in no way obliged to write this article or to edit it. If only minor changes were needed, I would already have done thtat, but this needs a thorough rewrite and I have better things to do. --Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  You are wasting everyone's time. Are you a professional Wikipedia editor, who designs Wikipedia pages for money? Please provide some evidence to convince the readership. We have posted our concerns on your page. Clinton1000 (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  You need to read WP:COI too. Please refrain from appearing more knowledgeable than you are. Plain and simple. Clinton1000 (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Dear Randykitty, let's resolve this once for all. Have you designed the WP:COI? We seriously feel that this continuous editing from you has financial conflicts of interest.Are you willing to post your last year income sources? You are spoiling Wikipedia, which is a huge asset for the society, to a position where it loses its reputation.

  We gently request you to post your sources of income. All saintly individuals would have no difficulties in doing so. Clinton1000 (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Now I see that I have been "banned" from responding! There is a strong likelihood of a financial conflict of interest. The Wikipedia editors need to intervene here. Clinton1000 (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  There was a technical issue with the {{Connected contributor}} template that made the second, third... users mentioned appear banned if they were not explicitly stated to not be. I've fixed the template. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• You have not been banned at all, just warned that that may happen if you continue like this. I've responded to your (frankly rather offensive questions on my talk page. Please do not post there again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randykitty (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Please see the yellow box on the top of the page. This is harassing. Clinton1000 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I am guessing that your user name is the same as a previously banned editor? Theroadislong (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• We need information on conflicts of interests. This is just getting ridiculous. Anyone can accuse anyone for anything. And the accused is being asked for information. Not the accuser. Please refrain from this. Clinton1000 (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• There is again an accusation about undisclosed payments on the page! Please give some evidence and some rationale. You can go on, and so can we.Clinton1000 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  As I see it, Jhuma1971 has been banned from editing it. As I see it, you have deleted the whole section on the Global Newborn Society! Can you please give me the contact information for the Wikipedia executives? Clinton1000 (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  I answered this question below. Clinton1000 (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The accusation is against WP:SPA User:Jhuma1971. Theroadislong (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Jhuma1971 has NOT been banned from editing and there are zero "Wikipedia executives" here, we are all just editors like you. Theroadislong (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

We appreciate it. We need help from experts like you. Clinton1000 (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Now the box above says that Clinton1000 has been banned. Clinton1000 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The whole section on the Global Newborn Society has been removed. That was the whole reason why this page was created in the first place! We do not need a page for Dr. Maheshwari - he is pretty well known. Clinton1000 (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

That is why we have an article about him and NOT the organisation, Wikipedia has articles on notable topics, topics that have been reported on multiple times in reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you like someone in the US government develop a page on the society separately? Clinton1000 (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe here we could have just one sentence about the creation of the global newborn society? This is the first such society of its kind in the world. This sentence could in time be a nice connection to a separate page on the organization. Clinton1000 (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This is one way how Dr. Maheshwari has distinguished himself from other neonatologists. There are so many highly eminent newborn specialists. But this sentence would immediately help the readers to recognize who are we talking about. Clinton1000 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I added a sentence. Please review and approve. Clinton1000 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

By the way, thank you for all your help! We are healthcare professionals, but this is your area of expertise. All of us are just realizing that seeing one patient or writing one paper will not fix the problem. We need the society with us. It is just frustrating, and perhaps that was reflecting in my language. I am sorry. Clinton1000 (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, the NIH and American Heart Association do not publish their reviewers online for long periods. This last sentence in the last section will not have a credible reference. Clinton1000 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed the unfilled reference. Please review and approve. Clinton1000 (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• The page looks so much better. Thanks everyone. I would request that we remove the box of concerns at the top of the page and let's be done with all of this. Again, I am sorry. Just want to go back to caring of patients.Clinton1000 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with other non-COIed editors that the article tags are called for at this time. We might consider replacing the "paid" tag with the "autobiography" tag -- the citation supporting the RCP membership appeared to be to a personal profile/preferences page, suggesting that the editor who added it is closely associated with the subject. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Article creator User:Jhuma1971 has requested that the article be deleted here [1] with the comment “We request that this page be deleted immediately. The potential benefits vs. repeated insults are ridiculous. Thank you!” Anyone want to take it to WP:AFD? Theroadislong (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Maheshwari is notable (just look at his GScholar profile) and some sources must exist. So, no, I won't take it to AfD... --Randykitty (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) I considered taking the article to AfD earlier, and decided against it. The subject here probably passes WP:NPROF C5 as holding a named chair at a major university [2], although the citation record is much lighter than I would generally expect. The WP:TNT essay is less relevant after work from disinterested editors: although there is still a primary-sourced Research section, many of our articles on academics have a similar problem. In the presence of a verified request from the subject of the article, I suspect that a discussion would end in deletion; without, I somewhat doubt it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  Whatever you guys do, this continuous negative discussion needs to stop. He is our leader, and the tone of this discussion is actually not appropriate. The page is being continuously pruned. His leadership of all major organizations has been deleted, which is what actually makes him unique. Now there are judgements about his capabilities. How many physicians lead global organizations and journals? Jhuma1971 (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)