Talk:Akhil Maheshwari

Latest comment: 6 months ago by Drmies in topic Proposed deletion

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. edit

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)Reply

== 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)Reply

Regarding issues with this page edit

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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 (talkcontribs) 09:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Wrongful and discouraging negative feedback on the page edit

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)Reply

What GNS is doing edit

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)Reply

COI tag (March 2023) edit

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
  • 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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:Reply

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)Reply


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)Reply

  • 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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
  • 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 (talkcontribs) 18:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Please see the yellow box on the top of the page. This is harassing. Clinton1000 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I am guessing that your user name is the same as a previously banned editor? Theroadislong (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • 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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
    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)Reply
    I answered this question below. Clinton1000 (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
The accusation is against WP:SPA User:Jhuma1971. Theroadislong (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
We appreciate it. We need help from experts like you. Clinton1000 (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Now the box above says that Clinton1000 has been banned. Clinton1000 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Would you like someone in the US government develop a page on the society separately? Clinton1000 (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
I added a sentence. Please review and approve. Clinton1000 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
I removed the unfilled reference. Please review and approve. Clinton1000 (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • 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)Reply
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)Reply

Proposed deletion edit

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)Reply

  • 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)Reply
  • (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)Reply
    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)Reply
    There are even guesses that he is himself placing these notes. Why would he need to do that? The Rotary is doing this. You don't become a member of these organizations without some capabilities. Need to re-think about your criteria. I am sorry, but the world doesn't work this way. If you want to prune the webpage, just get rid of it. We don't want a page where he is "honored" to have an endowed chair - he has had an endowed chair for 10 years. There are so many endowed chairs. He is the only founding physician chair of an international organization spanning 122 countries. Jhuma1971 (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
    For FRCP, there is a note that the there is no credible reference. Please see the following reference:
    https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/members/member-directory?field_country_value=US&field_member_specialty_value=All&field_member_interest_value=All&field_member_status_value=2&combine=Maheshwari Jhuma1971 (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

June 19, 2023

Dear Readers/contributors/referees, or to it may concern.

This is Akhil Maheshwari, the individual on whom this page was intended to be focused. I would like this page to be removed with immediate effect. Please help me here.

There are a number of ridiculous and even insulting points, such as my having paid for some sections. I do not need this page; I am fine without it. I do have one request - Wikipedia should publish an audit of how many articles are "paid for", and of the specific profile of the referees who are making these accusations. I am afraid Wikipedia might lose its original goals with the current modus operandi. Anyways, it is not for me to supervise anyone else's job. Here, it is just a polite and most sincere request the Wikipedia should remove this page. It is focused on me and my career, and I think that it is my right to make this request. I wish you the best.

Sincerely,

Akhil Maheshwari14.139.41.89 (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Addendum:

I apologize for this delayed request above; I see that the last modifications and posted concerns are dated in April. I have been traveling for the Global Newborn Society for several months and a member of our team just brought the discussions on this page to my notice. Overall, I sincerely appreciate the efforts of the Wikipedia team to develop this forum, but it is not sufficiently detailed for us at least in the sector of academic/global medicine.

Sincerely,

Akhil Maheshwari103.55.72.28 (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

IP editor, I have nominated the page for deletion on your behalf. It would be worthwhile to send an email to the volunteer response team, who may ask you some questions to confirm your identity. I can't predict if this will end in deletion; previous similar deletion discussions have sometimes ended in deletion and sometimes in keep. I myself tend towards keep in these circumstances. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please delete this page named after me immediately. My impressions of Wikipedia have turned out to be very different - when I was asked, I thought that it'd be a new age Encyclopedia Brittanica. But at least my case, it became insulting as if I personally wanted to have this page. I don't - it is always the work that speaks, not propoganda. Have any of the wiki editors visited Africa and seen dying babies? It is very easy to talk from a desk. I also think that we need to be careful as an internet-based effort is not always protected from recognition as abuse.
This IP address is a local office computer. Please have no confusion as if I am using a personal computer to ask for something.
May God bless you.
Akhil Maheshwari Jhuma1971 (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

09/27/2023

This is Akhil Maheshwari. Please remove this page. The Global Newborn Society has decided to use LinkedIn and its own website for reaching out to its target audience.

Sincerely,

The GNS Leadership Team§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhuma1971 (talkcontribs) 03:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • Jhuma1971, we do not accept "leadership teams" as editors. We have also found that article subjects should not edit their own articles, which is why I have removed your ability to edit the article directly. An AfD was started on your behalf; the decision was to keep the article, and that's pretty much it: you do not, after creating the article and discovering that Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, have the right to write it up as you like to see it. What you can do is look at WP:BIOSELF, read it carefully, and follow its guidance. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply