Talk:Global Newborn Society

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is about a globally-active, non-profit, registered 501(c)(3) organization focused on newborn health. Increasing awareness and membership may help organize appropriate global efforts. Despite best efforts, newborn infants have the same mortality rates as 58-60 year-old adults. However, they have not had the chance to experience life and to contribute to it. We have modified the text to emphasize these points. Please consider us.

We have modified the webpage to the best of our ability/understanding. Please help us. As mentioned earlier, there is no intention/possibility of COI. The membership is free, the contribution of scientific articles for publication is free, and the access to the journal is free. The cost of publication of the journal is borne by the members. All costs for registration of the organization were borne by the members. Maheshwari has committed to all costs in the first year, and other members will do so in subsequent years. Rotary might contribute to the effort. The cost of patenting any medical instruments for newborn infants through GNS is borne by the organization. We just do not know enough about Wikipedia rules. But this is one of many efforts that we need to do to reduce newborn mortality. Otherwise, the newborn mortality in Africa will remain 6-10 times that in the USA or Europe. No one in the developing world will be able to publish and draw attention to local problems.

Wikipedia is one fabulous channel that can help as it is accessible for all. If we look at the current societies engaged in efforts to reducing newborn mortality, not everything is clean everywhere. We desperately need help.

I believe that all the suggested changes have been incorporated. Is it ok to close the discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhuma1971 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

January 23, 2023Jhuma1971 (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I represent the Global Newborn Society, an organization with more than 10,000 members, and so there is nothing about self-promotion (https://www.globalnewbornsociety.org/).

The issue of low importance is concerning. Babies have the same mortality as 60 year olds. Would you say the same about them? There are very few websites aiming to raise public awareness about infant mortality. There is finally a pro bono organization that aims to do so. Why are we not rating it as important?

There is a huge difference between infant mortality in the West and the tropical/peri-equatorial regions. Are we being biased in according due importance to infant welfare because it not so much of an issue in the West? Please imagine the plight of a mother in Africa or Southern Asia who has barely enough to eat and is struggling to save her child.

The Global Newborn Society is a totally pro bono organization at present. Its journal is free for both the authors and the readers. It accords due importance to problems in the East, so that we just do not ignore their issues just because they cannot publish it because of inability to pay the publication fees of Western journals or linguistic difficulties. If I were a physician-scientist whose scientific reports were being declined because of inability to write in Chinese, how would I feel? Right now, infant mortality is the highest in Sub-Saharan Africa, northern India, and parts of Asia - these are non-Anglophonic areas. Don't we need to make an extra effort to correct the problems left from the colonial era?

We are an encyclopedia, not a webhost. Whether an organisation is doing good or not, is needed or not, is frivolous or life-saving, is of no importance to us. As long as the subject (here GNS) hasn't received the necessary attention from reliable, independent sources (e.g. newspaper articles about the GNS), then we will not have an article about it. Furthermore, please see WP:COI and WP:NPOV: we aren't here to give organisations an extra free website where they can passionately defend their cause, even if it is a good one: we need neutral articles, written by unaffiliated people. Fram (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. We will ask unaffiliated people to submit the materials they find important. Wikipedia is very important - it goes way beyond a website because people find access to it while scrolling. Websites have an appearance as if we are trying to convince someone about an idea with a vested interest. Jhuma1971 (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"Global Newborn Society" is a noble concept aims to save millions of newborn

The concept of a "Global Newborn Society" is a noble one, as it aims to improve the health and well-being of newborns across the world. Newborns are particularly vulnerable, and ensuring that they have access to proper medical care and nutrition is crucial for their survival and development. By creating a global society dedicated to this cause, we can pool resources and knowledge to develop new treatments and interventions that can save lives and improve outcomes for newborns. Additionally, by working together, we can advocate for policies and programs that prioritize the needs of newborns and their families. However, it's important to consider the possibility of cultural sensitivity as it's a global initiative and what works in one country may not work in another.

Overall, the idea of a Global Newborn Society is a positive one, as it can lead to improved outcomes for newborns and their families. It could be an opportunity to share best practices and knowledge, and to advocate for policies that promote the health and well-being of newborns. 2405:201:500D:1AF4:FC8F:5E0D:8DC1:57C0 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The organisation is large!

The organisation has 10,000 members in 122+ countries! Seabiscuit341 (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps (we only have the claim from the organisation itself for this), but no other sources seem to have given it any attention[1]. Fram (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)