Jump to content

Talk:American College of Pediatricians/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American College of Pediatricians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Assorted biases

I blanked this section; it was unsourced to anyone criticizing this group, and read like it was simply an editor's opinion about why this group is bad. I also reverted quite a large number of edits coming from the organization itself, which used a variety of rhetorical techniques to skew the article to a pro-ACP point of view. This article could really benefit from some honest-to-goodness, neutral, fully sourced, fact-based writing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability

This appears to be a small organization without much media attention. I found one article based in part on one of their position statements in the National Catholic Register.

Guidestar.org says they reported about $69,000 in membership dues and assessments in 2007 (representing about 90% of their funding). All in all, I suspect that this is a very small organization, and it does not obviously meet our notability guidelines for organizations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. This is a small fringe group and in accordance with youtube rules this article should be deleted as it is not notable and there is virtually no non-primary information pertaining to this group. As this group is not notable it should most likely be deleted. Any other thoughts? SpeedyLA (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I covered at least 7 pages of Google search results; no suitable sources. I'm sympathetic to the view that we should make an attempt to be fair to organizations that bill themselves as conservative, and I'm open to the idea that I'm biased on this, but no reliable sources report on this group, that I can tell. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The Boston globe source cited seems to further the case that this 'college' is not notable. The article explains that the 'college' has a single employee and is being pushed as a counter to large well-established organizations such as the American Psychological association. Perhaps we should be vetting these sources a little more rigorously and discussing them here in the talk section. SpeedyLA (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe the organization is notable enough, per the source search results I noted - one can find enough to write a useful article on it.. Once removed, prods should not be restored - see WP:PROD, so I removed it again. The only way to delete is by AfD.John Z (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

I noticed several edits by a User:AmericanCollegeofPediatricians who significantly changed the opening paragraph (to the point of mutilating the references, which is how I noticed that something was wrong in the first place).

Since I'm not up to speed with the various conventions, I figured I could send a call out before diving deeply into the COI (or whatever applies here) rules. If it's okay from a COI point of view (which I personally doubt, but...), then the references need major fixing. If not, then I suggest a revert to December 7.

(If nobody answers, I'll just have to dig into the rules myself :P) --Sid 3050 (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This was reverted John Vandenberg (chat) 09:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

restored

I have restored this article to its former glory, prior to the "Objectives of the College" from their website being added by Snakeoil61 (talk · contribs). John Vandenberg (chat) 09:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've hidden the revisions which can be considered a copyvio, but I don't think this is really necessary. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page substitute

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ckatz and Destinero. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Destinero, yuor source does not support your wording. It is a primary source and can only be used to source the fact it exists and the specific words within it. You can say "in an amicus curiae brief filed in xx lawsuit, yyy and zzz groups assert that...". If your wording is correct, find something different to back it up, like a magazine or journal article. If it's correct, that should be easy to do. Franamax (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Comparison in lead

I'd like to point out that the contrast between ACP and AAP is actually based on this article from Catholic Exchange. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

ACP has apparently redesigned their site so all link we have here go the same generic page on their site. That needs work: either get them on archive.org or find where they were moved. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)  Done. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of research (to do)

There's a lot more useful info in [1] on the misrepresentation of research by ACP, which is rather typical of groups like this. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added some of this. It was mostly documented with regard to their Facts About Youth pamphlet. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

== Community editing restriction of Destinero (talk · contribs)

==

Destinero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned by community consensus from inserting or removing contentious claims under colour of WP:UNDUE in Wikipedia articles relating to parenting and LGBT parenting. He also may not write article prose in these topics in "Wikipedia's voice"; that is, he may not insert claims in articles on these topics as unqualified factual statements. Destinero may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator in the event of violating this limited topic ban. In the event of repeat violations, he may be banned entirely from editing articles within these topics. See also Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-28/LGBT parenting. Community discussion on AN/I. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"Hearsay"

I'd like to voice some concerns with these edits, now repeatedly reinserted by Sallysue1159 (talk · contribs). First of all, when the membership is "estimated", then it's exactly that - an estimate. Obviously the number is not "documented", or sources would not need to estimate it. I think it's redundant inappropriate to keep adding a disclaimer ("although this number is not documented"), given the meaning of "estimated".

It's most appropriate to say that a "number" of prominent researchers have accused ACPeds of misusing or misrepresenting their work. They include (at least) Gary Remafedi, Warren Throckmorton, and Francis Collins. That's three. Hence, editing the article to say that only "two" researchers complained is factually incorrect, and I would appreciate it if Sallysue1159 would stop re-inserting this error into the article.

I'm fine with describing the organization's positions as socially, rather than politically, conservative, as I think that's probably the most exact descriptor. MastCell Talk 19:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with everything you've said here, I'm confused about where the "60 to 200" figure comes from that keeps being reverted back to. 200 is the estimated number from ref #1, but where did 60 come from? -- Fyrefly (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The legal brief from the National Association of Social Workers (cited as ref #4 at present) estimates the membership at 60 (see here, p.15). Since the estimates vary, I figured that giving a range was appropriate. MastCell Talk 19:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I have invited Sallysue1159 to join the discussion here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed over the dispute over the estimates; with competing sources, (both seem reliable) it would be best to include both estimates. I should note that including phrases like "but not verified" seems to push into the area of WP:OR as well - would it be useful to note that the organization doesn't release exact membership information (from ref #1)?Yobol (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation to join talk. We know from this article that the organization originated with at least 100 members that is why I have repeatedly removed the reference to 60. The source from the amicus curae that sites 60 is obscure at best and incorrect based on the article sited in Catholic Exchange. I guess it would have been more accurate and appropriate to have put in the range of 100-200 and site the source---my error.Sallysue1159 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC) By the way, it would be much easier to be accurate if the organization would simply state their numbers in question so no one would have to "estimate."Sallysue1159 (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, 100 is certainly between 60 and 200, and the amicus brief dates from 2009, so it's definitely not impossible that membership might have dropped in the 5-6 years since its founding. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
More likely; however, that the membership grew since its origination given their activity and the financial numbers as reported by Guidestar.Sallysue1159 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Well the Catholic Exchange article and the National Association of Social Workers brief simply contradict each other. They each claim that the organization was formed by a different number of members. Unless you want to try to assert that the Catholic Exchange is more authoritative (highly unlikely), then I would think we'd go with the range that encompasses all our estimates, which is "60 to 200." -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
It was founded with 57 charter members. http://web.archive.org/web/20030218163111/http://acpeds.org/index.cgi?CONTEXT=cat&cat=17 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
People, these are estimates. That's why they vary and sometimes "contradict" each other. We present them as a range of estimates, because that's what the best available sources give us. Any marginally literate reader will understand that the exact number is unclear, but that it probably lies somewhere between the two cited boundaries. The organization likely does not publish an exact membership because it is quite small (even 200 would be tiny for a national organization claiming to represent pediatricians). Generally, large organizations cite their membership (e.g. the American Academy of Pediatrics, [2]), and small ones don't, for obvious reasons. MastCell Talk 19:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I hear that the membership in an organization with this sort of focus goes up whenever a court rules in favor of same-sex marriage or adoption, and down whenever the issue isn't in the news.
Given that the org itself reported 57 members when it started, I think that "60 to 200" is not an unreasonable description of the number of members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Amicus brief

I just restored the amicus brief, because I don't think it's being used inappropriately. In one case, it's being used to source the NASW's membership estimate, which is essentially the group's opinion, which the group can be its own source for. If we had official numbers, it would be inappropriate to use here, but lacking them, we need to say where we're getting the numbers from. In another case, it's being used to source a position from a different organization -- while this isn't an ideal use, as this position has research and consensus behind it, it's not controversial. In the third case, it's being used to source the NASW's opinion about the ACPeds in a section entitled "Reactions", so I don't see this use as problematic either. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, I don't think that WP:SELFPUB applies to PFLAG here. PFLAG is, of course, an advocacy group and their opinion should not be presented as fact. However, as a prominent advocacy group, their viewpoint may be notable enough to mention, provided that it is clearly billed as PFLAG's opinion in the text (as it is here) to avoid misleading the reader. MastCell Talk 18:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned by repeated removals of a statement from the director of the NIH, Francis Collins, on copyright grounds ([3], [4], [5]). There are several major concerns with this copyright claim:

  1. While I am not a lawyer or copyright expert, I believe the work in question is not copyrighted and is actually in the public domain. It is a product of the National Institutes of Health, a branch of the federal government. Works of the U.S. federal government are generally not subject to U.S. copyright protection (see copyright status of work by the U.S. government). The statement is clearly billed as the work of the director of the NIH, in his capacity as director, and appears on the NIH website. It contains no copyright notice. I do not believe it is correct to claim that this work is copyrighted.
  2. Even if it were copyrighted, the edits in question seem to fall under appropriate use of attributed quotation. While I suppose that the longer quote, removed here, is arguably too extensive, there seems to be no legitimate justification for removing this version, which uses minimal quotation and does so appropriately.

I think this is a spurious copyright claim on both grounds. First of all, I believe that the work is clearly that of an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties, and thus not subject to copyright. Secondly, this version clearly makes appropriate use of limited quotations and, even if the work were copyrighted, would not seem to violate fair use. I would strongly encourage some dialogue from the editor repeatedly removing this material, since I think this is clearly a dubious copyright claim and would not expect to be granted a 3RR exemption for continuing to remove this material. MastCell Talk 17:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Issues with Reliable Sources

User Sallysue1159 (Talk | Contributions) and I are having a bit of a disagreement. At issue is whether a sermon printed by the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, and an uncredited blurb posted to a religious website, count as reliable sources. The differences in our opinions can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_College_of_Pediatricians&curid=29547715&diff=520481354&oldid=520222552.

It is my assertion that these do not rise to the level of being reliable sources within the standards set by Wikipedia. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

What does marijuana legalization have to do with pediatrics?

Even in the Netherlands, for example, weed is nowhere (as in Worldwide, absolutely nowhere) legal for minors. Therefore, you can understand my skepticism of the (unsourced) claim that a pediatric (which is specifically child medicine, last I checked) organization would for some reason have a stance on a topic well outside its purview. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I see the logic of what you're saying. However, it turns out that both the American Academy of Pediatrics (the real national organization of American pediatricians) and the phony right-wing mouthpiece we're talking about here have published extensively on the topics of "kids shouldn't consume marijuana" and "marijuana shouldn't be legal". You can see this in Google searches of the sites of the AAP and the ACP. TypoBoy (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
From AAP's Website: "Research and development should be conducted of pharmaceutical cannabinoids. The AAP recommends changing marijuana from a DEA Schedule 1 to a DEA Schedule 2 to facilitate this research." Not exactly in support of current policy, and anyway, the report not surprisingly is focused on medical use for children. The only concern raised regarding adult recreational legalization is mistaken ingestion (of Cannabis edibles) by children. Like I said, it is a huge stretch to argue that people over 18 are somehow under the topic or category of pediatrics (child medicine). The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

ACLU's opinion of ACPed doesn't belong in the lead

As I explained in my edit note the opinion of the ACLU on whether or not ACPed is a "fringe group" does not belong in the lead. Even placing it in the body of the article is rather questionable. Unlike the SPLC which is a recognized authority on hate groups, the ACLU is not a recognized authority on "fringe groups". It is an interest group with no special cachet on the subject of fringe groups, and no opinion on this subject which requires special recognition in our article. The fact that the ACLU is technically "non-partisan" is meaningless in this context. Motsebboh (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it's biased and should be removed. Does this sound like hate speech? "The American College of Pediatricians... http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children -...urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality." (50.53.159.101 (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC))

NPOV dispute [American College of Pediatricians]

It is clear from the talk page that this article has had a long history of biased editing. Currently there are multiple red flags contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Wikipedia. Some that stick out are the tags to the AAP at the top of the article, as well as on their page, using opposite terms like "small" vs. "major," and "professional" as well as political labeling. It is also very contrary to NPOV to include such statements in the beginning section rather than organizational facts. Clearly these things belong in "Criticism" of the organization. Seems like a rivalry hit job during election season and mentions nothing about the organization's actual practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btkaisurr (talk • contribs) 18:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The template at the top is useful to distinguish the American College of Pediatricians (a small, low-profile political advocacy group) from the American Academy of Pediatrics (the major, highly reputable professional association of US pediatricians). The names are similar enough that they are easy to confuse, yet the two organizations are very different in their size and mission. In fact, the ACPeds was specifically formed as a splinter group from the AAP due to disagreements over LGBT parenting - all the more reason why it's important to help readers distinguish the two.

As for NPOV, I think it's important to understand what is meant by "neutral". Neutrality doesn't mean that we define ACPeds according to its own press kit, nor does it mean we provide numerically equal pro/con reception. Neutrality (as defined by site policy) means that we proportionately reflect what the best available independent, reliable sources have to say about the subject. The article does that. MastCell Talk 18:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell that the current version is an appropriate reflection of the best available, independent sources. —PermStrump(talk) 19:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with MastCell in all respects. Neutralitytalk 20:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Fringe theory discussion

Wikipedia editors discuss this organization's perspectives at

This discussion includes sources sharing how other organizations view this organization. The overall context of that discussion is the extent to which the publications of ACP are reliable sources for developing other Wikipedia topics. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC) archive link added by Mathglot (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Guidestar still calls them the AMERICAN COLLEGE OF doodoo fartheads

With the motto? "we hate for children" and the mission "we are evil and hate gays :(((". Weird, you'd think they would have changed that. That's from [6] the Wired source added today. Doug Weller talk 12:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal of AAP source

This American Academy of Pediatrics source was removed twice. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is a mainstream established medical organization and this article by them criticizes the ACP's anti-LGBT Facts About Youth campaign. It was used to support the article's text that the "[American College of Pediatricians'] Facts About Youth was challenged as not acknowledging the scientific and medical evidence regarding sexual orientation, sexual identity, sexual health, or effective health education by the American Academy of Pediatrics."

  • First removal claimed that: "don't think we should be linking to harmful misinformation as if it were an encyclopedic source" [7]. This edit seems to confuse the AAP with the ACP.
  • The second removal claimed that "...the ACLU source and Pinto argue agains the ACP but this isn't shown in this section" [8]. Even though the text the source was used to support does in fact argue against the ACP. In fact, the text it is supporting is essentially a word-for-word reproduction of the AAP's criticism of the ACP, and should be put under quotation marks to avoid copyvio.

Based on the above, I've restored the cited ref. Bennv123 (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bennv123 weird, the link didn't work for me. Thanks. Still true about the other links, they could be used for more than they are. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Bennv123—that was my error. I was reading too quickly and assumed the link was to the ACPeds website (hence "harmful misinformation"). Of course, links to the AAP are appropriate as it is a reputable, mainstream institution and a reliable source. I apologize for my mistake, and wanted to thank you for correcting it. Happy editing! MastCell Talk 20:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead

I don't see the recent changes to the lead made by MastCell as an improvement. The former description of the subject as a "socially conservative" advocacy group seems to have been of long standing and accurate, so I don't think it should be changed without a discussion. The current wording that "the group's primary purpose is advocating...against rights for gay, queer, and trans people" (rather than against LGBT rights) tends toward unencyclopedic dramatization and advocacy. I also think the quote from a WIRED reporter in the lead, that Acped "encourages public schools to treat youth as if they were mentally ill" is a bad idea. It would be bad in the lead, rather than in the body, even if were issued by an expert but it especially bad both in the lead and issued by a reporter. Goodtablemanners (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

ACPeds treats non-heterosexuality as a mental illness, and encourages schools and educators to do the same. That's a fact that is both supported by reliable sources and highly relevant to understanding the organization. As such, it belongs in the lead per policy, and it violates WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD to obscure it in my view. MastCell Talk 17:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for responding; finally. There are two problems with using the quotation from the WIRED article in the lead. First, as Mathglot noted, there is no detail in the body of the article on AcPeds advocating that lesbianism, male homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgenderism be treated as mental illness. Second, there is no detail in the WIRED source article on Acpeds advocating that those things be treated as mental illness. It is merely a reporter's (not a medical professional's or group of professionals') remark. True, the WIRED passage does link to an article in a professional psychiatric (or maybe psychological} journal but, there again, no meat. Goodtablemanners (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
The first objection is easily dealt with by adding material to the body as well, which I—or you, or any editor—can do as time permits. There's no mandate that material appear in the body before it's added to the lead. The second objection misunderstands something fundamental about how Wikipedia works. We convey the content of reliable sources; such sources include both reputable medical-expert bodies and reputable journalistic outlets (like WIRED). There's no requirement that lead material be sourced to medical-expert groups rather than to reputable media—that's a totally made-up rule and deserves to be rejected as such. MastCell Talk 00:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
We should write a lead for the article which exists, not for an article which might exist if you or I or anyone else cared to add material to the body. One would reasonably think that since MastCell added the the quotation in question to the lead he would also add the corresponding detail to the body, but not yet I guess. Perhaps the problem is that, based on present sources, there is no corresponding detail. The author of WIRED article simply blurted out the sentence based on his own notion of what ACPeds is up to. But if ACPeds hasn't actually told school administrators that homosexuality, lesbianism. bisexuality. etc. are forms of mental illness, rather than just undesirable traits that shouldn't be encouraged, then the charge lacks sufficient heft to be included. Goodtablemanners (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
According to you it does, but your read of the sources is wrong, and so is your interpretation of the guidelines on lead vs. body. I’m reverting this again. I get it that you don’t agree, and I’m willing to see your version included, assuming you achieve consensus for it first, but you clearly don’t have consensus for it now. Please follow any dispute resolution method of your choice, but please do not reinsert your preferred version before gaining consensus. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_College_of_Pediatricians/Archive_1&oldid=1246570460"