Talk:American Heart Association

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Cardiology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Cardiology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Red: #1day1woman (2020)

This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

AHA McLain (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Dubious statements

The summary of the AHA's "recommendations" is misleading. They advocate limits on dietary cholesterol and saturated fat, not a diet "high in carbohydrates" (unless perhaps you have a source somewhere?) Also, the summary of their position on lipid-lowering therapy is completely misleading. I've tagged it to request sources - if none are forthcoming, I'll remove it. The AHA's recommendations can of course be summarized if properly sourced. MastCell ^Talk 02:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph on sodium as the start of the "criticism" section is inaccurate. Neither of the two cited articles (the daily beast and a washington examiner opinion article) support the statements made about the effect of sodium made in the wikipedia entry.

Controversy

I restored the section on "Controversy" and included (as MastCell recommended) both statements of statin benefit as well as the negative. There are nine sources referenced. The thrust of the section, however, starts with criticism of the AHA for their apparent stand against supplements for many years, but does include the fact that they favor statins, which must be avoided by many people (e.g. those who have severe kidney problems, have liver disease, are pregnant or have given birth recently, are breastfeeding, or simply want to avoid statin side effects of kidney disease and pancreatitis). Gekritzl 23:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs work for balance and undue weight. The AHA advocates the use of statins, which are proven to lower the risk of heart attacks in high-risk individuals with a reasonable side effect profile. Statin-induced pancreatitis, kidney disease, or liver disease are quite rare. The AHA does not advocate the use of vitamins, which have never been proven to lower the risk of heart disease. This is an evidence-based stance, but your paragraph makes it out to be something sinister and makes statins sound like poison, both of which are inaccurate and non-neutral. MastCell ^Talk 23:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. It's hard to retain NPOV on something that has some negative effects that should be noted. I would be happy for you to attempt to tone it more toward NPOV. Thanks again. Gekritzl 23:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd like to see a citation to where the AHA actually "pushes" statins (i.e. recommends them more aggressively than other major medical organizations). My take, from their website, is that they recommend being aware of cholesterol as one of many risk factors and dealing with it in a variety of ways, including diet, exercise, and statins if necessary. Also I'd like to see where they "suppress" vitamins. These are not major positions of the AHA, and I'd prefer that this article not be diverted to become a platform for pushing the fringe views of the Life Extension Foundation or other minoritarian anti-statin, pro-supplement organizations. MastCell ^Talk 03:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment from an anonymous surfer who happened upon this Wiki article on the AHA: I see that "Newstarget" is referenced and externally linked. Follow the link and read the commentary. The person who wrote the commentary uses himself as a "one data-point study" to support his point of view. This is considered a credible argument?

         For an organization like this it is important to know if there are funding sources that might compromise their objectivity.  In this case, I would want to know if they receive funding from drug companies and if so how much and from how many such companies.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.243.196.188 (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Timothy Gardner

I would like to suggest this page on Dr. Timothy Gardner, which includes his biography, as a potential source for additional development of this stub or as a starting point for an entry on Dr. Gardner: From the Heart with Timothy J. Gardner, M.D. Shhoffman (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image of logo

The AHA website includes a page containing information about copyrighted content usage requests.[1] As for the use of their logo, their policy unfortunately states the following:

"Thank you for your interest in the American Heart Association. Our guidelines prohibit granting permission to use any America Heart Association logos or service marks by third parties unless they have negotiated a corporate sponsorship/licensing contract with our Corporate Relations department. The American Heart Association would dilute our ownership of our service marks if we were to grant permission for unlicensed use of those service marks."

Considering that Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, I find it very unlikely that any such negotiations will ever occur. Therefore the (defunct) image of the AHA logo, "Image:Aha logo.gif", should not be re-uploaded.Fuzzform (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs historical information added

There is currently a section on history but it contains no historical information. The sidebar states the organization was founded in 1924. How was it founded? Did it undergo any name and/or organizational changes? What major campaigns has the organization been part of in history? Krushia (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The AHA is now also a provider of training for first aid, in addition to CPR. The AHA also operates an affiliated organization, the American Stroke Association, which focuses on"

the section ends there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.23.223 (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edits by User:AHA_McLain possible WP:COI

According to the edit summaries, this editor is associated with the organization subject of this article. In my opinion this a delicate matter close to or straddling the lines defined in conflicts or interest, and definitely creates appearance of COI. The editing may also be in violation of other Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOPR and WP:SELFPROMOTE.

See these diffs:

[2]

[3]

Until we resolve this, I've tagged the article with the COI template. Mihaister (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note User:AHA_McLain has returned to editing directly in the article ([4], [5], [6], [7]), instead of the preferred method for COI editors to propose edits on the Talk page for discussion and consensus. Therefore, I've added the COI template back to the article. Please consult this for advice on how to proceed with edits to this article in compliance with WP policy: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Advice_for_editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest. Mihaister (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi gentlemen. User:AHA_McLain replied on his talk page in January, the month after this complaint. He asks reasonable questions. So I am removing the COI flag today because he acknowleges his connection and is asking for your help. If there are repeated problems we can add the flag back. I am working on an article for Alice H. Lichtenstein and am trying to clear up any confusion here (my own COI, if you will). If you have questions, please use my talk page because I probably won't see them here. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Heart Association. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updates added

I am an employee of the American Heart Association. We have noticed that the content in the Wiki entry about our organization was outdated. We have updated the content to reflect the current president and chairperson, added additional "notables" who work with the organization to the existing section on notables and celebrities, included the names and links to the other AHA journals that were not included in the list of publication and added additional citations. We have corrected the date that the Go Red for Women program began (2004 not 2010 as previous noted).

We present these updates with full transparency and in an attempt to follow Wiki's policies related to editors with conflict of interest making "unambiguously uncontroversial edits."

Respectfully, SGrant_AHA SGrant AHA (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Martha Roby with American Heart Association representatives.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decreased kidney function

The heart association talks and educates so much about the heart and lung cancer vs smoking amwich is great. My concern is this. My husband is 56 years old. He does not smoke or drink as his mother had lung cancer. Good choice. When he went to the Dr. Last week his blood studies came back. Decreased Kidney Function. Number one cause. High Blood Pressure. Diabetes. He’s not a diabetic. Why didn’t u tell us about this. Maybe he would have been more faithful to a medication. If we had known. 56. We r veery healthy. Now we are very sad. You have let this family down. U can’t be trusted to give us ALL the information we need to keep us living healthy. We know about lung cance and heart disease but not muck about the kidneys.

Let down Sandy Lowry 67.222.245.144 (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Watchman Device

My doctor recommends I get this done. I have had triple by pass surgery. Blood Pressure Level Good --Age 92 years old.---What say you? Can I do with out it? Gene

blood pressure 162.201.251.175 (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funding Sources

The most important information about a non profit like this is funding sources. There should be a section on funding sources Antisoapbox (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]