Talk:American Academy of Pediatrics

message: Someone should try to rewrite the history section.  Phrases like "works tirelessly" shouldn't be in there.  Someone should also review the edits made by 209.149.177.67 as wholesale removal of topics labeled as controversial are usually not good signs. - 67.166.132.47 (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: * Pediatricians now reject all female genital cutting • Ling.Nut 22:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pediatricians now reject all female genital cutting 

message: I've proposed that AAP News is merged into this article. Simply because AAP news is very light on content and it would be fine included somewhere in this article. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged the articles as proposed as there was no concerns raised. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: Nstewartaap, if you have issues with the article here is the place to discuss that. I made edits to remove advertising material so if you want to make changes do them directly - a reversion just puts the advertising back in & that is not in line with wiki policy. Also I am not sure what you mean by Organization prefers to not call out one specific program out of hundreds. (in an edit summary). But one thing to bear in mind is that what the organisation wants is largely irrelevant unless there is attack material/unsourced allegations which keep being added back etc (in which case they should contact Wikimedia foundation). --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: This article reads like it's an advertisement or information directly from the article's topic. It's very praising and contains a copious amount of unneeded junk like "protect the well-being of children" and "unite the voices of pediatricians in the fight for better public policies." Almost like it's a sales-pitch. I felt the majority of the article reads this way. It's also lacking in third-party sources. Toroxus (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added advertisement marker. 

message: There seems to be a push to include self published material from circumcision advocacy groups here. We need independent reliable sources to mention their objections before they deserve any WP:WEIGHT here. Yobol (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy and self published material 

message: The title is now in italics. How can we change that? Biosthmors (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it is an automatic change when someone puts in a particular infobox. I have removed it. Yobol (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Article reads like a promotional brochure. Looks as though someone from the org has gone about "cleaning" things up, leaving a subjective presentation of the organisation as wholly positive. The section on Controversies was removed, even though there have been a number of high-profile controversies; this smacks of Newspeak.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.232.208 (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went through the article (see here), and I think it is much better now. Biosthmors (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The Academy has issued a very self-serving and controversial position on male circumcision. This article needs to cover that in some detail.
Lakeside75 (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know exactly what you're suggesting the article say, but it is discussed. Biosthmors (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male circumcision 

message: I've organized some things and removed unsourced and primary sourced info that I thought was promotional in nature. Any objections? My edits were reverted earlier but I think this could have been accidental as the edit summary had no mention of why the material was reinstated. Biosthmors (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization and removal of unsourced or primary sourced info 

message: I revised the section on the AAP's circumcision policy to include criticism and counter-criticism. I also eliminated the statement on Georganne Chapin's opposition to the new AAP policy because there are many, many individuals and organizations opposed to it.Farmsworth (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of New AAP Circumcision Policy Statement and Response 

message: The American Academy of Pediatrics on 20 March 2013 issued the following report and policy statement. I think that this statement could be called a policy from a top-level children's health medical organization, as probably most pediatricians in the United States belong to this society. 
*
 Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian

message: A July 15 edit removed huge sections of this page that appear to be related to controversies and criticisms of the AAP.  This edit appears to have been made by a representative of the AAP.  I'm not sure this was appropriate.  At very least, such radical edits should be discussed as a community prior to being made.  Although I certainly appreciate that the AAP would want to be sure non-factual information was removed, well-referenced information, even if not always favorable, should remain.  This is not an advertisement site for the AAP.  I don't doubt the edits were good faith, but if there is a concern, best to discuss it first.  97.100.165.246 (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the diff. In this edit user:Nstewartaap removed criticism about the organization. Since the letters "AAP" are in the name and since this WP:SPA is removing criticism, I suspect that this person must work in communications for the organization. I am messaging them on their talk page and will offer to talk with them about Wikipedia community guidelines. I would love to see this organization develop Wikipedia articles on pediatrics, because Wikipedia is one of the world's most consulted sources of information for pediatrics.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In 2015 the AAP stopped taking funding from Coca-cola. Should this be included?https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/28/coke-spends-lavishly-on-pediatricians-and-dietitians/ HLHJ (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections on Controversies and Criticism

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on American Academy of Pediatrics. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727172535/http://aapnews.aappublications.org/ to http://aapnews.aappublications.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: With respect to the article, Cantor's attack on AAP's stance on transgender children may be somewhat misleading in implying he represents mainstream medical opinion. Cantor was pushed out of Quad-S for repeated rules violations on the same topic and has made numerous claims in his career that haven't been replicated by other scientists. The article makes it sound as though a mainstream researcher criticized them and they were unable to respond with a coherent opinion because they did not engage with a media magazine. Is this really a fair appraisal of the topic...? TricksterWolf (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Cantor 

message: The referenced quote by Block in the LGBT Healthcare section appears to use quotes differently from the source article. The quoted section from the source article reads 
 US medical professional groups are aligned in support of “gender affirming care” for gender dysphoria, which may include gonadotrophin releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) to suppress puberty; oestrogen or testosterone to promote secondary sex characteristics; and surgical removal or augmentation of breasts, genitals, or other physical features.
My original thought was to remove the quotes and change the paragraph to read 
 According to Block (2023) US Medical Groups, including the AAP, "are aligned in support of “gender affirming care” for gender dysphoria, which may include gonadotrophin releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) to suppress puberty; oestrogen or testosterone to promote secondary sex characteristics; and surgical removal or augmentation of breasts, genitals, or other physical features."
However, given that this section is about the positions of AAP, I'm not sure that this paragraph is necessary. The second and third paragraphs outline the AAP's position. If the goal is to note that the AAP's position is in line with the other professional medical associations, it might be better to just say that, with the reference to the article. None of the other sub-sections under the Policy Positions sections make reference to agreement or disagreement with other professional medical associations, so it's unclear what the purpose is in this subsection. CyberLillian (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT Healthcare Section