This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
American Academy of Pediatrics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | Bicycle Safety Camp was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 November 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into American Academy of Pediatrics. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
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)
reverted the controversial positions section....I tried to limit it to AAP positions that have made the national news...don't think AAP's support of car seats and immunizations is controversial.-- 209.149.177.67 12:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Recently, edits have been made asserting the AAP "is advocating female genital mutilation" or is suggesting U.S. law be "changed to permit doctors to perform a 'ceremonial pinprick, or small nick'". This is probably due to misrepresentation in the media. If one actually reads AAP's policy statement [1], it's clear AAP condemns all forms of FGM.
From the abstract:
The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm, counsels its members not to perform such procedures, recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC, and urges its members to provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the harms of FGC while remaining sensitive to the cultural and religious reasons that motivate parents to seek this procedure for their daughters.
Under the section "EDUCATION OF PATIENTS AND PARENTS", the AAP points out that some physicians who work closely with immigrant populations have voiced concern about the adverse effects of criminalization of the practice on educational efforts:
In some countries in which FGC is common, some progress toward eradication or amelioration has been made by substituting ritual "nicks" for more severe forms. In contrast, there is also evidence that medicalizing FGC can prolong the custom among middle-class families (eg, in Egypt)
Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.
This is hardly equivalent to "advocating" FGC, or even suggesting US laws should be changed. It simply acknowledges the various approaches to eradicating or reducing health risks posed by FGC. The policy statement ends by summarizing AAP's 4 recommendations, none of which condone the practice of ritual nicks.-- CurtisSwain ( talk) 23:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstewartaap ( talk • contribs) 15:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hmmm. But isn't the AAP's own set of publications essentially "self published" by an "advocacy group?" -- KarlHegbloom ( talk) 11:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The title is now in italics. How can we change that? Biosthmors ( talk) 17:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
I've organized some things and removed unsourced and primary sourced info that I thought was promotional in nature. [4] 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)
A couple of times the linked term professional association has been changed in the first sentence. It has been changed to association, which I reverted, and now I see it is trade association. I think professional association is a more accurate term. Trade association is described as "an organization founded and funded by businesses that operate in a specific industry". Individual pediatricians aren't exactly businesses though some may be seen as businessmen (those in private practice). Biosthmors ( talk) 04:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
and so it is intended as an insult against the AAP. It's interesting to note that even Chapin says "acting like a" and not "is a," indicating Chapin doesn't actually think the AAP is really a trade organization.“The fact that the AAP Task Force is calling for third-party payment for circumcision, even though it cannot find justification for recommending the surgery, shows that a group charged with a serious evaluation of a non-therapeutic surgery is acting like a trade association on behalf of doctors’ bank accounts, rather than helping doctors to protect their newborn patients,” said Chapin.
Back to the question, how should it be classified? As always, look at what the sources say:
Zad
68
19:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
So, all of this just begs the question: "Are Pediatricians required to affiliate or join the AAP in order to practice?" -- KarlHegbloom ( talk) 11:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I am removing the phrase "a registered non-governmental organization" after "The policy shift was criticized by Intact America" for the following reasons:
Zad
68
01:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Georganne Chapin, founding executive director of the anti-circumcision advocacy group Intact America, said last week that she looked forward to calling out academy leadership for "scientific blindness."
The policy shift was criticized by anti-circumcision activist Georganne Chapin.
Zad
68
17:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)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)
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)
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)Rhodes
References
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
American Academy of Pediatrics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | Bicycle Safety Camp was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 November 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into American Academy of Pediatrics. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
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)
reverted the controversial positions section....I tried to limit it to AAP positions that have made the national news...don't think AAP's support of car seats and immunizations is controversial.-- 209.149.177.67 12:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Recently, edits have been made asserting the AAP "is advocating female genital mutilation" or is suggesting U.S. law be "changed to permit doctors to perform a 'ceremonial pinprick, or small nick'". This is probably due to misrepresentation in the media. If one actually reads AAP's policy statement [1], it's clear AAP condemns all forms of FGM.
From the abstract:
The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm, counsels its members not to perform such procedures, recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC, and urges its members to provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the harms of FGC while remaining sensitive to the cultural and religious reasons that motivate parents to seek this procedure for their daughters.
Under the section "EDUCATION OF PATIENTS AND PARENTS", the AAP points out that some physicians who work closely with immigrant populations have voiced concern about the adverse effects of criminalization of the practice on educational efforts:
In some countries in which FGC is common, some progress toward eradication or amelioration has been made by substituting ritual "nicks" for more severe forms. In contrast, there is also evidence that medicalizing FGC can prolong the custom among middle-class families (eg, in Egypt)
Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.
This is hardly equivalent to "advocating" FGC, or even suggesting US laws should be changed. It simply acknowledges the various approaches to eradicating or reducing health risks posed by FGC. The policy statement ends by summarizing AAP's 4 recommendations, none of which condone the practice of ritual nicks.-- CurtisSwain ( talk) 23:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstewartaap ( talk • contribs) 15:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hmmm. But isn't the AAP's own set of publications essentially "self published" by an "advocacy group?" -- KarlHegbloom ( talk) 11:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The title is now in italics. How can we change that? Biosthmors ( talk) 17:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
I've organized some things and removed unsourced and primary sourced info that I thought was promotional in nature. [4] 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)
A couple of times the linked term professional association has been changed in the first sentence. It has been changed to association, which I reverted, and now I see it is trade association. I think professional association is a more accurate term. Trade association is described as "an organization founded and funded by businesses that operate in a specific industry". Individual pediatricians aren't exactly businesses though some may be seen as businessmen (those in private practice). Biosthmors ( talk) 04:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
and so it is intended as an insult against the AAP. It's interesting to note that even Chapin says "acting like a" and not "is a," indicating Chapin doesn't actually think the AAP is really a trade organization.“The fact that the AAP Task Force is calling for third-party payment for circumcision, even though it cannot find justification for recommending the surgery, shows that a group charged with a serious evaluation of a non-therapeutic surgery is acting like a trade association on behalf of doctors’ bank accounts, rather than helping doctors to protect their newborn patients,” said Chapin.
Back to the question, how should it be classified? As always, look at what the sources say:
Zad
68
19:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
So, all of this just begs the question: "Are Pediatricians required to affiliate or join the AAP in order to practice?" -- KarlHegbloom ( talk) 11:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I am removing the phrase "a registered non-governmental organization" after "The policy shift was criticized by Intact America" for the following reasons:
Zad
68
01:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Georganne Chapin, founding executive director of the anti-circumcision advocacy group Intact America, said last week that she looked forward to calling out academy leadership for "scientific blindness."
The policy shift was criticized by anti-circumcision activist Georganne Chapin.
Zad
68
17:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)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)
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)
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)Rhodes
References
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)