Talk:American College of Pediatricians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Conservatism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conflict of Interest?[edit]

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)

Assorted biases[edit]

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)


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. 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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Dead links[edit]

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 or find where they were moved. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of research (to do)[edit]

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)


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. --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[edit]

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)

Copyright claims[edit]

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[edit]

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

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)