Talk:American College of Pediatricians

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)