Talk:American Psychological Association

Position on Animal Testing
Please make a section on APA views on animal testing, particularly nonhuman primates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ap4lmtree2 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
I am requesting other editors to give comment about adding following lines in a new sub-section "Criticism" on "Views on homosexuality" section: "The former president of APA in 1987, Nicholas Cummings described the removal of homosexuality from DSM-III in 1973 as "The APA has permitted political correctness to triumph over science." He also added that, contemporary APA violated their own "Leona Tyler principle" which means "not to be influenced by politics in case of research and diagnosis" in removing homosexuality from DSM. Another former president of APA, Robert Perloff referred is as the willingness of many psychologists to trample patients rights to treatment in the interest of political correctness and added that making such choice unethical would deprive a patient of a treatment of choice because the threat of sanctions would eliminate any psychologist who engaged in such treatment. " 43.245.121.13 (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The first source cannot be viewed with the link. So little is available to read in the other two links that they do very little to support the idea that "Cummings descrided [sic] the removal of homosexuality from DSM-III in 1973". We need much better sourcing, more balanced sources, and especially sources that address today rather than the thinking 47 years ago. Sundayclose (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The assosion existed before 47 years ago and the change still exists today, besides both of them are later president of APA. So, I think this is notable. Moreover, will this reference be okay? < 43.245.121.12 (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please put your comments above the reflist template. No, in science 47 years is an eternity. And no, one critique is inadequate. At most this information as you have presented and sourced it deserves no more than a phrase or two among the consensus of opinions among contemporary psychologists, unless you can improve the sourcing tremendously. Please find a WP:BALANCE of several sources that address the issue. I'm not opposed to criticizing APA; I've added criticism to this article. But I am opposed to giving undue WP:WEIGHT where it does not belong. Sundayclose (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * please, check out these references, there the case of removing homosexuality from DSM-III by APA and homosexual's advocacy lobbyinng behind that and criticism about politics over science related to the matter meanwhile has been discussed from different viewpoints. I am also pinging because I have found out that he can counter a good balance about the criticism matters.     103.67.157.33 (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a limit to the amount of information I can get from a few pages in a book. But I still see nothing that would merit more than a brief mention of the issue as related to a revision that occurred 40 years ago. No more than a sentence, per WP:WEIGHT. To add more we need reliable sources that discuss how the issue has or has not evolved during the 40 years of revisions. Simply focusing on a 40-year-old revision without regard to changes since then, both in DSM and in science and society, has very limited value. Sundayclose (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We can add the removal period with controversy now, then we can modify it with the level of changes of the previous and foroward changes step by step. You can also help doing it. 116.58.205.34 (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This pdf can be a better initial instance for the step by step changes from the begining till now, the pdf can be used as a draft example for the section. 116.58.205.34 (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That source adds virtually nothing to address my concern about the past 40 years. Please don't confuse the date something was written with the date the writing refers to. I can write something in 2020 that discusses events from 1975, but that does nothing to address subsequent years. Additionally, please don't confuse the American Psychiatric Association with the American Psychological Association. Both are referred to as APA. My assessment has not changed: no more than a phrase, one sentence at most. You are trying to squeeze water from a stone. I am trying to assume good faith that you are not trying to push a personal point of view that does not conform to mainstream thinking among the majority of psychologists. Please either find something with substance or move on. Sundayclose (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't it bear importance about a case raised high controversy only just because it's 40 years ago, I don't know any rules of wikipedia that it rejects something notable only for it is a part of past or history. 103.67.159.167 (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because a lot can change in 40 years (and it has changed). Stop beating this dead horse. You and I are finished discussing this. To change the article you need consensus. Move on. Sundayclose (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Broad Suggestions
It would be helpful to add links directly to the separate division web sites. It would add a lot of functionality to the page. This could go next to the links for the Wikipedia pages (those that exist, anyway), or in a table in the Resources/external links section. Here's an example from one of the older divisions.

It also would be an interesting project to work with the societies to build out Wikipedia articles on each of the divisions or societies. They definitely pass the notability threshold, and it would be a strategic way of building partnerships to change professional and educational perceptions of Wikipedia. The large umbrella of APA also includes wonderful opportunities to work with societies devoted to specific groups that have historically been under-represented within Wiki and the editing community.

Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

New Yorker Article
I believe the New Yorker article can and should be included. It is not our job to decide which studies are poorly controlled and which are not. If someone has documentation from another source that the studies are incorrect or invalid (I cannot find anything), I will gladly include that documentation. Otherwise, it is original research. In summation, we have a well-researched article raising concerns from a reliable source. I believe it should be included.

https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans PerseusMeredith (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it certainly is our job to decide if studies are poorly controlled, especially to give such a study any WP:WEIGHT, because poorly controlled studies can produce unreliable and invalid results. That's basic science that anyone who has ever taken a high school course in a science knows. With that line of reasoning it would be OK for peer-reviewed medical journals to publish poor research alongside well-conducted studies; who cares about the consequences. And it's not any other editor's responsibility to find better studies. That's your responsibility. Original research??? That makes no sense. Raising concerns from a reliable source?? That's utterly absurd. A poor study is not a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Surveys are frequently cited on Wikipedia. There are a myriad of survey studies in the below page.  Are you going to take down all of the posts that cite them?  Su  Do you have anything to suggest that the A
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-affirming_surgery
 * https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Hormonal-therapy-and-sex-reassignment%3A-a-systematic-Murad-Elamin/e7565f9176c1b16db8e6b9eddf27334446d43526
 * this has been covered by WSJ and NYTimes.
 * https://www.wsj.com/articles/therapy-is-no-longer-a-politics-free-zone-1542994631
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html
 * If you’re asserting all of these reliable sources are wrong? are you suggesting there is a conservative bias in the APA? PerseusMeredith (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You miss the point. I didn't say there are no surveys on Wikipedia. I have said that the study you cite is too unreliable to support the sweeping generalizations you tried to make in your edit. And as bad research, there is no justification for it having any WP:WEIGHT in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * you’re cherry picking one survey (which is in fact controlled). There was also Haidt, Lammers with a series of surveys.  How are they all poor?  What are you basing this on?  Below is a quote from the article:
 * The Nobel Prize-winning behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman calledHaidt’s work “great” and “a real service.” PerseusMeredith (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * An economist's opinions about social psychologists does not justify your sweeping statements about psychologists and APA in general. There's no point in my repeatedly telling you that your conclusions are not supported. Here's the bottom line: You need a clear consensus here to make the edit. Sundayclose (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please dont say it’s my conclusion, it’s Yammer, Haidt, New Yorker, WSJ and NYTimes and all of the sources they cited. Exactly zero of the post or the citations are my own conclusion.  On the contrary, your conclusion that the study’s and reliable sources are not reliable, have no citations.  It is entirely your own personal viewpoint and opinion. PerseusMeredith (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, those people and organizations did not conclude that "APA has alleged to have lack of political diversity and that bias may influence research quality". You jumped to that synthesized conclusion with no basis. I'm finished repeating myself. If others weigh in I may have more to say. Wait for consensus before making the edit. Sundayclose (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * These are quotes:
 * "Social psychology, Haidt went on, had an obvious problem: a lack of political diversity that was every bit as dangerous as a lack of, say, racial or religious or gender diversity.
 * "Political homogeneity, he went on, comes at “a substantial cost” to research quality"
 * If you want to just publish the quotes, I'm fine with removing my paraphrase.
 * Hopefully some independent minded people will weigh in. PerseusMeredith (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, below is a link to the study that you cited as "poorly controlled" and "unreliable." It was published and peer reviewed.  As a result and has been cited 121 times in recent years.  Please explain or cite a source how the study in unreliable.
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227812075_Publish_or_Politic_Referee_Bias_in_Manuscript_Review1 PerseusMeredith (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Add content
Maybe add something about the American Psychological Association of Graduate Students As it is related to the APA Space772 (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)