Talk:American Heart Association

Disputed content

This content was added to the article:

• "In 1948, the American Heart Association received $1.7 million, the equivalent of $20 million in 2022, from Proctor & Gamble, the manufacturers of Crisco vegetable shortening".

The source given for this claim is Nina Teicholz [1]. If you read her paper, the source she gives for this claim is Teicholz N. "The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat, and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet". So she is citing her own book as a source.

If you search on Google for "American Heart Association" "Proctor & Gamble" "1948" the only websites that pop up are conspiracy theory anti-seed oil websites promoting seed oil misinformation. There are no references that mention this on Google scholar, Hathitrust or JSTOR. If Procter & Gamble did donate $1.7 million to the AHA in 1948 then a good historical source needs to be found for this. Nina Teicholz is not a reliable source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that even if a reliable source can back this up, it might not be particularly notable to add to the article given the size of the Association's revenue. I presume this addition is part of an editor's POV push to make the AHA appear biased and captured by industry, but when placed in the context of AHA's nearly billion-dollar revenue stream $20 million isn't too significant (although I don't have easy access to 1948's tax return to see if it's comparable). Thankfully this digging allowed me to add the financials to the infobox for future readers. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Recent edits

Isjadd773 has been repeatedly adding unreliable material to the lead [2], including this text "The organization gained notoriety in 2025 when they used their social media accounts to promote "Not Like Us", a rap song about pedophilia and sex offenders".

The sources they linked to for this information was a 1950 paper in the AHA's Circulation journal [3] and the "About Us" webpage from the American Heart Association website [4]. Neither of these links mention pedophilia or rap music.

Not only is this WP:OR and WP:UNDUE it looks like blatant vandalism. Isjadd773 please do not re-add this material because it is not properly sourced. There is no reliable sources claiming the organization "gained notoriety in 2025" for promoting Not Like Us and none of the sources mention the text you added. Veg Historian (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. It seems the references got mixed up in the formatting and you were correct to revert it in this instance. However, my original edit 1, which you reverted inexplicably claiming that it was WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS, had the correct reference. I will restore in due time with the appropriate references. And if you choose to revert again, you can respond to this discussion again to explain why WP:CITE and WP:DUE should be disregarded. Isjadd773 (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Your original source that you linked to is a website for "black entrepreneurs" [5]. This isn't a mainstream news website, nor does it specialize in medical topics. We would not cite that source for information about the AHA. Nor does the source mention anything to do with pedophilia or sex offenders. The AHA is one of the largest voluntary organizations dedicated to fighting heart disease and is considered one of the leading cardiovascular organizations in the world. I do not approve of smearing the AHA on Wikipedia in the lead with nonsense about a rap song and pedophilia that has no sourcing to support it. My advice is to not re-add this unreliable material. You have not listed any WP:RS. It is also original research to say the AHA "gained notoriety" over promoting this rap song because no sourcing is suggesting that. Veg Historian (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Multiple mainstream media outlets covered this story. Here are a few (not an exhaustive list): USA Today1, People Mag 2, Yahoo News 3, Huff Post 4. None of these are niche outlets and all sources mention the song and CPR awareness based on BPM. Hence WP:DUE. Details about the lyrical contents and theme of the song that was platformed by the can be found here: 5, 6. Including this information provides readers with relevant context on the song being platform, and would be context coming from reputable sources. It is not WP:OR. The term notoriety in this instance is referring to significant news coverage as of late; and could be considered WP:SKYBLUE and doesn't need standalone citations mentioning the term explicitly. But for the sake of compromise, the word changed to something along the lines of the "Recently, AHA has received significant news/media coverage for _____".

Now of course it is regrettable that such a prominent organization chose to used their official social media accounts to promote a song about pedophilia and alleged sex offenders, albeit in an absurd attempt raise CPR awareness. Whoever approved those posts did a disservice to all clinicians and physician-scientists affiliated with the AHA. This is why I gave the counterexample of the organizations such as Crohn's & Colitis Foundation in an edit summary, to illustrate the difference between an organization which acts in a professional manner and receive news coverage for their professional/research activities as opposed to organizations such as the AHA, which is receiving news coverage for platforming songs about pedophilia and alleged sex offenders. And your assertion that I'm somehow "smearing" an organization for posts they made on their own social media pages is unfounded. All significant coverage, which is verifiable should be included for the sake for preserving neutrality. Wikipedia is not a place for one-sided advertising, marketing or publicity for any organization. Isjadd773 (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

None of the sources you link to mention "absurd", "pedophilia", "sex offenders" or "notoriety". Nobody has criticized the AHA for promoting some songs for helping with hands-only CPR or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. You seem to be inventing a controversy that doesn't exist.

Your first link USA Today says "In a Wednesday social media post, the non-profit organization said Lamar's five-time Grammy award winning song "Not Like Us" had the right tempo for hands-only CPR, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation, with 101 beats per minute". and "Though the American Heart Association's post about "Not Like Us" certainly got some attention, it wasn't the only song the non-profit has cleared to help practice compressions. In fact, the American Heart Association recommended a handful of other songs from artists in recent weeks, from Chappell Roan to Bad Bunny".

You are trying to blow up a notoriety over a single social media post they made. The problem is that none of the sourcing supports your interpretation; the sources you linked to have not criticized the AHA over this, none mention anything to do with pedophilia or sex offenders. Also per WP:NOTNEWS we wouldn't cite this in the lead. You seem to be misreading these sources? As stated none of the sources you link to criticize the AHA. Another example, the HuffPost link you cite [6] does not criticize the AHA, it is supportive. This is a bad case of WP:OR. You are including content that is not in any of the sourcing. It is against policy and any admin would back me up on this. If we are going to include news sources any text added must be accurate to what they say. Veg Historian (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)