This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This article is written very poorly. Furthermore, it does not move smoothly; consider greasing and editting for a smoother flow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.27.212 (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Your IP has been making edits on May 3rd on this article, that are considered vandalism. Please refer to Wikipedia's help section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents for how to post, and their guidelines. Also for information on the movement refer to further reading links contained in the article. Kal-spontaneous (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
The first paragraph on the history of the Fat Acceptance movement needs a rewrite, but I don't feel my knowledge is up to the task. Someone needs to clarify the description of the fat-in's origins, as well as precisely why photographs of Sophia Loren were displayed. I will try to make a few minor wording edits to other rough passages where meaning is not in question. Professional daydreamer (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Irrelevant section should be deleted?
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Here's the section I noticed today...not sure when it was added:
"Obesity in pornography"
"A recently growing movement in pornography has been a push for "big beautiful women" [bbw]. These women are admired by many for their lush curvature and abnormally large breasts. Furthermore, many thinner men feel that a bigger woman is perfect for domination, and thus are attracted to them."
As far as I'm concerned, pornography isn't really relevant to the fat acceptance movement. Not everything having to do with fat people is *part* of the fat acceptance movement. So why is this here? Why not write a separate article on fat pornography, fat admirers, or the BBW scene if that's your thing? This is an article about a *social and political movement*, not everything and anything related to fat people.
I've deleted it, if my changes are accepted. My apologies if I overstepped. If anyone has a burning reason why it should remain or be added, please let's discuss. Peggynature (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Article's point
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The whole argument that this article should not exist because fat people do not really experience discrimination/ that discrimination against fat people is actually justifid because they "choose" to be fat has been already extensively discussed in the past. Please check the archives before you bring this issue up again. Also, for the existence of this article it is absolutely irrelevant if the fat acceptance movement has a justified cause - what is relevant is if the movement exists (and it does). (By the way, the fact that fat people experience discrimination in the US and many other countries is well documented in the social sciences literature - so even if this argument would be relevant it there is overwhelming evidence that it is false.)
If you have anything verifiable to add to the criticism section be my guest - although I personally cannot see where you will find any source that will show that fat discrimination is justified and/or has any positive effects on a societal level.--145.116.230.249 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Also, for the existence of this article it is absolutely irrelevant if the fat acceptance movement has a justified cause - what is relevant is if the movement exists (and it does). Agreed. Sorry for responding to the bait. Peggynature (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Peggynature, I used to take the bait all the time - and as can be seen above I still partially take it - I guess I should have left out the whole "fat discrimination is a fact" and "I doubt you will come up with any evidence that sizeism benefits society".--145.116.230.249 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ok fine but please for the love of god delete that link to fat nudes in external links. Wikipedia is not a place for sexual deviants to find porn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.240.123 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Do images of nudes automatically constitute porn? These images are not explicitly sexual. And why, at any rate, would someone who finds fat people attractive have to be sexually deviant? Sounds rather trollish to me. 99.231.184.87 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Word for discrimination against fat people
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Is there a proper word for fat discrimination? There are plenty of references to 'Stoutism' on the internet if you wish to google the word. As a word of assurance to any militant pc fatties out there who think I'm being facetious I can assure you that I'm no thin thing myself.
I did a quick search on Web of Science to look which terms are used in articles on this topic. There are (although very few) hits for both, "fatism" and "sizeism", none for "stoutism" (a word that I have never come across before either). There are also hits for fat prejudice (which is, of course, strictly speaking not the same as fat-based discrimination), weight-based discrimination, etc. I personally believe that weight based discrimination is not very accurate because people are not discriminated against due to their weight but due to their perceived body fat - a very muscular person with a high weight is usually not discriminated against based on weight as far as I know. --R.C.B.19:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
The term "anti-fat bias" has been used in the peer-reviewed literature on this topic. A search for this keyword on PubMed pulls up 11 articles.Peggynature (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
This article seems biased towards the overweight.
This assumes that the size of the person writing the article somehow makes a difference. This is a common fallacy, called the Ad Hominem attack.
You either misunderstand the nature of the fallacy or the original comment. The size of the person writing the article certainly does make a difference to its probable content. A fat person is more likely to write an article sympathetic to fat people than a thin person is, that is simply human nature. And such, sections of an article sympathetic to fat people are more likely to have been written by fat people. An Ad Hominem Fallacy would be asserting that the article itself is somehow less truthful due to the fact that it was written by a fat person. In reality, whether the article is written by a fat person or a thin person, its value remains constant. --Tzler09:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
First of all: The section is called "issues within the movement". Secondly: Could you please clarify what exactly you mean by "weasel words"? It would be particularly helpful if you could point out specific sentences.--R.C.B.23:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Here I will do it for you:
Due to intrinsic linguistic misunderstandings and differing definitions of the word "acceptance," some "fat activists" (this is a weasel 'word' some evidence or a quote of someone would prove this but instead we only know that an indefinite number or people 'believe' this) believe the phrase refers to any fat person fighting for equal rights and opportunities, regardless of whether or not that person believes that the pursuit of reduction in a person's body mass is feasible. Other (Who? Is there any thing that can link to prove this?) "fat activists" define "fat acceptance" more strictly, applying that phrase only to fat people who are not pursuing a reduction in their body mass, and use phrases such as "fat activist" to describe fat people and "allies" working more generally on civil rights issues pertaining to fat people.
An additional issue with regard to language is that many in the fat acceptance movement (Again, who are these 'many' people) find the terms "obese" and "overweight" offensive, as they are often used to make overtly prejudiced statements seem more clinical or scientific. The word "fat" is generally preferred.
I dont mind this entry but seriously you cant make assertions without actually providing some evidence as to who is saying what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.221.110.4 (talk) 20:00, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Okay, if this is meant by "weasel words" than the criticism above is valid. In light of the context (i.e., the previous comment that the article is biased and that this is so because its authors are presumably mainly fat people) I originally interpreted "weasel words" differently...
I know this is not good enough, but anybody who hangs around fat acceptance blogs like Big Fat Blog or other fat acceptance websites will have come across discussions of the topics mentioned many times. I don't want to put words in people's mouths, but as far as one of the well known people in the movement are concerned, I am very sure that Paul McAleer from Big Fat Blog is "anti-diet" as well as against the use of the words obesity and overweight. In fact I am not completely sure about all of them, but my impression with the activists mentioned in the article is that they all pretty much share his views in this respective. However, there is a British organization fighting discrimination of fat people who does use the words obese and overweight and who also is pro-diet/ pro intentional weight loss - but I don't remember its name. There are probably similar organizations in the US and in other countries. Actually, since some very prominent people in the movement (like Marilyn Wann) have edited this article in the past they might be able to comment on their views themselves.--R.C.B.21:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
The last paragraph of the "Background" section is particularly non-neutral:
Fat activism faces challenges in addition to bigotry against fat people. Organizations such as the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA) and the International Size Acceptance Association (ISAA) are small in number, and people interested in the movement tend to be clustered in larger cities and spread across medium- to small-sized web communities. NAAFA changed leadership around the turn of the century and has been showing a renewed vitality applauded in the size acceptance community.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Given its strong feminist influences, what does the fat acceptance/liberation movement think about issues like anorexia and bulimia? I'd say that they could provide interesting insights into that and related issues.
Sizism can, of course, include discrimination against people who are thin. But you are assuming in your statement that all thin people are "anorexics/near anorexics," which is not accurate, just as all fat people are not "binge-eaters/near binge-eaters." Eating disorders are not a direct proxy for body size. People have different body sizes for many different reasons, one significant reason being genetics (McPherson, R. "Genetic contributors to obesity." Can J Cardiol. 2007 Aug;23 Suppl A:23A-27A.)
The reason this page redirects from 'sizism' is probably due to the idea that, currently, thinness is considered the predominant cultural ideal for many cultures (in North America and Europe especially), and therefore it is believed that prejudice and discrimination against fat people is more widespread than discrimination against thin people...hence, "sizism." A search on Pubmed for the keywords "anti-fat bias" turns up 11 articles. "Obesity stigma" turns up 75 articles.
In contrast, I could only pull up one relevant article on "thinness stigma" (Mull, DS. "Traditional perceptions of marasmus in Pakistan." Soc Sci Med. 1991;32(2):175-91)), which actually refers to the starvation-related wasting disease marasmus, not the social construction around the phenotype of thinness itself. There are several articles on eating disorders stigma, but, as I said above, eating disorders are not a totally accurate proxy for body size itself. Any issue of stigma against people with eating disorders might best be addressed in the anorexia nervosa entry or eating disorders.
I agree that people of any size (or appearance) that falls outside of the somewhat narrowly-defined cultural "ideal" (or even "average") can experience harassment and ostracization based on their appearance. However, discrimination against fat people is likely most prominent type of size discrimination in most cultures at this point in history, which probably is the rationale behind the redirect from 'sizism.' Peggynature (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree wholeheartedly with OsirisV. Sizism should absolutely not redirect here. Sizism can apply to discrimination against thin, tall and short people just as easily as it does to fat people. I was in fact redirected here while searching for an article on height-based discrimination. If nobody objects I would like to edit Sizism to remove the redirect and say something along the lines of 'Sizism is discrimination against an individual based upon their height or weight' including a link to this article and any other relevant articles. Sordyne (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago27 comments7 people in discussion
I'm going to put this up for deletion. There are few sources, lots of original research, and no mention of the name "Fat acceptance movement." Any thoughts from other editors? --Banime (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
I didn't make any redirect. Anyway, I'm tagging this for notability and will work on citations. There seems to be some possibilty of proof for this with the large amount of google hits, but until it's improved this article is definitely lacking. --Banime (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
That is an improper tag. I realize you are new, but please do not add tags that do not belong. This is an article about a well-known concept, with well known activists (who are also documented on Wikipedia) and there is more than enough Google hits and "further reading" and citation to show notability. This article goes back to 2002. Please edit more carefully. Thank you. --David Shankbone18:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well it is probably very well-known and has plenty of sources, but the article as it stands now provides no reliable third-party source that has coverage of the movement or any of the definitions presented. Please help other editors find the appropriate sources to cite all of the claims. --Banime (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
That's fine, but you should ditch now the thinking, "I know nothing about this article and it could use citations, so I will see if it should be deleted." You will win few friends on WP this way. There are many uncited articles, and citations are required for controversial statements and not every statement needs to be cited. WP:CITE. --David Shankbone21:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Per a discussion with Banime on my talk page, I agree that it was inappropriate for Banime to weigh in advocating deletion. (Coming so soon after the deletion of the Weedpunk article which Baime wrote, I question the good faith).
However, Banime is right that more citations are needed, so I have added some {{fact}} tags and a {{notability}} tag ... because while the article references individual activists and a few publications advocating fat acceptance, it offers no evidence that there is a fat acceptance movement. I think it's likely that there is such such a movement, but the article, but the article offers no evidence for that.
I'll clarify what I mean by that. The {{fact}} tags in the lead section identify the points which need referencing to establish the notability of the concept. At the moment, the article identifies advocates and some literature, but that alone is not a "movement". It would be quite possible to look at various issues in society, identify some activism and find some literature making similar points, and then attach the label "movement" to them. However, on its own that amounts to a synthesis, a form of original research which consists of collating info from dift sources and formulating from those sources a conclusion which is not directly supported by any of the individual sources.
An article on "fat acceptance" could quite reasonably identify activists and literature without needing to provide evidence that they are part pf a wider movement. However, this article explicitly makes the claim that that fat acceptance is a movement (rather than just the stance of a few individuals), but offers no evidence for that claim.
I suspect that such evidence probably does exist, but as it stands the article offers no evidence for the notability of a movement. The {{notability}} tag should remain until references are provided to reliable sources which demonstrate that "fat acceptance" is notable as a movement of the form described in the article's lead section, rather than as a series of isolated phenomena on a similar theme. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for all the clarification and help. I'm sure you can work to fix the article David Shankbone, it seems very well known but on the article itself there were only four unrelated sources to a fat acceptance movement, which is why I brought it up in the first place. I was wrong to advocate deletion right away, but, in my defense, if it was not in good faith at least I would have just done it without asking anyone first (this board and BrownHairedGirl, a more experienced editor than I) --Banime (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
"Weighing both sides: morality, mortality, and framing contests over obesity" by Saguy and Riley (J Health Polit Policy Law. 2005 Oct;30(5):869-921) references the "fat acceptance movement." "The weight dilemma: a range of philosophical perspectives" by Neumark-Sztainer (Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 Mar;23 Suppl 2:S31-7) references the "size acceptance movement" which is another term for the fat acceptance movement. The existence of organizations such as COFRA (Coalition of Fat Rights Activists), NAAFA (National Association for the Advancement of Fat Acceptance), ISAA (International Size Acceptance Asssociation), and the Counsel on Size and Weight Discrimination, further support the idea that a cohesive movement exists. There has also been talk of developing a "fat studies" curriculum at the university level, notably at Smith College, http://sophia.smith.edu/sizematters/FATA/ A Google search on "fat studies" turns up some MSM coverage of fat studies in universities.Peggynature (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
This page should be deleted. Its existance only legitimizes a bullshit cause designed around people who don't want to get made fun of for being overweight but also don't want to expend the effort to get off their burger bloated asses and get some exercise. Now, i have a feeling somebodys going to mark this as vandalism, but it isnt. Im saying the way things are, there is no "fat acceptance movement" except in the minds of fatties and fat fetishists who think theyre somehow beautiful because they like banging 700 pound chicks and cant get a skinny girl, and they hide their shame by making up mockeries of civil rights like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.240.123 (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh dear, here we go again. Look at the whole discussion page and the archives and you will find that what you said has been said before plenty of times and it still is no valid argument for deletion. That you think fat acceptance should not exist does not matter - what matters is IF it exists and if its existence can be verified. --145.116.230.249 (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well, it doesn't need a valid argument for deletion, it needs a valid argument for inclusion. And it doesn't matter if it exists and if its existence can be verified, but whether the existence is notable. --Banime (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Banime, since you started this discussion there were at least two sources (in this case scientific journal articles added which mention the movement. Which means I and a few other people are working on the notability issue.
Other than what is mentioned in the article there also has been quite a bit of news coverage of the movement recently or more specifically of "fatosphere" blogs which make up a significant part of the movement. In addition, the oldest organization for fat accptance, NAAFA, has existed for almost 40 years and there are publications by and about organziations such as the Fat Underground and the Fat Liberation Front that go back to the 1970s, some of which can be found here: [1]. There is an interdisciplinary field of academic study called fat studies (see here [2]) and scientists self-identifying as scholars in this field. Finally, self-identified members of the movement are not only localized in the US but also in Canada, Australia, the UK, and various other European countries.
Also, user 24.188.240.123 did not bring up the supposed lack of notability as a reason for deletion but instead launched into a personal attack on fat people. He (or she) has also repeatedly vandalized the article and this discussion - the last time yesterday - and has added a similar comment to the one above, again attacking fat people. I did not revert this last comment because it was clearly identifiable as vandalism - however, both of the attacks were impolite, vile, and,, considering that it should be clear to everyone that some people working on this article are members of the movement and fat, also clearly personal. So I really don't see how my reply to his comment (telling him that his personal opinion about the movement has no influence on if this article should or should not exist) is a reason to bring up the notability issue again.--145.116.230.249 (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Correction: 24.188.240.123 did bring up the notability issue above - although he does not name it that way. However, his comment is still largely a personal attack against fat people.--145.116.230.249 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the burden of proving notability is on the side of the people who want this article to remain on Wikipedia. We are working on it. However, I don't think it is fair to seriously entertain the arguments of people who vandalize the page and whose objections amount to hate speech. Those are not valid criticisms of the article or the notability of the movement, and I doubt those critics have read the article itself or looked at any of the sources cited. The fat acceptance movement has been picking up mainstream media attention recently (though there has been media attention before), as 145.116.230.249 notes. I am still committed to reinforcing the citations on this article, but my time is limited just now as I head into exams at school. I will continue working on it.Peggynature (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Speaking of which, I found another citation that references the "fat acceptance movement" specifically, and would appreciate if someone could add it to the article: The Dual-Pathway Model of Social Movement Participation: The Case of the Fat Acceptance Movement
Stefan Sturmer, Bernd Simon, Michael Loewy, Heike Jorger
Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Mar., 2003), pp. 71-82Peggynature (talk)
...and there are more. A Google Scholar search turned up 39 articles for the search term "fat acceptance movement" (with quotes.) I will add the citations when I have a chance to organize them. Peggynature (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Here are some media links that discussed the fat acceptance movement - The New York Times article references 'the fatosphere' whose members identify themselves as part of the 'movement.'
Just checking in: how does everyone think we are coming along with the notability thing? So far, we've added several peer-reviewed articles as references, at least three of which mention fat acceptance as a movement specifically. I've also added a huge Further Reading section, mainly books talking about fat acceptance and the fat acceptance movement, and External Links that link to fat acceptance organizations and blogs that discuss the fat acceptance movement. Above, I referenced several MSM articles that discuss the recent interest in fat acceptance. The article still needs major cleaning up, more citations, and some vigilance to guard against vandalism -- but how is notability coming along? Have we established that the fat acceptance movement exists? I think so. Peggynature (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have now removed the notability tag. I have read the general notability guideline, and have added many reliable sources to the article to justify statements that the fat acceptance movement exists and states as its mission what the article says. The article still needs a lot of cleaning up and organization, and several citations added to specific statements (or to have those statements removed if they are not verifiable.) But as it stands, I believe we have demonstrated notability. I would appreciate a conversation on this talk page before anyone puts the article up for deletion or wants to add the notability tag again. Peggynature (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hey Peggynature, it's Kal, hopefully i'm doing this correctly please advise if i need to change what i'm doing. I found the following articles, their full references and absracts below, for inclusion on the page. Please either advise on how to update the actual page or your welcome to do it. I'm quite new to wikipedia. *smiles*.
"Medical modelling of obesity: a transition from action to experience in a 20th century American medical textbook" by Virginia W. Chang1,2 and Nicholas A. Christakis, Sociology of Health & Illness Vol. 24 No. 2 2002 ISSN 0141–9889, pp. 151–177. It's a rather long abstract, this article references the following points of the fat-acceptance points of: obesity as epidemic, statements of whether obsesity should be controlled, fatness = disease, questions of personal responsibility of obesity, definition of obese, views on causes and treatment of obesity. The article is a content analysis of medical texts from 1927 to the 2000's in reference to obsesity views.
"(Un/Be) Coming Out?" by Samantha Murray, Social Semiotics Vol. 15, No. 2 August 2005). Short Summary: In this paper, I take up Sullivan’s point about the problematic act of ‘coming out’ as a fat woman. I critique the problematic model of subjectivity the Fat Acceptance Movement is founded on, given the ways in which I live my fat body are always multiple, contradictory and eminently ambiguous.
"Big Trouble. Are Eating disorders the lavendor meanace of the fat acceptance movement" by Lily-Rygh Glen. Winter 2008, Issue 28 of Bitch. This article emphasises a topic that can be placed in the Issues with the movement section? What do you think? I can forward the article if you'd like.
"Canadian dietitians’ views and practices regarding obesity and weight management" by S. I. Barr, K. V. Yarker, R. Levy-Milne & G. E. Chapman, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, The British Dietetic Association Ltd 2004 J Hum Nutr Dietet, 17, pp. 503–512. Abstract: Objective To provide insight into Canadian dietitians’ attitudes and practices regarding obesity and weight management. Design Cross-sectional mail survey of a stratified random sample of members of Canadian dietetic associations. Subjects A total of 514 dietitians (74% of those surveyed), 350 (69%) of whom actively counselled overweight/obese clients. Measurements Participants received a questionnaire to assess dietitians’ attitudes regarding obesity and overweight, views regarding their role in weight management, counselling practices, and the criteria used to judge success. Demographic variables were collected. Results Most dietitians believed that obesity contributes to morbidity and mortality, and that small weight losses produced important health benefits. However, 80% agreed that health indicators other than weight loss should be the focus of obesity management, and 55% specifically recommended that clients not weigh themselves. Instead, weight management was promoted by recommending healthy eating and increased physical activity. Three-quarters agreed that they are the profession best trained to manage obesity but two-thirds believed their time would be better spent preventing rather than managing obesity. Dietitians most valued education received from on-the-job support and mentoring from other dietitians. Participants reported wanting to learn more about motivational and behavioural modification counselling techniques. Conclusions Canadian dietitians follow a lifestyle approach to weight management. Studies are required to formally assess the effectiveness of various aspects of this approach.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 1996, Vol. 27.No. 2, 175-183 "The "If Only I Were Thin. . ." Treatment Program: Decreasing the Stigmatizing Effects of Fatness" Beatrice E. Robinson and Jane G. Bacon. Paper deals with treatments with eating disorder and addresses the myths of being fat. Great resource for cititation to points made within the fat acceptance movement.
Professional Psychology: Research 2000. Vol. 31, No. 6, Awareness and Prevention of Bias Against Fat Clients in Psychotherapy, Kristen Davis-Coelho, Jennifer Waltz, and Bob Davis-Coelho University of Montana. Abstract: Are the psychotherapeutic experiences of fat clients negatively affected by the cultural bias against fat people? This empirical study demonstrates that clients' weight may negatively affect psychologists' clinical judgments of and treatment planning for fat clients. Strategies to combat fat bias are presented for both training programs and clinicians. Information provided for training programs includes specific guidelines for curriculum development. Strategies presented for clinicians include assessment of one's own bias, self-education, treatment alternatives, and practice recommendations.
Fantastic, Kal, thanks for the help! If you read through the article and find places where those references could be cited to verify a particular statement, go ahead and try to add them by editing the article itself, if you want. I haven't had time to look at this article much in the last couple of weeks, due to final exams, but it looks like you've found a lot of good things. The only one cited already is the "Lavender Menace" article from Bitch magazine. ~Peggynature (not signed in)
Yesterday I started going through and adding citations. I also added some sentencing in with example so to cite other articles as well. Sorry i have APA style referencing indoctrinated into me from writing psychology papers. I'm going through the Movement today section and re-writing it so it doesn't sound like an advertisement. Also hopefully adding some citations there too. Kal-spontaneous (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I just saw all the citations you added -- thanks a ton for helping out. I was feeling overwhelmed the last few weeks and didn't have time or energy to put into this, so I am glad you are here. As far as I know, APA style is fine! If we need to, we can work on standardizing all the referencing formats later. It's most important just to get the references up there, and citing the various statements in the article -- as well as rewriting the parts that need to be rewritten. I was reluctant to touch that part as yet because I wasn't sure if I'd be stepping on other writers' toes, but it seems like no one is complaining yet, so go for it :) Again, thank you for helping. Peggynature (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree with you on that, getting references up and then going through and standardizing. that's been my plan. I feel accomplished by helping out. Keeps me outta trouble lol (not really but it does occupy the time) Kal-spontaneous (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Today I also removed the "Weasel words" tag, because after re-reading through the entire article, those instances have either been edited out, or had citations added to back up the attribution. Please discuss before re-adding the tag to this article. Thanks Peggynature (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Remaining issues on this article, as I see it, are possibly more references to add (there is, at present, one "citation needed" tag), and a general edit and clean-up of the writing. Not to bust anyone's nuts, but the writing is a little herky-jerky and awkward in places, and there is the possibility the sections could be reorganized. I may work on that a bit this summer, if no one objects. Throw in your two cents if you'd like to help or add suggestions, objections. Once it's smoothed through and everything is referenced, and the references are verified and organized, I think we could remove the "needs additional citations" tag as well. Peggynature (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've looked at the "Restrictions on Linking," but still not sure how can I add these links without having my changes reverted by a bot. I appreciate your help.
Peggynature (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hey again, another stupid question: why are the changes I made to this entry (Further Reading and External Links) only visible after I sign in to Wikipedia? Is there some sort of approval that has to occur before my changes are accepted onto the publicly-viewable entry? Or is there a technical glitch going on? Thanks for your help. Peggynature (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
And, not to pee on anyone's parade, but where did the link to www.omgoddess.com come from? I don't think it is relevant to "fat acceptance movement" -- I can't find any legit information on its About page, and it links to an Ebay page selling jewelry. In my quick perusal, I didn't even see any posts on the site that referenced 'fat acceptance.' I could be wrong, but could someone look into this? I thought External Links additions were protected by a bot. Peggynature (talk)
Could someone please delete the above link (OMGoddess) from the External Links section? I have tried, but it keeps reverting. Thanks! Peggynature (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Criticism section
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Despite advocates' claims to the contrary, some studies show that fat people are more likely than others to be in poor health, at a time when health care costs are rising: In 2006, the CDC estimated that 10 percent of current health care costs are due to obesity
There actually was a recent study contradicting this. When I remember correctly the study did state that smokers and fat people die earlier than "healthy" people, however, it also concluded that this fact actually leads to lower health care costs over the span of lifetime for fat people and smokers since the people that require the most expensive health care are in fact old people (i.e., if you have a lower life span than average than you will need less health care over your life time). Does anybody have the reference?--145.116.230.249 (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
The real cost of fatties is not widely known, few that are eaten by fatties in an extreme eat attack mode will need health care assistance or funerals they will be digested by a pork person. it is estimated that over 24,000 yearly unsolved missing persons cases can be attributed to fat fucks blobbing around and eating people.
You know something interesting? We have a criticism section for the fat acceptance article, yet no criticism sections for diet, Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, or the obesity article. Isn't that displaying a bias, that you feel issues regarding diet and obesity claims are with complete merit, while you offer a section to criticize a group of people fighting diet industries and the obesity hysteria to save people from behaving in a manner that could cause more harm than good? Violet yoshi (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Reading the 'social criticism' section I notice that the section refers to 'critics' and by this term I assume that these 'critics' are critics of the 'fat acceptance movement' as such. However, when I check the references I see no mention of the 'fat acceptance movement' at all. The references discuss some of the health problems associated with obesity, but that is not the same thing as a criticism of the fat acceptance movement.So who exactly are the notable critics of the fat acceptance movement and should this section be rewritten perhaps to refect notable criticism of the movement rather than the implied opinion of some editor/s of the Wikipedia?--Godfinger (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Movement Today Section
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Ok, so we all notice that there's a sign saying that it's written like an advertisement. I have no problem re-writing it, though i don't want to offend anyone who originally wrote. Here are some ideas that were rolling around my head about the section. There are wonderful links and blogs talked about how about in the section. How about we pair down what blogs we talk about putting the ones previously mentioned in additional readings section. I would also love to add what the movement is doing other than online things, like are we having annual conferences etc. I've also been searching for publication articles citing current activities though it's hard. Does anyone else have ideas on how to improve this section? Kal-spontaneous (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ok...I went ahead and re-wrote it transfering links as examples footnoted. I tried to stay true to what was written before in terms of what the movement is doing with lessening the feel of advertising. Hopefully this accomplishes what it was supposed to. Kal-spontaneous (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree that we could pare down the blogs mentioned, since blogs aren't considered strong sources for Wikipedia -- the main reason I wanted to link to them in the first place is because a lot of the fat acceptance movement activities and discourse are currently taking place on blogs, so, yeah -- what can you do in that circumstance? It would be wonderful to have more examples of offline activism, and there is actually a ton of discourse in the academic literature on fat acceptance, as you've found in your research! As far as conferences go, there are always NAAFA events, there are some academic, fat studies events (or were in the past, at Smith College in Massachusetts through a group called Size Matters), and then there was/is the Think Tank hosted by Big Fat Blog in Chicago. Also, maybe we could mention something about the recent anti-discrimination legislation that was being considered in Massachusetts, for which there was a public forum including many fat acceptance advocates to support the bill? Peggynature (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I already posted what i wrote, take a look and let me know how you like the new format. Blogs and things are still there, even book titles just as footnotes though. I love the idea of the mention of the recent legislation in the US. I don't know what's been going on in Canada but i think a paragraph would be wonderful describing the international offline policy/health/media etc that the movement is doing as well. I just don't know much about what we're doing or where to find it. Anyways take a look at what i did and let me know what you think Kal-spontaneous (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
The only sentence in the criticism section that might not belong there that I could see is this
Fat activists, on the other hand, will argue that the idea of a "healthy weight" is one without meaning, as health can be found in people at all weights and sizes.
I might be completely off, but I guess that you are also talking about the citation of the study that indicated fat people don't cause higher health care costs over a life time than thin people. However, not mentioning this study gives the wrong impression in my opinion that it has been proven that fat people contribute significantly to the health care costs explosion - something that I have not seen supported by an actual study yet (but if you have more knowledge about this than I do, be my guest and change the section accordingly).
I find it much more interesting how much the criticism section focusses on health. While most FA advocates believe that fat is either totally irrelevant for your health or that the health risks of being fat are usually reported in an overblown fashion by the media (and sometimes also that studies which show negative health consequences overestimate that impact of being fat on health because many studies don't control for factors such as stress through discrimination, exercise level, and weight cycling), the argument that being fat is not unhealthy is not the only or even the main point of FA. Much more at the core of the movement is the idea that people should not be discriminated against because of their body size no matter if they are healthy or unhealthy. To legitimately argue against this critics would have to show that the fatness of an individual negatively impacts society or that fatness reliably reflects behaviors that negatively affect society, that the individual can be held rightfully responsible for his or her fatness, that discriminating against fat people actually makes it more likely for them to lose weight and that this weight loss in turn results in fewer negative impact on society, for example in form of over all lower costs. While there are certainly critics that assume all these points to be true I have not yet seen evidence for most of them - but again, if you know of studies that support all these points feel free to change the section accordingly. (In fact, since all these points are made by critics it might be a good idea to mention them in the criticism section anyways, even if there might be no actual evidence that they are true. But in that case I think it is completely appropriate to also cite the many studies that support that at leat some of these points are probably not true).--145.116.230.249 (talk) 00:09, , 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you plan to do anyway? There are no doubt computer-bound butterblimps refreshing this article every 15 minutes, thin people simply don't have enough stake in this issue to compete. 123.120.161.21 (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
If thin people got a stake in it, they'd just end up vandalizing the article, replacing it with links to thinspo sites and trolling in fragmented sentences, poor grammar and spelling and a grievous overuse of internet acronyms.
IGNORE ME!!
I really would appreciate it if you could lay off the name calling. I am one of those "butterblimps" you mention (although I am certainly not computer and/or house-bound, but I guess anybody who is categorized as "morbidly obese" automatically qualifies), and believe me, I have plenty of other things to do with my life than to work on this article and to protect it from the constant vandalism of supposedly not fat people. I would certainly appreciate a better criticism section since the only point that is addressed right now concerns the possible health consequences of being fat and since, as I said above, arguing that fat isn't "unhealthy" is not the main point of FA. If you want to discriminate against everyone who is unhealthy or behaves unhealthily in some way that is changeable you have a lot to do (and note that you cannot know how a fat person behaves most of the day just by seeing that he or she is fat) - in fact, there are plenty of things that are unhealthy and are supported by society.--145.116.230.249 (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
In my opinion, the general tone and feel of this article isn't that fat/obese people shouldn't be discriminated against, rather it's that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being obese. This is incorrect. There are many health related problems associated with obesity. Obese people have high rates of heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes (which can cause blindness), lack of energy, joint discomfort, respiration problems, as well as some others. I have found this out through independent study, but here is a link to the CDC (Center for Disease Control) to help.
I am sure that there is an article or study 'out there' that supposedly debunks the mainstream scientific/medical consensus on obesity, but trust those articles as you will. You must remember that there are still 'researchers' in the world that claim smoking does not increase a person's risk of lung cancer. Additionally, there was a Nobel-prize winning scientist who claimed just last year that black people are genetically inferior to non-blacks in terms of intelligence. Do you believe him? I don't, I don't care if he is a 'scientist,' I am news-literate/educated enough to realize he is a senile old man, and the rest of the scientific community quickly condemned his view. What I am saying is that, to my knowledge, most credible medical professionals believe that obesity causes negative health effects, and just because you may find one study that claims otherwise doesn't make the views of that one article take precedence over all the others.
There is a new and honest voice in fat acceptance. It acknowledges that fat and fit is a myth and it also agrees with the undeniable fact that obesity is not caused by genetics. http://biggerfatterblog.blogspot.com/ Unlike mainstream fat acceptance, these people unashamedly are promoting gluttony and sloth.
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I arrived on this page looking for information on the justification for the FAM, or "fatness" in general. Is the movement operating based on scientific evidence they have? If so, could we have a section discussing this or whatever other justifications they have for accepting obesity as society, and encouraging obese people not to feel they need to change? QuinnHK (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sure. Let's discuss how fat people need to find justification to not face constant discrimination in a society, where other groups who have faced discrimination, do not need justification for reasons they should not be discriminated against. We could also talk about the black and white thinking, where one assumes because someone can supposedly change their weight, their discrimination is their own fault and they should become thin, despite any personal health risks in doing so. Oh, but I forgot thin is a catch-all for any diseases or illness! If the person only were thin they'd be invincible! Would you like to talk about how many fat people died from diet pills, in an attempt to be thin? Or how about the victims of the digestive system lobotomy known as bariatric surgery? Perhaps you'd like to discuss how "well-meanining" doctors submit their fat patients to a surgery, which risks clearly outweigh the benefits? Does the right to life justify an end to fat discrimination to you? Is that enough of a justification, that we shouldn't be killing fat people in trying to make them thin? Violet yoshi (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Violet yoshi - as much as I agree with you and sympathize with your anger this discussion page is not the right place to discuss the topics you raise. The purpose of this page is to discuss the article, nothing else. (And yes, there have been also many people arguing here why fat should not be accepted or why they think the FA movement is ridiculous, etc. This also does not belong here.)
QuinnHK - I not clear what kind of scientific evidence you want to see mentioned in the article. There is evidence that a very high percentage of weight loss attempts fail in the long term,there is also evidence that fat people are discriminated against, and scientific articles dealing with these topics are cited. So what exactly are you looking for? That fat people don't hurt society by being fat? There is actually a recent study that found fat people in the workplace are not less hardworking or less agreeable, see [3]. But if you really need to mention that you first have to give some evidence while this should be not the case. I mentioned this earlier - a really strong criticism of the movement would be citation of a study that shows that fat individuals hurt society in one way or the other and that they do so while being able to choose differently. As far as I know, nobody has ever shown that. Even the idea that fat peope cause higher health care costs over a lifetime is disputed (see article).--145.116.230.249 (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Citations
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I agree that 15 citations is a lot, possibly too much. But they are there because plenty of people claimed that this article should not exist either because in their opinion fat people are not discriminated against or (more relelvant for the existence of the article) that the fat acceptance movement is not "notable".
Also, many of the citations are citations of journal articles, and journal articles usually don't have free online versions - therefore the lack of links. At the same time journal articles are generally seen as more reliable sources than websites, etc - therefore I would hesitate to get rid of the citations without a link. (However, there might be a possibility to link to free abstracts of the respective articles.)--145.116.230.249 (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
?Huh? Good one. Anyway... To the original point; yes, it's necessary. It's not exactly MoS but there are enough people who disagree that there should be an article here that only the most extreme kinds of sourcing shut them up. -- LogicalPremise Ergo?04:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Is it NPOV to declare this article "part of a series on discrimination"?
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I made an addition two days ago to the "Further Reading" section; I added an important new book that the size acceptance community is reading--sorry, I forgot to sign in under my Wikipedia user ID, Ninafel, and instead it only noted my IP address--and now it looks like the entire "Further Reading" section has disappeared. Anyone know what happened? Is there somewhere else other than this "talk" page that I can find out what happened? Ninafel (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2009 (Ninafel)
It was all promotional material which was free advertising for the authors rather than helpful for the readers. It is gone now. NJGW (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Diversity in the movement
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There was a brief comment about diversity in the movement ("The movement is diverse."), which I removed, pending sources. Adding a section of this nature would certainly improve the article. Whatever404 (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
commentary / hint
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The movement is finding the way even to the media in Germany - the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (an influential weekly newspaper) wrote a hole page about the movement at 3rd January 2010, especially citing Marilyn Wann, Gabourey Sidibe and the NAAFA. (Not online, only in print.) Plehn (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
STRONGLY DISAGREE this article is about discrimination not fighting the discrimination that would be like combining homophobia with the Gay rights movement. Absolutely not. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
From the article:
"Organizations such as the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA) and the International Size Acceptance Association (ISAA) have relatively small memberships....spread across medium- to small-sized web communities"
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I changed the sentence "Proponents engage in public education about the myths concerning fat and fat people." to " Proponents engage in public education about what they call myths concerning fat and fat people." the link in the citation no longer works but i found the document elsewhere, however it was a reprint by another website, im not sure whether or not that would be an acceptable citation? If there are paper copies of this leaflet is there an ISBN for a reference that way, or can someone with better knowledge of NAAFA find the new url, as I was unable to. Going back to the reasons for my change, the original wording was not neutral by any argument, my wording does not say that the myths are facts, just that they are described as myths, and there does not seem to be a valid argument to describe them as myths in an encyclopaedia. From the booklet, "Studies which set out to prove that fat people eat more than thin people concluded that there is no measurable difference in the food consumption of fat and thin people." See citations 50 and 51 from this article for evidence that obesity is "most commonly caused by a combination of excessive dietary calories, lack of physical activity, and genetic susceptibility." If further citations are required to back up this edit I am willing to find them, however I believe all the evidence required to support the edit is found within the article and its citations already. Assuming the edit makes it through review, please do not revert it without giving a valid explanation here, also should it not make it through review could the person making the decision explain why here, in order to help my education as an editor. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.104.206.140 (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Is it OK to be fat and eat foods in large quantities, as long as they are healthy foods? I don't mind being fat, though I'd like to be both fat AND healthy. Is this possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.197.229 (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
