Talk:Obesity/Archive 3

message: You can tell this article is being edited by a lot of people who don't have the willpower to control their eating or stay in shape. To read it you would think everyone on Earth is a member of an aboriginal tribe standing around and worshipping a statue of Porky Pig's fat mom. Newsflash: Almost everyone thinks obesity is downright gross. You don't need a journal article to tell you this. Go outside and ask the first ten people that pass you on the street what they think about it. Even the tiny little paragraph that tackles the truth is written like an after-school special fatty apology. Just because you heard that a thousand years ago being fat was cool doesn't mean it still is today. Nor do tiny "non-Western" tribes deserve a greater level of emphasis than a country of nearly 300 million people. Places like America and Scotland are way fatter than the rest of the world, and very often reviled, by themselves and by others, because of it. This article is worse than Traditional Chinese Medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.16.201 (talk • contribs) 
* Heh. Yes, "obesity is downright gross" and "people who don't have the willpower" is definitely more NPOV than the current article! Chartreuse green 03:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Because obesity can result from fluid retention and from compression within environs having limited space, such as peninsula or regions having some historical significance, an introduction skewed toward food-intake management will not address other vital obesity concerns and may instead contribute to the number of unnecessary surgeries demanded and scheduled.  12/6/2005  22:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, obesity does not result from fluid retention. Water is water; fat is fat. And I have no idea what you mean by "obesity can result... from compression within environs having limited space" but I suspect it is a sillier concept than the fluid retention. Thanks for not adding either to the article. alteripse 23:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Can you give us some references for what sounds like fantasy physiology to me? Are you suggesting we should just tell "fat" people to stop "choosing" to retain fluid? Have you noticed that the rate of obesity rises when children have their own rooms and the family has larger living quarters?alteripse 23:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It's raving pseudoscience, or a hoax. JFW | T@lk 23:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to be kind. alteripse 01:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I opened my mind briefly, but then discovered all other serious thought already present protested and threatened to leave. JFW | T@lk 01:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  microclimates 

message: Ok.  For the umpteenth time -- will someone P-L-E-A-S-E tell me why this article is being vandalized on a regular basis?  Jason Palpatine 20:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because obesity is big. Honestly. People are interested and concerned. Teenagers have a strong bias towards obesity. They click fat, then learn this is about triglycerides and fatty acids, then come here, leave their turd, and go. Go look at the G.W. Bush article. It is vandalised every few minutes. Tough. Shame. That's part of Wikipedia. It is likely to improve if anonymous users are disallowed from editing, something that has been debated on and off for the last 2 years. JFW | T@lk 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I never thought I would see you show as much exasperation as I do sometimes. It's probably healthy. alteripse 23:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, there's this that might help— Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. It's still being debated on that articles talk page too, if you want to chime in and/or make suggestions. —Locke Cole 23:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Is your real name Kenneth by any chance? JFW | T@lk 23:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Live with it, mate. JFW | T@lk 17:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, it's popular in London as well. JFW | T@lk 21:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Here we go again, and again, and again, and again....

message: I just noticed that "overweight" redirects to this article on obesity, but the two terms do not really indicate the same condition, and this article doesn't appear to actually discuss "overweight" at all.  Should "overweight" be given its own article?  If not, at the very least I think it should be made clear here that "overweight" and "obese" do not mean the same thing..  Anybody else have any thoughts on this subject?  -- Foogod 22:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See my discussion with Brendan above. Overweight and obesity are part of a spectrum. Some overweight people are centrally obese, yet have a BMI under 30. JFW | T@lk 22:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be an overweight article regarding the stock market term (i.e. overweight, underweight, equal weight) versus an automatic redirection to an article on obesity. --Rmoss78 20:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Foogod, this article explains the term overweight. This is normal Wikipedia functioning - if an article does not exist it is acceptable to (temporarily) redirect it to a page that provides more information. I do support a page on overweight, but it will provide little information and should more take the form of a sub-page of obesity. The studies Brendanfox was suggesting above could well serve as useful sources for an overweight page. Rmoss78 can then split off overweight (stock market), which is an uncommon use of the term (as per Wikipedia:Disambiguation). JFW | T@lk 20:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obesity vs. Overweight? 

message: What's the point? --Bulgarian Ben 18:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point, of course, is too keep the page from being vandalized. And it seems to be working. --Angr (t·c) 18:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not too well! The infamous North Carolina vandal keeps hitting up on this page. 68.39.174.238 00:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it was working while it was protected! Trouble is, WP policy won't let me keep it semi-protected permanently. Pity. --Angr (t·c) 07:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  One week is not permanent, why not try semi-protecting this article for one week and see what happens?  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: its really unneccessary-- not to mention gross. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Froth (talk • contribs) 22:42, 20 January 2006  (UTC)
:If you don't like it, don't look at it. --Angr (tɔk) 09:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. None of his private parts are revealed. This is what an obese human being looks like. Weither or not one finds it "gross" or something else has no relevancy to the fact its an effective picture of an overweight person. I'm sure many don't like looking at what a Penis looks like but that shouldn't stop its wiki article from having a picture of it for strictly informative reasons. Man...I don't get all this attitude towards this picture. Its just a fat guy, whats so disturbing about that?--Kiyosuki 19:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not censored for content.  The picture is relevant to the content, and I have restored it.  Please do not remove information from the articles without prior discussion.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not because it looks indecent-- but because more appropriate visuals exist-- should the article use a different picture. don't make this a stand against censorship. when obesity comes to mind, i think of fat people, not fat nude people saturated with light, wearing weird glasses, picnicking. the picture, on a whole, is not very good.68.222.12.248 02:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This was discussed in the archives. When the picture was there he actually was if someone was sad enough to grab the picture and zoom in, but then it was replaced with a censored version before it was volnterrily taken off. - Boochan 10:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  naked man 

message: I would like to apologize for abuses coming here from Loyola College. They are coming from a computer lab located in one of the dorms. The problem was discovered when half of the computers were blocked and couldn't edit. We're working on a policy to stop the vandalism of this fine site.
::Ah that explains a lot of it. Only college students could be so overly sensitive and repressed. :D (I'm one myself.)--Kiyosuki 17:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or they could just be ########. :P--KrossTalk 00:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now now..--Kiyosuki 22:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would ignore Kross. He's just a jerk. Read my talk page. User Talk: 144.126.161.43 144.126.161.43 15:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boys, none of this is relevant to obesity. Go to 144.126.161.43's talk page. JFW | T@lk 15:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do I do to report him? That's all I ask. By the way, if you want to leave a message please do so on 144.126.161.43's talk page. I generally have most of my access to that computer.144.126.76.73 02:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apologies

message: Does the reference to pigs really have to be in the intro?  Although the pig reference may be an "objective" statement, it's derisive.  Would anybody allow this to be edited out or changed to another farm animal?
::Well I can see how it could be a bit...harsh. I've wondered the same thing myself but always thought to myself that it wasn't a huge deal to really give consideration. But if it is...well I have no problem really. What about a picture of Homer Simpson? He may not be a particularly great man in the show, but he's almost universally known, and his weight is the subject of humor as well as satire in the Simpsons but at the same time he has good qualities as well as famous qualities that make him not so much of a one dimensional portrayal. I could change it...but only if a few others really agree. Aside from just the implication that an anthromorphic pig may leave, changing it like this could have some positive use on the wiki as a character like Homer or something equivalent is much more relatable since so many are familiar with the character and his qualities, where as I can't really remember where the current character comes from and he(she?) seems like such a bland example.--Kiyosuki 06:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pigs

message: I dislike how this page attacks FAs. It says more militant but doesn't acknowledge the existence of less militant ones. Nobody is denying it's healthier not to be very obese. That doesn't mean people shouldn't get the support and appreciation they need.
:. JFW | T@lk 22:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is any truth to this assertion, you have my support.  I can't stand intollerance. 
Could you spotight one or two of the sections you are refering to?  It would help not having to read the entir text to find/see what it is.
And I happen to be an FA myself -_- Jason Palpatine 00:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: Someone started a todo list. The first item for discussion is AD-36. This has actually been discussed before, and it was my view that this information did not require mention in this article, given that the whole AD-36 thing is the work of one group and has received minimal attention in the scientific community. See here for my wanderings into this subject. JFW | T@lk 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi JFW - As far as I recall, Morbid Obesity is generally regarded as 40 and over, or being over 100lb over the persons ideal weight. The Amount between 35-40 seems to be occasionally called "Severe Obesity". Hope this helps.. though some medical proof would be useful.  I am also thinking that various difference countries may recognise the BMI for Morbid Obesity as different, as for example some countries still consider a healthy weight BMI from 23-28, rather then the recent change to reduce it down to 25..- Boochan 09:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todo list 

message: I notice these two are listed as different groups under those recommended for increased BMI limits. Why is this? What are the genetic differences between the two?
I guess I'll collapse them into just 'African' if noone has any objections? Robthebob 00:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wtf? Kids are dying of hunger in Africa! Cuzandor 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  African vs African-American 

message: The article bariatrics currently seems to be primarily about obesity surgery, which is a different article. I have proposed that the two be merged. Please discuss at Talk:Bariatrics. Angr/talk 07:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bariatrics and obesity surgery 

message: Thanks for having a solid replacement to the fat nude man. OsFan 13:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This page is in such a vandalised state, plus it makes it all the less centered on one of our mods. Thanx for finding a good replacement. - Boochan 03:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Thanks

message: a good photograph of an obese person would be very helpful for this article. i understand why the last one was removed, but i imagine that there are a bunch of noncopywritten photos of fat people out there. Joeyramoney 20:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a feeling that whatever photo is going to be up there that someone will be unhappy with it.OsFan 22:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: why? obesity is not subjective. Joeyramoney 00:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People had problems with ANGR's photo because he was nude. You have issues with that photo for reasons you have not specified. My bet is that there's always going to be dissent over how a fat person should be shown. OsFan 20:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there is no photo, that's what bothers me. the painting is functional, but it isn't a photograph. it just seems out of place not to have one. and no, people will not have a problem with any picture put up, and it actually surprised me how long the previous one remained. once i can find one, i'll add it myself. Joeyramoney 23:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would put my picture up, but I might change my mind and take it off, which has made people a bit ticked off before. I would put mine up on the condition that I can take it off. - Boochan 09:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs a good pic 

message: This was an edit done recently to the article/image.  I was unsure wheather this was or was not intended to be an act of vandalism.  Would the person responible please explain the meaning of their edit here? -- Jason Palpatine 21:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, with all the vandalism that was/will be done to this artice, maybe we should set up a seperate article for listing all the vandalisms done to it. Some of them have been opretty creative. -_-  Jason Palpatine 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit

message: Last week I made a number of substantial edits to this article. It is still my objective to work it up to featured status, given the immense (no pun intended) public interest in the problem of excess weight and its cultural, social, political and obviously medical repercussions.
We need a bit of an agenda as to how we're going to proceed here. I've summarised the diagnostic and therapeutic principles of obesity (although perhaps there could be some tightening in the diagnostic area), and I've cited the very comprehensive Jeffrey Flier paper that summarises the state of affairs in the "obesity wars".
Some sections are still in need of help:
* Epidemiology and worldwide distribution of obesity (the number of malnourished and obese people apparently is about equal on a global scale)
* Estimated medical and social cost of obesity (we only have the Mokdad reference that was subsequently discredited)
* "Societal causes" is mostly unreferenced and could do with WP:CITE injection
* The "AMA list of complications" has no reference (and is potentially endless; for example: thrombosis is not mentioned)
* "Controversies" presently mentions a few lone voices. A "bird's eye view" of the various POVs would be more helpful than a list of names (Campos says this, Critser says that).
* The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recently issued guidelines for the medical and surgical management of obesity. The Royal College of Physicians likewise has been working on informing the profession on the epidemic of obesity facing the Western world.
I'd love to hear some more opinions on what this article needs to include. For example, I'm against the inclusion of AD36, an adenovirus intensely studied by one research group that was previously mentioned in the article but somehow did not seem to improve its credibility.
Are any of you aware of useful social science, psychology and politicology perspectives that could be included here? JFW | T@lk 17:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest splitting this article into two separate articles. One on the indiviudal medical and clinical aspects of obesity. Another on obesity as a public health and policy problem. Both areas are vast and require substantial work. Pelican 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Social epidemiology is widely used in public health approaches to the problem. Also, there is a lot of work in behavioral economics on obesity control policy. Pelican 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The future of this article 

message: Instead of our present ponderous content perhaps we can get some more factual information from this source: Obesity — The New Frontier of Public Health Law. JFW | T@lk 07:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this source. There are a few errors and the legal analysis is spotty. I can suggest other sources. Pelican 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obesity and the law 

message: I want to suggest that references to the Center for Consumer Freedom or its use as a source be flagged or marked for concern and/or removed. Center for Consumer Freedom is a front organization for the food, beverage and restaurant industries. It began as the Guest Choice Network and was funded entirely by tobacco companies. Pelican 18:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Center for Consumer Freedom

message: This article has failed review for Version 0.5. It has a clean-up tag, and the writing and structure are not appropriate for a general audience. 
For example: 
*The first sentence ("Obesity is a condition in which the natural energy reserve, stored in the fatty tissue of humans and mammals is increased to a point where it is thought to be a significant risk factor in certain health conditions, leading to increased mortality.") might be more simply written along the lines of: "Obesity is an overabundance of fat." 
*The "Definition" section, as now written, is too technical for the beginning. Maurreen 06:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 0.5

message: I have removed the sections "Medicalization of obesity", "Health effects of obesity", and "Medical Responses to obesity". The first two are not controversies save Paul Campos' work. His position and this position is not published in the peer reviewed literature and is generally not accepted. The section "Health Effects of Obesity" is unclear. "Medical Responses to Obesity" belongs under "Treatment" and is redundant. Pelican 17:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies Section

message: I have also renamed this section to indicate the policy and public health dimensions of the obesity epidemic. This entire section, along with much of this article, requires citation and explanation. Also, the obesity/overweight prevalence numbers are not in dispute. Pelican 18:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Public Health and Policy

message: In the "Environmental Causes of Obesity" section, under "Lack of activity", I'm removing everything after the word "also".  It appears to be vandalism; there is no such story as "How Cameron Lost His Gut", so far as I can determine, and the citation (22) used doesn't correspond to that at all.  It seems to be related to the first part of the entry, though, so I'm assuming they used to go together and I'm leaving it. --Defordj 21:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "How Cameron Lost His Gut" 

message: I last edited this page in May, and sorta lost track of it. Comparing the versions now, there are some good improvements but a few points I'd like to bring up:
* Silly tags about references and cleanup. This article has more references and is tidyer that many articles on similar topics and of equal length. These tags should not take the place of a gentle note on the talkpage.
* Much material was deleted despite being of good quality (e.g. specialist measurement systems - don't delete it, source it!) I have reinstated this.
* Many sources are still nonspecific webpages, especially those cited in inline URLs (rather than cite.php references). All these URLs should ideally be replaced with more elaborate citations so the reader can guess their authoratitiveness (is that a word?) from the reference. John Doe's website is not the WHO/CDC/NIH website, or what?
*  kindly added some really useful sources, but probably was unaware that cite.php allows multiple instances of one cite. I've fixed this.
As I've stated, this topic attracts immense public attention, and the article needs to be one of Wikipedia's best. I'm gonna start watching it again, and have asked Pihp to comment here. JFW | T@lk 11:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to mark in the talk page some of the major changes I made, e.g. deletion of specialist measurement systems. Specialist measurement systems, for example, seem technical and are implied by the three diagnostic tools mentioned. I also removed etymology as it seemed irrelevant. I was going to work on the public health and obesity section as that is more my area of expertise. I do think the page might be well served by splitting this article into two or more separate articles. Pelican (PIHP) 01:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on 

message: Too much vandalism. JFW | T@lk 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sprotected - again

message: I see that discussion of viral causes is now on the to-do list.  I actually added some of this data on 6 November 2005, but it was deleted two days later. Mike Serfas 20:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a little theory espoused by one research group and has not been confirmed by anyone else. It is dwarfed in significance by the many other more "mainstream" lines of research in obesity. I will protest the inclusion of AD-36 until several large studies show a clinical relevance of this virus in humans. JFW | T@lk 06:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Viral causes

message: I noticed Weight Gain redirects here.  Even when its under for example, the side affects of a corticosteroid.  Since weight gain doesn't necessarily lead to obesity, it probably should be changed somehow.  Ledmonkey 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight Gain 

message: While this article does not discuss it, I thought the medical profession
long  thought that obesity leads to strokes. On mentioning that to a pal
who appears to be attempting suicide by massive overeating, he claimed to me
that obesity does not have anything to do with strokes.
On a quick review of this issue,
it appears that directly it does not but indirectly it hugely does
as in a obesity stroke "chain" as follows": obesity routinely causes e.g.
high blood pressure and / or diebetes and both can directly lead to strokes.
Will a health care pro, discuss this and add to this article
as this is important info for the obese person to consider.
/s/ 285 lb slim man —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.17.1 (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Obesity Stroke "Chain"

message: has been populating a new section with "non-medical consequences". I was hoping he could fill us in on primary sources (see WP:RS for details). News articles etc are generally poor sources of information - they may provide some context but are usually inferior to the actual publications - in this case a government report on fuel costs and seating problems. All the medical material is presently sourced to journal articles - we should expect nothing less of the non-medical content. JFW | T@lk 06:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary source material has been added in the recent editing. Thanks for your interest in this section.  By the way most of my edits (by edit count) to this article have nothing to do with the non-medical consequences of obesity, but are rather directed to improve the article as a whole. Regards. Winkwink 16:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: More primary refencing supplied just now. still looking for more and better references. cheers Winkwink 18:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-medical consequences

message: 15 vandals within 24 hours. I don't care, protection is back on. We should consider permanently protecting this page. The only editors who contribute are longstanding users. JFW | T@lk 19:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it semi-protected. Too much editor energy goes into reverting vandals instead of improving the article. Nunquam Dormio 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected - again 

message: As a person 60 pounds overweight I think this article is well done. Although I wish it was more helpful in a couple areas...
# More than the token mention of the mental problems associated with Obesity.
# Information that would help identify self-destructive behaviors.
================================================================
There are problems mental problems related with obesity, they fall into two catagories, the ones that make people eat to much and so gain weight, and the ones that people suffer from (usually some form of depression or lack of self esteem) that are caused by being obese. The second can be a good or a bad point, it can motivate people to get on and decide to lose weight to stop feeling bad about themselves, or can make them eat as in a form of so called "comfort eating". Luckly after eating too much and putting on 90lbs I got fed up of it and decided to shift the lot, but I have to say its a lot easier to put it on than it is to lose it. But now I've built the muscle, it's easy to keep it off.
There is a lot on self destructive behaviour under "Eating Disorders" (not sure how to link to it), not sure if it needs more elaboration in this article or if its better where it is, what do the rest of you think?
86.131.16.140 12:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I would like to see 

message: There are problems mental problems related with obesity, they fall into two catagories, the ones that make people eat to much and so gain weight, and the ones that people suffer from (usually some form of depression or lack of self esteem) that are caused by being obese. The second can be a good or a bad point, it can motivate people to get on and decide to lose weight to stop feeling bad about themselves, or can make them eat as in a form of so called "comfort eating". Luckly after eating too much and putting on 90lbs I got fed up of it and decided to shift the lot, but I have to say its a lot easier to put it on than it is to lose it. But now I've built the muscle, it's easy to keep it off.
There is a lot on self destructive behaviour under "Eating Disorders" (not sure how to link to it), not sure if it needs more elaboration in this article or if its better where it is, what do the rest of you think?
86.131.16.140 12:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ====================================================

message: From bbc.co.uk ... 
"Today, the goverment announced it's newest initiative to combat obesity in the UK - changes have been made to the laws regulating the manufacturing of clothing. From November 15th, all adults over size 16 will require a liscence to buy larger items, and will only be able to do so from specialised outlets ..."
Bloody hell, I know SOMETHING needs to be done, but surely this is a bit far? What does everyone
think?
And this page are very good
============================================================
Nice to see people are making things up and posting them on here again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.16.140 (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking A Stand. 

message: Nice to see people are making things up and posting them on here again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.16.140 (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ================================================