Talk:Pro-ED

message: This article was tagged without any comment or explanation. I don't necessarily disagree, but can it be explained which parts are the problem, so we can work on those bits? Mdwh 12:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: Many pro-ana people say that anorexia is not a lifestyle choice but a disease so I am going to change the first sentence to:
Pro-ana is the belief that Anorexia is a lifestyle choice. However, many Anorexics believe that it is a disease but they choose to not go into recovery.
If anyone has any objections please feel free to change it back. --Xsamix 21:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifestyle Choice 

message: "A common assumption is that these sites are actively trying to recruit new members, but this is almost never the case..[citation needed]"
This paragraph then goes on to talk about some sites accepting where as others do not.  Unless someone has a citation for this assurtion, I suggest we subtitute "but this is almost never the case" with the phrase "in practice, different sites have a wide verity of views on recruitment ranging from welcoming to exclusive." This helps to capture the idea that there is a wide range of responses, which is reinforced in the rest of the paragraph.Jim Tzenes 18:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recruiting new members 

message: Since I love a train-wreck as much as the next person, I decided to try to source this article when I saw the weasel word tag...
The entire "overview" section and much of the material in the article is lifted, verbatim, from ProAna.US (hence the POV language.). I am working on sourcing this article to the best of my ability, even though doing the research to accurately source these Flat Earth Flat Belly claims & present them fairly without either bawling or getting really, really upset is straining my own NPOV.
I'm putting a watch out on the page when I'm done editing.
--Parcequilfaut 02:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarized Material In Overview Section/Editing To Add Sources

message: User:Karenkellock added a lengthy paragraph about her pro-ana views. In my opinion, she does not meet the criteria for notability and this paragraph should be deleted. Thoughts? Rosemary Amey 19:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on Karen Kellock's views

message: What portion(s) of this article are still contested as non-neutral, or inaccurate? Also, where are the weasel words? Personally, I think the article is fairly well balanced at present. You thoughts?
Gsnixon 06:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV/WW flags

message: I have nothing against those who are suffering from Anorexia but I still believe that the links located at the bottom of the Pro-ana page should be removed. I think it's horrible they have to go through it but I still don't believe we should allow the links to stay up that go to sites that tell them about how to lose more weight or a site that lists sites of this nature. Does anyone else agree that some of the sites that go to these types of pages should be taken down? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cinnamonella (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they should not be removed. Anorexia cannot be "caught" by looking at these websites. It's unheard of for someone who does not have an eating disorder to look at at pro-anorexia website and to become anorexic because of it. It's not the way it works. It's important to have the links there to educate people. Pittising 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Reading this article annoys me, so I've decided to be bold and do some drastic paraphrasing. I know this will probably be really annoying for everyone who's been working hard on this article, referencing things and the like, but wikipedia tells us to be bold and ignore all rules, so I'm going to do just that. I will reference things, but for a start I just want to give the thing a bit of an overhaul. So come on everyone, be bold and let's edit! Pittising 16:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Come and edit! 

message: From the information I have (and I know quite a lot about this...) there are two distinct groups and viewpoints held, each referring to themselves as pro-ana. The first is the belief that anorexia is not a disease but a lifestyle choice and that medical help or support is unecessary intervention. However, the second viewpoint is that anorexia is a serious disease, recovery should be promoted, but if you don't want to recover then your choice is respected. This group may sound like pro-recovery, but it refers to itself as pro-ana.
If no one objects soon, I will edit the article to reflect this. If I've already done this and you feel strongly about it, feel free to revert my edits but please leave a message here. Pittising 16:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two different groups 

message: I'm proposing to merge this page with pro-mia and then get it moved to pro-ED if consensus dictates. Wikipedia tells me to wait five days and follow consensus - will do. Pittising 17:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge