Talk:Fat acceptance movement/Archive 1

message: While I find the topic of this heading interesting I don't see how most of the content under it relates in any way to lesbianism (e.g., how is Paul Campos' work relate to it?). Should the heading be changed?
--82.215.30.161 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that it's been changed; I thought it was a curious addition in the first place, but I do think it would be valuable to have a section on intersections with other social justice movements. Obviously, with NOLOSE and individual activists, there is clearly a strong queer presence in the movement and queer activism influences fat lib activism. Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere? 68.7.69.146 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  FWIW, I removed the heading only because the section didn't have to do explicitly with the movement and lesbianism. There are definitely strong ties, however, and a subsection would still be welcomed, I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmcaleer (talk • contribs) 01:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fat acceptance and lesbianism 

message: My experience has been that most people in the movement will state that people of all body shapes and sizes should be accepted - this is for example important in the case of naturally very thin people who live in cultures where this is not the beauty ideal or for anorexic people who are dicriminated. Should this be mentioned somewhere?
--R.C.B. 17:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size acceptance vs. fat acceptance 

message: Can you only be a fat activist if you are fat yourself? Actually, quite a few very prominent people who promote fat acceptance are not fat...
--R.C.B. 17:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fat activist" 

message: I'm sorry but being fat shouldn't ever be accepted except in cases where there is some sort of medical disease involved. Acceptance of being fat is actually quite absurd, people aren't fat because they were born fat or born skinny but are fat because of choices they have made in their life. If you eat fastfood everyday of the week you are probably going to gain weight. Activists say that dieting causes people to be fat, that statement is ridiculous, because if your caloric expenditure exceeds your intake, you'll start to use fat as energy. If you binge eat when dieting that has nothing to do with diet, but only your self control, which is why dieting usually doesn't work for overweight people, because they lack self control.
Gross denial is not a solution to the problem either. Saying that just because you are fat doesn't make you any more of a risk for certain diseases such as diabetes or heart disease goes against an overwhelming number of medical studies that show the direct link between the two.
I will say however, that some people are handicapped in terms of weightloss because not everyone is born with the same exact genetic code. If you are struggling with becoming healthy by reducing your weight, enlist the aid of a dietician to help you find a solution. As to accepting a person with a disease that causes them to be overweight, it is equivocal of accepting a person with a disability, there's nothing they can do to become healthy. But other than that, while I don't derive any enjoyment from degrading other people with jokes about their physique, I will never consider prejudice against someone overweight people the same as prejudice against people who cannot possibly change their situation whether they would want to or not. e.g. The color of your skin, or your sex.
--71.241.12.104 22:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceptance :( 

message: *I think this title could be improved...to something like "Obesity acceptance movement". The current title sounds slightly ambiguous. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 22:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of this article 

message: Is there no criticism of this movement worthy of mention at all?  I would imagine that at the very least that physicians in general would not be terribly supportive of this movement.  I'm not a physician, but it seems a little irresponsible to tell people that they can be healthy no matter what size they are (be it very thin or very fat).  Significant health risks accompany being fat - physicians don't just make this up.http://medrants.com/index.php/archives/date/2003/09/29/  There is usually a criticisms section on the pages on most other movements.  Why not this one?  Rhesusman 22:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is links between obesity and low income, crime, lower life expectancy, less likely to stay in education, more likely to use up health service etc. See the main Obesity article for more details. Skinnyweed 20:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism :) 

message: *Changed link title from famous "overweight" people to famous "fat or large-bodied" people, as "overweight" is deemed perjorative within the fat acceptance movement. Removed links to "Overeaters" sites. The conflation of over-eating with being fat is stereotyping and offensive, and quite simply unfounded. The fat acceptance movement has absolutely nothing to do with overeating, if only at the very least to fight such myths. Added Charlotte Cooper to visible list & link to charlottecooper.net.  --Lpno90 04:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some changes 

message: This movement does have its critics, and sourcable ones too.  Three types of criticism can be brought up-- scientific, ideological, and personal (dealing with major figureheads of the movement). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.79.132.60 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to come here, show no knowledge of the subject matter, and criticize people, at least have the courtesy to sign your comments with your own name. Chartreuse green 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, but that's not the point. If that's what you believe, then why not at least sign your name to it? Chartreuse green 18:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a different person, but signing your name is pointless because it's just a name you made up anyway, there is no benefit in having merit to a name unless it could possibly be monetary. If you want to sign with a legal name, I could say my legal name was Aaron Hall or Lesley Putnam, you don't know if I'm telling the truth. There's many people in the nation with the same name so even if you manage to find many people living in the same city with that name and connect it to a household, you can't even be sure if that's me. And assuming it was, what would that accomplish? You'd pay at least a few hundred to come to my house and yell at me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.233.145 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Firstly, to all, please remember that this is a talk page for talking about the article. Lets keep discussion focused on how to improve it as per WP:NPOV. I do agree that the this article needs to include reference to the critics of the movement. Irrespective of the validity of the claims made by either 'side', for this to be an encyclopedic article it needs to include these, and responses from the fat acceptance movement to these criticisms, and counter-criticisms etc. Cheers, Mostlyharmless 04:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So you think the article should be deleted based on your viewpoint? The idea of the fat acceptance movement isn't all about people who WANT to be fat. Its also about those that are fat that are able to accept themselves for what they are. And for the record, my doctor said as long as I don't have any problems resulting from said fatness (like all of the ones you mentioned), then I shouldn't worry about it. Everything inside my body is normal, so why are you saying that my outside can't be? Maybe you can make your own webpage with your viewpoint, but you need to look at WP:NPOVButterflyvertigo 03:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: First off, comparing fat acceptance to the civil rights movement may be laughable, but if that is a comparison fat acceptance advocates make then their claim should be noted. As for Butterflyvertigo's comment: the fat acceptance movement actually isn't just about allowing those who are fat to "accept themselves for what they are"; as Spyde says, the movement isn't just about accepting those who are larger but generally healthy. There are some advocates who maintain that doctors should completely disregard bodyfat and refrain from encouraging weight loss in assessing patients' health, even when those levels are a product of an unhealthy lifestyle - which is a very controversial position to take, from a medical perspective. Criticism of that position is worthy of mention in this entry. --Soultaco 19:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be fair, those who believe that doctors should refrain from encouraging weight loss "even when those levels are a product of an unhealthy lifestyle" almost uniformaly believe that doctors should still encourage individuals to move to a more healthy lifestyle. They just think that the focus should be on the habits themselves, such as increasing activity and improving nutrition, rather than lowering the number on the scale. The idea is that fat is used as a proxy for a number of health habits and outcomes and focussing directly on those rather than on the fat itself is desirable. Chartreuse green 20:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs more insight, criticism 

message: Someone changed the word "fat" to "obese" in this article's introduction and I changed it back. Within the fat acceptance movement, "obese" is considered pejorative, and so in this particular article it makes sense to use the language of the movement. In addition, it is simply incorrect to say that the fat acceptance movement has a goal of changing attitudes towards "obese" people, because the fat acceptance movement is not specifically aimed at individuals whose BMI's fall between a specified range, which is what the word "obese" implies. Chartreuse green 17:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  using the word "fat" 

message: Having read the entirety of this page, I found it necessary to point out that many of the critics of the article were engaged in passionate hatespeech rather than helpful criticism and/or argumentation. Calling a group of people "lazy maggots" or "gluttonous" or "ignorant" or "greedy," is not only unnecessarily disrespectful, it is the kind of behavior that I believe the movement is working to abolish. It does not matter whether or not a person is responsible for their weight (or any other stigmatized characteristic), what matters is the level of hatred and bigotry which these people must face on a daily basis. If these critics were truly concerned for the health of larger people, why would they feel the necessity to speak (or write) in such a derogatory manner? Certainly smokers with lung cancer do not face such utter disgust and vitriol from their peers. The discussion regarding obesity, health, genes, and lifestyle can and will continue in the annals of medicine, but here we have the opportunity to seriously examine our prejudices against and underlying hatred towards fat people. We have the chance to ask ourselves why these people are so marginalized, and begin to work towards a more peaceful way of communicating. Let's take this opportunity, shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.42.231.82 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this add anything to the issue of hateful and prejudiced comments to this article? I don't think anybody is going to argue that fat people are the only group that experiences hatred and discrimination...--R.C.B. 10:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatred vs. Criticism 

message: I am not sure who or where the people are who do this, could someone reading this who happens to know how to protect articles get this done? It's getting repeatedly vandalized more than it's getting edited, for an article that would be problematic enough without the vandals. Thanks. Abbenm 02:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Request protection here: WP:RFP Totnesmartin 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Abbenm 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone semi-protect this page? 

message: The reference that says fat people are more expensive to house doesn't back up the claim. It talks about making better inforced chairs for fat people but mainly about ergonomics. Should it be pulled (i think it ref 4 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.182 (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: reference

message: Perhaps if the Criticism section contained more information regarding the medical/health fields perspective on the dangers of being fat, the NPOV dispute tag would be removed? 
For instance, none of the medical problems that fat ascerbates is mentioned, such as strain of the back, joints, heart, etc., which is due to being at the fat end of the size spectrum.  Also the relationship to type II diabetes, amenorrhea, sleep apenea, asthma, as well as the other various medical conditions that the medical community shows fat having a bearing on, none of that is mentioned at all in the article.  
Because, to me, that's where the breakdown is with the neutrality.  Most people, if you ask them what they know or believe about fat, they will almost certainly mention the myriad of health problems associated with being fat, as well as their preference that fat, to them, is not aesthetically pleasing.  So to leave that out of the Criticism section--especially the documented medical findings showing correlation or indeed causation, is perhaps why it was open to a NPOV dispute tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.17.206 (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're requesting is a criticism of obesity, however, not a criticism of the fat acceptance movement as an entity.  Whatever medical issues are related to fatness, that has nothing to do with a movement that is, as has been repeatedly explained, not about advocating that people become fat, or that people be fat, but advocating for fair and health-focused treatment of fat people within society and by the medical establishment.  The potential effects of fatness are not germane when discussing a movement which is looking at things like hiring and workplace inequities, media bias and so on.Dreamalynn 17:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason that the movement exists is that people, for whatever reason, tend to discriminate against fat people.  The reasoning behind such discrimination is absolutely relevant to this article.  We can speak about it in the context of cultural perception if necessary, but many of those perceptions are based in medical fact.  Joie de Vivre 18:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the perception that fat people tend to be lazy, without self-control, and generally less intelligent based on "medical fact"? Because this is the prejudice we are talking about. A high body fat percentage might be a risk factor for certain diseases but that is a completely different matter. In addition, the relative importance of this risk factor as compared to other risk factors such as smoking, genetic predisposition, sedentary lifestyle, certain eating habits etc. for overall morbidity is disputed - even among experts. Plus, until now the possibilities to lose weight permanently are rather limited for most people. But even if this was not the case, the supposed danger of a high body fat percentage as well as a realistic possibility to lose weight permanently would hardly be anything that could justify the widespread negative perception of fat people and the resulting prejudice and discrimination. --R.C.B. 21:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: 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.
[User Calibanu] 14.08, 01 September 2007.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calibanu (talk • contribs) 02:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific Political Stances

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article's point

message: 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.
Should we remove this section? Peggynature (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 19:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Irrelevant section should be deleted?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: WE DO NOT NEED TO ACCEPT YOU, LARD ASSES. GO GET SOME DISCIPLINE AND LOSE WEIGHT!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.169.5 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL. That's...intelligent. And eloquent. Sir, I salute you. Stay Klassy. Peggynature (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 18:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Movement Today Section 

message: 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.
:Anything we find would probably be a neologism.  One that I have heard is "sizeism".  I personally would stick with phrases like "weight-based discrimination". Joie de Vivre 18:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've just found another interesting resource from the Rudd Center. It's a report regarding weight bias and the need for public policy changes. This could be added as a citation or in Further reading. Could someone please add it? Thanks. http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/what/policy/pdfs/WeightBiasPolicyRuddReport.pdf Peggynature (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 19:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I CALL IT COMMON SENSE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.240.123 (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: ...of which you're clearly in abundant possession.Peggynature (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Word for discrimination against fat people

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disjointed writing style 

message: I mean, we could just as easily label it as "part of a series on obesity" and have a bunch of links to weight gain, morbid obesity, costs to society, ect. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it NPOV to declare this article "part of a series on discrimination"?

message: 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)
thread_title:  What happened to the "Further Reading" section? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Diversity in the movement

message: 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)
thread_title:  commentary / hint 

message: : 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)
thread_title: Social Criticism Section

message: 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"
--1sneakers6 (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Intentional Pun?

message: 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)
thread_title: "myths" about fat people

message: There may be some useful material in that article, so I thought that, like Fattism it could be merged here. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[Anti-fat bias]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Of course, take a look here: Health at Every Size --holizz (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, that article is about a belief system, and makes no assertion that health is actually possible at every size. In fact, Overweight#Health-related implications states "The generally accepted view is that being overweight causes similar health problems to obesity, but to a lesser degree." See Effects of obesity on health. Make of that information what you will, but note well that we cannot give medical advice at Wikipedia. BigNate37(T) 00:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it OK 

message: The "Health problems" subsection claimed that obesity is bad for the individual's health, and expensive for society. It was full of citations, but not one showed that this argument is a criticism of the fat acceptance movement. The "Social criticism" subsection seemed to cover the exact same criticism, but it presented it as criticism rather than a statement of fact. And again, all the citations were to medical papers - not one citation to support the claim that these criticisms of the fat acceptance movement exist.
As such, I've rewritten the entire Criticism section which is now much shorter because I could only find one criticism of the movement. I also found rebuttals to this criticism from prominent fat acceptance bloggers but only included a few arguments as otherwise the rebuttal could have easily been 10 paragraphs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holizz (talk • contribs) 23:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section, rewritten 

message: I read this in the criticisms section.  Is such terminology even remotely neutral?  This whole article reads like a complete puff piece for the unhealthy lifestyle acceptance movement (I only state it that way because part of this comment of mine was removed, even though I was completely polite).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.162.137 (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you consider it to be non-NPOV? --holizz (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "fat shaming" 

message: I've left the edits to the text intact, but I reverted the changes which replaced the citations with  tags.
I believe this is incorrect. The citations are evidence that proponents of the fat acceptance movement make certain claims, not as evidence that their claims are accurate. --holizz (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Special:Contributions/92.12.195.152|92.12.195.152]]'s edits to the criticism section 

message: In the second paragraph of "Debates Within the Movement", there is the following sentence:
"She makes a point to tell me how impressed she is with the way many do make quite and polite accommodations for her."
It is a cited quote, but it appears to have a typo.  I can't tell if the typo is in the original source because I cannot access it, and I can't tell what the original sentence's intent was.  Is it "quiet and polite accommodations", or "quite polite accommodations"?  Two very different meanings.  I'm inclined to assume the former, just because people mix up "quiet" with "quite" a lot, but I don't want to make assumptions, and I don't want to [sic] it if it's a Wikipedia typo or fix it if it was like that in the original quotation.  Does anybody on this page have access to the original source of the quote?
--108.18.120.22 (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't fix typo without viewing source article 

message: The "Debates within the movement" section has the following line:
"Since the 2011 amendment by Congress to the ADA to extend workplace discrimination protection to people 100% or more above the healthy body mass index range of weight for their height."
However, I don't think this is true. A search through the most updated text I can find no reference to "obese", "obesity", or "body mass index". The source does not give a reference for this claim. If no one can verify this claim, I'll remove that part from the sentence. -Iamozy (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: After some extensive searching, I have concluded that the reference to a 2011 amendment of the ADA is incorrect, so I have removed it from the article. -Iamozy (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011 Amendment to ADA to include the "morbidly obese"? 

message: Sorry, User:2604:2000:14C3:A01D:1943:3CDD:766C:DA06. But I replaced some of the content you copied from the obesity article with a direct link to the "Effects on health" section of the obesity article. I think some of the text you copied was mainly repeating what was already said in that section. Also, the table was huge and not really necessary as the text already contains a list of health effects.
And this line was far too ironic:
:Health consequences ... (such as ... social stigmatization)
--holizz (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed a bunch of content copied directly from the [[obesity]] article 

message: I feel like the Health section is unnecessarily long, considering this is an article on a movement, not the health effects of obesity. Is it necessary to reiterate so much from the Health at Every Size and Obesity articles, or would it suffice to give a short summary and keep the links to the Main Articles? Additionally, shouldn't the negative effects of obesity be moved into the Criticisms section? Reactionroad (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Both of those sections could use some major trimming down. We should keep this article focused on the movement itself. --Iamozy (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health section 

message: Content about Marianne Kirby is being changed without reliable sourcing regarding Fatshionista. Please discuss here, with reliable sources supporting those changes. Blogs and livejournals are not reliable sources, btw. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 13:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: After checking the source (reference 78), it's clear to me that Marianne Kirby is associated with "The Rotund". This is stated in the introduction of the referenced book (page xii) . --Iamozy (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   Have to agree with User:Iamozy. One book published by Perigree Books (imprint of Penguin) and a livejournal blog do not establish notability. Pretty sure we should just remove any mention of Marianne Kirby and the other author supported only by self published sources. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't totally understand the removal of Marianne Kirby. What's required to classify someone as a notable person in a movement? Along with the book and blog, she writes about body politics for The Guardian, has been a guest on The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore and Dr. Phil, and has been referenced in at least a few books written by scholars (for example: Fat Sex: New Directions in Theory and Activism by Dr Caroline Walters & Dr Helen Hester and Acceptable Prejudice?: Fat, Rhetoric and Social Justice by Lonie McMichael, Ph.D), all due to her fat activism.  Reactionroad (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to be notable, she has to be written about. Is she really prominent enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedic entry about fat acceptance? Or is her mention just an opportunity to drop a name? Regardless, in the context that she was mentioned, it was inappropriate because the only source was her own work, which is a self-published, primary source. For more information, read WP:USESPS and WP:PRIMARY --Iamozy (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for the info, I'll look into it some more!Reactionroad (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've looked further into this, and believe that Marianne Kirby and Kate Harding should be qualified as notable fat activists. Both have been mentioned in news stories at least a handful of times, with Kirby being noted by ABC news as a "'Fat Acceptance' leader." Both have been mentioned in publications from highly regarded publishers, such as Praeger/ABC-CLIO (The Politics of Size: Perspectives from the Fat Acceptance Movement), Routledge/Taylor & Francis (The Women's Movement in Protest, Institutions, and the Internet), Ashgate Publishing (Fat Sex: New Directions in Theory and Activism), and Oxford University Press (What's Wrong with Fat?). In What's Wrong with Fat, Harding's work on Shapely Prose is mentioned as being used as part of a study, and in Fat Sex: New Directions in Theory and Activism both Kirby and Harding are referred to as "prominent figures" in the online fat acceptance community. If there are no objections, I'm going to start adding notable fat activists to this page.Reactionroad (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Go forth! --Iamozy (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatshionista 

message: This is basically just a thing on tumblr and a few other corners of the internet, does it really deserve a wikipedia article? 108.246.242.125 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is. Wikipedia includes most tumblr movements as 'notable' including specific 'otherkin species'. The FAM is an actual force in the social world and therefore actually notable; even if completely wrong. Velostodon (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: This article supports the WP:FRINGE theory of challenging the scientific consensus that obesity is bad. There should be no debate. This article gives way too much credence to the fat acceptance movement, obesity being just as healthy as non-obesity is pseudoscience. The Moon landing conspiracy theories article clearly gives credence to the actual scientific consensus, unlike this article, which puts both sides on a false equal footing. I will begin to rewrite the article to achieve neutrality in the scientific sense, if nobody objects. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: While you are factually correct that its a fringe theory and not scientifically accurate, the movement is of notability. The trouble here is that we are using a publicly editable encyclopedia to record something that is emotionally charged. That is why the article ends up with more pathos than facts. I have gutted similar articles to remove bias, but they get undone by symapthetic moderators a lot of the time. Velostodon (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being obese is not healthy, the widespread scientific consensus is that it's not. 

message: So subscribers of /r/fatpeoplehate on reddit seem to be vandalizing the article. Someone mind locking it? I love reddit, but vandalizing Wikipedia? Come on.
Source
144.32.193.86 (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should not be locked in its current state. There is a lot of repairs to be done. Velostodon (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Shouldn't we characterize the fat acceptance movement by what reliable sources say about them, instead of wordpress blogs galore? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There are far too many self-published and primary sources. This page could probably use some more cleanup. --Iamozy (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The logic here is that the blogs are evidence that *somebody* is saying *something*, such as for the criticism section and for the 'proponents opinions' as citations. Personally, I still disagree with their use. Wikipedia is not meant for people to press their personal opinions or gain attention for their blogs. Sources should remain academic and journalistic (if that is a word). If we are using blogs, then we might as well cite this talk page to justify those pieces. Velostodon (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many blogs! 

message: I just cut this section from the article. No doubt there's useful stuff in here, but if it's not cited it shouldn't be in the article (yet). Drmies (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Journal articles" 

message: This section is sorely lacking, and it is unbalanced. The medical criticism section starts with a single line of criticism, but is immediately followed by four lines of response. The old section  had criticism of obesity, but that was deleted because "criticism should be about the movement, not obesity", and yet the response is about defending obesity: "...pointed to studies which show that being fat in and of itself is not a health problem..." 
Then you have this disjointed line: "Marilyn Wann... has labelled the Center for Disease Control's 2012 Weight of the Nation report "pseudoscientific sensationalism"" but what info do we have from that report? Nothing.
Criticism of the movement should include the effects of obesity, since the movement is about accepting obesity. It should not be constrained to criticism of the movement and absolutely nothing else. I prefer reverting to the old section. Unflavoured (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This paragraph is weird: "Fat Acceptance campaigners also argue that current approaches constitute fat-shaming [...]" - that's not criticism of FA, maybe it was intended to go into another section?
Stefanmuc (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That whole paragraph is lacking substance - a lot of broad statements of alleged criticism, but no supporting evidence. Reactionroad (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: The two articles are both about alleged unfair perpetuation of certain standards of body images in the media and pop culture. Why not just merge this with body acceptance (a much better article)? --Omegaalephnull (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would be a good idea. There are plenty of sources that indicate that the Fat Acceptance movement is independent of the body acceptance movement, as well as its own unique subculture. This article just needs to be organized better and some sections need to be written more clearly. --Iamozy (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: merge with body acceptance 

message: Deleted made up fact that contradicted the body of the article. As the body text makes clear, what it calls a "first wave" is actually a series of isolated things pulled together to flesh out this concept of waves of fat acceptance. That's fine, but it's overreach to connect this with cultural revolution of the 60s in the way the prior text did. There is a possible relation but needs to be reexamined, restated. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede redact 

message: 1.  Is the FA movement attempting to make people fatter (does it have as a goal an increase in obesity).  I don't mean to generalize but my impression is, yes.  (For example, it seems that traditionally thin people (body fat 15-20% for men or 20-25% for women) are considered too thin and that they need to eat more, so that the FA Movement attempts to increase their size. 
2.  Is there a new goal weight?  What is it?  Obviously it is possible to be so fat that one is immobile and must be served food by someone else, but it does not appear that this is the goal of the FA movement.  So what is the actual goal?
Please note that these are genuine questions.  I've given a specific example of (1), and as for (2) I have not found any.  Thank you. Faquestions (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  a couple of basic questions about the FA movement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fat acceptance movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021226042434/http://www.largesse.net/Archives/FU/index.html to http://www.largesse.net/Archives/FU/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111220040815/http://www.cswd.org/docs/media.html to http://www.cswd.org/docs/media.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This page should be called Fat Activism, not Fat Acceptance. The first sentence is incorrect and the citation supporting it is weak. "The fat acceptance movement (also known as fat pride, fat empowerment, and fat activism)[5]".
Fat acceptance is a tactic of fat activism but not its whole rationale. Fat activism has a very broad range of aims and interests, not just self-acceptance or social acceptance (see my work Fat Activism: A Radical Social Movement).
Using NAAFA as a citation for fat acceptance is too limiting. NAAFA are an important organisation in fat activism but they aren't the ones who define the movement, even though they are often positioned so by researchers (again, see my book for examples of that). To use them to define this concept is cultural imperialism when the movement is actually a global affair at this point in time, not purely based in the US.
I don't know anyone who calls the movement "fat empowerment," a citation is needed for that. "Fat pride" is archaic and more often refers more to how the movement is described by outsiders than insiders, eg: 60 Minutes.
To summarise: this page needs renaming: Fat Activism
The first sentence should read: Fat Activism is a global social movement with diverse aims, including fat acceptance.
There are many other things that need to be revised on this page, but I will leave that for now!
Charcoo (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  That is a very interesting suggestion, thank you for that! And thank you for the sources you added! Could you add more sources to support the new first sentence and the renaming of this page? Also, I don't quite understand how this book from 1971 supports your claim that the term 'fat pride' would be archaic. Laurier (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fat Activism, not Fat Acceptance