Talk:Fat acceptance movement/Archive 1

Background: Medical
Just wanted to add that there are some people who acknowledge that very high weight might have some negative health consequences, yet those people still argue that weight loss should not be prescribed as a goal since it often does not work in the long term and is often even contraproductive since people a) often stop newly acquired healthy behavior such as regular exercise once they notice that it does not lead to permanent weight loss and b) intentional weight loss is often followed by weight gain, sometimes leaving the person with a higher weight than before the weight loss attempt. Also, might Linda Bacon be a good person to add here as someone who promotes HAES? --82.215.30.161 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Put aside the weasel words. Name your sources. I've never heard of a single doctor of any repute who believes the fat should stay fat. Obesity kills the person, it drains resources from everyone else, and has not a single redeeming quality. 71.135.181.124 03:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't quite see what your point adds to the article. Fact is that the fat acceptance movement exists - what you think of it is your personal opinion. In addition the main point of fat acceptance is not the existing or non-existing health consequences of being fat but that :fat people are discriminated against and that this should not be the case (and plenty of research shows that this discrimination exists).
 * As for the "weasel words": While possible health consequences of being fat are not the main point of fat acceptance, most people in the movement agree that a) there is no safe way to lose weight and to KEEP IT DOWN in the long term for most people and b) that the health consequences of fat are generally exaggerated. This should be mentioned in the article - no matter if you believe those ideas are correct or not.
 * In adition there is research that supports these views. Some researchers working on these topics are Linda Bacon, Glenn Gaesser, and Paul Ernsberger. Two sample scientific articles on the long-term failure of deliberate weight loss and on possible alternative approaches to health are


 * Bacon, L., Van Loan M., Stern J. S., Keim N. (2005). Size acceptance and intuitive eating improves health for obese female chronic dieters. Journal of American Dietetic Association, 105, 929-936.


 * Garner, D. M., Wooley, S. C. (1991). Confronting the failure of behavioral and dietary treatments for obesity. Clinical Psychology Review, 11, 729-780.


 * Also, there are plenty of Internet resources where the ideas of fat acceptance and health are discussed such as www.lindabacon.org, www.bodypositive.com, and junkfoodscience.blogspot.com.(By the way, I am the one who wrote the original discussion point you refer to, however, I forgot to sign in when I wrote it.) --R.C.B. 21:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fat acceptance and lesbianism
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)


 * 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)


 * 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).

Size acceptance vs. fat acceptance
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)

"Fat activist"
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)

Acceptance :(
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)


 * That's nice, but Wikipedia isn't a debate forum - it's an online encyclopedia, and this Talk entry is about maintaining that entry, not about arguing over the merits of fat acceptance. --Soultaco 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Title of this article

 * 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)
 * It depends on what it is most commonly called in the movement itself, I'd say. Of course finding that out would require some research. Likewise, with the use of the term obesity. The movement itself may not view obesity in the same context as being fat. I don't know, but I'd suggest research before making changes. --Lendorien 07:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ...well...yes, but right now fat could be confused as an adjective. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 20:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But it isn't called the "obesity acceptance movement". It is called the fat acceptance movement.  It is named as it is for a combination of reasons:  people in the movement don't like the pejorative term "obesity."  It is also a form of "taking back the word" to be neutral, rather than negative. Moonvine 14:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, "obesity" incorrectly implies fatness is the result of gluttony (from "obesus"). "Obesity" is also the word-of-choice used by those who are pushing the idea that fatness is a disease instead of a characteristic. "Obese" is far, far more insulting and destructive to fat people than the simple, clear word "fat." In other words, "obese" and "overweight" (again, implying fatness is abnormal) make some thin people comfortable, not fat people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.200.200.18 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fat IS an adjective. MarkRose 05:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The word "fat" depending on how it's used, can be either an adjective or a noun.75.70.125.3 03:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism :)
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)

Actually physicians are just as blinded by their social upbringing as everyone else and do overstate the risks of being "obese." The classification of "obesity" has also been getting lighter and lighter over the years. Fairly soon, I'm sure, Paris Hilton will have to go to fat camp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.34.42 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Criticism towards other movements are generally about specific events and/or individuals therein, not towards the movement itself. Does the Civil Rights Movement contain criticism about the movement just existing? Part of what the fat acceptance movement is about is the recognition of pork barrel politics involved between media coverage of "obesity" and weight-loss drug manufacturers (such as Roche, manufacturer of Xenical, which had a core net income of 5.41639512 billion U.S. dollars in 2005 and gives out this yearly award. Any internist can tell you it is not merely fats who have high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or high blood sugar. These things are determined by our genes, and by how we live. Being fat does not naturally equate anyone with these things. And that's what "Healthy at any size," an oft-used slogan of this movement, means. Eating well and being active are important for everyone, and some people are larger than others. There is little that seems irresponsible about that to me.  --Lpno90 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Its a criticism which is exactly what is supposed to be there. Mentioning that doctors don't think its healthy to be overweight isnt vandalsim every movement has some sort of criticism and it's not vandalism just because you don't like reading it.  Nobody has pointed out in any case that the vast majority of people that allegedly just HAVE to be fat now wouldnt have been fat 100-200 years ago.  Its all a matter of overindulgance in the modern diet which is a form of lack of self control.  The people that think their genetically doomed to obesity would not be so overweight in the 19th century or earlier so they should take some responsibility for their actions.  It seems like this fat acceptance movement is  not only promoting an unhealthy lifestyle it is trying to justify it through what come down to playing the "fat" card, that is to believe that any criticism of them comes from a systemic anti-fat bias similar to racism.  However, unlike racism which is based on abstract concepts of superiority, being against the acceptance of an unhealthy lifestyle as the norm in a country where it is fast becoming the norm is hardly an irresponsible position.  Clearly the proponents of this movement don't feel confident enough to take any criticism of it as they must on some level understand that this movement is basically to spare their feelings.  Instead of for instance working on the problem in a constructive manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.239.197 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Acutally, they ARE working on this in a constructive manner.    Lots of people are heavier now because of DIETING to try to fit in with this culture's ultra obsession with being skinny; 100-200 years ago, this obsession did not exist.  No one is trying to play a 'fat' card, people just want to live thier lives without daily insults, taunts, and things like this page being vandalised.  People need to realise that being fat does not automatically equal an unhealthy lifestyle.  Plenty of thin people lead unhealthy lifestyles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust242 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The criticisms you bring up are already in the entry for Obesity, no? (That's the only point in your biased paragraph worth discussing.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.26.30.5 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused over the entire criticism section. It seems to be little more than criticism (and at times pure denigration) of "obese people" and not of the Fat Acceptance Movement. I'll try to look some up myself too, but as it stands the whole paragraph looks like it needs to be revised/replaced. Rugadh 18:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Some changes

 * 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)

Just capitalised some words.

Hey, I've gotten into trouble editing without posting so I just changed some stuff for better wording. Let me know if anyone thinks I did a poor job, I always welcome the chance to learn better writing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.59.231 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Fat acceptance covers several fronts but generally can be described as attempting to change societal, internal, and medical attitudes about fats, despite heavy criticism." Intentional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.111.245 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that "fats" is a derogatory term that was added by a vandal. Also, "heavy" criticism might have been added by the same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.26.30.5 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

needs more insight, criticism
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

If nothing else, this article certainly implies that is not so bad to be overweight. Somebody compared it to the civil rights movement, which is laughable. I don't believe there was proof that minorities deserved subjugation, but there is overwhelming proof that being overweight is unhealthy. Countless recent studies have directly linked obesity with heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and more. This article does nothing to outline those risks. Sure, you can be slightly overweight and still relatively healthy, but this is the FAT movement not the "overweight but eating well and exercising" movement. I find this article irresponsible.Spyde 05:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

It seems to me that the question is this: Are there significant, cohesive, groups of people who criticize the Fat Acceptance Movement? If so, they should be listed here. The question isn't whether or not their criticisms are valid, but only whether or not they exist in significant numbers. Ryansupak 16:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

using the word "fat"
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)

Chartreuse green explained above while the use of the word "obese" is not appropriate in this article. If you disagree and think "obese" should be used instead of "fat" please discuss it here before you make the change - it will save all of us some time and energy. Thanks. --R.C.B. 08:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hatred vs. Criticism
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)

You think this is bad? Try going to the pages about Islam. Armyrifle


 * 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)

The Possibility of Losing Weight
This is more of a question than anything. I keep reading that it's not fat people's fault that they can't lose weight. The thing is, elementary physics tells me that anyone must lose weight if the number of calories of energy they consume is fewer than the number of calories of energy they burn. This must be regardless of any medical disorders etc. (excluding psychiatric disorders)

So even if someone has a "glandular" problem, surely consuming fewer calories than they burn must result in losing weight? There is no violation of physical causation here is there? ;-)

I do believe in fat acceptance in that I try not to judge people for being massively overwight (though no doubt I subconsciously apply sterotypes to them, just as I subconsciously apply stereotypical characteristics to everything). But I do think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people think that IN GENERAL (not in every case) overweight or obese folks are not as physically attractive as slim folks. Fat acceptance as some sort of mandate that everyone must "love" the fat body type is silly because fat or overweight people can lose weight, improve their health, and look more attractive without medication (it's not a disease... you agree that being fat is not a disease, right?)


 * Nobody in fat acceptance disagrees that if you lock someone in a room with no access to food they will lose weight and eventually starve to death. The thing is that it is a LOT more complicated than that, and not as simple as calories in = calories out! There are too many reasons why it is complicated to list here. Some examples though, are:
 * our bodies adjust how many calories they use and how many they store based on caloric needs, metabolism, how much you've eaten recently, etc, etc
 * for some fat people, the energy and effort required to lose weight is such that they would need to be obsessed with calorie counting for the rest of their lives. They choose to expend that effort on other aspects of their lives: their kids, their jobs, etc. That's a valid choice.
 * psychologically, dieting is complicated. There is ample evidence that dieting causes binging, whether you are fat or thin, and many fat people don't want to put themselves into a position of binging uncontrollably. Chartreuse green 19:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Some fat people (such as those in the Fat Acceptance movement) already look and feel their best. Attractiveness standards have changed over time. Normal human bodies vary in many ways. Some people are short. Some people are tall. Some people have dark skin. Some people have light skin. Some people are thin. Some people are fat. And the health problem associated with being fat have been shown time and time again to have more to do with trying to lose weight (something fat people in our current world are often encouraged to do). Read up on Health at Every Size and the Size Acceptance/Fat Acceptance movements before commenting, please. The stereotypes and scientific ignorance displayed in so many of these comments illustrate all too well what the movement is trying to educate on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.82.130 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Scientific ignorance you say? Are you referring to the same scientific ignorance displayed by people who state their opinion as fact? For example, contributors to this article?


 * Could you please stop the personal attacks? There are contributors on both sides of the fence that state their opinion as a fact, but this is not the issue here. The main point of fat acceptance is NOT that being fat does not increase the risk for certain health problems or that losing weight is impossible in ALL cases. The main point is that there is wide spread prejudice and discrimination against fat people – for example fat people are less likely to get a job, they are often thought to be lazy or stupid, etc. This is not acceptable in the eyes of fat activists. Even if a safe way to lose weight and keep it down in the long term that would work for most people would be found this point would not change.
 * Many fat activists including myself will further argue that prejudice has also found its way into health care and that therefore the dangers of being fat are often overstated. Further, many health care professionals seem to assume that failure to maintain weight loss is due to a low level of will power in fat people. However, as far as I am aware this last point has never been shown in a study. Hence the criticism of the recommendation to lose weight.
 * As far as I can see the current article is not showing fat acceptance in an overly positive light at all. As you might have noticed, there is quite an extensive part on criticism of fat acceptance. I would have a reply to all of these points (for example, the point that fat acceptance actively promotes unhealthy eating and exercise habits can be countered by the fact that many fat activists promote HAES which states over and over the importance of a healthy diet and exercise adjusted for personal abilities and preferences INDEPENDENT OF WEIGHT LOSS). But I do not change the criticism section accordingly because I believe both sides should have their say.--R.C.B. 09:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you can change the criticism section, but the big point is that we should just be reporting on what has been said in public debate, not just adding original research and opinions. If someone writes an article in a media source responding to these criticisms, you can note that fact. (I'd like to beef up the criticisms with some better references, actually - I know better articles have been written expressing the views in the "Criticism" sections, but I've had trouble finding the proper citations.)

--Soultaco 16:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I went a bit overboard in my previous comment. I actually don't think that the replies that come to my mind when I read the points of criticism mentioned should be included in that section; some of them would rather belong to earlier paragraphs (for example, as mentioned it is a misconception that HAES promotes unhealthy eating or lack of exercise, it just does not see weight loss as a goal in its own but rather as a possibly but not necessarily occuring side effect of changes in diet and exercise habits). I am however getting very tired with the argument that this article should not exist "because being fat is unhealthy". As others have mentioned this point is not really an argument for the deletion of this article. In addition I wonder how the possible health effects of being fat justify the discrimination of fat people. As a life-long fat person myself I admittedly find it hard to react calm to these statements.--R.C.B. 09:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone semi-protect this page?
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)

Removed content on talk page not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines on Civility and that fit in with Wikipedia definition of Vandalism and Personal Attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.176.164.211 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Request protection here: WP:RFP Totnesmartin 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Abbenm 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

reference
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).

Abstract Humor?
Is this article an exercise in some sort of abstract humor, or is it a legimate proposal that is expected to be taken seriously? It's rather difficult to decipher.


 * I don't know where you get the idea from that this article is not meant seriously. The fat acceptance movement exists - actually it has been around for several decades. Also, the prejudice that the movement is fighting exists: As I said before, there is plenty of research on it and it is pretty much an accepted fact in the social sciences that fat people face discrimination. So what's your point? --R.C.B. 17:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What's your point? That humans tend to make judgments based on appearances alone? So do most other animals. What a fascinating discovery. Let's add the "ism" suffix to it and write an article about it. Maybe we should create a category called Victim Complex for all these half-written articles about "discrimination."


 * I think I made "my" point clear in my earlier reply as well as in several other comments on this discussion page. This article is not meant as a joke. It is an article about a social movement that has existed for several decades and that is an answer to wide spread discrimination against fat people. The existence of this discrimination has been verified over and over again in scientific studies - in fact not only fat activists but also many social scientists often call it the last form (or at least one of the last forms) of discrimination that can be expressed openly in modern Western society.
 * As for judgments based on appearance alone: It is true that people who are judged as physically not attractive (according to cross-culturally used standards) are also discriminated against and if someone wants to write an article about it that's fine with me. However, I have the impression that you are arguing that neither sizeism nor the fat acceptance movement should have an article. I am wondering if you would say the same thing about racism, sexism, and homophobia as well as the respective civil rights movements. If not I am wondering why.--R.C.B. 09:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As stated before here, this is an online encyclopedia, and this article is simply here to document the existence of a fat acceptance movement, not explicitly advocate for or advance it. Our individual opinions of its merits are (or at least should be) mostly irrelevant. --Soultaco 16:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But are the views that the "fat acceptance movement" claims to be combatting universally recognised or are they disputed? Because the article seems to take them as granted and I'm not so sure that such "invidious" views are really regarded as typical. Hence the NPOV tag. Srnec 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When I understand you right you are questioning if prejudice and discrimination of fat people in contemporary culture is really as far spread as the movement claims. There are actually numerous studies that support that this particular form of prejudice is indeed far spread. Two examples (of which the second is a review article):
 * Schwartz, M. B., O'Neal Chambliss, H., Brownell, K. D., Blair, S. N., & Billington, C. (2003). Weight bias among health professionals specializing in obesity. Obesity Research, 11, 1033-1039.
 * Puhl, R.,& Brownell, K. D. (2001). Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obesity Research, 9, 788-805.
 * To quote the first article,
 * Weight bias and discrimination have been documented in various areas of society, including employment practices, salary and promotion decisions, education and housing opportunities, and portrayal of obese persons in popular media. (p. 1033)
 * --R.C.B. 08:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not surprising that documentation exists. But sentences like "However invidious societal attitudes have remained, based upon the idea that fat people pursue affirmative, voluntary practices to maintain their body size" are not neutral. They assume the presence of "invidious societal attitudes" and I highly doubt these are universally accepted. Srnec 16:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * After looking up "invidious" in the dictionary (sorry, I am not a native speaker) I agree with you. I changed the introduction accordingly. I also had a quick look at the rest of the article and did not find any other POV wording. If you don't have other examples, can we remove the NPOV tag? --R.C.B. 16:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that liberal use of the word "perceived" would clean up the rest of the text. Feel free to remove the tag. Srnec 21:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. However, I personally don't think this really does justice to the evidence that prejudice and discrimination towards fat people does indeed exist. As I said before, there are many studies that show this - many more than I have cited - including studies showing that already quite young children don't want to have fat friends, that parents are less likely to pay for their child's college education if he or she is fat, that medical professionals, even the ones who are specialized in the treatment of fat people, have often very negative attitudes towards fat patients and many others. In fact, in contrast to racism and sexism that usually take more subtle forms nowadays, many people feel free to openly express their prejudices towards fat people. Using the word "perceived" in the article gives the impression that fat people might just imagine to be discriminated (or as a previous commenter said, that fat people might have some kind of "victim complex").--R.C.B. 19:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag
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).


 * 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)dreamalynn


 * 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)


 * 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)

Political outlook?
Do fat-acceptance activists tend to have a common political or ideological outlook (liberal, populist, libertarian, etc.)? Are there "left-wing" and "right-wing" factions within the movement? Do they generally vote Democrat? Republican? Or are they all over the map? Mdumas43073 19:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that, contemporarily, the Democrats certainly understand the gravity of the fat-acceptance movement more so than the Republicans.
 * While it has its roots in the US, there are members of the fat acceptance movement in several other countries (e.g., UK, Australia, Italy, Germany, and Norway) so voting Democrat or Republican does not apply to all people in the movement. In addition, while my impression is that there are more members who define themselves as politically "left" the movement is by no means affiliated with any political ideology. In fact, many members lament that the political left - which seems generally more sympathetic towards claims of groups who are the target of prejudice - often follows the wide-spread "fat is bad" rhetoric just as the political right.--R.C.B. 21:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Support Groups
(Not meant to disparage, offend, or do anything other than clear up a curiosity)

Does the Fat Acceptance Movement feature/support any Alcoholics Anonymous-esque groups? In many ways it seems to be a similar issue -- brought about by choice and lifestyle, compounded by genetic build, heredity, and other factors -- to alcoholism and similar issues. I mean, politically incorrect it may be to say (I hate tripping over words), but there is no denying an increased risk for certain health problems due to being overweight. (Granted, all lifestyles increase the risk of developing/catching something.)

Incidentally, and I just wanted to say this, as someone who was a good deal overweight for much of my adolescence (even up to about a year ago) I will vouch for the fact that dieting can work, provided it's a real, healthy diet and not some consumption restriction regimen. Xiphe 07:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Short answer to your question: No. The long one: There are Overeaters Anonymous groups but they have nothing to do with fat acceptance. I also want to point out to you that not every person is fat because they overeat - and I say that as someone whose current weight has partially come about by overeating. The assumption that the majority of fat people have disordered eating behavior has never been shown to be true - although there are of course fat people that do have eating disorders (and not just binge eating disorder or compulsive overeating) just as there are thin and "normal" weight people who do. In addition fat acceptance advocates often don't see fatness as a "disease" or "disorder" in itself and many reject the Overeaters Anonymous approach.
 * Also, just for your information, there is plenty of evidence that most weight-loss diets - including the ones that doctors and dieticians promote - do not work in the long term for the large majority of peopl, that is, by far the majority of people gain back the weight they have lost in the years following the diet. This is why Health at Every Size, an approach to health that many people in the movement support, aims at healthy (and in this case that means intuitive) eating and fun exercise without the explicit goal to lose weight. The genetic component of being fat also seems to be far stronger than the genetic component of being an alcoholic (which does not mean that I am blaming alcoholics for their condition - I am just pointing out that fatness is harder to control). Finally, the possible health consequences of being fat are far less clear than and certainly not as severe as the health consequences of drinking regularly large amounts of alcohol or smoking for that matter. And many of the health conditions that correlate with being fat can be successfully treated by dietary changes and exercise alone without the goal of weight loss - for example regular exercise is helpful for people with insulin resistance as well as people with high blood pressure.--R.C.B. 15:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Folks, Wikipedia article talk pages exist to discuss changes to the article. They are not for chatting about the article's topic.  Let's bring the discussion back to the article.  Joie de Vivre 16:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Specific Political Stances
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)

Bias
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. --Tzler 09:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the "criticism" and "issues with the movement" sections are full of weasel words. GlueyPorchBoy 15:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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.
 * Perhaps a separate section covering the language issue should be added? Fat vs. obese in particular seems like a worthwhile addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.149.2 (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Article's point

 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

External Links: Some help please?
I'm interested in contributing to the page on fat acceptance, but I am a new Wikipedia user, so I would appreciate some guidance and help.

I've already added a list of books to "Further Reading," and I would like to add some External Links to various websites that discuss fat acceptance. Most of these websites are blogs (e.g. Big Fat Blog, and the fat acceptance blog feed called  Notes from the Fatosphere) but also organizations like Association for Size Diversity and Health (ASDAH), International Size Acceptance Association (ISAA), and No Lose

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Irrelevant section should be deleted?
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)


 * 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)

The Movement Today Section
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Deletion
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)
 * Completely disagree. Please don't create wholesale redirects without discussing.  --David Shankbone  17:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 Shankbone  18:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 Shankbone  21:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See below --Banime (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability and references
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)
 * 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)


 * "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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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: . There is an interdisciplinary field of academic study called fat studies (see here ) 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * I added the resepective reference --145.116.230.249 (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ...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)


 * 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.'
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/health/22fblogs.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
 * http://www.bitchmagazine.org/article/big-trouble
 * http://www.timeout.com/chicago/articles/out-there/24098/weighing-in
 * http://redeye.chicagotribune.com/red-022008-fat-main,0,1963256.story
 * http://www.orlandoweekly.com/features/story.asp?id=12128
 * http://www.reason.com/news/show/123151.html
 * Peggynature (talk)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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.


 * ‘Gluttony or sloth’: critical geographies of bodies and morality in (anti)obesity policy Bethan Evans ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author. Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2006. Abstract: In many countries, obesity is high on public health policy agendas, and geographical research has begun to engage with obesity. However, obesity is a highly contested term, and recent debates about geographers’ engagement with policy, and critical discussions of the presence of bodies in medical geography, bear great relevance for developing a critical perspective on dominant ‘obesity discourse’. Through a critical reading of a recent UK policy document, this paper considers the presence of bodies in (anti)obesity campaigns, calling for a more critical approach to the medicalization of body size to be central to future geographical work on obesity.


 * 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.

More to come... Kal-spontaneous (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * I think that's a good idea peggynature. Been busy with the job lately that i haven't had time to edit. :) Kal-spontaneous (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Word for discrimination against fat people
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * I CALL IT COMMON SENSE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.240.123 (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ...of which you're clearly in abundant possession.Peggynature (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence
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)


 * 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)


 * 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 . 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)

Disjointed writing style
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)


 * 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)

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)

Is it NPOV to declare this article "part of a series on discrimination"?
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)

Also, it is getting difficult to eat and read this at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.122.144 (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sizism
Should this realy be redirected from Sizism? I mean Sizism can ALSO mean being against Anorexics/Near Anorexics aswell. OsirisV (talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * No objections in over three weeks, I'm making the change. Sordyne (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the "Further Reading" section?
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)

Biased indeed
It really smacks of bias when half of the criticism section tries to explain the criticisms away. Yes, fat does equal unhealthy. Dave Foster (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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.

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/consequences.htm

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.


 * The fact that you've just posted such an obscure blog makes me wonder if it doesn't belong to you. Happy trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.28.39 (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Diversity in the movement
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)

commentary / hint
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)

Social Criticism Section

 * 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)

Intentional Pun?
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)

"myths" about fat people
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)

Merge of Anti-fat bias
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)

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)

STRONGLY DISAGREE Can the fat acceptance article afford to get any bigger? 108.71.14.120 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it OK
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)
 * Of course, take a look here: Health at Every Size --holizz (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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 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)

Criticism section, rewritten
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)

"fat shaming"
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)


 * Why do you consider it to be non-NPOV? --holizz (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

92.12.195.152's edits to the criticism section
I've left the edits to the text intact, but I reverted the changes which replaced the citations with   tags.

"The citations removed were for non-specialist blog posts and articles on the subject, not link to studies that gives this assertion. Also some minor vocabulary changes."

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)

Is this article necessary?
I'm wondering why this article even exists. It appears to be pure propaganda for NAAFA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.156.137 (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You are free to look at the 62 citations in this article. If you read those you should (in theory) be able to verify that what this article describes is a real thing and not propaganda. If you find any citations that are not adequate you can raise the issue on the talk page or edit the article directly. --holizz (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Several editors have attempted to add CITED scientific support on the severe health risks of obesity to this page but have been rebuffed, with each citation and statement removed. So, yeah, sure, you are free to look at the 62 citations carefully chosen to be allowed in this article, despite thousands of potential citations to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.74.235 (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The anonymous user I was responding to seemed to think that the fat acceptance movement didn't really exist and was a hoax perpetrated by the NAAFA. I was pointing them to the citations which show that it does exist.


 * But to respond to your concern, this article is only tangentially concerned with whether it's healthy to be fat or not (see the small health section). The main focus is whether fat people are treated unfairly by society or not. If you want to get some opposing medical citations into this article I suggest you improve the Health at Every Size article and then summarize the things you added in the health section. --holizz (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Can't fix typo without viewing source article
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)

2011 Amendment to ADA to include the "morbidly obese"?
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 |ADA text I can find no reference to "obese", "obesity", or "body mass index". The |cited 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)
 * 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)

Removed a bunch of content copied directly from the obesity article
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)

Health section
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)
 * 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)

Fatshionista
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Ok, thanks for the info, I'll look into it some more!Reactionroad (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Sounds good. Go forth! --Iamozy (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability
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)


 * 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)

Being obese is not healthy, the widespread scientific consensus is that it's not.
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)


 * 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)

Vandalism
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)


 * 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)

Too many blogs!
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

"Journal articles"
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)



Criticism section
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Proposal: merge with body acceptance
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)
 * 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)

Lede redact
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)

a couple of basic questions about the FA movement
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)

External links modified
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)

Criticism section
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)


 * Reference is here: Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity Peggynature (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I added it to the article.--145.116.230.249 (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Other criticisms state that obesity increases ones risk of death." Isn't one's risk of death 100% independent of weight? (24.91.219.236 (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC))


 * 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.


 * ...and you're next. Peggynature (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Come on, Peggynature, you know trolls don't taste... by the way, thanks for all the work you have put into this--145.116.230.249 (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * The obesity article does have a section on the obesity paradox.Doc James (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I edited the medical criticism part of the fat acceptance article complete with links and accurate data but in less than 5 minutes it was removed. No explanation was provided. It makes me think that perhap the biased editor who removed it with no explianation given is a card carrying member of the the Fat Acceptance move and described by Fat Bastardo of NAAFA Bigger Fatter Blog as a angry jealous delusional fat girl.

The Fat Acceptance movement has no doubt caused it disciples and others suffer health problems and die prematurely. Wikipedia is showing a tremendous lack of responsibility buy disallowing critique of the fake sceince and disinformation spread by delusional members and charlatans of the fat acceptance movement. These same fools and charlatans will rally to shutdown pro ana sites while ignoring the fact that about 140 people die each year from anorexia nervosa as reported by - NCBI. The Fat Acceptance movement denies that medical data that proves that fat people die much sooner and suffer more health problems than normal people while creating a massive burden on the American health care system according the experts as reported by NBC News.

An editor at Wilkpedia removed the life saving science based information I presented. By removing my good faith attempt at abating this this health menace and fraud that is being peddled by dangerous and delusional fat acceptance zealots, the editor in question is putting naive people in danger who believe that articles on wikipedia are factual and trust worthy.

The dissemintaing of life threatining disinformation is not protected speech and knowingly presenting that disinformation especially without rebutal is a criminal offense under several statutes. It would be like allowing posters on a diabetes website to tell people with diabtetes that it is perfectly safe to eat all the sugar they want and stop taking insulin. The owner of the website would also be held criminally responsible if he did not remove the unlawful content. A disclaimer on the site would not absolve him of his responsibility.

The information cascade created by the the Fat Acceptance zealots is still taking its toll on human health. Fat Bastardo's lampooning of fat accaptance sophistries has undoubtly save vulnerable people from the dangerous death cult that is the fac acceptance movement.

I would like it of the editor would contact me via email and explain why he/she that removing my edit was fair and justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seig Fritz (talk • contribs) 02:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The "biased editor" you're referring to is a bot... XLinkBot to be specific. This talk page is not for polemics, your opinion, or your nasty attacks on other editors.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Fat Activism, not Fat Acceptance
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)


 * 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)