Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:17, 10 February 2008

Discrimination Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Archives

August 2006 – December 2007

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)

Bias

This article seems biased towards fat people. I suspect that this is because this article is probably written by 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)

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.

14.08, 01 September 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calibanu (talk • contribs) 02:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

some vandalism

The fat acceptance movement, also the fat liberation movement, is a made-up fairytale effort that you probably haven't heard of anywhere besides on wikipedia. Some fat wiki editor probably made it up.

Would've gone in BJAODN, but I see that's no longer around.—Wasabe3543 08:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN has been archived at several other sites, and this one is still taking new contributions Moyabrit 16:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Kind of mean but funny and honestly a movement glorifying people who like sitting all day and spooning lard into their mouth more than exercising or anything else that involves physical exertion until eventually they shun independence and become too obese to move and demand that everyone around them suffer through the inconvenience of bringing them potato sacks full of big macs as they slowly kill themselves is going to get some mocking. Im not vandalizing here, but seriously, thats what fat acceptance is, and deleting this only proves im right and you're too fat to find a counterargument that shows that this movement is anything other than a cruel mockery of civil rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.240.123 (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you obviously will live in the belief that fatties like me live in denial and are not willing to face the truth if I delete your comment I won't do it - however, I do not see how your comment does in any way help to further improve the article. However, your argument is one that is often used to criticize the movement, so maybe you might want to add it to the criticism section - but do me a favor and do some proper research if you do so, since there is plenty of research that shows that a) fat people, including fat children, are indeed discriminated against and b) weight-loss attempts fail in the overwhelming majority of cases. Also, there are in fact fat fitness trainers such as Kelly Bliss and Jennifer Portnick - so much for the argument that we fatties all just sit on our fat behinds and never do anything that somehow resembles physical exercise. --91.4.63.95 (talk) (a fat, belly-dancing vegetarian who doesn't own a car and walks/bikes several miles each day to get around)

What I said was never meant to be an attack on the obese, but if you're 600 pounds and fighting to be "accepted" for how "beautiful" it is to cram baconators down your throat and be insanely unhealthy, you need to look in the mirror and take an objective look at the "rights" you're fighting for. A vegetarian who walks/bikes several miles away is most likely a healthy individual regardless of their weight, so therefore you are not someone I'd refer to as a fatty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.240.123 (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You speak the truth. Fat people should be ashamed of themselves. 64.230.85.80 (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2008 (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)

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 Misplaced Pages) 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)

Fat people being compared with feces

Hey all, you might want to take a look at this Wiki Raja (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed Discrimination articles
• Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles