Talk:Anti-fat bias

[untitled section]

Removed disease from obese description as is it not an abnormal effect. It is completely normal given bad nutrition and poor living habits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.199.48 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 27 November 2010‎ (UTC)[reply]

removed an opnion

Whether we need to develop programs to reduce anti-fat bias or not is a matter of opinion. If that opinion needs to be expressed, it should be reworded "These (named and cited) people believe that programs need to be developed ..." Peboki (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. . .

I am suggested that this page be merged with [[1]].69.250.147.209 (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)stealstrash[reply]

Merging

If one does decide to attempt to merge a page into another again please remember to actually merge and not just redirect. That is a great way to lose a ton of information.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Weightism

Seems that both terms refer to stigma against larger people. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this idea. Anti-fat bias shouldn't have its own article, and there is no 'anti-thin bias' article. Therefore I think the anti-fat bias article should be merged with this article, but I also believe this article requires a lot more work done on it; namely dividing the bias against overweight people and the bias against underweight people. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge - these overlap +++ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge - Different names, same thing. Meclee (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge - Agreed. I mean with sexism, it has pages on both types of sexism but I don't see the need for an "anti-thin bias" so yeah. Jackninja5 (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100% sure that I'd say "merge" as the weightism article reads 100% as an advocacy editorial and not one single thing is sourced. 68.227.167.123 (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend moving both topics into Fat acceptance movement as that group appears to have invented both of these terms. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. As per pro-merge arguments above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. Although I'm not sure why this hasn't been done yet. Alssa1 (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Thin Privilege is a relevant source

Why are you guys reverting my edits citing This Is Thin Privilege? That tumblr blog talks extensively about discrimination fat people face so this source is very relevant.

---

You're not citing it. A citation is where the article states a fact, and you add a link to a source which backs up the fact. For example: "There is systemic bias against fat people.{{Citation|etc etc etc}}"

And please note that edit warring is against Wikipedia policy, you could be banned if you keep reverting edits. See WP:EW.

--holizz (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I find a post on This is Thin Privilege that backs up something in the article, is THAT citation fair game?

The website you are promoting is a blog, so - as a general rule - it is not a reliable source. It would be excluded. Scr★pIron^IV 20:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally you want a peer-reviewed article with statistically significant data. Alternatively, as was stated above, you could also mention opinions as opinions expressed by individuals. However, those opinions should be relevant opinions like opinions expressed by faculty of universities, major political figures, or celebrities. That should probably go in the "Media" Section, "Theories" or in a new "politics" section.

Fishgibblets (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Effects Section

I've significantly re-written the effects section to better fit the tone of Wikipedia, and to more accurately represent the data cited. It was previously written as an argument for how bad Anti-fat bias is. Now it is written as an accurate representation of the statistical reality of the cited data. Fishgibblets (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]