User talk:Marcnelson11

October 2022

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

As per Wikipedia:External links

"Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

What is unacceptable about this for the topic Body shape:

The three current body shape (type) standards used by mainstream medical doctors include the standard human body image, sometimes referred to as a Standard Body Type One (BT1), found in any scientifically approved human body anatomy book with all skeletal structures, vertebrae, and muscles, no less, fully developed. Presently, every human being is a Standard BT1 unless otherwise diagnosed by their doctor -- but even then, they are still a BT1 just with a specific diagnoses (like scoliosis or Poland's Syndrome). The second standard is Body Mass Index (BMI). The third standard is basal metabolic rate (BMR). These are the three main Standards any licensed medical doctor uses to judge whether their patient is "normal" and healthy. All these standards are inaccurate because they fail to take into account genetics including any form of skinny fat such as normal weight obesity. BMI is further inaccurate as it does not properly calculate excess muscles/muscle mass (think Dwayne Johnson, who is not obese but likely his BMI says he is).

Body Type Science (The Four Body Types) is a new field of science that began in 2003. Previously, all body types were unscientific, including the somatotypes. Body Type Science scientifically researches the theory that body type is genetic and based on how developed or undeveloped each human body is in terms of no less than skeletal structure, vertebrae, and muscles/muscle mass. It is a genetic fact that any part of the human body can be underdeveloped, to whatever degree. The scientific research data to date supports the theory that genetically underdeveloped muscle(s) negatively influences vertebrae and thus posture, BMI, and BMR. Moreover, genetically underdeveloped muscles/muscle mass explains skinny fat, especially in young people who have experienced some form of skinny fat from birth and have never been a BT1, contrary to mainstream doctors claims that they are a BT1 once within safe BMI.

Furthermore, to date mainstream scientists and medical doctors hold firm to the idea that obesity is merely an energy imbalance -- consistently eating too many calories daily above BMR which leads to an overweight or obese BMI. Cleaning up diet, exercise, and lifestyle is considered the only solution. However, as the obesity epidemic worsens, countless people worldwide of all ages, including kids and adolescents, have done the work and successfully lost the weight to be within safe BMI but they still experience skinny fat including normal weight obesity (which carries with it the same general risks as obesity) even though they are within their safe BMI. As well, doctors have no explanation for the obesity paradox or metabolically healthy obese (MHO) people, whom have normal readings for typical health indicators including blood pressure, heart rate, cholesterol, A1C (blood sugar), etc. Body Type Science addresses all these concerns and is working to strengthen the three current Standards (BT1, BMI, BMR). Marcnelson11 (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to link your website, nor to advertise your dieting plans. Biomedical claims (including claims about body types and/or weight loss) have stringent sourcing requirements, which you may read at WP:MEDRS. Your site does not even come close to satisfying those requirements. MrOllie (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the following is backed by any science whatsoever, yet you allow it? Somatotypes were debunked long ago. 0% of any of the following is backed by any peer-review papers or science. Your few mentioned studies in no way prove that any of the shapes are scientific or that the body shapes you accept in the articles are real or valid. The studies mentioned are about invalid, unproven body shapes - "A study of the shapes of over 6,000 women, carried out by researchers at the North Carolina State University circa 2005, for apparel, found that 46% were rectangular, just over 20% spoon, just under 14% inverted triangle, and 8% hourglass. Another study has found "that the average woman's waistline had expanded by six inches since the 1950s" and that women in 2004 were taller and had bigger busts and hips than those of the 1950s. Note however that a 2021 study found that slight changes in measurement placement definition can recategorise up to 40% of women into different body shapes, meaning cross-research comparisons may be flawed unless the exact measurement definitions are used."

Please show us or your wikipedia users the scientific evidence that backs up rectangular, spoon, inverted triangle, and hourglass body shapes....

Why are we being held to a double standard. Hypocrisy. Our research is real and growing and the only scientific research on body shape or type, yet you accept all other unscientific body shapes and types and reject ours alone? Why?

V shape: Males tend to have proportionally smaller buttocks, bigger chests and wider shoulders, wider latissimus dorsi and a small waist which makes for a V-shape of the torso.
Hourglass shape: The female body is significantly narrower in the waist both in front view and profile view. The waist is narrower than the chest region due to the breasts, and narrower than the hip region due to the width of the buttocks, which results in an hourglass shape.
Apple: The stomach region is wider than the hip section, mainly in males.
Pear or spoon or bell: The hip section is wider than the upper body, mainly in females.
Rectangle or straight or banana: The hip, waist, and shoulder sections are relatively similar.

Several similar classifications of women's body shape exist. These include:

Sheldon: "Somatotype: {Plumper: Endomorph, Muscular: Mesomorph, Slender: Ectomorph}", 1940s
Douty's "Body Build Scale: {1,2,3,4,5}", 1968
Bonnie August's "Body I.D. Scale: {A,X,H,V,W,Y,T,O,b,d,i,r}", 1981
Simmons, Istook, & Devarajan "Female Figure Identification Technique (FFIT): {Hourglass, Bottom Hourglass, Top Hourglass, Spoon, Rectangle, Diamond, Oval, Triangle, Inverted Triangle}", 2002
Connell's "Body Shape Assessment Scale: {Hourglass, Pear, Rectangle, Inverted Triangle}", 2006
Rasband: {Ideal, Triangular, Inverted Triangular, Rectangular, Hourglass, Diamond, Tubular, Rounded}, 2006
Lee JY, Istook CL, Nam YJ, "Comparison of body shape between USA and Korean women: {Hourglass, Bottom Hourglass, Top Hourglass, Spoon, Triangle, Inverted Triangle, Rectangle}", 2007.

Marcnelson11 (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to debate the validity of the mainstream science with you. Do not link to your website again, Wikipedia is not a venue for you to advertise. If you want to write about biomedical information on Wikipedia, you must cite sources that comply with WP:MEDRS. You should also read WP:PAID - it is apparent that you are in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use as outlined there. MrOllie (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never once did we advertise anything. You are making false allegations. You can remove whatever links you want, we simply want our Body Type Science to be recognized. You are allowing 100% unscientific body shape nonsense in your articles. It is obvious that a lot of the information you allow in your articles is in violation of your cite sources rules to comply with WP:MEDRS and WP:PAID.

None of this meets those criteria - 0%:

V shape: Males tend to have proportionally smaller buttocks, bigger chests and wider shoulders, wider latissimus dorsi and a small waist which makes for a V-shape of the torso.
Hourglass shape: The female body is significantly narrower in the waist both in front view and profile view. The waist is narrower than the chest region due to the breasts, and narrower than the hip region due to the width of the buttocks, which results in an hourglass shape.
Apple: The stomach region is wider than the hip section, mainly in males.
Pear or spoon or bell: The hip section is wider than the upper body, mainly in females.
Rectangle or straight or banana: The hip, waist, and shoulder sections are relatively similar.

Several similar classifications of women's body shape exist. These include:

Sheldon: "Somatotype: {Plumper: Endomorph, Muscular: Mesomorph, Slender: Ectomorph}", 1940s
Douty's "Body Build Scale: {1,2,3,4,5}", 1968
Bonnie August's "Body I.D. Scale: {A,X,H,V,W,Y,T,O,b,d,i,r}", 1981
Simmons, Istook, & Devarajan "Female Figure Identification Technique (FFIT): {Hourglass, Bottom Hourglass, Top Hourglass, Spoon, Rectangle, Diamond, Oval, Triangle, Inverted Triangle}", 2002
Connell's "Body Shape Assessment Scale: {Hourglass, Pear, Rectangle, Inverted Triangle}", 2006
Rasband: {Ideal, Triangular, Inverted Triangular, Rectangular, Hourglass, Diamond, Tubular, Rounded}, 2006
Lee JY, Istook CL, Nam YJ, "Comparison of body shape between USA and Korean women: {Hourglass, Bottom Hourglass, Top Hourglass, Spoon, Triangle, Inverted Triangle, Rectangle}", 2007.

Marcnelson11 (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I were to agree that other content in the article doesn't comply with policy, that would not be a reason for you to add more noncompliant content. MrOllie (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are not seeking to add noncompliant info. You are jumping to conclusions and putting words in our mouth, just making things up.

We want our Body Type Science research recognized. It is the only scientific research on body types/shapes in existence.

However we need to put it on the page so that is complies, fine. You could have just removed the links, if that is really the problem. Marcnelson11 (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way to get your research recognized on Wikipedia is to first get it published in a WP:MEDRS compliant source, such as a medical textbook from a major academic publisher or a statement from a major medical organization such as the WHO. I cannot 'just remove the links' because Wikipedia cannot carry your original research without MEDRS compliant sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like the somatotypes, V shape, Hourglass shape, Apple, Pear, spoon, bell, Rectangle, straight, banana, etc. all of which are 100% unscientific, based on 0% science and backed by not a lick --- NONE -- of MEDRS compliant sourcing. Please stop being a hypocrite and holding us to a different standard. It is called discrimination.

You want us to add our Body Type Science info so it complies as does all that other nonsense information does, fine. Please clarify how we do that... Marcnelson11 (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS; we are working on peer review and the like, but that takes time and money. As all real scientific research does. Marcnelson11 (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just told you. Provide WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing. I will also note that peer review is only a part of the MEDRS requirements. Once again, I=if something else you have found on Wikipedia is noncompliant that might be a reason to remove that other content, but it is not a reason to add more noncompliant content. This is a very common argument you're trying. We see it so often on Wikipedia we have a canned response, which you can read at WP:OTHERSTUFF. MrOllie (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Your argument is that info can only appear in your articles if it is WP:MEDRS compliant. Yet your articles are full of non-WP:MEDRS compliant information that is well-known to be nonsense and fully debunked. There is no debate that all of this is total unscientific nonsense: somatotypes, V shape, Hourglass shape, Apple, Pear, spoon, bell, Rectangle, straight, banana, etc.

Yet, you allow it with out issue even though you know that it has zero WP:MEDRS sourcing because there is zero scientific evidence to back any of it up. None. Zip. Zilch.

Why is it not held to the same WP:MEDRS compliance? Marcnelson11 (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to have a look at your edits, but for now, let me just say that "your articles" is not appropriate. There is no ownership here. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles? Ownership? What? We just want our Body Type Science to be recognized. Use whatever wording that makes you feel comfortable. Theory, hypothesis, whatever. You recognize the somatotypes in your articles, along with pretty much every other unscientific body type or shape. Marcnelson11 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, first of all, please stop with the multiple paragraphs: it's irritating and not a good practice for talk page conversation. In addition to "your articles" (and I just tried to explain to you that there is no "your articles"), you know add "we want our body types recognized". The "our" clearly indicates you are not a single person who is uninvolved with the Wikipedia articles they're editing. You are promoting a website, and that website, there is nothing there to suggest it is in any way notable. So, I would like to suggest to you that you not add that link to any article. You may try your luck at WP:RSN, because every link in Wikipedia, whether as an inline URL (which is what you did, and it's not acceptable to do that), a reference, or an external link, must fit those criteria. If you add it to an article, I will either prevent you from editing article space or block you altogether. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As stated multiple times, if the links are the issue, then remove them. We were following the rules, adding the links (which we know are no-follow) to the scientific research to back up the text, as per Wikipedia:External links

"Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

2601:8C3:857C:3830:7DA8:D4E1:252B:80DC (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, we are hesitant to add anything as even when we follow the rules, you all make unfounded accusations and treat us like criminals. Here is our original text with links removed. What do we need to do with this text so that it is acceptable?

The three current body shape (type) standards used by mainstream medical doctors include the standard human body image, sometimes referred to as a Standard Body Type One (BT1), found in any scientifically approved human body anatomy book with all skeletal structures, vertebrae, and muscles, no less, fully developed. Presently, every human being is a Standard BT1 unless otherwise diagnosed by their doctor -- but even then, they are still a BT1 just with a specific diagnoses (like scoliosis or Poland's Syndrome). The second standard is Body Mass Index (BMI). The third standard is basal metabolic rate (BMR). These are the three main Standards any licensed medical doctor uses to judge whether their patient is "normal" and healthy. All these standards are inaccurate because they fail to take into account genetics including any form of skinny fat such as normal weight obesity. BMI is further inaccurate as it does not properly calculate excess muscles/muscle mass (think Dwayne Johnson, who is not obese but likely his BMI says he is).

Body Type Science (The Four Body Types) is a new field of science that began in 2003. Previously, all body types were unscientific, including the somatotypes. Body Type Science scientifically researches the theory that body type is genetic and based on how developed or undeveloped each human body is in terms of no less than skeletal structure, vertebrae, and muscles/muscle mass. It is a genetic fact that any part of the human body can be underdeveloped, to whatever degree. The scientific research data to date supports the theory that genetically underdeveloped muscle(s) negatively influences vertebrae and thus posture, BMI, and BMR. Moreover, genetically underdeveloped muscles/muscle mass explains skinny fat, especially in young people who have experienced some form of skinny fat from birth and have never been a BT1, contrary to mainstream doctors claims that they are a BT1 once within safe BMI.

Furthermore, to date mainstream scientists and medical doctors hold firm to the idea that obesity is merely an energy imbalance -- consistently eating too many calories daily above BMR which leads to an overweight or obese BMI. Cleaning up diet, exercise, and lifestyle is considered the only solution. However, as the obesity epidemic worsens, countless people worldwide of all ages, including kids and adolescents, have done the work and successfully lost the weight to be within safe BMI but they still experience skinny fat including normal weight obesity (which carries with it the same general risks as obesity) even though they are within their safe BMI. As well, doctors have no explanation for the obesity paradox or metabolically healthy obese (MHO) people, whom have normal readings for typical health indicators including blood pressure, heart rate, cholesterol, A1C (blood sugar), etc. Body Type Science addresses all these concerns and is working to strengthen the three current Standards (BT1, BMI, BMR) 2601:8C3:857C:3830:7DA8:D4E1:252B:80DC (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are fine with something more simple, like "The Body Type Science theory at Fellow One Research postulates that body type (shape) is due to genetics and is directly relative to the development or undevelopment/underdevelopment of vertebrae and muscles/muscles, no less, in relation to skinny fat (cellulite, thin fat, loose skin, saggy skin, crepey skin, normal weight obesity). The Four Body Types (Standard Body Type One/BT1, Body Type Two/BT2, Body Type Three/BT3, Body Type Four/BT4)." 2601:8C3:857C:3830:7DA8:D4E1:252B:80DC (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would added to the section:

Several similar classifications of women's body shape exist. These include:

Sheldon: "Somatotype: {Plumper: Endomorph, Muscular: Mesomorph, Slender: Ectomorph}", 1940s
Douty's "Body Build Scale: {1,2,3,4,5}", 1968
Bonnie August's "Body I.D. Scale: {A,X,H,V,W,Y,T,O,b,d,i,r}", 1981
Simmons, Istook, & Devarajan "Female Figure Identification Technique (FFIT): {Hourglass, Bottom Hourglass, Top Hourglass, Spoon, Rectangle, Diamond, Oval, Triangle, Inverted Triangle}", 2002
Connell's "Body Shape Assessment Scale: {Hourglass, Pear, Rectangle, Inverted Triangle}", 2006
Rasband: {Ideal, Triangular, Inverted Triangular, Rectangular, Hourglass, Diamond, Tubular, Rounded}, 2006
Lee JY, Istook CL, Nam YJ, "Comparison of body shape between USA and Korean women: {Hourglass, Bottom Hourglass, Top Hourglass, Spoon, Triangle, Inverted Triangle, Rectangle}", 2007.

2601:8C3:857C:3830:7DA8:D4E1:252B:80DC (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]