RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Health at every size

Health at every size | Result: Keep

Health at every size (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. This article is reads like it was cut-and-pasted from r/FatPeopleHate. It‘s not a nuanced and factual examination of a complex topic. It’s a one-sided, hateful rant that treats it as if obesity is solely a matter of poor diet and lack of exercise, completely discounting all the scientific evidence that suggests genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors play a role. It dismisses fat-shaming and bullying, because, you know, doctors are just telling the cold, hard truth about obesity and evidently they’re not capable of perpetuating negative stereotypes and biases. There are definitely some wootastic ideas perpetuated by certain fat-acceptance activists. But those would probably be better integrated into an article about weight-related woo that could discuss the topic in greater depth and lay out the full range of evidence. This article isn’t salvageable in its current form. Moon Bomb (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. The article could do with a bit of polish and more sources, that being said it is by no means immaterial to RW's mission. ^{— Unsigned, by: GrammarCommie / talk / contribs}
2. Seems alright to me. —Kazitor, ^pending 01:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
3. See talk page (revision if section gets archived in the future.) tl;dr: article should be somewhat rewritten and expanded instead, and Moon Bomb's argument for deleting the article is more of a rant than constructive criticism. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
4. OP has some weird agenda that makes me cringe. ^{— Unsigned, by: Ibrahim_Moizoos / talk / contribs} 22:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
5. HAES is definitely a missional subject, but I agree the article needs cleaning up, perhaps with the aspects mentioned by Moon Bomb (e.g. genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors, and the fat-shaming stuff) given their own section? On the other hand, I note that the more "neutral" Wikipedia article on this topic also devotes quite a lot of space to scientific and academic criticism of the theory (for what that's worth here). --Yisfidri (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

   I looked at the Wikipedia article. I'm more inclined to believe them than a random ranter. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Goat

I think this should've started as a talk page discussion. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yah, move it to the talk page. @Moon Bomb: propose revisions to the article on the talk page or start a new one in your sandbox, even. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Multiple people have raised issues on the article talk page since 2015. Little to nothing has been do to resolve them. It doesn’t seem anyone is up for the job of trying to rework this article into something worthy of this site. I don’t think it is possible to salvage this “article.” So suggesting this should be taken to the talk age, where so far commentors who’ve spoken up have seemingly either been dismissed or ignored, honestly seems like an attempt to sweep this problem under the carpet. Moon Bomb (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this sounds like a hate piece to me. At worst, the article should be rewritten. But since you say it's like r/FatPeopleHate, can you give me examples from what stuff r/FatPeopleHate have actually said? Might be useful for me to evaluate your claim. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

r/FatPeopleHate got banned by Reddit. This article is full of the kind of fat-shaming garbage that subreddit was infamous for, although the language is cleaner and superfically more reasonable, obviously. Not to mention it’s completely one-sided and scientifically inaccurate, in that it completely discounts the extensive evidence of genetic and enviromental factors influencing weight. It’s one user’s gross rant that overweight people just need to stop eating. This user seemed single-mindedly focused on inserting this idea in articles, apparently to push the old “feminism makes women unnatractive and fat” line. I’m surprised this 4chan-esque trolling has been allowed to fester here for three years. Moon Bomb (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess I can extract some statements from the article, but for your criticism to be useful, you need to be specific and provide examples to bolster your claims. I'll probably talk about this more in the talk page for the article. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow, can you be more condescending and dismissive? I’ve already explained what’s wrong with this article. Other people have been explaining what is wrong with the article for three years. It’s insulting, hateful, and scientifically inaccurate, right from the first sentence. It’s a vile rant from a 4chan/Reddit-type troll with apparent misogynist tendencies. Read the article. Look over MortgageBalls’ user history. It’s right there, plain as day. If MortgageBalls had come here to spew “human biodiversity” nonsense, and had written an article all about how studies show certain races do more poorly on IQ tests, I’m pretty sure everyone would see it for the thinly-veiled racist crap it was. But I guess fatphobia is baked so deep into our society that even people who claim to be “woke” give it a pass. Fat people are fair game, amiright? Shaming them isn’t wrong, it’s just promoting “healthy lifestyles.” Moon Bomb (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Moon Bomb You dislike the article, therefor the entire thing must go? You do realize that's the exact same logic almost every half-baked crank that comes through here uses right? If you wish to participate in constructive dialog, then list examples!! If you dislike being compared to the likes of Metapedia then do not use their debate tactics. Finally we never claimed to be "Woke" whatever that halfassed soundbite is supposed to mean, we claim to be (and are for the most part) rational. That means laying out our arguments and debating them like adults, rather than whining like children. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is the product of a hateful troll. Go look at MortgageBalls’ history. I’m guessing you wouldn’t advocate debating and trying to find value in the “contributions” of someone spewing racism disguised as science (“human biodiversity”). You’d probably just delete their nonsense on sight, no need for debate. So why are you all tripping over yourselves to give the benefit of the doubt to someone spewing fat-shaming and misogyny disguised as science? Why are you legitimizing a hateful troll and giving them a platform to spew their garbage? Moon Bomb (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at your claims, the current article, the Wikipedia article, and one source the Wikipedia article provides. I don't think your claim measures up. And your comments are not "explanation". They're just labeling an article as "hateful", which, again, isn't useful at all. You still fail to provide me specific passages that actually fat-shame people. I've looked at the talk page too. These comments to me, point to rewrite, not delete. Finally, I have no idea where you got "misogynist" from; that's even a more frivolous claim than the "it's a vile piece of work from r/FatPeopleHate". I don't even know where any implications of misogyny even begin. And so what about MortgageBalls's user history? I even checked the user contributions, haven't seen anything blatantly. But this is a red herring. It has no bearing on the quality of the article (and it doesn't seem to relate?), and you seem to use it as a springboard to then call it now racist??? You're not appearing any less ranty, you know??? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Look at the archives of the talk page. I’m not the first poster to compare this article to the kind of vile hatred that was posted on r/FatPeopleHate. I’m not the first to speculate MortageBalls is a r/FatPeopleHate troll. In fact someone commented in the archives that this article was created only a couple of weeks after r/FatPeopleHate was banned, so it seems someone may have been looking for a new outlet to spew the kind of hate they did there. People have been sounding the alarm about this article for three years. I don’t know how many more times people have to speak up before someone listens. I don’t know how many more words need to be written to convince you.

The edit I linked above betrays the misogyny. MortgageBalls was obviously trying to push a “feminists are fat and ugly” line in a way they thought was subtle enough to get away with. And I’m not suggesting there was a racist element to their contributions. I said you wouldn’t tolerate it if they *had* come here posting racist ideas disguised as science, like “human biodiveristy.” So why should you tolerate fat-shaming trolling disguised as science? Moon Bomb (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If this isn't such a massive reach (including the feminism bit), this is a red herring.

Also if you're talking about this, I don't see how that two-year-old discussion is relevant to the quality of the article. Hidingaardvark, ChrisB, and Cykosys are not arguing in good form through baseless assumptions ("hidden agenda") and "bets". You're just like those people. And just because you're not the first to call it that doesn't mean anything. A ton of our articles, even on the clear-cut stuff like global warming and homeopathy, have been described as "hateful" and "rants" multiple times in the past before. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Multiple posters have raised similar concerns since 2015. They have explained what is wrong with the article and why it bears the marks of FPH. You know what’s bad form and propogating “baseless assumptions?” Trying to handwave away multiple warnings and concerns from multiple people. Handwaving away concerns and questioning the motivations of the ones raise them doesn’t invalidate said concerns or make the underlying problem go away. So I’m left to infer either an unwillingness to seriously interrogate the article’s content or a tacit agreement with its sentiments. Moon Bomb (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Look, I took several hours looking at your arguments, reading Wikipedia's article, reading this article, checking out past archives, looking through MortgageBalls's edit history, and examining the merits of your claims, and wrote a substantial comment on the talk page examining the article itself, and you have the gall to think I'm just "handwaving" or not "seriously interrogating the article's content". I'm done with you. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)