This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Big Beautiful Woman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Big Handsome Men was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 14 April 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Big Beautiful Woman. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
In this diff, an anon changed many instances of the word "large" or "larger-bodied" to "fat". As the fat acceptance movement itself is active in de-stigmatizing the word "fat" and discouraging the use of euphemisms, I think this change is a good thing. Thoughts? Joie de Vivre 14:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Well, people can use the word "gay" or "black" to imply insult or ridicule to gay or black people, but that doesn't make the words rude. You didn't address any of the concerns I raised about reverting to the term "large". Let's give it a day or two and see if anyone else has an opinion to share. Joie de Vivre 16:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, the term "fat" appears quite enough times in this article. Larger-than-average is far less POV-laden. Just because you and others think oversized women should be OK with it doesn't make it so. It's like telling deaf people that they should be OK with terms like "dummy". Baseball Bugs 22:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why people still use the word 'Fat' like me for example I feel really bad it ears me inside and I got to a point where I started smoking weed you know just because I want to lose weight and that word alone in my own opinion damages one's self esteem and self love and also lose self respect OG Lani ( talk) 21:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Right now, the whole article is unreferenced. I strongly feel that there are elements of OR hiding behind the weasel words throughout - it's an article about a vaguely defined neologism for which reliable sources and verifiability are difficult to find, and it seems like the article largely discusses the term's use merely on the Internet, which seems like unsourcable OR. I added a general cleanup tag for the article due to the messy sentences everywhere - and the page has also been targeted by vandals and spammers at various points.
That being said, this is definitely a valid article as it seems like a highly notable internet-based neologism, but it just seems hard to find any serious sources on - the term will most likely continue to be largely subjective for the foreseeable future.- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to edit parts of this statement:
Once an easy target for adult-oriented fetish sites, the term BBW as entered in a search engine has been adopted by numerous specialty online dating sites thus promoting the idea of these women as a common and accepted preference.
I'd like to change the wording of "target" to something less loaded, perhaps "identifier"? Also I'd like to remove the part about BBW attraction as a "common" prefernce. BBW dating sites perhaps promote the idea of BBW attraction as something socially acceptable, but I see no evidence refernced anywhere in this article to it being common. There are plenty of gay dating sites listed on Google too, that doesn't make it common. -- Patrick80639 16:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Rubens Venus at a Mirror c1615.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 16:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The article uses the term 'FA' at least twice. Searching Wikipedia does not return a definition. Please Define, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.186.38 ( talk) 05:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with HisSpaceResearch...as an FA myself, I can attest that it means "fat admirer" although I shy away from the term in my own speech. To me, there are skinny women, and then there are beautiful women. Yes, I am biased. 65.248.164.214 ( talk) 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that Female Fat Admirer redirects here-- I don't think it really should as it usually refers to a (any) woman with a preferance for heavy males, BBWs aren't really involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.130.123 ( talk) 09:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest this article be deleted. It is objectifying, inaccurate, and based solely on the writers preferences.
As a male, I like women. Body shape has no bearing on the women I am attracted to. None whatsoever (yeah, I'm weird). The very idea of an encyclopedia having an article about womens' body shapes is offensive to me. As is the categorization into four typical shapes. I wonder whether the writer(s) have ever seen an unclothed lady in person. Whether there is any scientific basis to the four body shape claim I find irrelevant. The author might just as well be writing about identifying an ethnic minority by the size of their noses.
This article (as written) would be more appropriately posted to Urban Dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoratGurgeh ( talk • contribs) 02:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course it should be deleted. Unless there is a separate article for every possible body shape for both men and women. At most there should be a very brief article on the *term*. The use of the word “euphemism” in the introduction is utterly shameful. Meerta ( talk) 02:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
A problem with deletion is that not everyone knows what the acronym stands for and Wikipedia is a place they can find out. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2600:1700:6940:49EF:5802:7FCF:D56B:F81F (
talk)
03:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if it fits guidelines, but what about adding a reference to Big Girl (You Are Beautiful) ( Mika's song)?
190.48.55.30 ( talk) 22:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to edit the criteria for SSBBW which seems clear-cut in the article but is actually a bit more complicated. It seems rather sparse in content. Littleghost ( talk) 20:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
yes what is an SSBBW exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.130.129 ( talk) 09:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey all, I just started a community site for BBW called www.mikebrockway.com
I just wanted to share my love of BBW and hopefully start a place where people can meet. Its completely free and theres no adds or anything, I just want to provide a community for people to find other people into BBW.
its www.mikebrockway.com
If we can add it as an external link id be incredibly grateful! Its not a big site now, but im pushing hard so some day itll be the premier site for BBW. Thanks a ton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajlisowski ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Singles' ads notwithstanding, beautiful and woman are not proper nouns. Per MOS:CAPS, this entry should be Big beautiful woman. Since I don't know the history of this article, and since it is currently move protected, I'm asking here. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
There are some porn images in here, and this is ideal for the deletion log.
Where in the world are you seeing porn images? I see only one image in the article, and it's of classical origin. TheWizardOfAhz ( talk) 16:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
"Big Beautiful Woman" is not a neologism. It is just a phrase. A neologism is a new word. BBW is an acronym —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.247.21.6 ( talk) 07:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Does this article seem relevant to link to?
Polyamory: Open's Double Meaning http://yourtango.com/20086467/love-buzz/polyamory-opens-double-meaning —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodi.Blow ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I have also seen/heard BBW defined as "big breasted woman". Should we add this as an alternative acronym? biancasimone ( talk) 01:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
Please change the first sentence back to reflect the material actually in the reference. 89.100.0.70 ( talk) 14:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The article was protected because of edit warring. That you took part in. My edits match the reference. As it stands the opening sentence has a fraudulent reference. And stay off my talkpage. 89.100.0.70 ( talk) 16:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
Please remove the first reference, as it is being used in a misleading manner. 89.100.0.70 ( talk) 11:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
{{Edit semi-protected}}
Please remove the first reference. It does not back up the sentence " "Big Beautiful Woman" (commonly abbreviated as BBW) is an acronym most frequently used in the context of affirmation of or sexual attraction to women who are above average weight". I should know as I added the reference. 89.100.0.70 ( talk) 12:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Not done: There seems to be a lack of consensus for the change you want to make. Please establish a consensus for the change before making another edit request. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
22:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
{{Edit semi-protected}}
Please remove the first reference. It does not back up the sentence " "Big Beautiful Woman" (commonly abbreviated as BBW) is an acronym most frequently used in the context of affirmation of or sexual attraction to women who are above average weight". I changed the previously unreferenced lead, then added a reference for my change. The change has been removed, but the reference kept. What happened to content having to be verifiable? The reference does not reflect the content, and such a use is utterly unencyclopaedic. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 22:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Not done: No one will execute an edit request against consensus and against the purpose of the semi-protection. If you want to change that content, start a conversation and convince people that your change improves the article. I read both the source and the edit history. In my opinion, the current content is fine with respect to "above average weight" versus "overweight or obese". The source talks of "being slightly overweight to morbidly obese", which is captured nicely by the expression "above average weight".
Celestra (
talk)
00:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
{{Edit semi-protected}}
Just because you think "being slightly overweight to morbidly obese" is "captured nicely" by "above average weight" does not mean that you can reference it that way. That is synthesis [ [2]].
Works for me. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 13:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
"Overweight" is generally defined as being above a certain Body Mass Index, or less commonly Body fat percentage, as is "obese". And these measures are not based on an average. So, "above average weight" does not convey "overweight" or "obese". They are different concepts. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 20:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Slightly overweight is, by definition, overweight. Obesity is the condition of being extremely overweight. Therefore, the term overweight encompasses the entire spectrum between slightly overweight and morbidly obese. However, as I’ve already pointed out, “above average weight” is not used as a definition of overweight or obese, nor is it used in the source. So, it does not work. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 21:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
How did I fail to answer your questions? As I have stated, the terms slightly overweight and obese are both encompassed by the term overweight. This term is perfectly adequate, without introducing the need to define the term overweight. No, we are not constrained by the words which happen to appear in a source. For example, one could replace the words"minuscule" and "infinitesimal" in a source, with "extremely small" in an article, as the two terms are encapsulated by extremely small. We are not free to use "whatever" words we choose to cite an article. For example "slightly overweight" is not identical to "above average weight". Dbpjmuf ( talk) 22:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
“And that is where we disagree. Those two terms appear exactly equivalent to me. The over in overweight is over some normal or average weight. ”
“Above average and over are synonymous.”
“It is only when one applies a narrow, clinical definition to overweight that it is not equivalent, and in that case it does not capture the wide range of weights which are mentioned in the source. “
“Dropping obese helps, since 'overweight or obese' does not sound like it includes 'slightly overweight' as well as either 'overweight' or 'above average weight' does. ”
“Would 'slightly or considerably overweight' work?”
“I think the disclaimer about the term being offensive mainly applied to obese, so we shouldn't need it.”
EDIT: Rather, it says that " that some fat acceptance authors reject terms such as "overweight" and "obese," which are considered to stigmatize fat". Dbpjmuf ( talk) 00:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Obese is a simple. objectively defined term. This "contentious point pusher" has already removed the term obese himself, on the basis that it is subsumed by the term overweight, not on the basis that someone else falsely believes the term to be loaded. Civility, please, chris. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 01:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I could make analogies in colors or heights, but I'm short on time this morning. The question is not "do you think above average is a euphamism?"; the question is "what phrase best desribes the the range 'slightly overweight to morbidly obese'?" Celestra ( talk) 14:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, like average, overweight has many meanings. No, average has only one meaning, "the result obtained by adding several quantities together and then dividing this total by the number of quantities". And even if we were to assume that overweight has many meanings, the article explicitly states what they mean by overweight. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 16:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
"Are you serious? That is one of many meanings which average has; go check a dictionary.". I am completely serious. In fact, I quoted that definition from a dictionary. Average has one meaning, and one meaning only, the one that I quoted. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 23:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Average means mean. It does not mean median. it does not mean mode. It means mean. I'm sorry that the Oxford English dictionary is the best that I can find. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 00:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
OED Online. You do realise that your link to merriam-webster contradicts you? Dbpjmuf ( talk) 10:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Disagreeing with you and being a troll are different things. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 11:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Related to the discussion of fat acceptance is the phenomenon of "fat admiration" (i.e., a sexual attraction to heavier partners; Blickenstorfer, 1996; Fabrey, 1972; Wachtel, 1976). Fat admiration is difficult to define precisely, but is usually used in relation to individuals (typically, heterosexual men) who find attractive someone considered clinically overweight (a body mass index [BMI] higher than 25 kg/[m.sup.2]) or obese (BMI above 30kg/[m.sup.2]). The issue is complicated by the fact that some fat acceptance authors reject terms such as "overweight" and "obese," which are considered to stigmatize fat (e.g., Schroeder, 1992; Wann, 1999). Moreover, the preferences of fat admirers (FAs) themselves can be wide ranging, and the targets of those preferences can range from being slightly overweight to morbidly obese. Even so, a consistent thread among FAs appears to be their rejection of the thin ideal as an unnecessarily prescriptive societal construct (Swami & Furnham, in press).
Note that the article is titled 'Big beautiful women: the body size preferences of male fat admirers.' I see nothing wrong with the existing consensus (whcich I won't mention since it distracts from the conversation), but in the interest of consensus building I think moving to "overweight" is fine. I have explained at length how I see "or obese" as changing the meaning of "overweight" in a way which makes that compromise not work and how adding modifiers ensures that the reader takes the right meaning from the word. I still propose that and would ask you to go back to that point in the conversation and reengage as an editor wanting to reach consensus. Celestra ( talk) 14:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Where in WP:V or WP:OR does it say that using the precise words which are used in the source override consensus? Consensus is the process by which we agree on the content and whether it captures the claims in the source in a verifiable way. The fact is that consensus is not overridden by one editor's interpretation of a source. If you find a policy to conflict with that, let us all know. I had to go back through the discussion to see when someone last proposed keeping the current consensus. It was around the time you became involved. I have repeatedly said that I saw nothing wrong with the current consensus and how I found " overweight" basically synonymous with the current consensus, and some people have spent a lot of time arguing that they aren't synonymous and that the current consensus is not descriptive of the range of weights we are trying to summarize. I have responded each time when people assert my opinion is wrong rather than simply accepting we have different opinions and moving on to discussing the new consensus. I have also explained repeatedly why I consider a modified overweight, which explicitly covers a broad range of weights, to be better than overweight by itself, which could be misinterpreted as the narrow clinical range, or to "overweight or obese", which clearly is a narrower overweight, not including obese above and some amount below. English is a rich language and we need to be careful of which meaning we communicate. I have yet to hear anything which addresses that concern. (Assertions that the word has only one meaning, which sometimes includes obese and sometimes not, merely denies the concern, it does not address it. Celestra ( talk) 22:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that we differ in views, and you are right it is on this fundamental thing. But I am afraid it is really difficult to see the perspective that the source refers to anything but the clinical term; seeing as that is its entire focus! Indeed, the use of the word overweight which you appear to believe is used in the colloquial sense is alongside the word obese, which lends even greater weight to this being the clinical term. As much as you appear frustrated by my argument (or lack of argument, as you appear to be asserting) I find yours equally unconvincing. An empasse if you will. However, where I say I don't understand in the last response it is because your comment appears to completely miss my interpretation by stating that the later sentence disagrees with it?? So while it is a rhetoric device to reduce my argument to "I don't agree" or "I don't understand" it's not a very effective one because it doesn't really move the argument forward. I guess leaving to the RFC is the only move forward. -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 08:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I have fully protected this article for a duration of 3 days. Folks, you need to work out what you're going to do on the talk page, not by revert-warring in the article. Looie496 ( talk) 23:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
There is debate over the wording of the lead, specifically over the use of "slightly or considerably overweight" opposed to "overweight or obese" or just "overweight" to describe BBW. The source says (emphasis mine):
“ | Related to the discussion of fat acceptance is the phenomenon of "fat admiration" (i.e., a sexual attraction to heavier partners; Blickenstorfer, 1996; Fabrey, 1972; Wachtel, 1976). Fat admiration is difficult to define precisely, but is usually used in relation to individuals (typically, heterosexual men) who find attractive someone considered clinically overweight (a body mass index [BMI] higher than 25 kg/[m.sup.2]) or obese (BMI above 30kg/[m.sup.2]). The issue is complicated by the fact that some fat acceptance authors reject terms such as "overweight" and "obese," which are considered to stigmatize fat (e.g., Schroeder, 1992; Wann, 1999). Moreover, the preferences of fat admirers (FAs) themselves can be wide ranging, and the targets of those preferences can range from being slightly overweight to morbidly obese. Even so, a consistent thread among FAs appears to be their rejection of the thin ideal as an unnecessarily prescriptive societal construct (Swami & Furnham, in press). | ” |
The three arguments are best summarised as follows:
Please indicate which argument you would support in the article -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 15:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
discussion about the wording of the RFC, since corrected
|
---|
That is not the right question at all, as we were just discussing. When was the last time in our discussion that someone proposed keeping "above average weight"? Using that strawman argument invalidates this RFC. We are discussing whether "slightly or considerably overweight", "overweight", or "overweight or obese" best summarize the article and the source.
Celestra (
talk)
18:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You've alluded to not understanding before. Can you let me know what it is that isn't clear when that happens? The conversation would be better if we aren't talking past one another. I've hidden my earlier complaint to avoid distraction. I suggest you do the same and please feel free to hide this response at the same time. Celestra ( talk) 19:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
|
The new source confuses me slightly. It does not seem to be about the topic of BBW? I realise it is being used to support the statement that use of the terms obese and overweight can be controversial, but the article kinda means controversial within the realm of BBW, is conflating these two sources synthesis? I'm not necessarily disagreeing (in actual fact the wording seems appropriate) just making sure -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 09:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
An acronym is an abbreviation which you can pronounce, like "NASA". You can't pronounce "BBW", so it's an initialism, not an acronym. Perhaps best to call it an abbreviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvw ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I love big girls and bbw and I also support them 100% all da time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.214.85 ( talk) 18:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I know one, but it's Russian and not popular. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.206.89 ( talk) 15:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a SSBBW online community for singles, it is non-profit and is meant to connect SSBBW with their admirers, the link is http://www.ssbbwmingle.com Cnnx ( talk) 13:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The URL cited has a 404 error. In order to correct the URL, change
to
Sesmith957 (
talk)
23:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) Cite error: The named reference "BBWMH" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
I recently added a single paragraph to address the difference between a BBW and female feedee, to acknowledge the overlap and to cite a report that found that self-identified BBWs weigh more on average than self-identified feedees. Obviously this page is for BBWs, but it seemed wrong to not mention feederism, which has a not insignificant overlap with the fat admiration-BBW community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedlev ( talk • contribs) 05:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Big Beautiful Woman. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. It appears that there is a lack of consensus for changes to the scope of this page, but since that is an editorial decision it is outside the scope of this close. Dekimasu よ! 16:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Big Beautiful Woman → Fat admiration – The page is about both males and femeles and that should be reflected in the title of the article. There is also a paraghraph about the research of physical attraction, which will be better covered by the new title. The current page should redirect to the BBW subsection of the new page. Throwawiki ( talk) 17:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I want to add feederism pictures to the article, for example the pictures on the right
Any objections? cc @ Ronz: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwawiki ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Howdy hello! Saw this on WP:3O. I am against adding the image, as it does not seem relevant. I see no section on feederismn (and think there shouldn't be one either). The images are outside the scope of the article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 23:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this revert: Right now, as I type this, the article is titled Big Beautiful Woman. If and when there is consensus to change this, it will be appropriate to change the article to be about something else, but not until then. If there is consensus to merge this, or to retitle it, this will still need to be based on reliable sources. Feabie.com is not, for example, a reliable source. doi: 10.1080/21604851.2019.1551697 may or may not be reliable in some contexts, but it is very clearly about fat fetishism. It needs to be evaluated in that context. All sources will need to be evaluated in context, and it appears that more reliable sources are discussing this in relation to fat fetishism, not the other way around. Grayfell ( talk) 21:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feabie. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the website https://bbw.wiki should be used here. This is one of the most well known websites documenting BBW related things. I would argue that it should be included what their opinion is about the difference between BBW and SSBBW. Of course an academic source would be preferred, but this site does at least reflect the consensus of different people from this community. It can be written like "The BBW Wiki defines SSBBW as a woman who weights between 350 and 600 pounds." so that the self published source will be used as a source about itself. Throwawiki ( talk) 23:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
third partymentioned by WP:SELFSOURCE. Is this clearer?
hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.91.47 ( talk) 03:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
bbws redirects here. Please add a hatnote to handle that.
{{redirect|bbws|the singular form|BBW (disambiguation)}}
-- 67.70.27.105 ( talk) 16:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page states that “BBW” is a euphemism for “overweight women”. A far more inclusive and positive statement should be included, e.g. “BBW is an acronym created to give power and confidence back to beautiful women who are plus size.” BBW is not just about “being an overweight woman”. It is part of the body positivity movement and should have that explained in the text. 49.180.101.104 ( talk) 03:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could you add to Variants the USSBBW? USSBBW is an abbreviation for Ultra Super Sized Big Beautiful Woman or Ultimate Super Sized Big Beautiful Woman. Ladies in this category generally weigh more than 600 pounds (272 kg). It is the largest weight class. They are larger than SSBBW. Some of them are immobile. Source: https://bbw.wiki/index.php?title=USSBBW https://feederism.wordpress.com/ 188.24.244.141 ( talk) 11:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The term “euphemism” means to refer kindly to something unpleasant or embarrassing. The use of the term in this article (especially in the first sentence) implies discrimination against plus-sizes. I request a removal of the word. Please note the difference in descriptions when the article refers to BBW vs. BHM. For BHM, the terms “physically or sexually attractive” are listed as descriptions. Please compare to how BBW is described at the beginning of the article. The author or editor made their opinion on plus-size women known, which should not happen on Wikipedia. 2601:601:9B80:3F50:F0FF:447E:3A5C:53F2 ( talk) 03:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Aaron Liu (
talk)
13:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Citing a random article about childhood obesity is not a reference that defines nor shows that a 'bbw' is overweight. It does not define nor discuss "bbw' anywhere in the referenced article.
Bbw is not necessarily overweight, and doors not have anything to do with weight or mass, but shape and dimensions. Bbw is a body shape that is not popularised in modern media. 111.220.255.85 ( talk) 02:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Euphemism for BEAUTIFUL overweight women. 2601:244:4B00:480:516E:438D:5E2C:8067 ( talk) 02:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Big Beautiful Woman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Big Handsome Men was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 14 April 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Big Beautiful Woman. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
In this diff, an anon changed many instances of the word "large" or "larger-bodied" to "fat". As the fat acceptance movement itself is active in de-stigmatizing the word "fat" and discouraging the use of euphemisms, I think this change is a good thing. Thoughts? Joie de Vivre 14:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Well, people can use the word "gay" or "black" to imply insult or ridicule to gay or black people, but that doesn't make the words rude. You didn't address any of the concerns I raised about reverting to the term "large". Let's give it a day or two and see if anyone else has an opinion to share. Joie de Vivre 16:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, the term "fat" appears quite enough times in this article. Larger-than-average is far less POV-laden. Just because you and others think oversized women should be OK with it doesn't make it so. It's like telling deaf people that they should be OK with terms like "dummy". Baseball Bugs 22:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why people still use the word 'Fat' like me for example I feel really bad it ears me inside and I got to a point where I started smoking weed you know just because I want to lose weight and that word alone in my own opinion damages one's self esteem and self love and also lose self respect OG Lani ( talk) 21:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Right now, the whole article is unreferenced. I strongly feel that there are elements of OR hiding behind the weasel words throughout - it's an article about a vaguely defined neologism for which reliable sources and verifiability are difficult to find, and it seems like the article largely discusses the term's use merely on the Internet, which seems like unsourcable OR. I added a general cleanup tag for the article due to the messy sentences everywhere - and the page has also been targeted by vandals and spammers at various points.
That being said, this is definitely a valid article as it seems like a highly notable internet-based neologism, but it just seems hard to find any serious sources on - the term will most likely continue to be largely subjective for the foreseeable future.- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to edit parts of this statement:
Once an easy target for adult-oriented fetish sites, the term BBW as entered in a search engine has been adopted by numerous specialty online dating sites thus promoting the idea of these women as a common and accepted preference.
I'd like to change the wording of "target" to something less loaded, perhaps "identifier"? Also I'd like to remove the part about BBW attraction as a "common" prefernce. BBW dating sites perhaps promote the idea of BBW attraction as something socially acceptable, but I see no evidence refernced anywhere in this article to it being common. There are plenty of gay dating sites listed on Google too, that doesn't make it common. -- Patrick80639 16:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Rubens Venus at a Mirror c1615.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 16:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The article uses the term 'FA' at least twice. Searching Wikipedia does not return a definition. Please Define, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.186.38 ( talk) 05:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with HisSpaceResearch...as an FA myself, I can attest that it means "fat admirer" although I shy away from the term in my own speech. To me, there are skinny women, and then there are beautiful women. Yes, I am biased. 65.248.164.214 ( talk) 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that Female Fat Admirer redirects here-- I don't think it really should as it usually refers to a (any) woman with a preferance for heavy males, BBWs aren't really involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.130.123 ( talk) 09:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest this article be deleted. It is objectifying, inaccurate, and based solely on the writers preferences.
As a male, I like women. Body shape has no bearing on the women I am attracted to. None whatsoever (yeah, I'm weird). The very idea of an encyclopedia having an article about womens' body shapes is offensive to me. As is the categorization into four typical shapes. I wonder whether the writer(s) have ever seen an unclothed lady in person. Whether there is any scientific basis to the four body shape claim I find irrelevant. The author might just as well be writing about identifying an ethnic minority by the size of their noses.
This article (as written) would be more appropriately posted to Urban Dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoratGurgeh ( talk • contribs) 02:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course it should be deleted. Unless there is a separate article for every possible body shape for both men and women. At most there should be a very brief article on the *term*. The use of the word “euphemism” in the introduction is utterly shameful. Meerta ( talk) 02:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
A problem with deletion is that not everyone knows what the acronym stands for and Wikipedia is a place they can find out. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2600:1700:6940:49EF:5802:7FCF:D56B:F81F (
talk)
03:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if it fits guidelines, but what about adding a reference to Big Girl (You Are Beautiful) ( Mika's song)?
190.48.55.30 ( talk) 22:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to edit the criteria for SSBBW which seems clear-cut in the article but is actually a bit more complicated. It seems rather sparse in content. Littleghost ( talk) 20:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
yes what is an SSBBW exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.130.129 ( talk) 09:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey all, I just started a community site for BBW called www.mikebrockway.com
I just wanted to share my love of BBW and hopefully start a place where people can meet. Its completely free and theres no adds or anything, I just want to provide a community for people to find other people into BBW.
its www.mikebrockway.com
If we can add it as an external link id be incredibly grateful! Its not a big site now, but im pushing hard so some day itll be the premier site for BBW. Thanks a ton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajlisowski ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Singles' ads notwithstanding, beautiful and woman are not proper nouns. Per MOS:CAPS, this entry should be Big beautiful woman. Since I don't know the history of this article, and since it is currently move protected, I'm asking here. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
There are some porn images in here, and this is ideal for the deletion log.
Where in the world are you seeing porn images? I see only one image in the article, and it's of classical origin. TheWizardOfAhz ( talk) 16:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
"Big Beautiful Woman" is not a neologism. It is just a phrase. A neologism is a new word. BBW is an acronym —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.247.21.6 ( talk) 07:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Does this article seem relevant to link to?
Polyamory: Open's Double Meaning http://yourtango.com/20086467/love-buzz/polyamory-opens-double-meaning —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodi.Blow ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I have also seen/heard BBW defined as "big breasted woman". Should we add this as an alternative acronym? biancasimone ( talk) 01:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
Please change the first sentence back to reflect the material actually in the reference. 89.100.0.70 ( talk) 14:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The article was protected because of edit warring. That you took part in. My edits match the reference. As it stands the opening sentence has a fraudulent reference. And stay off my talkpage. 89.100.0.70 ( talk) 16:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
Please remove the first reference, as it is being used in a misleading manner. 89.100.0.70 ( talk) 11:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
{{Edit semi-protected}}
Please remove the first reference. It does not back up the sentence " "Big Beautiful Woman" (commonly abbreviated as BBW) is an acronym most frequently used in the context of affirmation of or sexual attraction to women who are above average weight". I should know as I added the reference. 89.100.0.70 ( talk) 12:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Not done: There seems to be a lack of consensus for the change you want to make. Please establish a consensus for the change before making another edit request. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
22:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
{{Edit semi-protected}}
Please remove the first reference. It does not back up the sentence " "Big Beautiful Woman" (commonly abbreviated as BBW) is an acronym most frequently used in the context of affirmation of or sexual attraction to women who are above average weight". I changed the previously unreferenced lead, then added a reference for my change. The change has been removed, but the reference kept. What happened to content having to be verifiable? The reference does not reflect the content, and such a use is utterly unencyclopaedic. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 22:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Not done: No one will execute an edit request against consensus and against the purpose of the semi-protection. If you want to change that content, start a conversation and convince people that your change improves the article. I read both the source and the edit history. In my opinion, the current content is fine with respect to "above average weight" versus "overweight or obese". The source talks of "being slightly overweight to morbidly obese", which is captured nicely by the expression "above average weight".
Celestra (
talk)
00:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
{{Edit semi-protected}}
Just because you think "being slightly overweight to morbidly obese" is "captured nicely" by "above average weight" does not mean that you can reference it that way. That is synthesis [ [2]].
Works for me. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 13:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
"Overweight" is generally defined as being above a certain Body Mass Index, or less commonly Body fat percentage, as is "obese". And these measures are not based on an average. So, "above average weight" does not convey "overweight" or "obese". They are different concepts. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 20:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Slightly overweight is, by definition, overweight. Obesity is the condition of being extremely overweight. Therefore, the term overweight encompasses the entire spectrum between slightly overweight and morbidly obese. However, as I’ve already pointed out, “above average weight” is not used as a definition of overweight or obese, nor is it used in the source. So, it does not work. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 21:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
How did I fail to answer your questions? As I have stated, the terms slightly overweight and obese are both encompassed by the term overweight. This term is perfectly adequate, without introducing the need to define the term overweight. No, we are not constrained by the words which happen to appear in a source. For example, one could replace the words"minuscule" and "infinitesimal" in a source, with "extremely small" in an article, as the two terms are encapsulated by extremely small. We are not free to use "whatever" words we choose to cite an article. For example "slightly overweight" is not identical to "above average weight". Dbpjmuf ( talk) 22:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
“And that is where we disagree. Those two terms appear exactly equivalent to me. The over in overweight is over some normal or average weight. ”
“Above average and over are synonymous.”
“It is only when one applies a narrow, clinical definition to overweight that it is not equivalent, and in that case it does not capture the wide range of weights which are mentioned in the source. “
“Dropping obese helps, since 'overweight or obese' does not sound like it includes 'slightly overweight' as well as either 'overweight' or 'above average weight' does. ”
“Would 'slightly or considerably overweight' work?”
“I think the disclaimer about the term being offensive mainly applied to obese, so we shouldn't need it.”
EDIT: Rather, it says that " that some fat acceptance authors reject terms such as "overweight" and "obese," which are considered to stigmatize fat". Dbpjmuf ( talk) 00:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Obese is a simple. objectively defined term. This "contentious point pusher" has already removed the term obese himself, on the basis that it is subsumed by the term overweight, not on the basis that someone else falsely believes the term to be loaded. Civility, please, chris. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 01:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I could make analogies in colors or heights, but I'm short on time this morning. The question is not "do you think above average is a euphamism?"; the question is "what phrase best desribes the the range 'slightly overweight to morbidly obese'?" Celestra ( talk) 14:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, like average, overweight has many meanings. No, average has only one meaning, "the result obtained by adding several quantities together and then dividing this total by the number of quantities". And even if we were to assume that overweight has many meanings, the article explicitly states what they mean by overweight. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 16:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
"Are you serious? That is one of many meanings which average has; go check a dictionary.". I am completely serious. In fact, I quoted that definition from a dictionary. Average has one meaning, and one meaning only, the one that I quoted. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 23:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Average means mean. It does not mean median. it does not mean mode. It means mean. I'm sorry that the Oxford English dictionary is the best that I can find. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 00:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
OED Online. You do realise that your link to merriam-webster contradicts you? Dbpjmuf ( talk) 10:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Disagreeing with you and being a troll are different things. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 11:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Related to the discussion of fat acceptance is the phenomenon of "fat admiration" (i.e., a sexual attraction to heavier partners; Blickenstorfer, 1996; Fabrey, 1972; Wachtel, 1976). Fat admiration is difficult to define precisely, but is usually used in relation to individuals (typically, heterosexual men) who find attractive someone considered clinically overweight (a body mass index [BMI] higher than 25 kg/[m.sup.2]) or obese (BMI above 30kg/[m.sup.2]). The issue is complicated by the fact that some fat acceptance authors reject terms such as "overweight" and "obese," which are considered to stigmatize fat (e.g., Schroeder, 1992; Wann, 1999). Moreover, the preferences of fat admirers (FAs) themselves can be wide ranging, and the targets of those preferences can range from being slightly overweight to morbidly obese. Even so, a consistent thread among FAs appears to be their rejection of the thin ideal as an unnecessarily prescriptive societal construct (Swami & Furnham, in press).
Note that the article is titled 'Big beautiful women: the body size preferences of male fat admirers.' I see nothing wrong with the existing consensus (whcich I won't mention since it distracts from the conversation), but in the interest of consensus building I think moving to "overweight" is fine. I have explained at length how I see "or obese" as changing the meaning of "overweight" in a way which makes that compromise not work and how adding modifiers ensures that the reader takes the right meaning from the word. I still propose that and would ask you to go back to that point in the conversation and reengage as an editor wanting to reach consensus. Celestra ( talk) 14:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Where in WP:V or WP:OR does it say that using the precise words which are used in the source override consensus? Consensus is the process by which we agree on the content and whether it captures the claims in the source in a verifiable way. The fact is that consensus is not overridden by one editor's interpretation of a source. If you find a policy to conflict with that, let us all know. I had to go back through the discussion to see when someone last proposed keeping the current consensus. It was around the time you became involved. I have repeatedly said that I saw nothing wrong with the current consensus and how I found " overweight" basically synonymous with the current consensus, and some people have spent a lot of time arguing that they aren't synonymous and that the current consensus is not descriptive of the range of weights we are trying to summarize. I have responded each time when people assert my opinion is wrong rather than simply accepting we have different opinions and moving on to discussing the new consensus. I have also explained repeatedly why I consider a modified overweight, which explicitly covers a broad range of weights, to be better than overweight by itself, which could be misinterpreted as the narrow clinical range, or to "overweight or obese", which clearly is a narrower overweight, not including obese above and some amount below. English is a rich language and we need to be careful of which meaning we communicate. I have yet to hear anything which addresses that concern. (Assertions that the word has only one meaning, which sometimes includes obese and sometimes not, merely denies the concern, it does not address it. Celestra ( talk) 22:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that we differ in views, and you are right it is on this fundamental thing. But I am afraid it is really difficult to see the perspective that the source refers to anything but the clinical term; seeing as that is its entire focus! Indeed, the use of the word overweight which you appear to believe is used in the colloquial sense is alongside the word obese, which lends even greater weight to this being the clinical term. As much as you appear frustrated by my argument (or lack of argument, as you appear to be asserting) I find yours equally unconvincing. An empasse if you will. However, where I say I don't understand in the last response it is because your comment appears to completely miss my interpretation by stating that the later sentence disagrees with it?? So while it is a rhetoric device to reduce my argument to "I don't agree" or "I don't understand" it's not a very effective one because it doesn't really move the argument forward. I guess leaving to the RFC is the only move forward. -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 08:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I have fully protected this article for a duration of 3 days. Folks, you need to work out what you're going to do on the talk page, not by revert-warring in the article. Looie496 ( talk) 23:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
There is debate over the wording of the lead, specifically over the use of "slightly or considerably overweight" opposed to "overweight or obese" or just "overweight" to describe BBW. The source says (emphasis mine):
“ | Related to the discussion of fat acceptance is the phenomenon of "fat admiration" (i.e., a sexual attraction to heavier partners; Blickenstorfer, 1996; Fabrey, 1972; Wachtel, 1976). Fat admiration is difficult to define precisely, but is usually used in relation to individuals (typically, heterosexual men) who find attractive someone considered clinically overweight (a body mass index [BMI] higher than 25 kg/[m.sup.2]) or obese (BMI above 30kg/[m.sup.2]). The issue is complicated by the fact that some fat acceptance authors reject terms such as "overweight" and "obese," which are considered to stigmatize fat (e.g., Schroeder, 1992; Wann, 1999). Moreover, the preferences of fat admirers (FAs) themselves can be wide ranging, and the targets of those preferences can range from being slightly overweight to morbidly obese. Even so, a consistent thread among FAs appears to be their rejection of the thin ideal as an unnecessarily prescriptive societal construct (Swami & Furnham, in press). | ” |
The three arguments are best summarised as follows:
Please indicate which argument you would support in the article -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 15:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
discussion about the wording of the RFC, since corrected
|
---|
That is not the right question at all, as we were just discussing. When was the last time in our discussion that someone proposed keeping "above average weight"? Using that strawman argument invalidates this RFC. We are discussing whether "slightly or considerably overweight", "overweight", or "overweight or obese" best summarize the article and the source.
Celestra (
talk)
18:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You've alluded to not understanding before. Can you let me know what it is that isn't clear when that happens? The conversation would be better if we aren't talking past one another. I've hidden my earlier complaint to avoid distraction. I suggest you do the same and please feel free to hide this response at the same time. Celestra ( talk) 19:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
|
The new source confuses me slightly. It does not seem to be about the topic of BBW? I realise it is being used to support the statement that use of the terms obese and overweight can be controversial, but the article kinda means controversial within the realm of BBW, is conflating these two sources synthesis? I'm not necessarily disagreeing (in actual fact the wording seems appropriate) just making sure -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 09:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
An acronym is an abbreviation which you can pronounce, like "NASA". You can't pronounce "BBW", so it's an initialism, not an acronym. Perhaps best to call it an abbreviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvw ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I love big girls and bbw and I also support them 100% all da time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.214.85 ( talk) 18:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I know one, but it's Russian and not popular. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.206.89 ( talk) 15:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a SSBBW online community for singles, it is non-profit and is meant to connect SSBBW with their admirers, the link is http://www.ssbbwmingle.com Cnnx ( talk) 13:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The URL cited has a 404 error. In order to correct the URL, change
to
Sesmith957 (
talk)
23:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) Cite error: The named reference "BBWMH" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
I recently added a single paragraph to address the difference between a BBW and female feedee, to acknowledge the overlap and to cite a report that found that self-identified BBWs weigh more on average than self-identified feedees. Obviously this page is for BBWs, but it seemed wrong to not mention feederism, which has a not insignificant overlap with the fat admiration-BBW community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedlev ( talk • contribs) 05:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Big Beautiful Woman. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. It appears that there is a lack of consensus for changes to the scope of this page, but since that is an editorial decision it is outside the scope of this close. Dekimasu よ! 16:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Big Beautiful Woman → Fat admiration – The page is about both males and femeles and that should be reflected in the title of the article. There is also a paraghraph about the research of physical attraction, which will be better covered by the new title. The current page should redirect to the BBW subsection of the new page. Throwawiki ( talk) 17:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I want to add feederism pictures to the article, for example the pictures on the right
Any objections? cc @ Ronz: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwawiki ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Howdy hello! Saw this on WP:3O. I am against adding the image, as it does not seem relevant. I see no section on feederismn (and think there shouldn't be one either). The images are outside the scope of the article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 23:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this revert: Right now, as I type this, the article is titled Big Beautiful Woman. If and when there is consensus to change this, it will be appropriate to change the article to be about something else, but not until then. If there is consensus to merge this, or to retitle it, this will still need to be based on reliable sources. Feabie.com is not, for example, a reliable source. doi: 10.1080/21604851.2019.1551697 may or may not be reliable in some contexts, but it is very clearly about fat fetishism. It needs to be evaluated in that context. All sources will need to be evaluated in context, and it appears that more reliable sources are discussing this in relation to fat fetishism, not the other way around. Grayfell ( talk) 21:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feabie. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the website https://bbw.wiki should be used here. This is one of the most well known websites documenting BBW related things. I would argue that it should be included what their opinion is about the difference between BBW and SSBBW. Of course an academic source would be preferred, but this site does at least reflect the consensus of different people from this community. It can be written like "The BBW Wiki defines SSBBW as a woman who weights between 350 and 600 pounds." so that the self published source will be used as a source about itself. Throwawiki ( talk) 23:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
third partymentioned by WP:SELFSOURCE. Is this clearer?
hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.91.47 ( talk) 03:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
bbws redirects here. Please add a hatnote to handle that.
{{redirect|bbws|the singular form|BBW (disambiguation)}}
-- 67.70.27.105 ( talk) 16:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page states that “BBW” is a euphemism for “overweight women”. A far more inclusive and positive statement should be included, e.g. “BBW is an acronym created to give power and confidence back to beautiful women who are plus size.” BBW is not just about “being an overweight woman”. It is part of the body positivity movement and should have that explained in the text. 49.180.101.104 ( talk) 03:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could you add to Variants the USSBBW? USSBBW is an abbreviation for Ultra Super Sized Big Beautiful Woman or Ultimate Super Sized Big Beautiful Woman. Ladies in this category generally weigh more than 600 pounds (272 kg). It is the largest weight class. They are larger than SSBBW. Some of them are immobile. Source: https://bbw.wiki/index.php?title=USSBBW https://feederism.wordpress.com/ 188.24.244.141 ( talk) 11:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The term “euphemism” means to refer kindly to something unpleasant or embarrassing. The use of the term in this article (especially in the first sentence) implies discrimination against plus-sizes. I request a removal of the word. Please note the difference in descriptions when the article refers to BBW vs. BHM. For BHM, the terms “physically or sexually attractive” are listed as descriptions. Please compare to how BBW is described at the beginning of the article. The author or editor made their opinion on plus-size women known, which should not happen on Wikipedia. 2601:601:9B80:3F50:F0FF:447E:3A5C:53F2 ( talk) 03:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Aaron Liu (
talk)
13:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Citing a random article about childhood obesity is not a reference that defines nor shows that a 'bbw' is overweight. It does not define nor discuss "bbw' anywhere in the referenced article.
Bbw is not necessarily overweight, and doors not have anything to do with weight or mass, but shape and dimensions. Bbw is a body shape that is not popularised in modern media. 111.220.255.85 ( talk) 02:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Euphemism for BEAUTIFUL overweight women. 2601:244:4B00:480:516E:438D:5E2C:8067 ( talk) 02:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)