This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Obesity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Obesity.
|
Obesity has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:
|
The header of the "Causes" sections states that "A limited number of cases are due primarily to genetics, medical reasons, or psychiatric illness", while the subsection on genetics says that " The differences in BMI between people that are due to genetics varies depending on the population examined from 6% to 85%". The seperate article on genectics of besity at /info/en/?search=Genetics_of_obesity says the same thing. This seems to me a fairly serious mismatch. Both sources (10.1093/epirev/mxm004 for the claim of 8% -85%, 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090954 for the "limtied" claim) are well cited, but the source for the limited claim doesn't actually adress genetics at all but is mostly concerned with food prices and calioric availability. I would suggest changing the header of the section from "A limited number of cases are due primarily to genetics, medical reasons, or psychiatric illness" to "Genetics contribute to obesity, with contributions between 6% and 85% reported depending on the examined population" (or something to this effect), citing 10.1093/epirev/mxm004. I feel that 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090954 is also not a good source for claums on "medical reasons or psychiatric illness" either, but am not sure how to reword this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D4:770E:E9A2:58FC:FFD5:C647:8FF5 ( talk) 09:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
An excellent article about the cause of obesity by Simpson and Raubenheimer from 2005 with more than 300 citations: https://www.swissmilk.ch/fr/services/professionnels-de-la-sante/materiel-dinformation/low-carb-plus/-dl-/fileadmin/filemount/k/simpson-05-obesity-the-protein-leverage-hypothesis.pdf
I saw this edit saying "obesity" is a slur. It seems to me that "obesity" and "fatness" are interchangeable in common parlance, but in case that section heading becomes the center of a naming dispute, is there any reliably-sourced basis for considering "obesity" a slur, that could be covered in this article? Or against such a label, or neutral about it? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I need some clarity here:
All the discussion in the world is pointless - the above is meta discussion and speculation. Without proposed changes, and under what rubric, it falls into WP:NOTAFORUM. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
selecting one inoffensive term over one offensive term is not censorship per se... editors are not required to select the most offensive term available to them.Er, that's a faulty construct at best. There is no suggestion anywhere here that the 'most offensive' term be selected. And yes, selecting an inoffensive term over an allegedly offensive one is censorship after a fashion. It is conforming encyclopedic content to the emotional whims of those who claim offense, and removing the word they dislike. You would have to show overwhelming evidence that the term obesity is offensive to the vast majority of people - obese and not obese people. There's a significant difference between referring to disabled people throughout an article on disability as "gimps", and simply using a medical term in an article about that medical term/condition that a handful of people don't like. If someone edited the disability article and replaced all instanced of 'disabled' with 'gimps', it would be near-instantly reverted as vandalism, because it is overwhelmingly recognize that that is an especially offensive term to virtually all people, disabled and not disabled alike.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to change the "Other factors" section because I think that more can be said about sleep deprivation's role regarding obesity. I have a reliable source from the Harvard School of Public Health. This is an assignment for school as well. I would add 1-2 sentences saying "Chronic sleep deprivation may lead to weight gain either by increasing how much food people eat or decreasing the energy that they burn". I would also add that sleep deprivation could decrease energy expenditure because people who don't get enough sleep are more tired during the day and as a result reduce their physical activity". Section I would like to change: "A number of reviews have found an association between short duration of sleep and obesity.[159][160] Whether one causes the other is unclear.[159] Even if short sleep does increase weight gain it is unclear if this is to a meaningful degree or if increasing sleep would be of benefit.[161]". Citation: “Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.” Obesity Prevention Source, https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/. Jhsgp ( talk) 04:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a NOVA episode that may be helpful to the writers of this article, "The Truth About Fat". One of the topics it addresses is how Sumo wrestlers, who eat 10,000 calories per day in order to stay bulked up, are healthy. The episode is currently available to be seen on some "On Demand" functions and on YouTube on the "NOVA PBS Official" channel. Very interesting. Thank you for your time, Wordreader ( talk) 01:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Obesity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Obesity.
|
Obesity has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:
|
The header of the "Causes" sections states that "A limited number of cases are due primarily to genetics, medical reasons, or psychiatric illness", while the subsection on genetics says that " The differences in BMI between people that are due to genetics varies depending on the population examined from 6% to 85%". The seperate article on genectics of besity at /info/en/?search=Genetics_of_obesity says the same thing. This seems to me a fairly serious mismatch. Both sources (10.1093/epirev/mxm004 for the claim of 8% -85%, 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090954 for the "limtied" claim) are well cited, but the source for the limited claim doesn't actually adress genetics at all but is mostly concerned with food prices and calioric availability. I would suggest changing the header of the section from "A limited number of cases are due primarily to genetics, medical reasons, or psychiatric illness" to "Genetics contribute to obesity, with contributions between 6% and 85% reported depending on the examined population" (or something to this effect), citing 10.1093/epirev/mxm004. I feel that 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090954 is also not a good source for claums on "medical reasons or psychiatric illness" either, but am not sure how to reword this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D4:770E:E9A2:58FC:FFD5:C647:8FF5 ( talk) 09:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
An excellent article about the cause of obesity by Simpson and Raubenheimer from 2005 with more than 300 citations: https://www.swissmilk.ch/fr/services/professionnels-de-la-sante/materiel-dinformation/low-carb-plus/-dl-/fileadmin/filemount/k/simpson-05-obesity-the-protein-leverage-hypothesis.pdf
I saw this edit saying "obesity" is a slur. It seems to me that "obesity" and "fatness" are interchangeable in common parlance, but in case that section heading becomes the center of a naming dispute, is there any reliably-sourced basis for considering "obesity" a slur, that could be covered in this article? Or against such a label, or neutral about it? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I need some clarity here:
All the discussion in the world is pointless - the above is meta discussion and speculation. Without proposed changes, and under what rubric, it falls into WP:NOTAFORUM. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
selecting one inoffensive term over one offensive term is not censorship per se... editors are not required to select the most offensive term available to them.Er, that's a faulty construct at best. There is no suggestion anywhere here that the 'most offensive' term be selected. And yes, selecting an inoffensive term over an allegedly offensive one is censorship after a fashion. It is conforming encyclopedic content to the emotional whims of those who claim offense, and removing the word they dislike. You would have to show overwhelming evidence that the term obesity is offensive to the vast majority of people - obese and not obese people. There's a significant difference between referring to disabled people throughout an article on disability as "gimps", and simply using a medical term in an article about that medical term/condition that a handful of people don't like. If someone edited the disability article and replaced all instanced of 'disabled' with 'gimps', it would be near-instantly reverted as vandalism, because it is overwhelmingly recognize that that is an especially offensive term to virtually all people, disabled and not disabled alike.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to change the "Other factors" section because I think that more can be said about sleep deprivation's role regarding obesity. I have a reliable source from the Harvard School of Public Health. This is an assignment for school as well. I would add 1-2 sentences saying "Chronic sleep deprivation may lead to weight gain either by increasing how much food people eat or decreasing the energy that they burn". I would also add that sleep deprivation could decrease energy expenditure because people who don't get enough sleep are more tired during the day and as a result reduce their physical activity". Section I would like to change: "A number of reviews have found an association between short duration of sleep and obesity.[159][160] Whether one causes the other is unclear.[159] Even if short sleep does increase weight gain it is unclear if this is to a meaningful degree or if increasing sleep would be of benefit.[161]". Citation: “Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.” Obesity Prevention Source, https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/. Jhsgp ( talk) 04:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a NOVA episode that may be helpful to the writers of this article, "The Truth About Fat". One of the topics it addresses is how Sumo wrestlers, who eat 10,000 calories per day in order to stay bulked up, are healthy. The episode is currently available to be seen on some "On Demand" functions and on YouTube on the "NOVA PBS Official" channel. Very interesting. Thank you for your time, Wordreader ( talk) 01:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)