Talk:Big Beautiful Woman

Terminology

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)

Oppose. It's still insulting to most people of size and is still used mostly that way against them. Baseball Bugs 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: "fat" is to "plus-size" as "fag" is to "gay". Baseball Bugs 15:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's more like "'fat' is to 'plus-size' as 'gay' is to 'alternatively-oriented'. --Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not always true. My friend is fat, a clothing designer, and a member of the "fatshionista" community on Livejournal; she was gleefully telling me about a recent poll as to whether a young woman doing her thesis on "Fat Women and the Media" should use the word "fat" in the piece. The response was unanimously supportive; everyone said that the word "fat" was completely appropriate.

What other options are there? "Overweight" is no good; because where is the "appropriate weight" that they are supposedly "over"? I don't think we should go back to "large"; lots of women find the word "large" to be downright offensive when used to describe their bodies. These euphemisms make it sound as though the fact that they are fat is some terrible thing that must not be mentioned, the way that, decades ago, people would refuse to speak the word "cancer" aloud. I think "fat" is the most neutral and least offensive term. Joie de Vivre 15:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And, as far as comparing "fat" to "fag" and "plus-size" to "gay"; I don't think that that is true. I know more women who are comfortable being called "fat" than there are those who are comfortable being called "plus-sized". And the ones who consider themselves "plus-sized" tend to have much lower self-esteem than the ones who consider themselves "fat". So who should we cater to, here? What are our options? Joie de Vivre 15:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Consider the fact that the IP address who changed it was likely being insulting and ridiculing. Then consider the fact that the article is unreferenced. Obviously, I would be in favor of putting it back to where I had it at 10:27. It's interesting to go back to the original entry in February 2004 and see how it was worded and how narrowly (and inaccurately) it was originally defined (see below). Baseball Bugs 16:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Old version

BBWs (acronym for "Big Beautiful Women") are the focus of a vaguely-defined, fairly widespread internet subculture with interests ranging from size acceptance to force-feeding. Generally defined as an attractive, self-confident "woman of size", the BBW is the subject of much veneration by so-called fat admirers.

BBWs are not to be confused with feedees, who belong to a specialized part of the subculture.

Links

[1] BBW Magazine BBW Network Dimensions Magazine

There are medical standards for 'overweight' (which, incidentally, are heavier than those of the fashion industry). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Patrie (talk • contribs) 02:33, 29 August 2008 (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)

You're right that one man's or one woman's insult can be another's badge of honor. My concern in this article is that the ones who kept putting in "FAT" were ridiculing the subject matter (as with that IP address earlier, which you reverted). Leaving it be for a few days is fine. :) Baseball Bugs 16:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize that they may have meant it in ridicule, but think of it this way: plenty of Republicans use the word "liberal" as a slur, but in blue states it is a neutral, normal, descriptive term that bears no negative connotation whatsoever. I'm glad you're willing to be patient; thanks. Joie de Vivre 17:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they use "liberal" as a synonym for "Communist", just as we liberals use "conservative" interchangeably with "Fascist". Regarding "fat", it's political correctness coming full circle. Bill Veeck, who had a wooden leg, used to say, "I'm not 'handicapped', I'm crippled." Later, "handicapped" also became considered too strong, and then "disabled" or even "differently-abled" came into fashion. In that sense, "fat" is to "BBW" as "crippled" is to "disabled". Baseball Bugs 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Political correctness coming full circle" in this context is also called 'reclaiming'.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Reclaiming" by some, and imposing on others who still don't like being called fat and who resent somebody else telling them how they should feel about it. Baseball Bugs 22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A more trivial example is when the manager of the Giants called the new American League "white elephants", and the owner-manager of the Athletics immediately adopted a white elephant as a defiant logo... which they still use, over 100 years later. Baseball Bugs 18:02, 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)

Check your personal comments please: I don't think anything about what others "should" think. I do know many fat women who strongly prefer the term fat. What you think that I think that others should think is irrelevant. :P Could we compromise and use different terms throughout? "Fat" in regards to its usage in fat acceptance? I think that repeating the word "large" is no good. Joie de Vivre 23:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And many do not like it. The term "fat" appears in there plenty of times, along with other synonyms. It's there in the term "fat acceptance" and some other places where it's not POV-pushing. To call it "larger-than-average acceptance" would be political correctness taken too far. A comparison: It's fair to say that Satchel Paige played in the Negro Leagues, because that's what they were called. But it's not appropriate to call Satchel Paige himself a "negro", because that term is considered old-fashioned at least and offensive at worst. Do you see what I'm getting at? Baseball Bugs 23:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read your re-wording now, and I like it. Sehr gut. :) Baseball Bugs 23:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sweeeet. 23:25, 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)

Added article issues tag

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)

For starters, just defining "big" is a problem. By modern Twiggy-ish standards, Jayne Mansfield would have been a "BBW". Baseball Bugs 22:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There's no way I'd say the term "BBW" would apply to her though, especially seeing the multiple pictures of her that reveal her body size. Also, the fact that the term seems to describe an "Internet-based subculture" doesn't really make much sense - either that is pornography, feederism or dating sites, surely? It's certainly not any one unified thing, and besides there were surely many men (and women...) who were attracted to women who would be seen as BBW long before the Internet gained prominence...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The specific term BBW might be internet-connected, but I'm not convinced of that without proof. There is no question that plus-sized babes have been considered attractive by many men for many generations. Baseball Bugs 08:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, exactly. I'm currently debating on the physical attractiveness talk page whether the article's picture of Jessica Alba truly shows a body shape that most men today find attractive. I argued that although she has the right proportions (i.e. bust-waist-hip ratio), many men may find the same hourglass ratio on a larger woman with more body fat attractive.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Way too skinny for my tastes. The Twiggy look, almost. But you're talking to someone who thinks Rosie O'Donnell is kinda cute (on a good day), and that Paris Hilton is homely (on most any day). Baseball Bugs 08:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, do you want to add support to my discussion on that talk page?-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I put in my tupence worth. I'm not sure what the point of the article is. You like what you like, and I like what I like, statistics be damned. 0:) Baseball Bugs 09:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Common prefernce

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)

I've gone ahead and made the changes. --Patrick80639 19:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with this article is that it tends to attract original research and unverifiable claims, and the issues you bring up here arise from such original research. Because it's about a neologism, there's no strict definition of what it really means and has become a loaded word, in both the dating services industry and in the pornography world. This article should really focus mainly on discussing the term itself, the history, and the subculture of fat admiration and possibly mentions of things like fat acceptance movement and even feederism.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rubens Venus at a Mirror c1615.jpg

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)

Please define 'FA'

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 believe it was intended as an abbreviation of the fat acceptance movement. - jc37 14:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You're incorrect there - it's actually an abbreviation for "fat admirer".--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:27, 17 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)

FFA

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 deletion

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)

• I disagree very much. The idea of an article about Big Beautiful Women is wonder and besides, the best encyclopedia should have a broad reach and scope. I think the article should stay. Lord Balin (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• You're being somewhat defensive; no one cares what kind of woman you like. The term "BBW" has been around much longer than Urban Dictionary, and is quite well sourced. If you want it deleted, take it to AFD. Stop telling us how offended you are. --Golbez (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• That's like asking for the article on racism to be deleted. Just because you're offended by it doesn't mean it isn't a real concept that exists in the popular consciousness. An encyclopedia is where somebody goes to learn more about a topic they encounter elsewhere.--109.90.212.28 (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2010 (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)

Mika's song

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)

SSBBW clarification

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)

adding an external link...

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)

Move to Big beautiful woman

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)

• Agree. It's the same sort of terminology as "Men who have sex with men". --David Shankbone 13:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Should This be Deleted?

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)

Neologism ?

"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)

submission of article

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)

alternative acronym/definition for BBW

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)

No, for the same reason Bucharest Business Week isn't mentioned here—it has no relevance to the subject of this article. The disambiguation page BBW would be the place for that, but Wikipedia has no "big breasted woman" article. Minimally, you would need a source demonstrating notability for this initialism. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

{{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)

This article was protected due to your contentious edits, which several editors undid. So, no. And stay off my talkpage.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:55, 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)

Not done: per Kintetsubuffalo. The page was protected due to sockpuppetry. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:11, 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)

Not done: How is it being used in a "misleading manner"? Thanks, Stickee (talk) 11:37, 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]].

Synthesis is taking details from multiple sources to advance a claim not made in any of the sources. This is simply a disagreement around which words to use to capture a claim made in the source. I've stated my position, which appears to be in line with the consensus. Now it is up to you to influence the other editors toward a different consensus, if you want the article changed, or to move on to other dispute resolution mechanisms. Celestra (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Dbpjmuf and sockpuppets: The cluebus drives by every 15 minutes, but you steadfastly refuse to get on it. Everyone else is telling you to seek consensus here, but you plow through and make the edits you want anyway. Very well, I will continue to revert you, and the next one gets you reported.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In this instance I strongly support Dbpjmuf's content suggestion (though chastise his behaviour). He is correct that obese/overweight is sourced. Above average weight is not particularly descriptive and we should only really use it if well supported by a scholarly source as an accepted definition. The use of clinical terms seems adequate (as opposed to if this were using a subjective term like "fatty" or w/e). However, I do offer the suggestion made in my compromise edit; i.e. say that sources identify this as the definition, but that use of such words can be controversial. This is dealt with in the article anyway so meets all the requirements of WP:LEAD. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Dbpjmuf (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Errant: Thanks for joining in the conversation. I disagree with the premise that we need to see the word or phrase in the source in order to use that word or phrase in the article. The concept is sourced; everyone agrees to that. The words we use to convey that concept are chosen by consensus and need not appear in the source. I find "overweight" to be as vague as "above average weight" and I feel that "above average" captures the concept of "slightly overweight" better than "overweight" does. That also seems to be the consensus I found here when I serviced the edit request. How does what you have said alter that consensus? Celestra (talk) 17:45, 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)

The terms overweight and obese have many definitions. The source talks of "slightly overweight" and "morbidly obese". How do these adjectives align with the clinical definitions you choose to apply to the source? Do you think that the technical definitions which you favor are more meaningful in the context of this article? I certainly don't. "Above average weight" communicates the concept well in this context; "overweight or obese" does not. Celestra (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have gone back to the earlier consensus and asked tmorton166 to participate in generating a new consensus before implementing any more solutions. Celestra (talk) 21:16, 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)

You failed to answer my questions. Did you at least reflect on them? The source does not appear to be using the narrow clinical meaning which you choose to apply to overweight and obese. Regardless, as I said before, we are not constrained by the words which happen to appear in the source. We can use whatever words we choose to capture the claims found in the source. We choose those words by consensus, either the implied consensus when we boldly make initial edits or by a more formal consensus if we have a disagreement, as we do here. You have already been given a final warning, please stop reverting to your prefered text until we have a new consensus to do so. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:18, 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. Oh, and please wait until we have an agreement before changing from the existing consensus. There are several others who should have a chance to participate before we say we have a new consensus. Celestra (talk) 23:46, 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. ”

I have already explained that overweight does not mean over an average weight. Overweight is over a certain BMI or BFP. Average is the sum of several quantities divided by the number of quantitities.

“Above average and over are synonymous.”

Above and over are synonymous. Above average and over are not 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. “

This is untrue, as per above. The definition is not narrow. How do you mean clinical? Again, as I have already explained as completely as can possibly be explained, the range between slightly overweight and obese is entirely encapsulated within the one word overweight.

“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. ”

As I have already explained, changing “overweight or obese” to “obese” helps, as someone who is obese is by definition overweight, so use of the :word obese is redundant. As I have also explained, if someone is slightly overweight, logically they must be overweight. So the two terms are encapsulate by the word overweight. The same does hold not true for the term above average weight.

“Would 'slightly or considerably overweight' work?”

The source says slightly overweight and obese. As I’ve already explained, both are covered by the one word overweight.

“I think the disclaimer about the term being offensive mainly applied to obese, so we shouldn't need it.”

The ref says that both terms are. There is no reason to assume that only one is.

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)

• Remove above average IMHO, 'Above average' is misleading as used in this article, as it is used as a euphemism. An encyclopedia needs to be literal (ie. 'above average' encompasses a full 50% of the population), so the term is not suitable here. Overweight is more objectively defined (and wikipedia is not known to censor for political correctness). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Reject loaded "obese" and support Celestra - on principle that consensus outweighs contentious point-pushers like Dbpjmuf.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:36, 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)

Excuse you! Wikipedia:KETTLE You're the one who's been uncivil from go. And proper names take capitals in English, since you are anal about minutiae.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Trying to keep an encyclopaedia encyclopaedic is hardly being anal about minutiae. If you're going to be a grammar nazi, have the decency to learn how to use syntax correctly. 79.97.171.208 (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

ENOUGH, seriously, quit it both of you. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Obese and overweight are words which have been in the language far longer than BMI. Are you truly unaware of the loaded meaning to which Chris refers? That is what I mean by a narrow, clinical definition - the techinical definition which the health industry has assigned to those terms. You must be aware that that does not take the place of the other meanings which those words continue to have. You also seem to switch quickly from saying that overweight is defined in terms of BMI to saying that it encompasses the broad range described in the source. Overweight is defined as having a BMI of 25-29.9; obese is a BMI above 30. But this article is not about the clinical definition of those terms, so let's set that aside. I took your dropping of obese as a step toward consensus. I've made a step in return, proposing a version which retains "overweight" in place of "above average weight" but with some changes. Let's move forward from there.

To restate our positions without all the baggage: you support "... to women who are overweight, although the use of the term can be controversial." and feel that overweight captures "slightly overweight to morbidly obese". I proposed "... to women who are slightly or considerably overweight." as I feel that overweight by itself does not communicate that range (found in the source) to the reader and I don't feel that overweight is controversial enough to merit a disclaimer in the lede. Do you agree that is the difference we are discussing? Celestra (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. Obese and overweight are by far the preferred words in this case, unless we can adequately source the words "above average" there is a strong OR problem. you must avoid OR and it is really easy to make that mistake when sourcing the lead. Overweight and Obese are strongly accurate terms, they are medical terms that allow for no ambiguity in describing what is meant physiologically. I agree, we often summarise sources, but this is a key part of the content and it is not so much summarising as avoiding words some find rude/offensive/less prefferable. We don't pull punches on WP. We dont do PC (thankfully). 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. <- This is original research. I recommend and RFC on this, but without a source it is a highly unlikely you will be able to use "above average weight". Celestra, I don't dislike your proposed compromise, but I think it is a good idea to mention word controversy in the lead, that is a substantial part of the article and the purpose of the lead is to summarise the whole article. Obese and overweight are words which have been in the language far longer than BMI. Are you truly unaware of the loaded meaning to which Chris refers? <- An irrelevant matter I am afraid. The argument "we should not use these words because of potential offense" has no meaning here. I support the current wording of the lead w/o the word obese, "Overweight" adequately conveys the range without inventing our own terminology (as long as it is then more carefully defined in the article) and it also mentions controversy over use of the words. Can I suggest: to women who are overweight, although the terms used to describe such individuals can be controversial (just to make clear the controversy is broader) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 07:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Original research is not a term which has much meaning in a discussion of word choice. We all come to the table with either a native or learned proficiency in the language which we are expected to apply to the editing task. "Above average weight" is a phrase which has a clear meaning. It is a commonly used phrase, generating 222,000 hits on Google. You and the other editor take it as being PC, but I don't. I see it as simply being a good phrase to describe the range of weights described later in the article. By itself, I find 'overweight' to be less obviously inclusive of that range, so I think we need those adjectives to accurately communicate the range. I'm not strongly opposed to the disclaimer, although the controversy is not central to this subject, if that will help us bring this to a close. Celestra (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes I think OR is the issue here :) The problem is that "above average" is a poorly defined term, which we are then applying to a quite specifically defined range (in the sources); overweight and obese are very specific terms). At that point we have both WP:OR and WP:V issues. Google search quantities are a poor source for decisions such as these; for example although you are right there are lots of hits, it does not prove this as a well defined term. "Above average" is, by nature, vague. although the controversy is not central to this subject; disagree, the article in current form and the sources make quite a big deal of word choice being controversial :) I think we currently accurately reflect that. The reason that I feel this is a "PC" choice being promoted is because of previous arguments that these are words with alternative "loaded meanings" (which I pointed out is irrelevant) Running back up it looks like we are at three to two on consensus here against "Above average". --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I refreshed myself of the source, which says: 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]). In which case this is extremely specific and our wording needs to follow that as closely as possible. In light of the source I can no longer support dropping obese. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That same paragragh goes on to speak of a range from "slightly overweight to morbidly obese." We need to choose a phrase which embraces all of that. I hate to beat a dead horse, but the existing consensus, "above average weight", has such a clear and obvious meaning that dictionaries use that phrase to define other words. It is descriptive of the range we are trying to express. The phrase "overweight or obese", IMO, suggests a narrower range than "overweight" does by itself. Overweight with adjectives to explicitly include that range seems best. We were closing on a compromise before, please resist the temptation to move the goalposts. Celestra (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the use of 'above average', and concur with Errant's points. 'Above average' is a euphemism, and the meaning is only clear and obvious to those in countries where it is used to mean overweight. In plain english, it means the 50% of the population which are above the mean weight. Strictly speaking, an 'average' person US is clinically overweight, where an average person in China is not. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That is both incorrect and PC-phobic. As a confident non-PC individual, I do not fear phrases that might be euphemisms in some contexts when they are merely used descriptively. If I refer to an obese person as being of above average weight, that is a euphemism; when I use it to refer to the range of weights above the norm, it is merely descriptive. Likewise, when we use the broad definition of overweight which is synonymous with above average weight, I have no objection to using overweight in place of above average weight. Unfortunately, like average, overweight has many meanings. To be clear that we mean the broad overweight which would encompass "slightly overweight to morbidly obese", I think we need to include the adjectives "slightly or considerably". Otherwise the reader may take this to mean that BBW is a term which only applies to women with a body mass index between 25 and 30. The situation gets worse if we change to "overweight or obese" - overweight clearly takes on a narrower meaning, no longer including obese on the high side and, IMO, no longer including slightly overweight.

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)

Not really, the question is: does "above average" adequately describe "overweight (a body mass index [BMI] higher than 25 kg/[m.sup.2]) or obese (BMI above 30kg/[m.sup.2])", the vaguer terms you mention are only after the range is explicitly defined. I entirely disagree "above average" is descriptive or useful, it is detrimental to understanding in the article to introduce vagueness if we do not have to :) Unfortunately, like average, overweight has many meanings, nope, in this case we have an exact and very specific meaning. I cannot really make sense of a lot of the end of your comment; but the main point to make is this (I think). The source identifies that BBW refers to women identified as clinically overweight/obese. It then goes on to say that the preferences of BBW admirers can vary dramatically across those ranges (using the word slightly to denote the lower end of overweight and morbidly to denote the upper end of obese). This to me reads very explicitly; BBW are those who are clinically overweight/obese but that an individual admirer might find only a subset of that group attractive. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:26, 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.

Regarding the content we are trying to summarize, the text in the article reads: "may denote women who may be considered barely overweight to those who are morbidly obese." The source the IP came up with to try to "source" his word choice in the lede says that fat admiration is difficult to define precisely, but that it is usually used to describe people attracted to clinically overweight or obese persons. It goes on to say that the difficulty is compounded by rejection of those terms and that "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." To me, this agrees with the remainder of the article. I think that it would be selective to ignore the fact that the author specifies 'clinically' when she uses the clinical term as opposed to later. I think that adding modifiers to what might be a clinical term or not removes the possibility that the author was again referring to the clinical term, which is also what I am proposing we do. One cannot be slightly or morbidly within a predefined range of BMIs. The paragraph in its entirety agrees with the existing article text which we should be summarizing. That is the question: how best to summarize that text. I think both sides had compromised some before and reached a point one step from a workable consensus. Let's go back to that and finish the process. Celestra (talk) 23:17, 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)

Uh, butting in here, but "average" has several meanings: "arithmetic mean" (the variant you used), "median" and "mode". I'd recheck that dictionary, or invest in a better one ;-) TFOWR 23:43, 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)

No need to apologise. Try Merriam-Webster's, Collin's or "YourDictionary.com". Which version of the Oxford English Dictionary did you try? There's the Shorter one, which might be limited, the Compact edition, which tends to be fairly verbose, and the "usual" version - the 20-volume set. I'm surprised even the Shorter would make such an elementary error, but I guess space is limited. TFOWR 00:44, 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)

Bottom of page 85, first definition of "average": "1 av-er-age ... AVERAGE, MEAN, MEDIAN, NORM mean something that represents a middle point." TFOWR 10:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It then goes on to define each. Read it. Dbpjmuf (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you for assuming I hadn't read it. "MEAN may be the simple average...NORM means the computed or edtiamted average". Again, I'm not seeing one easy definition for "average" as you originally suggested. What I'm seeing is entirely consistent with "average" having more meanings than just "arithmetic mean". However, as Clovis Sangrail notes below, this article is not above "heavier than average": it's about heavier than ideal. TFOWR 12:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with TFOWR. Dbpjmuf I think you/we have got sidetracked with this slightly. TFOWR is trying to be helpful here, and it appears he probably agrees with the position we are on :) Don't bite back helpful people! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of definition, both median and mode are mathematical entities (and you could also include geometric mean and harmonic mean) and are based on a average measurement of population. This article seems to relate to someone being heavier than an ideal weight, not an average weight. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Close discussion per WP:SNOWBALL. Why are you guys wasting time with this troll? Dbpjmuf is not interested in Wikibuilding or understanding others, he is only here to point-push and be right at all costs. A reasonable person would have gotten the idea by now.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you and being a troll are different things. Dbpjmuf (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, what? Snowball is a process to apply to situations where there is simply no way "the other option" is going to work. So entirely does not apply here. I am assuming you are "closing" in your favour, which I am afraid is not the current consensus, as I read it there is much stronger support for NOT using the word average. Finally; please do not call other editors trolls. Even if he is being difficult or arguing badly we assume good faith, and he is at least contributing constructively.

I'd appreciate an explanation about what you find pointy in his behaviour? Is it that he is pushing for "overweight and obese" in an attempt to make the article negative about BBW? The trouble is his wording is 100% supported by the sources, and introducing vaguer wording seems the more dubious activity! Again; rather than throw these words out there help the editor by clarifying how you believe he is being pointy.

In terms of the discussion; I think we have quite clear support for the words "overweight and obese", we've argued it out but consistently people are coming in and supporting this wording, only the two of you are against it at this point. I'd say... we have consensus. If you disagree I guess we could try an RFC? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 07:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You should be careful about defending the IP/Dbpjmuf's behaviour. That discussion about average is of no value to deciding the best word choice in the lede. As I said above, which the conversation about average conveniently obscured, the source you (and he) are maintaining supports his word choice was brought in by the IP in an attempt to override consensus about how to summarize the article. There are three problems with that: first, the lede should summarize the article; second, the choice of words is not strengthened by having those precise words appear in a source somewhere; lastly, both you and the IP seem to be selectively reading the source in a way that disagrees with the article when it actually goes on to be supportive of the text in the article. We have spent way too much time with this small detail already and an RFC seems like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, but maybe we have no choice. The problem with that is that we probably disagree on the question. The question I would ask is whether "slightly or significantly overweight" or just "overweight" better summarizes the text in the article "can range from being slightly overweight to morbidly obese" and the text in the source:

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)

Hey, while I don't condone all of his behaviour I prefer to encourage the right behaviour and chastise people to throwing words like Troll a bit too cheaply :) but anyway..

The first thing to note is that overturning consensus is possible, common and just part of the process. There is nothing wrong with it; if a new consensus is supported, then that is the one we use. That it was introduced incorrectly is no reason to reject it out of hand.

• first, the lede should summarize the article - there is a limit to how much must be summarized, if you have to defend the use of a summary term (because it is bad) then it is probably not right. I don't think this is a valid argument for using "above average".
• second, the choice of words is not strengthened by having those precise words appear in a source somewhere, umm yes it is :) the source defines the scope and content of the article. If we can source BBW as commonly referring to "above average women" then I would be fine with that. But so far there does not appear to be such a source.
• lastly, both you and the IP seem to be selectively reading the source in a way that disagrees with the article when it actually goes on to be supportive of the text in the article., I don't quite understand this. The source is very very clear in its definition. Which is great because we can be too.
• The question I would ask is whether "slightly or significantly overweight" or just "overweight" better summarizes the text in the article "can range from being slightly overweight to morbidly obese" and the text in the source: as I explained elsewhere this is somewhat misdirection, because the part of the source you quote is talking about something slightly different. It clearly and explicitly defines BBW before that sentence.

I think we now have a fairly strong consensus that "above average" is inappropriate wording. In terms of your last part, we do not "ensure the the reader takes the right meaning from the word" by using something vague and non-specific with modifiers, we use something specifically defined by the source. I could largely buy the use of "overwieight" (and just that word w/o any form of OR modifier) but I wouldn't be hugely happy with it. However; there is a simple way to sort this, we can take it to RFC. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You are arguing a strawman again. I haven't proposed retaining the current consensus; I just don't agree that it is a problem. I get that you feel differently. I can accept that we differ on that. Your continued insistence that using words that happen to appear in a source somehow overrides consensus is more worrisome and I'll have to ask you to support that with some reference to a policy. Nothing I have read supports that and WP:Copyright tells us to use our own words and avoid following the source too closely. WP:Consensus is policy. It lists exceptions - "happens to be used in the source" is not an exception. I'm trying to read the text in the source in a way that agrees with you and the IP, and I can't see it. "Difficult to define...usually x...complicated by the fact...moreover, the affected group express a preference of y" does not reduce to "clearly x", nor would that paragraph make sense if the author felt y and x were equivalent. I can accept that you feel differently about that as well, without understanding it, but I can't agree that gives your choice of words any exception from consensus. Consensus is confused by some of the strawman arguments, but if we count the IP as agreeing with you and Chris as agreeing with me, we are matched on the question of overweight versus overweight or obese. The opinions against "above average weight" are reasonable, but have no bearing on the question. I still feel "slightly or significantly overweight" captures the concept more completely, but unless another editor agrees, I don't think this is worth an RFC. What does everyone else think? Celestra (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:Copyright is related to not producing a copyright violation, which is another matter. The relevant policy is WP:V and WP:OR, I cannot find a RS that indicates wording similar to "above average". This is not a case of "happens to be used in a source", this is a case of "lets use wording that is directly supported by a source". I do not see why it is a problem to use this wording? You cited a current consensus and appear to be using that as an argument for not changing the wording, if that is not the case I am sorry, but it your argument looks a lot like that! :) In terms of the source; I think it is 100% clear. IThe opinions against "above average weight" are reasonable, but have no bearing on the question., hmm, how do you come to that conclusion? Surely if they disagree with the wording it is wrong... I think this is very much worth an RFC because I am concerned you a) are not making a very strong argument to use this wording and b) are not likely to accept anything as consensus w/o formalising it. The RFC will help clarify this with more outside input. And my final question is why does it matter so much to not to use the wording from the source? So, why is "above average" particularly better? That question has only really been touched on once with the non-argument relating to negative connotations in the word. :)--Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Section break

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)

Ok, thanks for laying out your argument in one place, that really helps make it clear. The first thing, about consensus, it is important to remember that consensus is not set in stone, it can change, and that is a good thing. It is my understanding that "above average" was an implicit consensus, and now we have discussed it it is clear that there is no strong support for it. Also, WP:V and WP:OR apply to the original consensus of "above average" because it is a long way from what the source says, and probably has a different common meaning. Right, that's out of the way, on to the compromise/later argument.

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., I find this argument somewhat confusing, and not overly convincing. As best I can make out "overweight or obese" is not, you feel, explicit enough (?). That the definition of overweight is broad and that the modifiers help to specify it more specifically? I find none of this to be convincing.

• a modified overweight, which explicitly covers a broad range of weights; I do not see that this overcomes the problem of confusion over the word "overweight". I agree that it essentially has two common meanings; anyone overweight (overweight, obese etc.) or clinically overweight. The modifiers do not make it explicit though, you could still interpret overweight both ways and one of those ways is incorrect. However, with "or obese" (with both words linked to their articles) is becomes very clear which one is meant. Coupled with a clear definition in the article there is no ambiguity and confusing wording.
• not including obese above and some amount below. uh, according to the sources there is no amount below clinically overweight. To suggest so in the article is WP:OR unless we can find another source to clarify this.
• With "slightly or considerably overweight" I think we are skirting around the word obese but avoiding using it, which I don't quite understand the reason for. "considerably overweight" is insinuated to be "obese", but I feel we could easily just say it :)

I know it has only been part raised, but I cannot help feeling there is specific resistance to the word "obese". We must step away from any bad feelings the word brings, the source is happy to use this word in a definition and we shouldn't make an editorial judgement that tries to avoid using it. I don't know if this is the case; but it is certainly the sense I got from the earlier discussions.

To sum up; I feel that the modifiers do little to clarify what is meant and that "or obese" does a much better and more specific job in a neutral and off hand way. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Again you are being too free in your use of OR. You are welcome to disagree with the word choice, but that's all it is - a disagreement over word choice. Just like we currently have a disagreement over word choice. And I fully support the existing consensus, but as you say, consensus changes. I am not discussing the current consensus because it is clearly not going to be part of the new consensus, but I see nothing wrong with it as a summary of the range of weights in the article. The source the IP brought in to try to "prove" his word choice doesn't conflict with the existing consensus either, but you and I read it differently. Your reading is much closer to the IP's, while mine is more in line with the rest of our article. Maybe we should take this part of the discussion to another forum.

I'll take your last point first. It makes it difficult to make progress here when you keep asserting that I dislike "obese" for some PC reason. I don't feel that way and I have stated that repeatedly. I suspect some people like "obese" because it might offend other people, but I don't assign that motive to you and I would appreciate a similar amount of good faith. Speaking of good faith, I accept your various claims of not understanding what I have written, but the lack of detail is getting tiresome. Please explain what you find confusing and I would be glad to restate it in a different way.

As I see it, we seem to have two key disagreements: we interpret the source differently and we disagree on the meaning of "slightly overweight".

I understand that your reading of the source disagrees with my own. I summarized the reasoning behind my interpretation of that paragraph earlier. I don't honestly understand your interpretation, which seems to latch onto those two words and ignore the rest, but I do not doubt that you are honestly interpreting it that way. You do need to recognize, though, that there are other reasonable interpretations and that those interpretations might make more sense in this case. Your interpretation, for instance, disagrees with the rest of our article which says "... barely oveweight to ... morbidly obese". Common sense also supports a different reading: a term which is defined as "the body size preferences of male fat admirers" would not be expected to align well with a narrow, clinical range; the fat admirer does not consult a chart of BMIs to decide if he is sexually attracted to an individual.

I think the phrases "slightly overweight" (or "barely overweight") used in the source and in our article are refering to the colloqial meaing of overweight. To put it another way, I feel the range we are summarizing lies outside that clinical meaning and the modifiers make it clear that we are dealing with the colloqial meaning. The clinical meaning is a step function and "slightly" or "barely" have no meaning. I'm concerned if you think our article is talking about only persons who are clinically overweight or obese. Or is it that you want to add a different definition in the lede rather than summarizing our article as spelled out in WP:LEDE?

I hope you agree that this summarizes our disagreement and you will see that a modified colloqial overweight is more appropriate for summarizing our article. You seem to be concerned about communicating the high end of the range better. I'm open to suggestions of a different modifier to clarify the upper bound, "considerably" is just one antonym of "slightly". "Slightly or extremely overweight" might be better. Celestra (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It makes it difficult to make progress here when you keep asserting that I dislike "obese" for some PC reason. - I don't mean to suggest it quite so strongly. But it did seem to be the underlying reason for some of the original disputants. I just wanted to clarify that such an argument was irrelevant. Anyway; onto more important issues.

You do need to recognize, though, that there are other reasonable interpretations and that those interpretations might make more sense in this case., sorry but to my reading the source is incredibly explicit in identifying the common range of women considered BBW as those clinically overweight and obese, and that tastes can range within those weights (i.e. from the bottom end of overweight to the top end of obese). I honestly cannot see any interpretation where this is not the case :) Your argument seems to be that those clinical terms are invalidated by the later sentence; which actually, quite clearly, makes a very different point.

Common sense also supports a different reading: a term which is defined as "the body size preferences of male fat admirers" would not be expected to align well with a narrow, clinical range; the fat admirer does not consult a chart of BMIs to decide if he is sexually attracted to an individual., with the best will in the world, common sense does not really enter into it. What does the source say? We reflect that! I argue it would be expected to align well with the relatively broad clinical definitions. The source does not discuss anyone below the clinically overweight band; speaking from my perspective, probably, there is a "class" of BBW who are not clinically overweight, but I have really struggled to find a source that discusses this in any meaningful way.

Your interpretation, for instance, disagrees with the rest of our article which says "... barely oveweight to ... morbidly obese" - I am afraid I do not understand what you mean here? My interpretation is that the article defines the range of BBW as overwieight and obese and then discusses that admirers may like a subset within the group from barely overweight (the lower bound of overweight) to morbidly obese (the upper bound of obese). As I reiterated above; I find this clear and explicit.

I think the phrases "slightly overweight" (or "barely overweight") used in the source and in our article are refering to the colloqial meaing of overweight. I think the source is clear, it is an academic piece and so the usual format is used; define your terms (which they do) then use them. There is no question that "overweight" in the source refers to the clinical form.

The clinical meaning is a step function and "slightly" or "barely" have no meaning., disagree, they have as much meaning as with the other version.

I'm concerned if you think our article is talking about only persons who are clinically overweight or obese., as it is currently sourced, yes, that is the only thing it can talk about. As I mentioned I have been unable to source an academic source that expands outside of such a definition.

If concern exists in terms of modifiers and so forth I see no reason that we could not use "slightly overweight to morbidly obese" directly from the source which even better describes this range and leaves no ambiguity about the upper bound.

I am also in favour of expanding on the definition section as it happens :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW it is worth considering the context of the whole source (which is actually reall useful) in that they divided women by the BMI and asked men to rate them (one group of FA's and one control group). The results of the analysis appear (in their analysis) to strongly support the opening hypothesis that FA's have a preference for overweight/obese women. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(For the sake of clarity, could you not refer to the source as the article?) As I said, we disagree on the reading of that paragraph. I am frankly amazed, though, by your statement that you can see no other interpretation. A paragraph which can be parsed as "Difficult to define...usually X...complicated by the fact...moreover, the affected group express a preference of Y" is neither clearly X nor clearly Y. I don't think the clinical terms are invalidated; I think they are offered as one point is a paragraph which is expressing the different ways the difficult to define term is defined. Can you honestly not see that? The rest of your arguments again reduce to "I don't agree" and "I don't understand" with smiley faces scattered around for effect. I keep trying to explain my reasoning and you keep asserting a lack of understanding of any interpretation but your own. You recognize the difference between the clinical and common use of the words, but you refuse to see the possibility that the source uses both and the article uses only the common. I'm not sure that discussing this further with "tmorton166" is any more useful than it was discussing it with "Dbpjmuf" or the IP. Celestra (talk) 17:27, 25 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)

Fully protected

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)

RFC: Use of wording in the lead

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:

• slightly or considerably overweight, based on the wording slightly overweight to morbidly obese it is felt this best summarizes the range of weights mentioned in the article. That the entire paragraph from the source is best summarized this way. That overweight by itself or overweight and obese may communicate narrower ranges of weight to the reader.
• overweight or obese, the argument is that specific wording is much better and "slightly or considerably overweight" is a little vague (or OR) when we can use a specific definition (the source does define it explicitly while the later wording is related to a separate point) and that the meaning of overweight/obese is clearly defined so as to leave no ambiguity.
• overweight, is a compromise offered somewhere between the two.

Please indicate which argument you would support in the article --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support overweight or obese for the reasons specified here and in the above discussion. Better to use specific terms. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Althought I might also support some use of the word "overweight" if this just becomes untenable and I was forced to. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:40, 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) Ok ok, whatever. No one else has commented so I changed the wording to reflect what you have said more accurately. Feel free to correct further if it is still wrong, it has been a little unclear what you are arguing TBH ;) Sorry, I am trying my best here to help establish the right wording for the article :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 18:21, 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) I hid it for the moment as you suggested. My eyes hurt now, so let me sleep on it and I might be more coherent tomorrow. :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 20:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support slightly or considerably overweight. Expresses the range of weights found in the article, which are also supported by one fair reading of the source. Celestra (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support overweight or obese as per discussion. Dbpjmuf (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support overweight or obese as explained above.Chhe (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be more useful if people responding to the RFC would express their opinion in their own words. Since the discussion has arguments on both sides of the matter, saying "per discussion" could support any of the three and is equivalent to WP:PERNOM. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

While I do somewhat agree it is generally accepted practice that involved persons put in a !vote to an RFC to establish their status :) However, it would be nice to see added rationale --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't bother to add it since the question presented in this RFC seems to have such an obvious answer. My rationale though is the following. The words "overweight" and "obese" have specific definitions used in medicine with specific BMI ranges associated with them. As a result its better to stick with these terms instead of anything vaguer used in common everyday language. What exactly is "slightly overweight" supposed to mean. Its just a vague term. Better to use just a more general term and say overweight. As for the exclusion of using the word "obese" I don't see why this would be done since the term "Big Beautiful Woman" applies to people with BMI>25 in general which last I checked includes obese people too. Using the word "considerably overweight" instead of "obese" itself can be confusing since one wouldn't know if you are referring to people with BMI's in the high 20's or someone with a BMI>30Chhe (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support overweight or obese since it seems to reflect the source better. (While obese can be a considered a subset of overweight, it appears that some people have preferences for the more extreme ends of the spectra). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support overweight or obese. Accurately reflects wording in source, not to mention is more scientific than "slightly overweight"/"considerably overweight", which is vague and equivocal (v.s. Chhe's argument). Who wants to read a vague and equivocal encyclopedia? DaAnHo (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment-- It seems a bit strange and certainly challenging to try be scientifically precise about the intended meaning of a slang term. The other thing is isn't the term ussually used by individuals to describe themselves. At the very least the use of the term should be described as subjective. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

These comments are pretty flabby. Care to be more definite? DaAnHo (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Source

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)

The source does nod to the negative connotations of the word "obese", but immediately after emphasizes the importance of using such a clinically clear term. I think the citation is the result of someone wanting to justify inclusion of the equivocal language "although the use of those terms can be controversial". Since the source mentions the negative connotations but does not make explicit any controversy surrounding the terms "obese" or "overweight", I'm removing the equivocal language from the lede. DaAnHo (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

By which I mean: the source uses the word "controversial" without clearly explaining why or describing any specific controversy, which makes it just as vague as the statement its citation seeks to support ("although...controversial"). DaAnHo (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well.. the source does discuss the relevant controversy; 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. The wording was introduced to summarise content within the rest of the article :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WOW! A verifiable source that uses ridiculously vague language! Thank god for Google. "Some authors" (who shall remain nameless?) hate scientific definitions because, as this genius source tells us, SOMEONE? "consider[s] [scientific standards] to stigmatize fat". Hope this makes all these someones with some feelings about something feel even more something about being something. DaAnHo (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"BBW" is not an acronym (introduction)

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)

This is actually explained at Acronym. - jc37 03:40, 5 November 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)

Any logos?

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2015

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)

It's not our place to prop any site other than for information/references, even non-profit ones. --Golbez (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2015

The URL cited has a 404 error. In order to correct the URL, change

to

Sesmith957 (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Added feedee paragraph

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150623142133/https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/m.j.tovee/Swami%2BTovee-2009.pdf to https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/m.j.tovee/Swami%2BTovee-2009.pdf

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 3 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

• Comment: Certainly, at a minimum, the capital letters should be removed, as this is not a proper noun and is not the title of some published work. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although men are mentioned under section headers "Variants" and "Attraction", the article is primarily about women and, as explained under the first section header, "Big Beautiful Woman", this form and its abbreviation, "BBW", are rendered with caps, both for the magazine and for the expression. Other forms, such as "Big beautiful woman" as well as "Fat admiration", should of course continue as redirects to Big Beautiful Woman. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: The layout of the article has been changed since, it is now grouped together under vocabulary and the genders are split over subsections. Also, the paragraphs "attraction, "websites" and "fetishism" have nothing to do with the term BBW, so the page title should reflect that in being more generic. Due to WP:Overlap the page on fat fetishism has been merged. "Big Beautiful Woman" from the BBW disambiguation page should redirect to the vocabulary subsection.Throwawiki (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment @Roman Spinner: Please, change your vote if you agree that the article in its current state should be renamed. If not, please explain why. Throwawiki (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral. In reply, I am striking my "Oppose" vote and will not object to the proposed title change. After I cast my vote, the article has been revised and is no longer focused upon women to the extent of the earlier version. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. There's a section on terminology for "Males" and a section on the nature of "Attraction" and "Fetishism" in this article, both of which seem broader than "Big Beautiful Woman" but appropriate for an article titled "fat admiration." In light of this, "Fat admiration" seems it would also better fit WP:GNL. CasualUser10 (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - This article was modified to support a move, but a large part of this was based on inappropriately merging Fat fetishism here. I have reverted that merge. Articles should reflect sources on their topics, not a synthesized understanding of broader concepts. Fat fetishism has its own sources specifically about the concept as a fetish. It doesn't matter whether or not individual editors think this is a fetish or not, what matters is reliable sources. If you want to create an article about "fat admiration", you will need to compile sources on "fat admiration" as a concept which is distinct from other concepts, or you will need to explain how reliable sources support that these are actually the same. It is not appropriate to hijack an article to support one specific perspective while downplaying another. Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Retain the scope on the 1979 coined term, and acknowledge that it was and is a composition title, it should remain in title case. Fat admiration/fetish is a different topic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Adding images

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)

This article isn't primarily about the topic. --Ronz (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a subsection in the article which is exactly what the images are about. Throwawiki (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"A subsection", yes. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

And why can a subsection not have images? Take a look at Volkswagen Throwawiki (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If you want this article to be remotely comparable to the quality of Volkswagen, we're wasting time discussing images for subsections. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I still haven't heard a good reason why a subsection can't contain an image in this case. Can you link me some WP policy? Throwawiki (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not against appropriate images. I'm not sure what they'd be for this article though. Again, are you interested in improving this article, or just spamming images? --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Then I would clarify again that I'm not interested in spamming. I genuinely think the images are a valuable addition by visualizing the things that are explained in that subsection. Throwawiki (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

See WP:DR. WP:3O is open at this point. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion

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)

Revert of premature merge

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)

"Feabie" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

BBW.Wiki

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)

I disagree. WP:SPSSELF applies to statements about the site itself, but this isn't about the site, it's about a term used both on and off the site. Further, there still needs to be a specific reason to provide information about this site on Wikipedia at all.

To put it another way, your proposal would not be a statement about the BBW Wiki, it would be a definition of a term provided by the BBW Wiki. BBW Wiki is being cited as an authority on the definition of a general term. In this case, women of this specific weight are being discussed, and those women are the third party mentioned by WP:SELFSOURCE. Is this clearer?

If this Wiki is, as you say, well-known, explain why it is well know, and use reliable sources. Otherwise, this is still not a reliable source for any definition, even with attribution. Grayfell (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.91.47 (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

bbws redirects here. Please add a hatnote to handle that.

"bbws" redirects here. For the singular form, see BBW (disambiguation).

{{redirect|bbws|the singular form|BBW (disambiguation)}}

-- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Run n Fly (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

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)

 Already done I feel this sentiment is already summarized further in Big_Beautiful_Woman#Meaning_and_usage — IVORK _Talk 05:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2022

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Neither of those are reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2022

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)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2022

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Icabobin (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Correct Wikipedia quote when Google'd

Euphemism for BEAUTIFUL overweight women. 2601:244:4B00:480:516E:438D:5E2C:8067 (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)