Talk:Childhood obesity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the correct medical term is "Pediatric obesity." Rklawton 06:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


That is another term, but in the United States news media it is called Childhood Obesity.

Contents

[edit] Can someone please find me some citations?

Can someone find me some citations please? it should be pretty easy. My sincere apologies for not taking time to do it, but I am leaving for a long vacation right now so I currently do not have time. If you cannot find any I will do it when I return. Wikipeedio 02:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The lack of citations is a problem. I removed the statement that "childhood obesity leads to mental illness", because I have never seen a scholarly article that showed this. It was definitely speculation rather than fact, and is in the same vein as following Stephen Colbert's suggestion to add that latchkey kids grow up to be murderers! Chartreuse green 21:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that "Obese children often suffer from teasing amongst their peers." needs citation is funny. That should be a fact known to everyone. Reub2000 05:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I might have added that tag, but I'm not sure. At any rate, academic sources (with citations) should be able to provide insights into prevalence and impact on the child across cultures. The statement as it reads now may not even be true across all cultures. A few sources may help qualify the statement and provide direction for further reading. Rklawton 23:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] causes

There aren't any causes listed... it just says "these are the most common causes etc.." but there's no text before that... 213.42.2.11 17:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a cause- eating too much puddin'. 67.172.61.222 02:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Is the picture of the girl necessary? (by User:72.128.206.250)

I found this image an exemplary illustration of the problem at hand: an obese child at McDonalds demolishing a large ice cream. However, if you've got a more suitable image, let's see it. We value continuous improvement in our articles. Rklawton 04:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't really like the picture that much, but it seems somewhat illustrative of the issue in question. I think it would be hard to find a picture for this topic that didn't offend anybody. Alphachimp talk 02:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Insulting and non-pertainent material removed here. (See WP:REFACTOR). [1]

I think it would be useful to follow the guidelines that the journal Obesity has instituted when illustrating articles in their journal. (Available here.) In particular, they have the following to say regarding using images to illustrate papers or posters about obesity: In preparation of paper or poster research presentations, authors should avoid using images which may be potentially pejorative, biased, or prejudiced. This includes images that depict overweight or obese individuals as objects of humor, engaging in stereotypical behaviors (such as overeating, eating “junk food,” or being sedentary), or imply other negative attributes (such as noncompliance with treatment, lack of willpower, laziness, or lack of commitment to health). Authors are encouraged to instead use images of individuals engaging in healthy behaviors (such as eating healthy foods or engaging in physical activity) or other behaviors which challenge and counter common stereotypes about weight. That's a pretty authoritative source when it comes to this subject, and I think we ought to follow their suggestions rather than perpetuating stereotypes. Chartreuse green 21:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting policy, but it doesn't very well illustrate the problem of poor diet, does it? Why not just ban images of obese people outright? This article covers many topics and would benefit from several more photos. So, as I've already noted above, ...if you've got a more suitable image, let's see it. Rklawton 21:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I am going to try to find a better picture - I just looked at this article for the first time ten minutes ago, and I'm not that fast. But I don't think it's fair to say "why not just ban images of obese people outright". It is perfectly fine to include images of fat people. It is not fine, on the other hand, to illustrate them in stereotypical settings such as eating an ice cream cone, mouth half open, ice cream spilling out. That same girl playing at the park would be a good photo. Heck, even that same girl smiling and holding her ice cream cone, not stuck in a pose designed to make her look extra-gluttonous. That's the point of the policy set up by the journal, and I think it's a good one. Chartreuse green 21:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yer doing good for ten minutes, and you make some good points. I was only thinking of the two main elements: ice cream and child. At any rate, I think the article would benefit from five or six good photos - at least one per section. Rklawton 21:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mental illness

Re: This harassment can lead to even more weight gain, compounding the vicious cycle and leading to future mental illness. I think the editor might have been thinking specifically of depression. If so, it's a valid point - but it's a point that bears citation first.

Good point. It's actually a pretty complicated issue, imho, so I agree it would need a careful citation. (depression definitely causes weight gain, so there's a correlation between the two, but it's much more difficult to establish that the causation goes in the other direction). Chartreuse green 21:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
In general, and even worse given the nature of this topic, this article is in serious need of academic sources. Folks looking up Childhood obesity here in search of help won't find it here (yet). Rklawton 02:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad it isn't. Wikipedia is not and should not ever be a source for medical advice. The liability issues are huge. alphaChimp laudare 05:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I know the problem here.....there are too many Liberal Hippies in charge of "Political Correctness" issues and not enough counter supporters. I quote from above: {"authors should avoid using images which may be potentially pejorative, biased, or prejudiced. This includes images that depict overweight or obese individuals as objects of humour, engaging in stereotypical behaviours (such as overeating, eating “junk food,” or being sedentary), or imply other negative attributes (such as non-compliance with treatment, lack of willpower, laziness, or lack of commitment to health)"}. If depicting images of overweight people in or assigned to articles which contain explicit content concerning obesity is wrong due to the negative connotations which they may or may not imply, why is there a multi-million (possibly billion?) dollar campaign to ban smoking? Everyday there are hundreds of televised messages, (radio and television not to mention bill boards and smoking packets!) which do pretty much the same thing, show the results of cigarette abuse and degrade those who smoke by showing what they are doing to themselves. Why is taking a similar approach to obesity; just as serious a problem medically and quite possibly more so economically, so unjust? So far I don’t think the message has gotten through to the Western countries; some states in America for example have nearly 1 in 3 adults seriously overweight, that’s more than the ratio of smokers in those same states. Do you honestly think they have taken the "cuddle me" approach to heart? I don’t think overweight people deserve to be bigoted because of their physical state, but if people want medical help and assistance they do not deserve it if the damage is self inflicted. This discussion is pointless until the author changes the picture, which has not been done yet, just so the people winging about keeping images like the one shown away from the public shut-up. (Just a thought, to be perfectly “Politically Correct”, shouldn’t we have an even amount of pictures showing obese people as the subject of humour etc, and them participating in exercise?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.43.227.18 (talk • contribs) .

How Dare You? Well Mr. I’m-Not-Brave-Enough-To-Sign-My-Name, I have news for you. Just because someone doesn’t fit into your Hollywood, neo-nazi view of physical perfection does not mean they aren’t a caring friendly person. Why do you hate those that dare to be different? Were you repressed creatively as a child? When I look at that child I see a beautiful little girl, she has beautiful eyes and an equally beautiful soul. Secondly, how can you compare larger people to smokers?! Smoking is an evil, merely wearing larger cloths than stick thin models cannot even compare to this. In my eyes she is healthier than all those models. I hops someone can change your warped mind one day.--HarmonyWorld 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
First, It's amazing how the people who post things like this never seem to be interested in logging in or signing their names to their posts, to take ownership of their words! Second, it's fair to say that the editors of the journal Obesity who wrote those guidelines know a hell of a lot more about childhood obesity, and obesity in general, than you do. They are scientists who are in the business of making people less fat; they are not interested in fat acceptance or in whitewashing obesity, as you seem to think. Third, the point is not that it's not okay to show fat people. It is fine to depict fat people. It is not fine to show them in a situation that is excessively demeaning. I would love to find a picture to replace it with, but I have not been able to do so yet. Chartreuse green 01:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
All emotion aside, what do the statistics say about this little girl's chances of having a long, happy, and healthy life? Have we any actuaries in the crowd? Rklawton 01:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I get your point, Rklawton. The thing is that it's really complicated to tease out the related factors. For example, this girl is fat, so she's more likely to be poor than an average American child. And poor people have lower life expectancies and are less happy than richer people. I think this is where Harmony's comment of "statistics can show anything" comes from. The epidemiological studies regarding obesity have a tendancy to have extremely polarized results: one shows that "overweight" people live far longer than normal people; the next one has the opposite result. Whatever else you want to think about obesity, the research clearly shows that it isn't simple, at the least. So I don't think that any actuary would be able to give you a good guess. Chartreuse green 14:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Actuaries pull apart data like this all the time. It's a simple enough matter to consider gender, race, education, economics, geography, etc. Actuaries factor in each of those elements and more when calculating life expectancies. Maybe it's complicated for people who thought their one or two courses in probability and statistics were hard, but it's a matter of routine for actuaries. Will studies disagree with each other sometimes? Sure. Study results depend on the quality of the research, the sample size, and random chance. Taken as a whole, however, the research on obesity's deleterious effects on health and life expectancy are not in dispute. The question not answered by this article is: how much? This article would benefit greatly from citing some of the more important studies.
The following Internet search terms produce interesting results: effects of childhood obesity on life expectancy Rklawton 16:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean "chances of having a happy life"? Who says she isn't happy? Or is that confusing that someone can be happy just the way they are?--HarmonyWorld 02:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure there are a lot of studies about health, happiness, and life expectancy, and I'm curious about what they have to say. Aren't you? Rklawton 04:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Statistics can show anything. They can't duplicate real emotions.--HarmonyWorld 04:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Statistics can establish a level of correlation between childhood obesity and adult mental illness. I'd suspect such a correlation exists. Obviously, it's difficult to clarify/classify emotions, but that's not what anyone is trying to do. I'd second Rklawton's sentiment. alphaChimp laudare 05:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This post is intended for the following:

Chartreuse green and HarmonyWorld

Firstly....Chartreuse green, how do you know those particular scientists are correct? Have you checked their work and calculations? Do the tangents of the Derivatives of the hyberbolic inverse-trig functions match up with yours? Im not goin for either argument between you and the post that guy wrote....i just dont like assumptions.

I really don't know what you are referring to? The post where I said that it's established that depression causes weight gain and that the other way round is harder to establish? Obviously, that's my opinion based on my reading of the research, I think that most would agree that it's a complex subject. I don't think it should be in the article until it is properly referenced because it's a dangerous thing to say if we're not absolutely certain about it. I'm not sure what you're so angry about here... Chartreuse green 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Harmony World.....Get a life you hippy. The girl is fat and therefore must be emotionally unstable. She is not beautiful and she has a serious weight problem. —comment added by 144.131.236.98(t/c)

Lots of fat people are not emotionally unstable, and lots of thin people are emotionally unstable. If it was easy to tell who was "emotionally unstable" by a quick snapshot, then a lot of psychiatrists would be out of jobs. What you're saying here is pretty silly. Chartreuse green 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I reject the label 'hippy'. Why don't we replace the photo with a picture of a super model, will that make everyone happy? I don't mean this, I am being sarcasim. I don't see anything wrong with the photo just the way it is; although we all have different opinions about the issue, we should at least agree that this picture is well suited to this article. What I want to know is why, when given the choice, people will always pick a picture of a skinny person for articles? This is a problem everywhere: eg. If we are serious about equality in things like childrens programming we need to have some larger people represented - not just different races but also different sizes.--HarmonyWorld 01:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Articles are illustrated by pictures of people who are average - ie are as humans are supposed to be. If you want pictures of morbidly obese people to illustrate articles on skydiving or cycling etc, you're not showing what the average participant looks like. If you approach this from a discrimination point of view then you might as well ask why aren't we representing midgets and other body types as well? The fact of the matter is that the normal human body isn't fat - da Vinci didn't see fit to draw a 350lb Vitruvian man after all! So the average human body is perfect for other article illustrations. In the case of this article, we've got the perfect picture; a very fat child eating junk. How does that fail to illustrate the notion of childhood obesity? Article title="Childhood Obesity", Photo=Obese Child. Makes sense to me. --Corinthian 18:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
"People who are average" is a completely different thing from "as humans are supposed to be". The average American person, for example, is "overweight". In any case, the problem with this photo is not that it shows an obese child - that makes perfect sense in an articlce on childhood obesity! The problem is that it shows that child in a stereotyped setting, reinforcing the stereotype that fat kids do nothing but eat, and the food dribbling out of her mouth further reinforces the stereotype that fat kids are unclean, don't care about their appearance, etc. I have finally found a better picture of a fat kid, and I'm just checking on which copyright label to apply to it before I upload it. Chartreuse green 22:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand me, I like the photo (I've even put it on my page). I think she is beautiful, as a mother I just don't like having my children (2) being pressured into appearing a certain way. As for Chartruse green, you are exactly right (except about removing the picture), it is the media who reinforce the stereotype that overweight children constantly overeat; that being said I don't think this picture does this. She's just a girl happily enjoying an ice cream - a typical American scene. This should make us happy not angry. Regards--HarmonyWorld 01:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
"Happily?" She's got her mouth half open and food dribbling out of her mouth. You'd want a picture of you with that expression in that pose posted online (or shown to anyone)? I wouldn't. Chartreuse green 02:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The photo again

I just stumbled upon this article. The first thing I thought of when I saw the image was that this kid or one of her peers could see this picture, and she'd be forever labeled as "the fat girl on Wikipedia". While she's not likely to be an avid Wikipedia user at that age, it's likely an older relative or acquaintance could find the image. I don't oppose the depiction of (an) overweight child(ren), but I think it would be preferable if any child depicted were unidentifiable. The "stereotypical behavior" is an issue too. A lot of skinny kids eat ice cream at McDonald's. How do we know this kid isn't overweight because of a metabolic condition, or simply because she doesn't exercise? Must we perpetuate stereotypes when we don't have to? szyslak (t, c, e) 21:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Think of the fame and kudos she'll have. Not everyone gets to be in an encylopaedia. --Corinthian 00:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't like your mocking tone Corinthian. Leave the girl alone, your mocking tone does more damage than this article ever could. As I tell my children; a mocking tone is the lowest form of wit.--HarmonyWorld 01:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Isn't sarcasm the lowest form of wit? --Corinthian 10:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
All this 'wit' aside, it would be relatively simple for somebody to obscure the individual's face e.g. pixelate it. Then the purpose of the photo remains intact while the anonymity of the subject is preserved. Photoshop it... Budgiekiller 10:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've asked the original contributor of the image if he would be generous enough to provide an anonymised (!) version. Budgiekiller 10:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
How are we to maintain the ice-cream element if the face is pixelated? Excessive political correctness is being used here. The chances of this child ever being embaressed are zero. And if it happens, she can take the image down herself, right? Why is everyone such a sensitive liberal hippie schmuck? --82.198.250.3 14:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
You think that having ice cream spilling out of her mouth is essential to the photo and article? Chartreuse green 14:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Can we get a grip on the situation here? I'm trying to suggest a reasonable answer to the problem. The title of the article is childhood obesity, not children eating ice cream from MacDonalds, so pixelation of the face will not do any damage to the impact of the image. But there you go, if some people are obsessed with seeing children's faces eating then so be it.. Budgiekiller 15:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Hippie Argument For Keeping the Picture

To all those that are saying that we shouldn't have a picture of the child because it is bad for her self esteem etc, consider this: you are reinforcing the idea that being fat is a bad thing. If we had, say, an article on playgrounds or something with pictures of "normal" children, you wouldn't say "oh that's terrible - imagine seeing yourself photographed on wikipedia as an example of a child playing! How embarrassing." By saying that this girl wouldn't want to find a photo of herself as an example of childhood obesity, you're supporting the idea that she should be ashamed of being overweight. Now, that's not a very nice hippy thing to do. Instead, if society has a sensible attitude, we should respect her life choice to be obese. Nothing wrong with it, and no judgment should be made. So by arguing to remove her picture, you are endorsing the unreasonable and unfair standard of beauty peddled by hollywood and the mainstream media. We should leave the photo. To do otherwise is to discriminate against the overweight and judge them as bad people who should be ashamed of being fat. --Corinthian 15:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, supposing that you're not referring to me as someone who is a hippie who says get rid of the picture, all I'm suggesting is make the picture anonymous. An obese child with a blurred face still supports the article. The individual in question should not be subject to indiscriminate publication. If you are suggesting I'm a "hippie" then I have nothing more to say. Budgiekiller 17:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

She really should be ashamed, obesity is ugly and unhealthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.10.22.94 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Picture should be removed

I'm very uneasy about this picture, and think it should be removed. The content of the image, the context in which it appears, and the caption all appear to be derogatory of the child. Whether that's intentional or not doesn't perhaps matter: what matters is how the message of the image will be perceived by the viewer. Now, if this were a picture of a consenting adult, I'd have no problems with it, but there's no indication that the subject, and perhaps more importantly her parents, consented either to the picture being taken or to its use in what I believe to be a derogative context. Now, there may under US, UK and other laws be no requirement for such consents to be obtained, but neverleless we ought in all decency to refrain from using identifiable pictures of minors in this way. Consider the effect on her when (and I say when, not if) her classmates see the page and she has to endure the resultant taunts. User:Corinthian suggests above that it will be a "proud day ... for her". I venture to suggest, to the contrary, that she will be devastated, as will her parents.

Is there an experienced admin who could comment on this? --MichaelMaggs 16:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It directly illustrates the topic at hand. The subject's face could be blurred if there were privacy/consent concerns. --Rehcsif 17:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Keep the image, remove the identity. Job done, no more arguments. Budgiekiller 17:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC
How is this girl's identity hidden if, when I click on the article pic, I get an unpixellated version? - Adrian Pingstone 08:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)')
Okay, well I've removed the image from there but kept a link as a compromise. Not 100% sure if the link is needed though... Budgiekiller 09:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The compromise seems OK. The pixilation diminishes the work and its impact on the reader, so that’s a shame. I’m still out of town, and I haven’t had time to keep up with the discussion, so I’m not responding to any particular comment. Keep in mind that expectations of privacy in public places are nill. The desire to protect this child is nice, but just what are we protecting her from? She won’t die from embarrassment, but the article lists some other illnesses she may develop. At any rate, I like the original image because it evokes strong feelings about the subject, and that’s art. Furthermore, it illustrates several of the issues raised in the article. However, as with anything Wikipedia, it is my hope that someone will come along and improve upon my work for the betterment of all. That is, if you can find a more appropriate image, by all means, use it. Rklawton 14:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It might help if we looked at a more extreme example and see if the logic presented in this section still holds. That is, let's take a look at the "where are we going with all this" point of view. Here's the example. If I shot an image of Jewish girl in a cattle car en-route to a death camp (a few years ago), should I not publish the photo because she might be embarrassed? If I did publish the photo, how should it be titled? And should her face be blurred?
I would think the answer is yes, publish the photo. This is a story that must be told. Entitle it "Jewish girl en-route to a death camp," – the bare facts. Lastly, I wouldn't blur her photo because I would want the world to see that this is a human child in danger, and folks should give some serious thought as to what is going on.
Now, take a new look at the article and image in question. Let's start with this most important issue first: is this girl's life in danger? I think the article makes it clear that it is. Embarrassment, then, seems irrelevant by comparison with mortal danger. I think an appropriate caption the might read "Obese girl with a shortened life expectancy". Those are the facts. Lastly, should we pixilated her face? The face I see is that of I darling little girl who has no idea the danger she is in. She's like a deer caught in the headlights. It's a face that begs to be saved. Remove her face, and it's a merely an example of a child-sized, obese body making little or no human connection with the viewer when what we need most of all is a human connection to a problem that today threatens to shorten the life expectancy of the average American for the first time in American history. Rklawton 01:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand the point you're making, but it seems more relevant to a justification of press-photography than to the situation we have before us. We are not publishing a campaigning newspaper here; nor should we, surely, be attempting to turn this article into a heartfelt cry about the mortal dangers of obesity. We should simply present the facts in a neutral way and let the reader draw his or her own conclusions.--MichaelMaggs 07:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
How does this observation lead you to the conclusion that the image should be removed (as opposed to replaced)? The image illustrates the article's subject, childhood obesity, as well as one of its causes, diet, and the effects fast food marketing may have on a child's preferences. By the discussions we've seen on the talk page, it also highlights the social stigma attached with this condition. Rklawton 13:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
By all means replace it with a non-identifiable image (as I see has now been done). No problem with that at all --MichaelMaggs 15:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
How can you blur the girl's face like she's some sort of common criminal? Are people who don't match your standards of physical perfection to be treated the same as filthy drug peddlers? As a mother of two I am appalled. I am also appalled by the label 'hippie' being used by some people on this site; hippies are filthy drug peddlers. --HarmonyWorld 23:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There's an important distinction between photojournalism and portraiture. Another editor brought up the example of Nazi death camps: of course that sort of image belongs in a newspaper and an encyclopedia. There is a difference - and although I am not a lawyer I believe this is a legal difference - between documenting newsworthy events in established news media and reproducing the likeness of private individuals, particularly children, and particularly when the subject was not photographed in a public place such as a beach or a city street. If this image were reprinted with permission from a newspaper or magazine report on childhood obesity, then there would be no privacy concern. Since it appears to be a private portrait I support the pixelization to protect the subject's privacy. Durova 00:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Now you're trying to use the law to justify your filth?!--HarmonyWorld 01:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
HarmonyWorld, please remain civil at all times. Future infractions will be reported.) Rklawton 01:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, Durova, the photo was taken at a McDonalds - a public place. Rklawton 01:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry Rklawton, but why do people who quote the law always forget the law of childrens rights: The right to be happy. As a mother of two I am appalled. --HarmonyWorld 02:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
How do you feel about children forced to take daily insulin injections? Rklawton 02:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That seems a little off the topic Rklawton; but I personally I don't think my two children need all these new vaccinations the media say they need. There are allready enough parents that pump their kids full of drugs that the diseases can't survive. It's not natural. --HarmonyWorld 03:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't believe in vaccination? And you say that you're not a hippie? As for "the right to be happy" - hahahaha, hate to burst your bubble but you won't find that "law" written down on a statute book anywhere. Corinthian
Wow, HarmonyWorld, talk about going off on one. Firstly "How can you blur the girl's face like she's some sort of common criminal?" - it is to protect her identity from others being cruel, others who may not hold your point of view that this girl is beautiful. Secondly, your assertion that "hippies are filthy drug peddlers" is somewhat one-eyed and, to some, could be considered extremely offensive. Thirdly Rklawton's point about injecting your kids with insulin daily was a comment on overweight and obese people being very much more susceptible to diabetes. Preventing childhood obesity would help reduce the occurence of this disease (amongst a plethora of other problems) - fact. Fourthly, in the UK recently we had an unfounded scare over a combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccination. It has now made parents think twice over getting their children vaccinated. As such more children will now die from measles etc. This is what you want to happen by refusing such vaccinations for your children? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you're a wonderful mother, and you're entitled to your opinions, of course, but don't use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your (some might say misinformed) opinions and expect everyone to go along with it. Budgiekiller 10:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There are two things that needs to be considered, 1) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (see Article 19), 2) National laws that prohibit the publication of pictures, portraying people, without their consent (in this case her parents' consent). I am not sure in what country the picture was taken, but the latter law is found in most European countries, I wouldn't be surpised if the USA/Canada had a similar law too. In the former case there is a small problem that the USA has not ratified that convention. MoRsΞ 12:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't know about what's happening in England, but doesn't it seem that if so many people believe the same thing then maybe it is right? But that's beside the point, in regards to this picture, MoRsΞ seems to be on the right track with the rights of the child business. Someone should look further into that. As for you other people who try to demean me with your rhetoric, for shame. Your spreading of disinformation[citation needed] just vindicates my decision as a mother to not allow my children access to the internet. The problems of high school are enough for my two children without the sordid nature of the internet giving them more worries. Now can we all stick to the topic at hand? --HarmonyWorld 01:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has procrastinated long enough. Rklawton, in your position, i would take a step back from this problem and think to myself, this is a wikipedia article...It is not trying to be groundbreaking or pollitically suicidal. There does not need to be an emotionally evocative image on the article at all: "At any rate, I like the original image because it evokes strong feelings about the subject, and that’s art." I would remove any personal attachment to the picture and find a new one. The article is about obesity in children, It cant possibly be that hard to find a suitable image; America/England and Australia have millions of obese children! There has been so much effort gone into this argument already that if we all stopped and looked for a different picture, then a viable, pollitically correct but still impacting soultion could be acheived. MichaelMaggs seems to be on a similar line of thinking to myself, the facts should be told and an appropiate image depicted. Thats it. There is to be no more use of derogatory terms such as "Liberal Hippies" or "Hippies", as already stated this can be offensive and attract negative ideas of wikipedia in general for people who read the discussion pages. This is almost the complete opposite to which wikipedia stands for: neutral facts already established by others. This discussion page has become a casual "talk page" for a number of people; keep one sided opinions to your self or to an appropiate discussion area, otherwise minimal progress will be made. The image should be removed, a new one which has been used in a scientific journal or similar source, be put in its place and this discussion ended immediatly. Unsigned comments by Dr Science

If your really worried folks, you can campaign for the images removal on the commons too. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Campaigning is disruptive. I would strongly advise against it. If you however have a rationale, feel free to share it. --Cat out 13:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment:
Wikipedia is not censored. There is absolutely no reason to remove or censor the picture. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for wikipedia articles to be "pollitically correct". Politically correct where? In the US? Wikipedia is not written for USians only.
Privacy/consent concerns are not my concern. We have entire categories full of pictures of people.
--Cat out 13:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion in Commons is really interesting. It includes elements of law, policy, ethics, censorship, and potential harm to the subject (by publishing or not publishing the image). One thing I think we all agree on is the need for an even more suitable image. At any rate, it's worth the read for this with the time and interest. Rklawton 05:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/i/Talk%7EChildhood_obesity_d022.html"