Talk:Pro-ana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Pro-ana has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 25 September 2005. The result of the discussion was 'keep.

Contents

[edit] Link addition

I have added a link to the national eating disorders charity beat several times. it has been removed. I would ask that it is left on this time. Eating disorders are serious, with the highest mortality rate of any mental illness. We receive a lot of click throughs from wikipedia which shows the seperate link is needed in addition to our comments on pro-ana websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatinged (talk • contribs) 08:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial

Although the article is perhaps more neutral than previous edits, the basic definition of Pro-ana differs widely between pro-ana supporters (i.e. the anorexic) and the media/consensus opinion. There should be an emphasis on the idea that pro-ana is a negative viewpoint (for the consensus opnion) and not simply a support network for anorexics as the commonly held idea of a support network for mental illness is organisations dedicated to helping cope and recover from the illness. Not to provide tips on prolonging it.

Should it be noted that the telegraph (UK) recently (10/04/2008) mentioned the questionable content of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.104.234.60 (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I don't know much about the subject, but...

Does anyone think it's worth noting that the italian government recently started to shut down these websites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.141.64.28 (talk • contribs)

I do know that are starting to do that with Xanga[1], MySpace[2], and other off sites. I myself went through this and my opinion about shutting them down isn't such a good idea. They actually help me get better as much as PRO they were they still helped me realize that this is not how I want to live life, pining over every little thing I eat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KashiKasha (talk • contribs)

Amorexia Nervousa is listed by the CDC's Office or Rare Diseases as a rare disease. Anorexia occurs in 1 in 1000 people and it claims about 60 lives a year. Obesity claims more lives than smoking and is the leading cause of preventable death in the US. WLS surgery is far more dangerous than anorexia as it claims 1 in 200 people who have it.


Shutting down the Pro Ana websites is a really Fasciast thing yet website like Big Fat Blog, Gab Cafe, NAAFA, ISSA ect tell people that the fatter you are the healthier you will be. Dimensions online magazine is dedicated to feederism. Feederism is the deliberate practice of feeding someone until they become immobile and die.

In my opinion pro ana is a reaction to all the fat people who the pro ana crowd finds disgusting. BMI's of 18 - 20 SHOULD be encouraged so instead of shutting down these sites and making them tabboo. Health dieting tips should be given so that girls who don't want to be fat and disgusting can maintain a low healthy weight and do it safely.

This is from the CDC

Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia Nervosa

Eating disorders are often chronic, relapsing disorders that have some of the highest death rates of any mental illness. Females are more likely to develop eating disorders than males, and these disorders frequently co-occur with other mental illnesses such as depression, substance abuse, and anxiety disorders. Several family and twin studies suggest a high heritability of anorexia and bulimia, and scientists are searching for genes that confer susceptibility to these disorders. Researchers are investigating the interaction between multiple genes with environmental and other factors to increase the risk of developing these illnesses. Other studies are investigating the etiological and pathophysiological causes of eating disorders.

One NIMH-supported project involves collaborative preclinical and clinical studies related to normal and abnormal regulation of eating behavior, with particular emphasis on the pathophysiology of AN and BN. The experiments integrate findings from animal and human studies to explore potentially significant parallels between the pathophysiology of these disorders and those of substance abuse and addiction. In 2003, data on 16 patients were collected to examine the interaction between anorexia and exercise. Findings from the animal studies support the notion that the serotonin receptor in the vagal system mediates food-related signals in the negative feedback control of ingestion. Further, palatable food releases endogenous opioids that can lead to behavioral sensitization, craving, receptor adaptation, and naloxone-induced withdrawal, which are characteristics of dependency. Opioid-mediation of addiction to a substance like sugar may be induced by alternating dietary restriction and hyperphagia (abnormally increased appetite for and consumption of food). These findings have important implications for development of more targeted interventions for eating disorders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balldez (talk • contribs)

[edit] Obvious bias

The bias that I have seen in the article to be honest..disgusts me..few people believe anorexia to be a lifestyle..its a mental disorder. Such websites labelled 'pro-ana' are just support message boards which happen to be unfortunatly hosted on old pro-ana websites

so..pro-ana..rarely exists any more if at all.. I propose that someone with a less biased view than myself (me being anorexic) can rewrite or change parts of the article which are obviously biased against 'pro-ana' especially the 'pro-ana movement' part of the article..with the bracelets sold now rarely distributed at all..also a lack of male 'pro-ana' is just wrong Fethroesforia 15:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The article actually agrees with you: "The pro-ana movement was most visible on the Internet between 2001 and 2003 and has subsequently faded in popularity ." - though I don't think we have a source for that. Also, the article distinguishes between pro-ana sites and support sites.
Is this even factually accurate? The artical specifically mentioned ISPs taking down pro-ana sites. The drop in sites would then indicate this anti-pro-ana movement, and not a decrease in popularity. For all we know interest has increased. I'm replacing the above quote with "Pro-ana was most visible on the Internet between 2001 and 2003, with visibility decreasing over time." This neither implies a rise or fall in popularity. Feel free to replace this quote when you have actual factual evidence for the decrease coming from either popularity or reactionary movements.
I do agree with you that labelling it a "movement" is misleading - I don't dispute that such websites exist, but "movement" seems overly strong.
I'll remove the bracelets bit - we don't appear to have a source for that anyway, and I know that people use bracelets/ribbons/etc to symbolise having a disorder, even though they are not "pro-ED".
What do you mean by a lack of "male 'pro-ana'" - is there a bit in the article where it says only women are pro-ana? Mdwh 21:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well in the article somewhere..it refers to 'she' just..rather sexist tis all...

Bracelets were avialable but now...they are mostly resold rather than made

and thank you..you are right... labelling it is a movement is a bit too strong I just figured...i realised im biased on the subject so..I just felt better that someone with an open POV could edit it:) Fethroesforia 22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed references to it being a "movement". Most usages of the word were completely unnecessary - the hardest part is the opening definition. Any suggestions better than "viewpoint"? Mdwh 21:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that what is also missing from the article as a whole is the information that many (most) anorexics seek treatment unsuccessfully numerous times followed by relapse. Average time taken to recover is 5-7 years and in between is a large amount of ambivalence. One of the issues I have with the idea that pro-ana sites are for people who want to get sicker or stay sick is that getting sicker is often a part of the recovery process, a response to ineffective treatment or inadequate treatment options (ie forced weight gain without counselling or long term support). The question of whether someone with an eating disorder can ever truly recover is itself open for debate - some treatment programs claim it is similar to alcoholism and the person must be ever-vigilent while others believe full and complete recovery is attainable. So with a disorder as nuanced and with such a low recovery rate, a gathering place for support during the in-between times seems inevitable and a more illuminating way of looking at pro-ana sites. It is the only illness I'm aware of where actively combatting health IS a part of the illness which needs to be treated. Pro-ana sites are a voicing of thoughts that the eating disordered are already having - anti-recovery, secretive, conspiratorial etc. - they do not create or advocate those thoughts.

[edit] Grammar

Anorexic is an Adjective. Anorectic is a noun. unsigned comment by 68.100.182.120 04:08, 5 August 2005

Do you have any proof of this? Most sources say that "anorectic" is the British spelling whereas "anorexic" is the American spelling. (Although God knows, as with "connexion," it should be the other way around.)♥purplefeltangel 19:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at the dictionary, it very clearly states that anorexic and anorectic are both both nouns and verbs. They are completely interchangeable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.34.200 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 August 2005

[edit] UGH!

Obesity is a disease too, in the U.S. it kills and affects more per year than anorexia. Are you going to start kicking fat people out of McDonalds? Pro-ana websites don't teach people how to be anorexic because it's not something that can be learned. What they do, is provide support for those who are suffering. It's a way to learn to live with this illness. It's really sad how many people are trying to take these sites down all over the internet. I've come across white supremacist sites, porn sites, and sites that bash homosexuality etc., but obviously, the REAL problem exists in sites where people suffering from anorexia talk about their everyday lives and talk to people who know what they're going through... {unsigned|209.232.158.20|18:41, 7 February 2005}}

People are trying to take down these websites, just like they'd try to take down any web site which encourages people to kill themselves. Anorexia is not a lifestyle, it's a psychosis which can prove fatal if left untreated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.42.199 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 28 August 2005
Actually, many pro-ana websites DO offer tips/tricks/techniques. Although they don't teach someone "how to be anorexic", they DO offer tips to continue behavior.

What are either of you doing? You can't find some sort of issues forum to bring this up in? This website isn't devoted or even slightly given to individuals views, it's about the record of facts. If you want to speak out about how you feel on this issue, by all means find the appropriate venue and do so, but be aware that this is not it. You don't even mention the article of which this page is meant to be a discussion, and you certainly are not discussing how it might be improved. it's unfortunate that you probably won't return to see this, but to others: please contribute to what is being done here, don't distract from it.

If I recall right, the death rate for people classified as underweight is the same as that for those morbidly obese. Norma weight people have the same death rate as the obese. And the overweight have the lowest death rate.

[edit] Right.

All of this is true; the dangerous part comes when instead of encouraging support in recovery, pro-anas encourage support more illness.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.81.135 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 February 2005

i can understand both sides actualy the pro anas: they find a listening ear and a friendly conversation, instead of the usual you should go find a doktor or a shrink they can talk about their condition, knowing that they are not alone.

contra ana: its dangerous to accept a desease as normal and a choise, starving yourselve is walking a thin line between life and near death and even death. when you start accepting it and thinking its a normal you will go further and further. losing contact with real life friends(work and school) anti-socialising. keep setting lower standards, 50 kg, 47 kg, 44 kg where does it end? then there is an entire thinspiration that girls idolise other extremely thin girls. etc etc...

it also a part that some of the websites you mentioned are a bit taboo and pro-ana/mia sites have gotten a lot of (negative) media attantion, plain and simple dont think i'm pro-ana/mia or con-ana/mia, i understand it and i'm a bit Fascinated about the whole thing yes i'm a guy and no i dont find those girls attractive, to say the least...

Greetz, Y

[edit] Politics

Gawd I hate politics. I am temped to try to rewrite it so I visited articles, anti-ana site, and pro-ana sites. There are three points of views: 1.experts are rightly concerned and know how far to be concerned. 2. The public: most haven't been to a pro-ana site, but are happy to condemn ANY anorexia site not ran by professionals. 3. Pro-ana groups: who feel insulted by the negative media attention and are overly, if not dangerously, determined to keep such sites up. Pro-ana groups typically define pro-ana as some variation of support having a place to talk to others with their condition and with rare hint of suicide if they don't get their way. In light of this, how in the devil do you write a fair neutral article? There is too much taboo effect and right hand not talking to the left hand right now. No matter what you write you will offend a segment of the public.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcasper (talk • contribs) 00:48, 31 May 2005

The pro-anorexia groups are not support groups, any more than one's drinking buddies are a "support group" for an alcoholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.42.199 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 28 August 2005

Greetz Y (for got it)


You are being too harsh, again those who have been members on these sites know how it really is - it is more group therapy than anything else. Somewhere you can go to talk with people who understand the issues you have. Not drinkin buddies egging each other on at all. The support is also great because a lot of anas have other disorders - anxiety and depression being the main ones, but there are a whole list of issues, and it is nice to be somewhere anonymous you can be honest, not have to maintain a facade. Again, support groups.

A strong emphesis is also put on being healthy, even if that is a low weight (BMI or 18-20). Anorexia is also recognised as a mental disorder, but it is more about learning to live with it, and adapt than anything else. There are a lot of sites so it is hard to generalise, but this is the impression I have.

I also think it is a highly charged subject, that can't be written about objectively. People are quick to condemn without any understanding, and the rest of us are too involved to write clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.50.33 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Do you think we can remove the NPOV tag now? ♥purplefeltangel 20:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Pro-ana supporters often say that they are not sufferers of anorexia nervosa, rather, that they have made a 'conscious' lifestyle choice. While people may decide that they 'want' to be anorexic, this is always a result of factors in their lives convincing them that to be accepted and valued as a person, they must also be thin. Pro-ana websites and literature are dangerous as they have the potential to legitamize and encourage a very dangerous disease. It is no different to websites encouraging suicide - death is the result of being a 'successful' anorexic. Other extremist websites complained about are also abominable, and the writer of that complaint ignores that these websites are also monitored and shut down where possible to avoid spreading such negativity in this world. Pro-ana is another expression of this illness and is by no means a choice by healthy, open-minded people.

The other very valid argument for closing down these websites is their indisputable effect on other sufferers, who ever more frequently look around the internet in their first search for help. There are many excellent recovery websites out there with valuable information. Pro-ana websites, on the other hand, give these sufferers a path to even more self-destructive behaviour, with explicit 'advice' and motivation. Even if we were to accept that pro-ana is a lifestyle choice, no one should accept that a movement encouraging life-threatening behaviours should be allowed any influence in humanity's world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.94.233 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 18 July 2005

Okay, but we're not advocating censorship here. We want to tell them they're wrong, not shut them up. There's a little thing called freedom of speech in Canada & America. ♥purplefeltangel 20:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
reply: Um, how are they "wrong"? They do NOT advocate anorexia or anyother ED. Most support recovery if the member seeks it. They offer help if there is a crisis etc etc. I'd rather not have anyone say ANYTHIGN about pro-ana websites unless they are a member and have knowledge of how the community works/runs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.233.20.152 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 10 August 2005
I was a member of the pro-ana community for two years in my misguided youth and I have a very thorough knowledge of how the community works, which is why I'm so dedicated to this article. In response to your complaints about this article, it does state that pro-ana does not advocate anorexia but rather promotes acceptance of it as an alternative lifestyle. It also states that most pro-ana sites support recovery and offer help and advice during a crisis etc. Although Wikipedia is a neutral place, it also does not allow original research, which is in many cases what pro-ana is (experimentation about whether or not anorexia is feasible as an alternative lifestyle especially considering its destructive nature), especially since it, as the article said, contradicts prevailing medical research. I'd have to say that medical researchers win out over teenage girls. But you have your "overview" section, which has one sentence with anything that can be possibly construed as against pro-ana, the criticism and controversy section which has exactly four sentences that are actual criticisms of anorexia rather than the reactions of those who are criticizing. What more do you want from us? --♥purplefeltangel 19:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV is negative towards pro-ana sites

I think that this is not true these sites defintetly support poeple in a bad way to become anorexic it even says it on the news if you watch it!


It is definitely NOT neutral. The article repeatedly vilifies pro-anas. Few benefits of pro-ana sites are listed either. For instance pro-ana sites offer support and help. It can and has saved many with EDs from injury or even death. It can prevent suicides or self inflicted injury. They can also discourage healthy people from [i]becoming[/i] anorexic, and help members in recovery if they may seek it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.233.20.152 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 10 August 2005

Pro-anorexia websites can offer genuine advice, such as admonishing readers to avoid the use of syrup of ipecac to induce vomiting. They can also be a place for the anorexic to talk to people like him or herself, and possibly improve self-esteem over the choice to remain anorexic. Some less-friendly pro-ana sites vigorously castigate and mock those who decide to seek treatment for anorexia. Others are not anti-recovery, and an anorexic who wishes to recover can find support for his or her choice through this network.
If you feel that more information about pro-anas should be added, by all means, go ahead and add it, but the article already addresses most of the concerns that you have listed. ♥purplefeltangel 19:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The pro-ana people are not villians, but they are people suffering from a mental illness, much like the poor saps who fall for scientology or the heaven's gate cult.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.42.199 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 28 August 2005
How are you not villifying pro-ana when you claim they are akin to heaven's gate? Like you just did, this article puts a negative perspective on pro-ana, as though they encourage or promote it. THEY DO NOT. it is a place for anas to talk to each other and help any problems they have. they do NOT "recruit" anorexics, they do not intend to harm anyone, they are meant solely for help and support. please do not spout twisted truths or flat out lies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.158.13 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 28 September 2005
a) Read it again. It states right in the article that pro-anas do not recruit new anorexics. b) This is the talk page, not the article. This is the place where people are allowed to express their POVs. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 03:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
How come there isn't a single link to any pro-ana site? 32.97.110.142 16:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Because perhaps we don't want to encourage anorexia. Anorexia is bad. It's a mental illness. Obesity isn't. Mrmoocow 09:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Obesity CAN be a mental illness. Take it from someone who's undergone therapy for their twisted food=love issues. I'd be concerned if it listed pro-obesity sites. There are plenty of help and support sites for anorexia that are not pro-ana. 68.164.2.3 18:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not you agree or disagree with pro-ana is not at issue here. The purpose behind Wikipedia is to EXPLAIN, not defend or contradict. You want bias, go watch FOX News. (just kidding)

[edit] title

Since there's pro-mia sites out there too now, shouldn't this be called Pro-ED?

[edit] pro-ED/pro-ana

i'm a bit confused about the suggestion to merge pro-ed with pro-ana: there is a full-length entry for pro-ana, and a stub for pro-mia. I created the pro-ED article as a stub-thing, as a reference, so somone looking for pro-ed can find an an answer on the pro-ana and pro-mia pages. Changing the title of the pro-ana article would be inaccurate, since it only adress pro-ana, though it has a link to the pro-mia article. I don't really have a problem with getting rid of the pro-ed article, I didn't mean for it to be a full article anyway. But, as I said, I think the pro-ED article is a helpful redirector to the pro-ana and pro-mia pages.

[edit] POV?

This article was tagged without any comment or explanation. I don't necessarily disagree, but can it be explained which parts are the problem, so we can work on those bits? Mdwh 12:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TotallyDisputed

I added this tag because the article seems not to be in line with the view of academic sources I researched about the topic (they are unfortunately not mentioned at all in the article):

My overall impression from the the sources is that Pro-Ana is an anti-recovery movement, not an anti-psychiatric one, as is represented currently in the article. This means Pro-ana (as the name clearly suggests!) refers to the viewpoint that anorexia nervosa should not be treated, which is clearly weaker than "Pro-ana refers to the viewpoint that anorexia nervosa is a lifestyle choice rather than a disorder". The article further uses weasels ("their condition, which some claim", "Many people with anorexia attempt", "Many doctors who treat", "Some pro-ana websites are fairly exclusive; others always welcome new members into the fold", "Some claim that", "Critics claim that", "many support (pro-recovery) sites have banned", "Other sites take the approach", "Many members would argue", "Many medical experts have suggested", "In some pro-ana circles", "some members of pro-ana identify", "Those who refuse to admit they are thin", ...) I am also missing completely the fact that "thinspiration" pictures of prominent persons have commonly been created with the help photo retouching software and are not real.[3] --Rtc 22:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly we need to include more, yes. There's the confusion between what "pro-ana" is used to mean, and what sites are actually like. For example, from your source [4], at one point it firstly uses the lifestyle definition ("the pro-anorexia community, those who argue that anorexia is a choice and a lifestyle instead of an illness"), but then notes how "No site I have seen yet actually promotes beginning the lifestyle, but rather how to be successful at it once it has begun".
Note that "anti-recovery" is rather ambiguous, and should be explained: There's someone who chooses not to go into recovery (or a site which allows such people), and a site which is against recovery for anyone (e.g., it doesn't allow members who are in recovery).
If people have used pro-ana to refer to anti-recovery sites, then I agree this should be mentioned. But I don't think the "lifestyle" definition should be removed altogether, as that is also used (e.g., [5]).
I found another definition in your source [6] which I was rather intrigued by:
(2) Support: individuals who are struggling with an eating disorder, in recovery, or have recovered or organizations that provide information and/or support around eating disorders.
(3) Pro-ED: sites providing non-judgmental support for individuals currently engaged in eating disorders and not in recovery.
This is rather confusing as I read it - it defines "Support" as being sites for people whether they are in recovery or not, and "pro-ED" for individuals not in recovery. If the implication is that people in recovery are explicitly not allowed, then this would back up your "anti-recovery" definition. But the way it's written suggests that (3) is a subset of (2) (since "people not in recovery" is a subset of "people who are or aren't in recovery"). Mdwh 23:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to remove the worst of the weasel words. Note that I think "critics claim" is not weasel (and certainly commonly used on Wikipedia) - it makes it clear that this is a POV held by those who criticise, as opposed to trying to pretend that the POV is accepted by many (although yes, we could do with a source for the criticism). Also many of the remaining examples aren't really weasels in my opinion, but more claims made without sources (but yes, either way, sources would be good). Mdwh 00:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lifestyle Choice

Many pro-ana people say that anorexia is not a lifestyle choice but a disease so I am going to change the first sentence to:

Pro-ana is the belief that Anorexia is a lifestyle choice. However, many Anorexics believe that it is a disease but they choose to not go into recovery.

If anyone has any objections please feel free to change it back. --Xsamix 21:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement "However, many anorexics believe that it is a disease but they choose to not go into recovery." while factually acurate, has nothing todo with the artical which is concerned with anorexics who do not believe it to be a disease. Such a stand point would be more appropriate when pro-ana is mentioned in the anorexia artical. Jim Tzenes 18:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recruiting new members

"A common assumption is that these sites are actively trying to recruit new members, but this is almost never the case..[citation needed]" This paragraph then goes on to talk about some sites accepting where as others do not. Unless someone has a citation for this assurtion, I suggest we subtitute "but this is almost never the case" with the phrase "in practice, different sites have a wide verity of views on recruitment ranging from welcoming to exclusive." This helps to capture the idea that there is a wide range of responses, which is reinforced in the rest of the paragraph.Jim Tzenes 18:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

ANOREXIA IS NOT A LIFESTYLE GOD DAMNIT. I AM PRO ANA, IT IS THE CHOICE NOT TO RECOVER YET. THAT IS ALL, AND AS SOON AS A PRO ANA WANTS TO RECOVER THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SITE OR FORUM SUPPORT THEM THROUGH RECOVERY. WE ARE NOT AS EVERYONE PRETENDS. YOU GET FAKE PRO ANA PEOPLE WHO DO THE WHOLE 'ana love ana perfection. me and ana = best friends for lyyyyyyyf!!!' BUT THEY ARE FAKES. CUMMON' GUYS, YOU KNOW WHAT MEDIA IS LIKE, IT CHANGES EVERYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING, PRO ANA REALLY ISNT LIKE THAT, IV MET SOME FAKES, BUT 99% OF PRO ANA GIRLS ARE GENUINE ANORECTICS NOT WISHING TO RECOVER YET. reply to me, Emma2468 18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


Emma, shut up. Thank you. If you're going to add to this, then please make it eligible by talking in complete sentences and not having 95% of your words being cap. locked :|, Regards, -Chris

[edit] Plagiarized Material In Overview Section/Editing To Add Sources

Since I love a train-wreck as much as the next person, I decided to try to source this article when I saw the weasel word tag...

The entire "overview" section and much of the material in the article is lifted, verbatim, from ProAna.US (hence the POV language.)[7]. I am working on sourcing this article to the best of my ability, even though doing the research to accurately source these Flat Earth Flat Belly claims & present them fairly without either bawling or getting really, really upset is straining my own NPOV.

I'm putting a watch out on the page when I'm done editing. --Parcequilfaut 02:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

& I've done as much as I can do. Help, please, someone? --Parcequilfaut 04:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are looking for any help message me, im anorexic and frequent a certain socalled 'pro-ana'site but it is not as such..it is labelled as one but in fact promotes recovery..as do most pro-ana sites..they are wrongly labelled.. Fethroesforia 12:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Pro-Ana Label

Based on the response on this talk page from visitors to pro-ana sites, it sounds like the definition of pro-ana may have changed in the last several years. Are they in support of the eating disorder, or in support of the people who are suffering from it? Is there a way to differentiate them from treatment sites? Guava 04:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that "in support of anorexia" is a very different thing from supporting the people themselves. Of course, some pro-ana sites do offer support, but that doesn't mean that a site offering support is therefore "pro-ana". There are plenty of non-professional support sites which are generally not considered pro-ana (e.g., Something Fishy).
Also I disagree with the phrase "treatment groups" - again, many sites do not offer treatment, only support, but they are certainly not "pro-ana" (they do not encourage the disease, do not discourage treatment, do not claim it is a lifestyle). Mdwh 01:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Karen Kellock's views

User:Karenkellock added a lengthy paragraph about her pro-ana views. In my opinion, she does not meet the criteria for notability and this paragraph should be deleted. Thoughts? Rosemary Amey 19:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV/WW flags

What portion(s) of this article are still contested as non-neutral, or inaccurate? Also, where are the weasel words? Personally, I think the article is fairly well balanced at present. You thoughts? Gsnixon 06:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I have nothing against those who are suffering from Anorexia but I still believe that the links located at the bottom of the Pro-ana page should be removed. I think it's horrible they have to go through it but I still don't believe we should allow the links to stay up that go to sites that tell them about how to lose more weight or a site that lists sites of this nature. Does anyone else agree that some of the sites that go to these types of pages should be taken down? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cinnamonella (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

No, they should not be removed. Anorexia cannot be "caught" by looking at these websites. It's unheard of for someone who does not have an eating disorder to look at at pro-anorexia website and to become anorexic because of it. It's not the way it works. It's important to have the links there to educate people. Pittising 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, I'm sorry. But I believe that someone with or without an eating disorder could learn of unhealthy alternatives that they may use, and thus cause a severe problem. As someone who has been dealing with the eating disordered for over two decades I have personally seen where these sites have become a serious problem. I'm not trying to argue, but state my point for the good of those who come across this article, no looking at one of these websites does not cause an eating disorder, however it may provoke someone to emulate the symptoms of one to achieve weight loss, actually many of the websites are even started by these individuals.

Pink Sparkle 03:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted, but policy is policy. --Rebent 05:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Which links are we talking about? The only pro-ana links when the person originally complained [8] are now removed. The links there at the moment all appear to be providing information or references for the article, as far as I can tell? Mdwh 13:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Come and edit!

Reading this article annoys me, so I've decided to be bold and do some drastic paraphrasing. I know this will probably be really annoying for everyone who's been working hard on this article, referencing things and the like, but wikipedia tells us to be bold and ignore all rules, so I'm going to do just that. I will reference things, but for a start I just want to give the thing a bit of an overhaul. So come on everyone, be bold and let's edit! Pittising 16:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two different groups

From the information I have (and I know quite a lot about this...) there are two distinct groups and viewpoints held, each referring to themselves as pro-ana. The first is the belief that anorexia is not a disease but a lifestyle choice and that medical help or support is unecessary intervention. However, the second viewpoint is that anorexia is a serious disease, recovery should be promoted, but if you don't want to recover then your choice is respected. This group may sound like pro-recovery, but it refers to itself as pro-ana. If no one objects soon, I will edit the article to reflect this. If I've already done this and you feel strongly about it, feel free to revert my edits but please leave a message here. Pittising 16:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Bleedingcherub (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I'm proposing to merge this page with pro-mia and then get it moved to pro-ED if consensus dictates. Wikipedia tells me to wait five days and follow consensus - will do. Pittising 17:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the Merge idea. The Pro-mia page is barely even a stub, and the information within it can be added here with little effort. CodeCarpenter 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

merge not enough to merit own article

I agree as well, to the merge. Pink_Sparkle 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

no merge I asked my abnormal psychology prof about it and she says that based on her experience, Pro-Ana is significantly more wide-spread and relevant than any other type of pro-ED. In fact, I've never heard of it referred to as pro-ED. In fact, the Pro-Mia article is just a stub and is, as far as I can tell, NN. Let's keep pro-ana where it belongs, under the page title pro-ana. --Rebent 06:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

that's because the term pro-ana has now become an umbrella term to cover all manners of eating disorders. Which is why I think, to avoid confusion, this page should be moved to pro-ED. On pro-ana sites it is commonplace to find advice and information relating to all types of eating disorders, never just ana. Pittising 12:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - it seems that the term "pro-ed" already redirects to the pro-ana article, in which case the suggestion to merge is already moot. Should not we be discussing a proposal the merge for new article like support for eating disorders or pro-eating disorders and merging pro-mia and pro-ana under that article?--Kevin586 14:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you say about the merge, as long as we make it clear in this article that pro-ana is a term applied to the pro movement concerned with all eating disorders. However, I think support for eating disorders is inaccurate to say the least, and pro-eating disorders should be considered the same as Pro-ED, for the purposes of this discussion anyway. Pittising 20:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

no merge Anorexia and Bulimia are two different diseases, and should not be covered in the same article (unless said article is eating disorders). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MalwareSmarts (talk • contribs)

They are indeed two different diseases, but the pro movement is just one movement. Pittising 16:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

merge pro-mia article is a stub, and small enough that it could be a subset of pro-ana. I suggest a redirect from pro-mia to the pro-mia section of pro-ana. nhinchey (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I undid this revision for two reasons: I think changing the main definition of an article demands at least some explanation, and after the edit it was impossible to understand the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.181.114 (talk) 03:45, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy Commented Out

The information commented out under the 'controversy' section has been in this article for quite a long time - I am confused as to why it has been removed. --fauxcouture<T> 20:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] humourous & the disclaimer phenomenon

"in July 2001, Yahoo—after receiving a letter of complaint from ANAD—began purging pro-ana sites from its Yahoo Clubs"

some way to rephrase?

Another thing I've noticed is that these claims of "we don't encourage this" started when servers started to crack down... frankly, I think it was a political, self-protection move, though the nature of the communities may actually have changed as a result.

Bleedingcherub (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Pro-mia is a tiuny stub and fails to establish the subject as separate from pro-ana (none of its three cited sources draw a distinction, and actually all three are trivial passing mentions). It should be merged here as effectively the same subject. The debate above is not sufficient to establish support, since there were very few participants. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the idea only if both are merged and retitled to Pro-ED like it was suggested in the other debate. --70.59.146.117 (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that pro-ED seems to be a neologism - are there any notable references for its uses? Pro-eating disorder might be better, as that term seems to be more commonly used. Mdwh (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Pro-ana is a much more notable term (an entire episode of Boston Legal was done on it, btw), and I see no major evidence of pro-mia and other eating disorders being used. I'm going to go ahead and be bold and merge pro-mia into pro-ana. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and Move to Pro-ED. Bulbous (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)