Talk:Orthorexia nervosa
From Academic Kids
- This article was nominated for deletion on June 9, 2005; the consensus was to keep. For discussion, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Orthorexia nervosa.
Since the full term for the condition is orthorexia nervosa, should it be moved to an article with that title? Anyone? --Frecklefoot 18:07 21 May 2003 (UTC)
- Done. Kent Wang 22:27, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I removed the following; it didn't seem directly relevant to orthorexia as a medical condition, only indirectly relevant. Maybe it could be moved to another page:
Others say that many scientists are divorced from ethics... and that one cannot be too rich or too thin. They cite statistics that nonagenarians and centenarians are usually thinner than average, placing less stress on organs.
7000 vegan MD's have numerous articles on overweight in relation to animal products. http://www.pcrm.org
- I also removed the following line, because thinnes isn't the major problem with orthorexia, there are other concerns:
As a result, the sufferer may become as hazardously thin as those suffering from anorexia.
Totally disputed
One MD decides to name a "condition" based on "excessively healthy eating = mental disease" unsupported by any studies or medical consensus, and this is the apparent basis of the article. To the extent I might be inclined to include this material it should be merged into eating disorders and even so it seems rather marginal at best. Whig 16:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The NPOV tag in this instance is innappropriate as at no point in it's current incarnation does the article accuse or imply through language or tone that "excessively healthy eating = mental disease" (your quotes). It simply reports on the ongoing scientific study of the phenomena without judging anyone or anything. As time progresses and more evidence is published for or against, then such information can obviously be added. Disaggreeing with the existance of the subject of an article does not make it POV, and as, so far, there has been one objection to it, it is not "Totally disputed." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 17:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
