Talk:Let's Move!

Latest comment: 5 months ago by Saghetti in topic Irrelevant criticism in the lead

Upcoming revision edit

For those people watching the page, User:Caleylynch4 will be doing a major revision of this article for her Classroom assignment in the next several months any feedback on the changes would be great! Sadads (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Suggestions for improvement edit

  1. Background
    1. In the "Childhood Obesity" section, more recent statistics and explanation from the CDC.
    2. Related Government programs, including Task Force on Childhood Obesity
  2. History of the program
  3. Goals and objectives
    1. Under, "Physical Activity" section, link to the "Let's Move" website.
  4. Add a section to include the press the campaign has been given, along with Michelle Obama's recent press tour and maybe some quotes.
  5. "Criticism" section needs expanding.
    1. News
    2. Politicians
    3. Scholars

~~caleylynch4

The most glaring omission in the article presently is the lack of your #5: "Criticsm" or "Reception" section -- the program was mocked and/or resisted by some prominent politicians and pundits; Republicans were split over it; there is scholarly debate about how effective it was (or wasn't). For example: "Turns Out Michelle Obama’s Obesity Campaign Was a Flabby Flop" and "Conservatives Split Over Opposition to Michelle Obama's Obesity Drive". Tmusgrove (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Merge Proposal edit

It appears Let's Move! Flash Workout is a part of the larger Let's Move! campaign and really doesn't have enough weight and notability on its own to warrant a separate article. The former is also quite short and would be easy to merge. Ljgua124 (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I added more details in the outline on where I think there could be expansion/more discussion. That is still really rough and relies alot on what scholarship is available, but from a brief glance at what I have seen online it should be doable, 10:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the photo used should be taken down and replaced with one that does not violate anyone's rights. The photo information even shows the following blurb under it: "Personality rights warning: This work contains material which may portray one or more identifiable persons alive or deceased recently. The use of images of living or recently deceased individuals is, in some jurisdictions, restricted by laws pertaining to personality rights, independent from their copyright status. Before using this content, please ensure that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's personality rights. See our general disclaimer." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.121.97 (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Merge - it would be better if included it one article. --Jennica / talk 09:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Comments edit

Really interesting article! Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Communicationstudent4 (talkcontribs) 03:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The section about Chefs Move to Schools is relevant and cited. Leave it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.241.250 (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

results? edit

any results, any campaigns implemented - or only PR? 93.220.122.66 (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Let's Move!. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment edit

  This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Simmons College supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy/Courses/Spring 2011/Public Relations Seminar (Marlene Fine) and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Irrelevant criticism in the lead edit

The lead says the goal of the project was to combat *childhood* obesity in the US. Then it says that this goal was not attained. Then it cites statistics about *overall* obesity in the US. These statistics are not about the stated goal, so they don't tell us whether the goal was attained or not.

I don't know one way or the other whether the goal was actually attained; it quite possibly wasn't. I'm just saying the statistics cited should be the relevant ones. Aurodea108 (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this - I've just removed from this section a phrase referring to obesity rates among African-American women as I was concerned that as well as being irrelevant its inclusion was racially biased.
If updated CDC statistics are included in the 'Childhood Obesity' section as per the 'Suggestions for improvement' comment above then they could be summarised in the lead. Breatheforpeace (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Just noticed this while reading through, and I agree. Feels like WP:SYNTH to me, at least in its current form. I think this should be moved out of the lead, and into the impact section, with more relevant information. Saghetti (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply