Talk:Grief porn

Sources

Here are some sources for the term's usage. I see a tidal wave of work coming my way here in RL, so I will post them here. Please feel free to use them as appropriate:

• [1] - used to describe an author's usage of 9/11 as a vehicle for a novel.
• [2] - used to describe the phenomena surrounding bush fires in Australia.
• [3] - and another one
• [4] - a film is described as "soft-core grief porn"
• [5] - yet another definition
• [6] - describing TV as porn, including grief porn
• [7] - use of the term to describe the coverage of Jade Goody' terminal illness
• [8] - and another about coverage of Goody
• [9] - from Google Books, wherein the author describes the wrongness of idealizing all of the victims of the 9/11 attacks.
• [10] - and a review of that book, specifically calling the usage of the term as "apt"
• [11] - usage of the term in regards to the Crandall Canyon Mine accident
• [12] - from a transcript of an interview with TV critic Robert Bianco
• [13] - a film review of Things We Lost in the Fire
• [14] - used in another book review to describe the content of said book

No offense but urban dictionary has never been considered a reliable source

Resolved

 – Neither UrbanDictionary.com nor its published derivative works are a Reliable Source according to the website owner/book "author's" own remarks in which he clearly states:

Discussion Contained here and at Reliable Source Board

yep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.62.131 (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Could I trouble you to point out something that verifies Wikipedia's position on that? Either way, note that the source is being used to expand the definition, not support it utterly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC) An anon - likely a regular user simply logged out - offered this link in regards to Urban Dictionary as a reason to remove it. Note that UD sn't being used as the linchpin for the article, so it has nothing to do with establishing notability. Also note that while cited the UD contribution just adds depth to notable content cited reliably. Is someone contesting the reliability of the source, or that the definition is inaccurate? If the former, its reinforced by the definitions both before and after it. If the latter, the same is true. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC) - Arcayne's entry: Urban Dictionary defines grief porn as "a form of masturbatory frenzy engaged in by the media and politicians when there is some form of disaster. It exploits the basic voyeuristic nature of humans who get their rocks off by feeling good by looking at the suffering of others". Your entry, as quoted above, is a verbatim citation of fact. It implies the source is a Reliable Source. Nothing about it, or the fun-factory where people create artificial entries and then vote to include them into the language has any purpose here whatsoever. It's nonsense. 99.142.2.89 (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Dude, I am using your very link, which allows it. Please, stop reverting and discuss because, frankly, reverting without talk page conclusion isn't going to do anything but create a lot more heat and drama than is necessary. Again, the citation places provenance for the quote from UD. It doesn't offer it as primary evidence of the definition, which is offered both before and indeed after the UD bit. If anything, it only elaborates on the more reliably cited material. Again I will ask, are you suggesting that the UD entry is inaccurate? Because, quite bluntly, it is not, as it dovetails perfectly with what the RS sources already say. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Here are the entries self-defining "Urban Dictionary" taken from the same "Urban Dictionary" humour website that you cited. Inclusion of the content from this forum has no possible place here: 1. urban dictionary 13608 up, 1169 down love it hate it A place formerly used to find out about slang, and now a place that teens with no life use as a burn book to whine about celebrities, their friends, etc., let out their sexual frustrations, show off their racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-(insert religion here) opinions, troll, and babble about things they know nothing about. Urbandictionary.com isn't a burn book or a webjournal site. 2. urban dictionary 4763 up, 589 down love it hate it An online slang dictionary in which approximately 80% of all words and definitions are sexually related. "Hey, what in the hell is an Alaskan Firedragon?" "Dunno, try looking it up at UrbanDictionary.com" 3. Urban Dictionary 2985 up, 922 down love it hate it Only the coolest semi-fake dictionary ever made... updated by random ppl who usually have a sick mind and quick wit. Urban Dictionary is a great website if you're bored out of your mind. Or if you just want to see some hilarious material made by ::random ppl who usually have a sick mind and quick wit. 4. urban dictionary 1690 up, 547 down love it hate it The result of millions of teenagers who have too much free time, and have been pre-disposed to the influences of a media run by arrogant megalomaniacs who put more thought into selling impracticle products than making relevent influential television. Thus resulting in the spread of ignorance through the internet comunity via rascism, conformity, mis-information, and the pinnacle of a society ironically corrupted by those who claim to be trying to save the last milligrams of purity and innoscense left in this nuclear prozac nation... if you found that definition difficult to understand, try using a real dictionary to look up those real words, that people in the real world really use... 21. Urban Dictionary 45 up, 8 down love it hate it The largest collection of misleading information I have ever seen on the internet. "You must have read that in the Urban Dictionary" First of all, UD is not a "humour" website; there have been two books published about the website. Secondly, could you please attempt to make a more succinct point? I hate wading through a wall of text noting seeming examples. I will ask you for the third time: is the definition inaccurate? As it is citable to the book as well as the website, reliability and citability aren't concerns here.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC) It's partly a humor site. Plenty of their content has been added with humorous intent, for certain. I even find some of it funny. Many books have also been written about humor. That's beside the point though, in a way The question is whether we're going to consider UD a reliable source regarding the English language, and this phrase in particular. That question isn't going to be decided by two or three people on this page. You're clearly not convincing each other, so the next step is to get more people. Try a content RFC, and try to place this question in the greater context of how we decide on reliable sources for Wikipedia. Has anyone tried Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? This kind of question is precisely why that page exists. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC) According to this discussion last fall, the Urban Dictionary should not be used as a reliable source. 4.88.57.150 (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC) The pith of that discussion is largely contained in the quote: “ No, it's not usually a reliable source. You can sometimes WP:IAR on pop-culture articles but I would use it only as an example of usage of a slang term, and it doesn't establish notablity. You can however use it as an external link if the UD page you're linking to is stable and uncontroversial. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC) ” How does that apply to this situation, then? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC) A couple of things: first of all, grief porn is apparently in the UD published book, which fixes the reliability issue - we just have to cite to the book and not the website. Secondly, neitehr the wiki article on UD or the UD site itself calls it a humor site. Our perception isn't citable. What's left? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Well, what's left is seeing what others think. I believe you've laid out your argument clearly, and I agree at first blush that the book beats the website regarding reliability. However, since there are people who have opposed the edit, let's get a reaction. The discussion's over when we've seen people agree to some stuff. As for the humor thing, it's a red herring. It doesn't matter if UD is a humor site or not. What matters is whether it - in its book incarnation - passes muster as a reliable source. Let's see what people think. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC) :::::::I've asked for comments at the reliable source noticeboard as you've requested.99.142.2.89 (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Could you please post a direct link to that discussion, please? I am sure i can find it, but newer folk than you or I might want to visit the off-page discussion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) The discussion may be found here:[16]...The Urban Dictionary is not a Reliable Source. 99.142.2.89 (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC) That discussion is ongoing, and while it seems to be leaning in the direction you indicate, we're still finding things out. Please be patient. There is no reason to declare this "done" before we've reached some kind of accord. Also, can you please not shout? That's how the boldface comes across, and it does you disservice. Newcomers to the discussion will perceive that as hysterical, and assume that you have something to hide, else why the sense of urgency? Let's just talk about it calmly until we work out a consensus, ok? We're not in a hurry to make this discussion go away. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I've reinstated the article to the pre-frenzy version. This reinstated the categories, removed he refactoring of the DYK (the user can get blocked for that alone), and reinstated a lot of the text removed without discussion. As necessary, we can discuss the matter point by point; I am concerned that the speed is being championed over reasoned discussion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"The expression is common with a long history"

This was added by the anon99., replacing cited information that notes the actual initial coining of the term by Yates. He used the term after Princess Diana's death in 1997, and yet every example of the term's usage come from Google Book references at least 4-5 years after that fact. I would invite the anon to self-revert these changes, or I can do it for him. Either way, it will be done. i will wait for the anon to defend his/her edits here in a timely manner before doing so myself.
There are other matters to discuss, but let's deal with them individually. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Not only were the refs, as you say, older than the 1999 coining of the term, but they were also the same ref. There was one ref from a short story (pub 2002) and the other two were reviews of that short story, not usages themselves. With all the concentration on the single work I have to doubt the use of those particular citations. Padillah (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your removal of them; as it resulted in a gaping whole where text had once been, I've reinstated the prior text (this edit also accomplished other tasks as well). Thanks for catching that, Padillah. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Your reference is from 2005. The term was not, as you say, coined by that writer in 2005. My references, show usage before that date.

It couldn't be more clear that the term was not coined in 2005 as it existed in a number of published books prior to that.

My references are also far from being, as you so thoroughly and completely mis-characterized them, "There was one ref from a short story (pub 2002) and the other two were reviews of that short story, not usages themselves."

My refs, all of which expressly used the term "Grief Porn" clearly and in context, were, and still are; a movie review of "Midnight Mile" starring Dustin Hoffman[17], Google Books photocopy of the actual text in the book "Ten Little Indians"[18], Google Books photocopy of the actual text in the book "9/11 culture"[19], and Google Books photocopy of the actual text in the book "Understanding Sherman Alexie"[20].

All of these predate your claim that "the term was reportedly first coined by Robert Yates, an assistant editor for The Observer in a news conference on April 7, 2005." - and were not as you stated, 'one short story and two reviews of the same' ..

I find it difficult to understand where the contention is in such a well supported factual point. I've restored the article to it's accurate rendition. 99.142.2.89 (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying, anon, but I am not the person saying that he coined it; the cited article says that. You may disagree with that, but - unfortunately - you aren't a citable source that can be referenced in counterpoint. I am not saying that it has to my all one way or another; I am saying that working with others is going to get you a lot closer to what you want. As a supposedly new user, you may not have grasped that as of yet. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC) :Are you seriously stating that a cited article claiming that the word was coined in 2005 takes precedence over 3 books and a movie review published years prior? 99.142.2.89 (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In a word, yes. In two words, discuss please. You need to know that edit-warring your preferred version isn't going to have an effect, as you cannot change minds that way. Leave the article be for now, and take the time to discuss matters here. Your edits have not garnered the support you require you need to institute them. The citation from 2005 says that the term was coined by Yates after Princess Di's death in '97. That's the citation, not me. As 1997 predates any of the cited references from books you noted, you need to understand that it just isn't the citation dates, it is what the citations actually say.

Now, i think we can incorporate both ideas, and indeed, my edit prior to your revert actually accomplished that. Please work with others.

Btw, you are at 3RR. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:::That is a complete and utter misrepresentation of your citation. The reference, and your edit, both state: "the term was reportedly first coined by Robert Yates, an assistant editor for The Observer in a news conference on April 7, 2005."

To intentionally misrepresent that by saying, "The citation from 2005 says that the term was coined by Yates after Princess Di's death in '97." is not acceptable. Your blog ref said nothing of the sort, it said "a new term was coined today" and the blog was dated April 7 2005. Period. 99.142.2.89 (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I am not understanding your viewpoint, anon99. The entire text of the citation:

"A new term was coined by Assistant Editor Robert Yates in Observer news conference today: Grief Porn. (n.) Gratification derived from a tenuous connection to the misfortunes of others; the gratuitous indulgence of tangential association with tragedy; getting off on really bad news. The phenomenon first surfaced in the week following the death of HRH Diana Princess of Hearts and has resurfaced periodically ever since at times of national mourning and international disaster. It mostly affects people working in meeja. Not to be mistaken for: real people feeling real pain."

states that during the conference, Yates pointed to the origin of the phenomena in the aftermath of Di's death. the citation specifically and explicitly states that he coined the term. The statement is on point here, as coining a term means to :to make; invent; fabricate: (ie.) to coin an expression". This means the citation says he invented the term. That isn't a "misrepresentation" by me. If anything, it is an exaggeration by the reference.

Please take a moment and explain how your viewpoint of this citation differs from mine. Remember, you are not citable and cannot, on your own merits, be cited as counterpoint to any cited statement. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::As you state, "That isn't a "misrepresentation" by me. If anything, it is an exaggeration..." Then you accept that your blog reference, and your own edit both make the specific claim, "the term was reportedly first coined by Robert Yates, an assistant editor for The Observer in a news conference on April 7, 2005." and further that this claim by the blog, and entry into the article is demonstrably false and thoroughly impeached by numerous published (unlike your specious "blog" claim) references showing contextually correct usage of the term, "grief porn"; a published review of "Midnight Mile" starring Dustin Hoffman[21], "Ten Little Indians"[22], "9/11 culture"[23], and "Understanding Sherman Alexie"[24].

The term quite simply was not coined either by him or on that day. The Blog is wrong, its claim is false.99.142.2.89 (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Anon99, let's try approaching this from a different angle. I don't know how familliar you are with WP but we have a concept here that unless the editor is being blatantly harmful we should assume they are trying to help. So let's try talking this out rather than proving someone wrong. Arcayne, I think I'm seeing a disconnect between the coining of the phrase and the event it was coined to describe. The article says Yates coined the term today and then later recalls that The phenomenon first surfaced in the week following the death of HRH Diana Princess of Hearts. What I'm seeing is the phenomenon started in 1997 but the phrase was coined in 2005. What does this look like to you? Padillah (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I am seeing the 2005 citation (not sure when it magically became a blog, but anyhoo) wherein Yates is coining the term, tying its inception to Di's death. On a side note, I personally don't believe that, and think the phenomena extends back much further than that (after Lincoln died, the sale of stovepipe hats skyrocketed); the phenomena was there, simply unnamed.

If there are citations that refute that, it doesn't mean that we purge or whittle away to nothingness the cited statements already present. We instead add the citations that counter the claim of invention (thus was my intent by adding the word "reportedly", later removed). there is a limit to how far we can go to connect these contrary statements without running the risk of synthesis. This is the problem with large-scale edits being made without allowing for feedback from others. An initially small problem is compounded by someone trying to shoehorn in different info and grows into something unwieldy to address or correct..

Anon99, I think that you might have read my post a bit too fast, as you emphasized part of my post: "That isn't a "misrepresentation" by me. If anything, it is an exaggeration..." and missed the rather important end of that sentence "it is an exaggeration of the reference". Leaving that out makes it seem that I was the one doing the exaggerating and not the source. I am sure that, had you read my post with more care, it was an omission you would have endeavored to avoid. Also, I will again state that your opinion as to the "truth" of the citation isn't usable by us. Verifiability is the litmus test for inclusion, not truth. You don't get to prove or disprove the claims of a cited source. Do you not understand that? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So how do we reconcile two obviously conflicting citations? Can we place them against each other without forcing a SYNTH conflict? I don't think we have enough material for an "Origins of the term" section. Can we find other uses from before the April 7 2005 date? Padillah (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the anon has clearly pointed out that some occurrences have in fact been used prior to that date, likely culled from the list of sources I placed at the top of this page when the article was started. We can include them both, noting that - in essence - Yates reportedly coined the term but prior instances exist. We don't remove or water down the statements of a perfectly reliable source in favor of creating heat. The anon-supported statement: "The expression is common with a long history" is inaccurate and misleading, as the citations following it do not support it. It is in fact a textbook definition of synthesis. The word isn't common, and doesn't have a long history. The phenomena isn't new, but the term for it is.

I think the best solution here is to find a better way to combine them, and I do not think its an insurmountable problem,and I'll take a crack at that. Certainly, there doesn't have to be a lot of name-calling involved. If anything, that negatively affects my willingness to find the middle ground.

There are many other problems with the wall of edits that the two anons keep tag-teaming back into the article, and while I've tried to maintain good faith and not assume that two SPA's aren't meat-puppeting (or worse), the unwillingness by both to edit constructively erodes that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you asking for my subjective interpretation of the etymology of the phrase "grief porn"? I fail to see the relevance of a discussion regarding a blog's London provincinalism as arguments could easily be made using Challenger disaster or the Kennedy funeral as earlier American examples, but why? The blog, and the edit, both make a specific claim:

This has been refuted and is demonstrably false. 99.142.2.89 (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm asking you to calm yourself while we wait for Arcayne to respond to my question. The statement that you see as demonstrably false can have several meanings, most of which are not false. The first that comes to mind is the placement of the article "by". It could simply be referring to the first time Yates coined the term, not the first time the term was coined. Please try to find a modicum of restraint and we can discuss this and come to a conclusion. Or, you could continue to battle and end up getting blocked for being an annoyance. Your choice really. Padillah (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm being threatened for proving that the edit: "the term was reportedly first coined by Robert Yates, an assistant editor for The Observer in a news conference on April 7, 2005." and the blogger that wrote it are wrong? And your demanding that you and your buddy's original take on history have precedence over multiple citations of fact?99.142.2.89 (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not threatening you. If you want to keep going, be my guest. I pointedly said, "It's your choice". I do have a question: If someone were to stop you from walking in front of a speeding bus would you yell at them and claim they were restricting where you could and couldn't go?

What I was trying to do was get you to present a facet of the argument and then listen to the reply. In a word - shut up. But if you feel better being manipulated into getting blocked by someone that's just stringing you along, have a blast, I'm not stopping you. Padillah (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You're telling me to shut up? Are my points neither concise enough nor referenced properly? Is there some rule that I violate by discussing content objectively? Pardon my frustration, but I find it strange to have an extended discussion about such a precise statement of fact: "the term was reportedly first coined ... in a news conference on April 7, 2005." 99.142.2.89 (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because if you would shut up long enough to read the rest of the page you would see that Arcayne has all but conceded the point to you. But you are so busy arguing that you don't even understand the argument is over. Be quiet, calm down, and read the page... slowly. You might just learn that there are others in this world that have half a brain. You are so busy trying to "win" that you have stopped discussing the point. Now you are not even talking about the fact of the matter - you are talking about how you make your points. And as for discussing objectively, well, when you start doing that let me know. I'd love to discuss with you about the facts of the matter rather than who's friends with whom and what aspersions are being cast by whom. You are so hell-bent on winning you don't even realize I'm arguing for your point. But, I also understand that we are in a discussion with another person and they have a point they are trying to make also. Listening to them might not be a bad idea. Padillah (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

::Then I shall quietly wait and see. My sincere apology in advance should I have been mistaken.99.142.2.89 (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The sincerity of your apology might find a better foothold were you not edit-warrin g over your preferred, undiscussed version. We are trying to hammer out a workable version for everyone; you added a lot of contentious material without discussion. This is the pricve of editing in a community environment. If you want to log your version, this isn't the place for you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

::We can not say that the phrase was coined in 2005 just because a blog said it - we have numerous published novels and a movie review of a major Hollywood film that predate your blog entry and use the exact phrase in the exact same context.

We do not publish "facts" that are not true. To find previous example of contextually correct usage of the term, "grief porn"; look here for the published review of "Midnight Mile" starring Dustin Hoffman[25], "Ten Little Indians"[26], "9/11 culture"[27], and "Understanding Sherman Alexie"[28].

The term quite simply was not coined either by him or on that day. The Blog is wrong, its claim is false. 99.142.2.89 (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am trying to help you understand Wikipedia here, anon99. First of all, the litmus for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. That isn't me saying that, that's policy. So, maybe stop arguing that we cannot include it because its "false", as that is immaterial to inclusion. Ask an admin. Hell, ask two.

Secondly, just because the section of Guardian online is called the ObserverBlog doesn't actually mean it is a blog. It quite clearly isn't. While it solicits community response to the articles therein (which aren't being used here), the articles are written by regular staff members, and therefore subject to editorial board approval.

Lastly, the hardest part of Wikipedia for new editors is learning that their opinion is utterly worthless when it differs from that of a published source. Presuming that you are indeed a "new" user, you need to assimilate this lesson (among others) quickly, and approach the problem from a different angle. You cannot contradict a published source, as you (nor your opinion) are citably sufficient to do so. I offered and edit which addressed the idea of stating the information, but presenting prior instances of the usage and noting them as such. You reverted that, too.

You've been advised that this isn't a helpful attitude to take. Treating Wikipedia like a contest of wills is both a waste of time and deleterious to your reputation as an editor here. There are a lot of edits that you made which are either incorrect or contentious. As you took a lot of time to craft these edits, I would think that you wmight want to make sure they are going to remain. To do that, it has to pass muster with your fellow editors. If you are unwilling to subject your edits to that level of dissection, Wikipedia might not be the right place for you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Is it your position that Wikipedia must publish that which is untrue simply because someone said it? Or is it your position that you are not able to know whether these Reliable Source references: [29][30][31][32] prove this assertion: "the term was reportedly first coined by Robert Yates, an assistant editor for The Observer in a news conference on April 7, 2005." to be false? '99.142.2.142 (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No to both. As offered in this edit:

While the term was reportedly first coined by Robert Yates, an assistant editor for The Observer in a news conference on April 7, 2005. Described as the following:

“ Grief Porn. (n.) Gratification derived from a tenuous connection to the misfortunes of others; the gratuitous indulgence of tangential association with tragedy; getting off on really bad news. ”

many other instances of the term predate Yate's usage.

which of course was reverted back out.

To answer your question more specifically, Wikipedia doesn't offer information simply because someone said it. We offer it because it is cited. We seek out citations wherein someone else calls them false. You don't get to make that determination. the sooner you achieve that understanding, the better off you will be. As no one has, all we can do is note the prior uses of the term and let the reader decide for themselves. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

::::You're stating that Wikipedia policy prohibits this body of cited references [33][34][35][36]from impeaching this Blog entry: "the term was reportedly first coined by Robert Yates, an assistant editor for The Observer in a news conference on April 7, 2005."? That what is written in a blog is gospel even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that it is wrong?

You are insisting that Wikipedia Policy require that Blog entry must be recorded in this Wikipedia article even though it is not true? There is nothing in the least bit rational in your argument.  ?99.142.2.142 (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You keep asking the same question. I keep giving you the same answer. You keep offering the same four citations - citations which I supplied for you; re you of the opinion that if you add them over and over that they will somehow multiply or appear like more than four instances that I supplied for you?

Now, I have answered your question, noting its basis in policy. I believe I've said quite clearly that this is not an either/or, but rather a reasonably intelligent usage of both. I am not sure why you are still arguing over what you have already admitted is a piddling concern. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

*You have failed to reference any Wikipedia rule that states we must use knowingly false information just because it was once printed in a blog.

• Factual and verifiable representation of the subject is never a "piddling concern", it is the only concern.
• There is no "intelligent usage" of a false fact[37] claiming that the term was coined on April 7, 2005 when multiple examples[38][39][40][41] exist from many years prior.
• Your intransigence on such a specific and undeniably incorrect "fact", repeated attempts at obfuscation and bullying methods indicate that your only concern is gaming those around you. It's inexcusable and is by itself activity that seeks to harm wiki while apparently providing you with some perverse sense of pleasure. Editing appears to be simply a means to an end for you, one of control and joy borne through frustrating good faith efforts at improving content. This article is simply a tool to you, the objective apparently being to enhance self-pleasuring via your game of manipulation and toying with human beings. 99.142.2.142 (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure which to address first, the incivility and personal attacks or the statements or the errors of the arguments. I will ask you one more time to be more civil, anon99. Yiour above statement is rife with personal attacks. They do not assist in resolving problems, and only create them for you. Consider this your final warning to dial back the attacks.

I will again point out that this isn't a matter of "knowingly (using) false information"; it is a matter of verification; indeed, it is the very first line of that policy:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"

I think you keep missing what I am saying; I've already said that we can present the citation that says one thing and the additional citations that contain earlier references. It is not an either/or arrangement, but instead an and/and one. You need to learn that, and right quick, too to be of any use outside this single article.

Secondly, the Guardian newspaper's online component is not a blog. Not really sure why I have to keep pointing that out but, as I noted before, just because the section is called the Observer Blog doesn't actually mean its a blog. You need to understand the difference between a blog and a news article. I simply do not have the time to educate you on this.

Now, sine you appear entrenched in your incorrectly held assumptions about out policies (and I am certainly not going to back off of Wiki policies and guidelines), I am going to suggest that we seek an Request for Comment on the subject. That way, we can get some more opinions from others, and go from there. That seems the most productive way to proceed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

:Why don't you seek a request for comment? It is a pure True/False statement:

• There is no "intelligent usage" of a false fact[42] claiming that the term was coined on April 7, 2005 when multiple examples[43][44][45][46] exist from many years prior.

And secondly, Yes!, if it calls itself a Blog[47] - then it is a Blog. Your statement claiming that otherwise: "just because the section is called the Observer Blog doesn't actually mean its a blog." is ludicrous. It's a Blog,. 99.144.192.208 (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, i will seek an RfC. Are you prepared to abide by its conclusions. If you are going to edit-war no matter what, an RfC won't help, and other actions are going to be necessary. Let me know. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit Break

Anon99 you are misreading the statement. What is being proposed is that the article state the fact that the Observer states that Yates coined the term in 2005. That is not false. The above is an irrefutable fact that has been cited and repeated by you over a dozen times. Again, if you would slow down and read what's being said you would see that we are saying "The Observer says yates coined the term but there are usages that pre-date Yates mention" Which basically says what you want only this blatantly calls out The Observer and points out how they are wrong. I find myself again asking you to slow down and listen to others before trying to win. The edit offered above says exactly what you purport to want it to say: That "The Observer" says Yates coined the term but there are plenty of uses before that. I fail to see how that statement differes from the one you are offering. Padillah (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

::Your are proposing to knowingly enter false information in to the article. It is not possible for Wikipedia to require or even allow the dissemination of clearly erroneous information based upon a demonstrably false statement in a Blog.

There is no room for interpretation here, it is a statement of fact and is wrong. It has no place in the Wiki. We shall see how it fairs with a neutral audience soon enough, if my position should fail to find support there, trust me when I say the debate will be over for me.99.144.192.208 (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful to hear, and thanks for learning to indent your posts. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying The Observer doesn't say Yates coined the term? The following is a fact: "The Observer states that Yates coined the term in April 2005". That is a fact. I can show you the article on The Observer website. For someone that knows so much about critical thinking you are sorely lacking in point/counterpoint analysis. It goes something like this: "The Observer says Yates coined the term in April 2005 but there are plenty of citations that prove otherwise." Or are you saying that The Observer doesn't say that? Padillah (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Is it your position that the Blogs false claim has risen to the level of notability required for inclusion? 99.144.192.208 (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I view it more like an "ease-in" for presenting some kind of timeline for the phrases inception. Being an encyclopedia doesn't mean we never include false statements. It could even be argued we must include them, if only to say they are false. That is what I see being suggested above as well. Padillah (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::I asked in the science forum about this. It seems the best place regarding references with conflicting statements of fact.99.144.192.208 (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide a wikilink for that discussion, please? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Here it is: [48]

Carol Sarler

Resolved

 – Retain quote and usage but delete descriptive.

Short Discussion Contained Here

Also being reverted: "Carol Sarler, speaking as a guest columnist for The Times (London), sarcastically notes that "this new and peculiar pornography of grief" is sometimes called a 'tribute'" to: "Carol Sarler, writing for The Times (London), noted that "this new and peculiar pornography of grief" is sometimes called a 'tribute' " I am presuming that this particilar revert is to address Sarler's status at the Guardian. She is a guest columnist. Additionally, we do not need to cite her resume at the Guardian. We cite statements, not bios. If Sarler had an article within Wikipedia, we could wikilink her name. Lastly, her comments were rendered with sarcasm, which isn't at all an interpretation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC) :If attaching the word "sarcastically" to a writers comments isn't "interpratation", what is? It is a text book example. 99.144.192.208 (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC) ::I can see your point about the characterization as 'sarcastic'. Okay, I am not married to the descriptive; the reader can make up their own mind as to her intent. My other point about how it is phrased (that it is better language and form) remain intact, and we'll institute that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

David Finkelstein

The entire paragraph:

The Times's Daniel Finkelstein, defines the term as "a rather tasteless fascination with other people's disasters and a sentimentalism that is out of place", but considers it misapplied at times. Using the example of the Madeleine McCann a four-year-old child who went missing while on holiday with her parents, Finkelstein theorizes that "we don't follow the McCann case because we are grief junkies. Most of us follow it because we fancy ourselves as (Inspector) Morse.

No explanation was provided for its removal. As we have spent more than enough time on a single sentence above, more time needs to be spent on the other bits tha are wrong, so that when the dispute lock is removed, all of the appropriate changes can take place. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A concise and pointed explanation was given in the edit summary.99.144.192.208 (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC) :Explain it again, please. This is what articloe discussion is for. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC) ::Please discuss what you failed to understand. 99.144.192.208 (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning for its removal. Don't be dense, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

::::What is your basis for inclusion? I believe the onus is upon you to support your proposed edit. 99.144.192.208 (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC) :::::Er, he actually defines the term?

Again, could you please properly indent your posts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::That would cover this:

The Times's Daniel Finkelstein, defines the term as "a rather tasteless fascination with other people's disasters and a sentimentalism that is out of place". But this adds nothing to our understanding and has already been said by others. Is this article to become a repository for all quoted usage of the term? 99.144.192.208 (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Well, yes. Wikipedia is not composed of original thought - that's policy. Everything needs to be cited. Finkelstein's definition expands on the definition and indeed, offers an example of such - rather the point of an encyclopedia, and more specifically, this encyclopedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC) :::::Is there any quoted use of the term that should be excluded? 99.144.192.208 (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an example which you think would test the boundaries of current policy? Either way, the current statement by Finkelstein is appropriate. Let's not wander far afield into semantical debates. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Neologism

This statement:

Grief porn is a pejorative neologistic expression often used to describe a hyper-attention, intrusive voyeurism and "gratuitous indulgence of tangential association with tragedy".

was revised reverting out the fact that it is a neologism. A neologism is defined as:

ne·ol·o·gism (nē-ŏl'ə-jĭz'əm)

n.

1. A new word, expression, or usage.

2. The creation or use of new words or senses.^[49]

Grief porn would appear to fulfill those criteria. As no explanation was provided for its removal, I'd be interested in learning the reasoning for its removal. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC) ::It was removed because it's not a neologism, it's a phrase with a history. "Neologisms are new by definition, and are often directly attributable to a specific individual, publication, period or event." 99.144.192.208 (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a new term, coined within the past 10 years. I understand that, being young yourself, you see 10 years as a very long time, but it really isn't.

On an aside, could I trouble you to actually indent your responses, as per WP:TALK? It makes conversations easier to follow and ensures that you are responding to the comment above. I've been fixing your posts for the most part, but you have been here for a little while (through your various IP addresses), so an increaed effort on your part would be nice. I won't ask you to create an ID, even though the reason why you wouldn't eludes me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Please show evidence supporting your bold statement of fact that the term was created "within the last 10 years."99.144.192.208 (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, look at the citations you keep adding in, anon99. If you include mine, and all of the other sources which I'd added above, do you see any that exist earlier than ten years ago? Neologisms are new in relative terms, like bioterrorism, wikilink, etc. Are you suggesting that there is an age cut-off date for a neologism to be a neologism. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Is it your personal interpretation and original research that you know that the phrase is both less than 10 years old and that by your personal definition that makes it a neologism? Are you beyond the need to support your claims with suitable references to support your personal conclusions? 99.144.192.208 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC) ::::Yeah, we aren't playing that particular game, anon. If you are unclear on the definition of neologism, look around. Ask people. Grief porn is a neologism. Disprove it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::It is not me trying to include it improperly in the article. You've created this "theory" that it is in your opinion, simply support your original research with a reference. Have you published this conclusion or entered it into a blog? 99.144.192.208 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Address the point, please: it is a neologism. If you can, please explain why it is not. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::This is the point. It is You that created this "theory" that it is something, in your opinion, that no reference yet produced supports. Simply support your original research with a reference. Have you published this conclusion or entered it into a blog? What is your basis for inclusion?? 99.144.192.208 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, are you for some reason unable to indent your posts, or are you avoiding doing to so to try and irritate me. I have no problem continually fixing your mistakes, but you need to learn how to do these things for yourself instead of relying on others to constantly assist you.

That grief porn is a neologism is a no-brainer, just like we don't need to point out that OJ is black or the sky is blue. Wikipedia doesn't require citation for the obvious.. If you feel it is not obvious, you need to defend that assertion. If you are not prepared to do so, I must conclude that you cannot defend that assertion, and will consider the argument concluded on that point. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Your position is that it's too obvious for you to lower yourself to support? Are you somehow allowed a special pass to introduce Original Research and simply dictate from on high pronouncements of fact without reference or citation?99.144.192.208 (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it as either the lack of indenting, the incivility or the lack of cohesiveness of argument, but I don't understand what it is you are actually asking. Could you rephrase? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to place all my responses to the left like you do. Anyways, here's the nut of it:

It is not for us to subjectively make a finding that the term is a neologism, we have no more reason for that then we do to pull out of thin air the "fact" that the term is 10 years new. Find a Reliable Source that has made the claim and then find support from your fellow editors to incorporate it. Without any verification that the word is considered a neologism we can't include it. Unfortunately - you aren't a citable source that can be referenced and your Synthesis of the two subjects is Original Research and not permitted. 99.135.175.107 (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding our guidelines on WP:TALK; go there and review them. Replies get a :colon, which places the subsequent text to the right. Clearly, you know how to do this, as you've managed to muddle through somehow in other pages. I'm guessing that it isn't a mistake at all, and you're doing it to rile me. Sigh. Oh look! There just went all my AGF...

You are the one - the only one, btw - stating that grief porn isn't a neologism. Cite that the obviously-termed grief porn is not such. Period. Do that, and you have an argument. Do it not, and you are wasting all our time.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

::What a strange remark. "You are the one - the only one, btw - stating that grief porn isn't a neologism." Where is your supporting reference that it 'is a neologism? You are the only person I know on Earth that currently postulates that it is.99.135.175.107 (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Schadenfreude fact tag

This information:

It is usually used to describe the behavior of the news media in the wake of a tragedy. It is distinct from Schadenfreude in that it describes a forced or artificial commiseration in response to unfortunate events, whereas the latter refers to a joy at the misfortune of others. Commentators have noted that the distinction can be blurred by the 24-hour news cycle and its need to produce news stories.

was revised to the following:

It is distinct from Schadenfreude which refers to a joy at the misfortune of others.

I am unclear about the revert: is it being argued that Schadenfeude is not a joy at the misfortune of others? Er, its the definition of the term. Additionally, the other information culled are in the Lede, which acts as an introduction and summary of the material below it, and is supported by the text below it.. It shouldn't have been removed. The info about the 24-hour news cycle should be fact-tagged, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC) :It's tagged because if you are to draw a comparative conclusion you must support it with a reference. The commentators remark was removed because there is also no supporting citation to indicate that multiple commentators - let alone one - have made any distinction whatsoever between it and Schadenfruede. We do not use sophomoric phrase like Schadenfruede and Neologism inappropriately simply as faux intellectual adornment. 99.144.192.208 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC) ::Hmm, that's an interesting and surprisingly point for a new user to make. Have you edited under an account that wasn't an IP before? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC) :::Are you unaware of critical thinking skills as taught at the University level? I apologize if this is outside your comfort zone, but compare and contrast and supported reasoning are skills that you will learn if you should attend a college. 99.144.192.208 (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have attended college, so maybe stop the personal attack. Do you need to be blocked to get you to stop? I imply asked if you have edited under an account here before, Is there a reason you are unwilling to answer the question? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

:::As you've been dropping snide comments questioning where I might have acquired my critical analysis skills I felt you may not have been exposed to them outside of Wikipedia. It's a common skill-set shared by many non-wikipedians. I myself make no claims, I was merely pointing out the fact.99.144.192.208 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much that Arcayne doesn't understand critical analysis it's that he notices certain traits in your approach that remind him (and me) of another editor we both know. Approaching this discussion with that preconception in mind might be one thing that's getting in his way. I don't know if you are that user or not but I don't care. Padillah (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if my intellectual Spockishness makes me less cuddly, it's purely defensive to turtle in when under a frenzied assault. I really am focused on the content, and the social cues from Arcayne are transparently disingenuous so I'd rather stick to facts.

Yep, i am growing more convinced that this is indeed that user, Padillah. Anon, you were asked if you've edited here before under an IP or account other than the 99 set you currently operate under. A simple yes or no will suffice, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Yes. Why would you think this was my first day using a Wiki?99.144.192.208 (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now tht you've admitted to being a previous user, was that previous account blocked, banned, or otherwise prevented from editing? Have you and I interacted in any of these previous incarnations? Please answer truthfully. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

::I was already told days ago by an Administrator that you were faking your position, so discuss content and stop the bullying threats. I'm sorry that you feel that I should not be allowed to edit - or that discussion about edits might be beneath your "imperiousness" as the official put it. 99.144.192.208 (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? could you post a link to that conversation? As well, could you trouble yourself to answer my question: are you currently operating under another account, or have been blocked or banned under another account? It isn't bullying or imperiousness to ask for a straight answer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WHy are you avoiding the question anon? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC: How do we decide the above?

conflicting facts

1. When presented with two opposing citations (one claiming the coining of a term and a number of others being shown to exist before the coining), what is the proper method of resolving those differences?

Here is the edit with statement of "fact" (Claim that the term "Grief Porn" was coined on April 7, 2005) that is being questioned: [50]

Here is the supporting references as evidence showing prior use of term "Grief Porn" in literature and printed press: [51][52][53][54] exist from many years prior.99.144.192.208 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To state both citations and point out the differences. Padillah (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is my stance as well. We use the one being contested in conjunction with the ones contesting it. It is an encyclopedic method of handling dissenting citations. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If a putatively reputable source says something that everybody agrees is false, just ignore it. Even reputable sources can be wrong, and Wikipedia policy doesn't require us to bury our heads in the sand. The RS policy only comes into play when there is an actual disagreement. Looie496 (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's just it, Looie496 - there aren't any sources saying its wrong. Indeed, it is only the anonymous user him/herself saying that its false, wrong, and should be boiled in a kettle of oil, etc. The four references (s)he keeps tossing around are references (that I supplied at the top of this page) that indicate a usage prior to the date of publication of the cite in question. We don't know if the term was coined earlier than that date. No ohter source is claiming that it invented the phrase first. Sorry if you bowled over by the surprisingly familiar editing skills of the anon (who's admitted they've been here before). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• As Arcayne helpfully points out below, "Obvious facts ... don't need citation for the obvious." It is an obvious fact that Robert Yates did not coin this term (and a bit of a shame that our DYK said he did, but that's water under the bridge). It is not OR to note the date of a previous usage, and see that it is earlier than the claimed coinage. These are not competing view points, both of which need to be presented equally. The Observer made a mistake, and it's improper to "lead" with this, and then point out at the end of the paragraph that it's wrong.

  I'd say the origins of the term are unknown; unless and until a reliable source is found to identify the actual origin, we shouldn't try to guess. Instead, get rid of "Origin" in the section title, remove the claim that Yates coined the term, call the section "Definition and early uses" (or something) instead, and discuss both Yates' use of the term and Sherman Alexie's use of the term. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::(off-topic Q): Could you translate DYK? I take it to here to mean the blog, but more broadly what does the acronym represent? ty 99.135.175.107 (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"Did you know" - Wikipedia:Did you know. Hipocrite (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, wiki-slang. DYK is Did you know, article teasers that appear on the Main Page. I'm referring to the tag at the top of this talk page, which says that on June 8th, the Main Page had an entry: Did you know ... that Robert Yates, assistant editor for The Observer first coined the term "grief porn" at a 2005 news conference to denote a "gratuitous indulgence of tangential association with tragedy"? Oops. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

:I edited the tag to reflect our mistake: "tag adjusted to reflect effort to be as Reliable a Source as is in our power . We admit and correct known errors - we do not knowingly perpetuate false information." 99.135.175.107 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

neologism

Resolved

 – While there is no standard definition as to when a new term moves from being a neologism to the mainstream, the descriptive can be applied to grief porn

2. Is the term grief porn a neologism as defined?

Lengthy discussion

I have never agreed with the term and feel it should be abolished. English is a living language and to segregate words based on there age is a worthless limitation on vocabulary. Padillah (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I understand your feeling, but the term does in fact exist. Using the current definition, does the term fit that definition. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Well, therein lay my problem. Language is around 5,000 years old so yes 10 years is new. But I am younger than 40 so it's been in use for almost a quarter of my life. Which definition do you want me to use? By definition the word "iPhone" is less than 5 years old, should it be considered a neologism? I just don't find the term useful. Padillah (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC) The way I am looking at it, we have both an article and a category for the term, so when we have an article that uses a term that fulfills the definition of neologism, we add it to that category. As there isn't any evidence that the term isn't a neologism, I think the matter is clear. And iPhone is a specific trade name, unlike other commercial terms like bandaid or aspirin. Grief porn is neither. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC) :::::It is not for us to subjectively make a finding that the term is a neologism, we have no more reason for that then we do to pull out of thin air the "fact" that the term is 10 years new. Find a Reliable Source that has made the claim and then find support from your fellow editors to incorporate it. Without any verification that the word is considered a neologism we can't include it. Unfortunately - you aren't a citable source that can be referenced and your Synthesis of the two subjects is Original Research and not permitted. 99.144.192.208 (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Wrong, and here's why. Obvious facts, like that Fitna is a film, or that Star Trek takes place in the future, The Bible is a book and that OJ is black, don't need citation for the obvious. The definition of neologism: "a new word, meaning, usage, or phrase"[55] I am not claiming on my own that it is such. It dimply is such, just like the sky is blue, the ball is round and that the Cubs don't win pennants. Guess what grief porn is? A neologism. If you do not think it is, you must contest the obvious by present proof that it is not indeed obvious. The onus is upon you to prove your argument. When you removed the information and were subsequently reverted, the onus fell to you to support your edit, as per WP:BRD. Of course, you failed to do so, Now, rather than continually attack me for having the temerity to disagree, back up your assertion that it is is not or kindly sit down. Stop wasting our time. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Unfortunately - you aren't a citable source that can be referenced and your Synthesis of the two subjects is Original Research and not permitted. Sorry if you don't understand that simple concept - it is a matter of verification; indeed, it is the very first line of that policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"99.135.175.107 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Again, I am not citing myself. I am stating the obvious. Am I to understand that you are unwilling to disprove the common sense definition of grief porn as a neologism? If you present a citation countering it, I will listen. Otherwise, you are engaging in semantics; as much as I love wordplay, you have wasted enough of our time in what appears to be a petty grudge. Present a citation claiming that grief porn is something else (or at the very least that it isn't a neologism) and we'll talk. Until then, you are wasting time. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC) :You are demanding that I prove a negative.[56] That's a logical non-starter and is impossible. 99.135.175.107 (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Nope, I am asking you to prove that grief porn is something other than a neologism. Go ahead, I'll wait. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Much ado about nothing. "Neologism" means different things to different people, our article about it admits that there is no precise definition of when a word stops being a neologism and enters the mainstream. It is not an obvious fact that it is a neologism, it is not an obvious fact that it isn't. It will be impossible to find a reliable source to sort this out one way or the other. I don't care if it's used in the article or not, it doesn't help, it doesn't hurt. Flip a coin or something, and move on to issues that matter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC) :::Then it's a Neologism. I guess we couldn't have an article defining it if it wasn't something of interest.99.135.175.107 (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments Further discussion

• I don't think an RFC is going to be particularly helpful, it should probably be closed. I think you should seek a mediator to help you guys sort this out. –xeno^talk 23:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hows this to address the "coining issue"? As for whether or not is a neologism, I think we can accept on the face that it is, though I do agree with Padilah that it's the term itself is peculiar as language is inherently constructive. –xeno^talk 23:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

::Interesting edit, I believe my objections might be limited to style alone, but I'm still mulling it over. Just a note to say ty for the well crafted effort.99.135.175.107 (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think its a great solution to the problem. I liked the cquote format, but I am not married to it, especially if its some dealbreaker or whatnot. It resolves the wall of text of that taken up most of the article discussion. There are other things we can now address:

• the neologism thingie, I think since neologism is a noun, we can say "pejorative neologism often used to describe..." Pejorative isn't really cited, but it was added by the anon. For that reason, we don't need to characterize it as an expression as well; it avoids b eign too wordy and awkward.
• We need to re-add the Finkelstein stuff, as it further defines and offers examples and at least one possible reasoning behind grief porn. As it is extremely well-cited, it should remain in the article.
• the info about Schadenfreude:

"It is usually used to describe the behavior of the news media in the wake of a tragedy. It is distinct from Schadenfreude in that it describes a forced or artificial commiseration in response to unfortunate events, whereas the latter refers to a joy at the misfortune of others. Commentators have noted that the distinction can be blurred by the 24-hour news cycle and its need to produce news stories.

• As most people consider them the same thing (borne out by non-citable references from a search of "Schadenfreude" and "grief porn"), it seems encyclopedic (and just plain helpful) to point out that they are different. I don't think that's synthesis. We are not connecting the two, we are explaining what each one is. I cannot recall where I saw the 24-news cycle thing, so I can live with a fact tag; I am sure someone else has seen it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please use supporting references - you make multiple unsupported claims of fact that are not true.

• "Anon" did not add word Pejorative[57]. You did, and as you criticize it for not being cited I'll agree to its removal.
• Finkelstein "stuff"? Why the vague obfuscation of your possible true intentions? Beyond the def, "The Times's Daniel Finkelstein, defines the term as "a rather tasteless fascination with other people's disasters and a sentimentalism that is out of place"[12]" all we have is a Fanboy reference to popular culture TV detectives in the UK and the McAnn case - all of which has been removed and for which nobody, including yourself has agitated for. It has no consensus.
• There is no such thing as a "non-citable reference for schadenfreude" in support of inclusion. Your reasoning that: "it seems encyclopedic" is a non-starter.

---

Removing the false statement of fact appears to be acceptable to you, do you have any supporting citation as to why mention of the error in the blog is notable?99.135.175.107 (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, i am' sorry, but I've explained all of this to you before; I'm not wasting my time if you are going to not even bother reading my posts. When you do, then we can talk. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

::::You are not above the requirement to support your edits as notable with Reliable Source references. 99.135.175.107 (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone else asks, I'll be happy to clarify anything to them (though I have already done so). If you aren't going to even bother reading my past responses (that have answered your questions at least three times), I've no reason to believe you will start now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider your opposition to supporting your edit in light of this fundamental rule:

Thank you. 99.135.175.107 (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you are failing to understand. Asee an admin for assistance. When you start indenting and reading the posts that answer your questions, then we can interact. Until then, the only person wasting time is you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

:::What about Wikipedia rules am I missing? You have failed to support your edit, you haven't even attempted it. You are playing the equivalent of a 6 year old with his fingers in his ears screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!". Your efforts are a transparent attempt to exasperate and waste time. They bear all the hallmarks of lacking good faith, a good faith request asking you to support your edits is being directly requested here. 99.135.175.107 (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Arcayne let me spell this out for you. Here is the question you have been evading. --> "Do you have any supporting citation as to why mention of the error (the false claim of inception) in the blog is notable?" Your repeated statements insisting that you've already addressed this are false, without foundation, and are clearly untrue. The question I have regarding the notability of including a report of a blogs error is a reasonable one. .99.135.175.107 (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not being Arcayne I can't speak for him but I would like to submit that it's notable for two reasons: 1) It's a clear (albeit apparently wrong) assertion on the coining of a phrase. This is rare and should be noted. 2) I think it's notable for being demonstrably wrong. Sounds odd I know but if we can say "Some people think Yates coined this term but there are obvious uses before his coinage" we can both address the assertion and denounce it in one fell swoop. This will avoid future arguments where those that have seen the Observer blog try repeatedly to include the info and it will fall to those still here (which may or may not be us) to defend it's exclusion. Padillah (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

:: As to #1: "This is rare and should be noted." What exactly is rare and notable about a blog making an error? "Dewey defeats Truman" was notable and its inclusion in Wiki and notability rests upon verifiable references remarking upon it's notability. Do we have any reference at all that either repeats the incorrect assertion or criticizes it? Do we have any reference to the blogs pronouncements being notable in their own right?

As to #2: This appears to be a re-phrasing of your first question and I'm unsure what new ground is being covered, please clarify if you could. Wikipedia does not, and should not, serve as the "Retraction and Clarifications Editor" for the Blogosphere.

Thank you. 99.135.175.107 (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• I assumed the "Comments" section was more for meta-RFC issues, but it appears we're discussing sections 1 and 2 (above) down here as well. Just a pointer that I've commented on both sections above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've retitled the discussion to 'Further discussion' accordingly. Now that we have more folk here, should we restart the discussions regarding the outstanding issues? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Want help?

I have, I think, zero history with anyone here, have no idea what this article is about and would be happy to be of service. Would you like help resolving this dispute? Would you like to do it on this talk page, or elsewhere? Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

:Yes, and thank you for you offer. It does take a community. 99.135.175.107 (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My initial request is that you strongly consider signing up for a username. You can pick any name you want. This will make it far easier to communicate with you. If this is a problem for you, that's fine, but it would be quite nice. Hipocrite (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested that as well. the only reason that I can think of why they wouldn't want one is that they consider themselves a "public user". And boy, am I glad to have some more input on the article. Welcome! :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

== Changes to the article that Anon99. wants ==

• 1 Remove mention of coining date and delete "Origin" from section title.
• 2 2 Add: "The Times's Daniel Finkelstein, defines the term as "a rather tasteless fascination with other people's disasters and a sentimentalism that is out of place"[12].

99.135.175.107 (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

the following was added by the anon, as commentary on the section below as presented by another editor:.

*1: Remove mention of coining date and delete "Origin" from section title.

Do you have any supporting citation as to why mention of the error (the false claim of inception) in the blog is notable? Do we have any reference at all that either repeats the incorrect assertion or criticizes it? Do we have any reference to the blogs pronouncements being notable in their own right?

• 2: Add: "The Times's Daniel Finkelstein, defines the term as "a rather tasteless fascination with other people's disasters and a sentimentalism that is out of place"[12].

There is nothing notable in fanboy mentions of UK detectives and it does nothing to further the definition of this neologism. Also note that it offers still yet another definition for the term. We may wish to add numbered entries to note the distinctions. If so, any order is fine.

• 3:
• 4:
• 5: If you insist on entering "Commentators have noted that the distinction can be blurred by the 24-hour news cycle and its need to produce news stories." You MUST reference these supposed "commentators" and their making a distinction between schadenfreude and grief porn. I do not see any evidence whatsoever that any "commentators" have noted a distinction of any kind between schadenfreude and grief porn.
• 5a: Understand the distinction here: "it describes a forced or artificial commiseration in response to unfortunate events" and the first sentence of the opening para: "used to describe a hyper-attention, intrusive voyeurism and "gratuitous indulgence of tangential association with tragedy"". these are opposing definitions that you are proposing to include in the same paragraph.

What is your basis for either? How do you square your divergent definitions? Do you comprehend the distinction?

Please return this section and my edit to where it was when you removed my lengthy and reasoned response here:[58] - the 99.anon

Fine. Are you done now, or is there something else you need? Can we finally have your focus? Read the material that's being offered, and stop trying to win; tht is never, ever going to happen in Wikipedia. For someone who mysteriously edited here under another ID some time ago, you've been slow to figure this out. As you've squandered the chance to get any answers from me to any of these questions by being pointy, uncivil and rude, you should reconsider your efforts in addressing me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

note: Nearly every other sentence of yours in this section has been a fabrication of my position and my actions. Not to forget your earlier multiple deletions of my text and complete wholesale reordering of conversations where you move my text and insert yours or physically change my text through retitling or any number of childish tricks to squelch out discussion. - 99.141.251.67 (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the article

• 1. The current section noting the term being coined by Yates - as edited/adjusted by Xeno - is fine. I suggest that we remove the word origin, as the origin - as per the discussion - seems in doubt. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• 2. Add the David Finkelstein citation and text:

The Times's Daniel Finkelstein, defines the term as "a rather tasteless fascination with other people's disasters and a sentimentalism that is out of place", but considers it misapplied at times. Using the example of the Madeleine McCann a four-year-old child who went missing while on holiday with her parents, Finkelstein theorizes that "we don't follow the McCann case because we are grief junkies. Most of us follow it because we fancy ourselves as (Inspector) Morse.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• 3. As per discussion, add the statement: "Grief porn is a pejorative neologistic expression often used...". - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• 4. As per discussion, add the following:

"Carol Sarler, speaking as a guest columnist for The Times (London), sarcastically notes that "this new and peculiar pornography of grief" is sometimes called a 'tribute'"

removing the descriptive "sarcastically". - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• 5. Adding the part about Schadenfreude:

It is usually used to describe the behavior of the news media in the wake of a tragedy. It is distinctly different from Schadenfreude in that it describes a forced or artificial commiseration in response to unfortunate events, whereas the latter refers to a joy at the misfortune of others. Commentators have noted that the distinction can be blurred by the 24-hour news cycle and its need to produce news stories.

• 6. As per prior decisions about Urban Dictionary as a source, put the link to UD's definition as an External link.

Describe the dispute

Could the various parties to the dispute please explain what the real problem here is, as briefly as possible? Try to summarize your position as neutrally as humanly possible, and please don't object to others summaries. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The initial problem revolved around a large series of edits by the anon, which removed cited references, etc. The article was eventually dispute-locked holding that edit in place.

The primary sticking point was a citation that refers to the term 'grief porn' as being coined by a newspaper editor, Robert Yates. The anon, using sources that I supplied at the top of this page when creating the article, determined that the reference appears to have been used before that press conference. The anon then called the original citation a lie/fraud/etc., as prior instances of the term were documented. Clearly, it wasn't the initial instance of the term, but that didn't invalidate the definition provided by the reference. The anon wanted the mention of the citation and definition culled completely, whereas myself and another editor agreed that all could be used in conjunction with one another. the anon still considered it the willing addition of false information to the wiki (or something to the effect).

Afterwards, the different parts of the large scale edits were broken down into separate sections, so as to not hold up all the edits over the initial one. The section "Proposed changes to the article" address the fixes to the article, which largely undo some of these edits while agreeing with others. I could reiterate them here but,as the section is immediately above, it would seem redundant. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, we are all in agreement that the term was not initially used by Mr. Yates? Could someone concisely describe what the citation to a work that has an obvious error provides the article? If we did not use that reference, what would have to go? Hipocrite (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The citation in question (a) is useful in that it clearly defines and discusses the term, and is well cited. The actual problem is not that the citation is rendered useless by the oversight that Yates didn't coin the term - for all we know, he truthfully feels that he coined it, but rather that prior examples of the term exist here and there in book references. Text was twice offered that wold seamlessly fix the problem (1, 2) but both were rejected by the anon as endorsing "lies" and "fraud". I disagree with this assessment, however. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That citation seems incredibly shallow, and given that it's wrong, there's got to be a way to write the article without it. Have we looked for other definitions of the term? Hipocrite (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think it is wrong, or more precisely, I think that we are over-analyzing this. The only part of the citation that is suspect is that we have a date of a press conference wherein the newspaper claimed that Yates coined the term, not that he coined the term on that date. Aside from that, the definition is dead-on. As I found most of the cites (indicated at the top of the page), I can say that I certainly didn't find anything that gave the same level of definition to the term. Everything that came close was in the article. The Guardian is pretty reliable, so it was listed before anything else. The definition is the position of the paper. I think it would be an incredible mistake to misinterpret it as a lie, fraud or incorrect. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems the only source for this article is a blog post from the Guardian and sources you don't find reliable? Hipocrite (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps you are under the misapprehension that we are actually talking about an actual blog, likely because the anon, being the new sort of folk they are, doesn't fully comprehend our policies regarding what what doesn't actually constitutes a blog. Much like the way that (s)he adds the same citations over and over, maybe (s)he feels that to keep calling it a dismissible blog, then it might magically - poof - become one.

That aside, I'd suggest that we simply look at the content of the Observer blog - it isn't a blog by the definition that we use to exclude the crazy sorts of nonsense spouted by every Tom, Dick and Jane who are in no way notable or citable. The Observer Blog is just a blog by title, not by content. Of course, we can get some independent confirmation of this if necessary - say the word, and I shall file an immediate request for opinion on the matter at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. the long and the skinny of the matter is that we have one citation that defines the term, and four minor citations where the term appears in passing in books. All of the aforementioned citations have value in the article. It is not the absolute yes or no that the anon - likely due to their lack of experience - seems to feel it is. Most things in life and Wikipedia aren't like that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Arcayne may not think the blog erred in crediting Yates with authorship of the term, yet prior use, in context, is patently obvious[59]. Additionally the definition is not the position of the newspaper, your claim is unsupported and borders on the absurd. Further, the blog explicitly made the claim that he coined the term on that date. You yourself said so both here in your edit and when you proclaimed it - and from the Wikipedia "Did You Know" section when you prematurely asserted without adequate research that "(Yates) first coined the term this article records "grief porn" at a 2005 news conference." 99.141.251.67 (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that we weren't addressing each other's posts here, or did you forget to read that part of Hypocrite's instructions? Sigh. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(←dent) the anon was raising hell about his missing section, or whatever. It has been reinstated above. Now, maybe we can move this away from the happy horseshit grudge match it has been ever since the anon showed up, and act just a little bit more professional and polite. We have folk here trying to get the article in the right, so I am going to do my best to let that happen. Let's stop the name-calling and raise the tone somewhat. This is my last word on the topic, unless escalation bcomes necessary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::As to the Blog actually being a blog, just glance at the previous day's blog entry:[60] and I quote, " And if you want the real evidence that blogging culture has infiltrated even the most austere bastions of old media we can provide it courtesy of one of our deepest media deep throats. An email has been passed on to the Observer blog:". Looks like a blog, walks like a blog, sounds like a blog - and get this, it calls itself a blog! 99.141.251.67 (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe what Arcane is trying to say is that "blogs" have evolved to the point where just saying something is a "blog" doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a reliable source. –xeno^talk 03:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I do not argue that the blog is de facto not a reliable source in and of itself, I have never argued against the introduction of the contained quote. I have presented evidence that impeached the date claimed for the coinage of the term and I have rebutted claims that somehow "blog" doesn't blog but has somehow become the 'official position of the Observer'.99.141.251.67 (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am saying that the Observer Blog simply calls itself such to seem hip and cool. It is not - by our current definition of the term and exclusion criteria of such - a blog. We use production blogs, and those are actual blogs, and not news stories that solicit input from readers after the actual reporting. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Did my edit not account for this? If not, why? If so, Move forward. –xeno^talk 03:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Then were are we? Is it a settled matter that we have no coinage date and shall make no reference to the blogs error? Or is there to be a discussion as to the notability of the blogs error and motion for mention in the article?99.141.251.67 (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

← Huh? The article covers this. It says Yates used the term on x date, that the observer blog thought it was a novel term, but that there was usages predating it. These are all verifiable facts. –xeno^talk 03:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC) :What is the basis for notability of this event? Do we have any mention of this claim elsewhere? Is there note of the error? Is the claim itself repeated? Why is this notable and how does it aid in our defining of the term?99.141.251.67 (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability applies to articles themselves, not article content. The source and text as written seems fine to me. –xeno^talk 03:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Please clarify, is it your position that the event is not notable but OK none the less? Is there a link you could kindly provide supporting your claim that notability is not a necessary standard for inclusion of content within the article itself? ty and sorry, but I was not aware of the distinction - and it is the only basis for my opposition to including a history of a blogs error. 99.141.251.67 (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a common misconception. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. –xeno^talk 03:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If we are to include it and find that it furthers our definition - we would of course need to correct this part: "Though Rafael Behr of The Observer reported it", it was the "Observer Blog"[61][62]. 99.141.251.67 (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thusly? –xeno^talk 04:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Well, actually, thusly. And if this puts to an end the pages of interpersonal crap that have polluted the page, then let the thing be done with. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Holding for the moment on the "thusly" and sharpening the prose - it seems apparent that Yates offered the definition but that the blogger applied his interpratation.[63] Here's a stab at supportable accuracy "It was observed by the recorder that the phenomenon was first noticed following the death of Princess Diana and the media frenzy that occurred afterwards. He noted an increase in activity during times of national mourning and international disaster, and commented dryly that it primarily affects people working in media.[1]". 99.141.251.67 (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec 2x) And I am going to say this yet again, so perk up and pay attention, anon - the Observer Blog is not a blog, and the staff reporter writing the article is not a blogger. Unless you are able to grasp this - offered to you by myself and at least four other editors, you falling into disruptive pattern. Ask an admin if you are unclear about this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeating the same claim over and over doesn't make you any less wrong. And since admins have already weighed in on your behavior at WP:WQA and pointed out that your actions on this article have violated a number of policies, perhaps you shouldn't be throwing stones. And it's CLEARLY a blog, and whether it's a blog or not is moot anyway as it's not a WP:RS-compliant source either way. DreamGuy (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the "stab" doesn't work for me. Xeno's version is closer to workable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to interupt you all, but could we go back to my initial question - "What, exactly, does the Observer blog entry add that could not be replaced by other, more reliable sources." Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, would like to offer the blog entry and refute it as a way of dissuading future possible attempts to improperly include the blog entry. If we make mention and refute then we're covered. It even, in a way addresses the neologism aspect in that it displays to the reader the phrase is new enough that it's coinage is not as clear as some would like. But that's just me. Padillah (talk)

The blog entry is not a reliable source (author is not an expert on word origins, etc.) and cannot be used, as discussed on the WP:FRINGE thread about this issue. As we don't have reliable sources arguing against the obviously faulty and unreliable claim, the whole section needs to go. DreamGuy (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Padilah makes a good point, there was clearly an assertion of coinitude, we should point it out and refute it. Obviously the AFD may make all this a moot point. –xeno^talk 23:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And, addressing DG's comment, I am unsure how he is arriving at the conclusion that The Examiner isn't reliable; it more than fulfills our criteria as a reliable source. Perhaps he is unclear on how the blog part of the Examiner Blog - the bit where readers can respond to the article - is not being utilized whatsoever. I am aware that DG has been pushing for the discrediting of Examiner (1, 2), but the writer of the cited article is a regular staff writer, not some Joe Shmoe fresh out of high school Composition classes. As that matter is still being discussed, let's await the conclusion of the that discussion before crystal-balling the conclusion of the discussion there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

EL and heading title

I already made these edits, but the editor who thinks he WP:OWNs athe article and quite rudely told me I wasn't allowed to edit here just blind reverted them. The seem to me not only unobjectionable but quite obvious.

• Urban Dictionary external link should be removed as completely pointless and an obvious violation of WP:EL rules. Urban Dictionary is not considered a reliable source of info. It seems to be there since Arcayne couldn't use it as a source because it failed WP:RS, but it also fails WP:EL and needs to go.
  
• Heading titled "Origin and definition" -- This is both misleading, as the origin is not discussed (just some instances of its use -- nothign like any attempt to describe its actual origin with info from experts on word origins), and redundant as the definition was already given in the lead. The heading description either needs to be given an accurate and apt title or just be removed completely.
  

If the only person who disagrees is Arcayne then I will undo his edit per the expectations admins at the WP:WQA report of his behavior set for him. DreamGuy (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Urban Dictonary is depreciated. I believe RSN is quite clear on that. Hipocrite (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I already made these edits, but the editor who thinks he WP:OWNs athe article and quite rudely told me I wasn't allowed to edit here just blind reverted them. The seem to me not only unobjectionable but quite obvious.

• Urban Dictionary external link should be removed as completely pointless and an obvious violation of WP:EL rules. Urban Dictionary is not considered a reliable source of info. It seems to be there since Arcayne couldn't use it as a source because it failed WP:RS, but it also fails WP:EL and needs to go.
• Heading titled "Origin and definition" -- This is both misleading, as the origin is not discussed (just some instances of its use -- nothign like any attempt to describe its actual origin with info from experts on word origins), and redundant as the definition was already given in the lead. The heading description either needs to be given an accurate and apt title or just be removed completely.

If the only person who disagrees is Arcayne then I will undo his edit per the expectations admins at the WP:WQA report of his behavior set for him. DreamGuy (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Urban Dictonary is depreciated. I believe RSN is quite clear on that. Hipocrite (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, the conclusion of the discussion noting that UD cannot be used within article as citations specifically noted that it could be used as an external link. I was following that decision by putting it at the bottom. I am not married to it, but am simply doing what has already been decided as allowable. Secondly, it was an oversight on my part to not cull the "Origin" part of the text. I have no issue whatsoever with its removal at this time.

Perhaps DG could spend a moment and seek out a shred of good faith. The WQA reference was simply where I reacted poorly to his having stalked me to this article, after specifically being told to stay away. I apologized for losing my cool. It is apparently his intention to pull this WQA out at every given opportunity - not really the smartest move for someone under severe ArbCom civility restrictions (not the least of which would be accusing people of OWNership). Rabbit season, duck season. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Observer has removed blog entry from its website

The Observer has entirely removed the blog entry[64] which was cited in support of an edit to the "grief porn" article from its website.99.141.251.67 (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange - did someone email them to tell them they were wrong? They shant get off that easy. [65] =) –xeno^talk 00:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hahahahaha! That was my first thought too! Thanks for posting the link to the archive; I was about to put it in, but you beat me to it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was told to do so at the Reliable Sources notice board.[66]. Here is the complete correspondence in which I informed him of the error and in which he endeavored to correct it so as to not distort the historical record:

Hi, Your blog here:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/observer/archives/2005/04/07/boo_hoo_said_th.html is being mistakenly relied upon to support the date :the term "grief porn" was coined.

Here are some links showing its prior use, in context, and in the UK

press as well as both fiction and non-fiction books before your April

7, 2005 date:

Response:

Rafael.Behr@observer.co.uk to me

show details Jun 25 (5 days ago)

Thanks for alerting me to this.

I'll do my best to get it corrected - the blog on which that post appeared

is now long defunct so there might be some delay while I do some archeology

on the technical side of things.

But I don't see any reason not to remove the claimed coining - I wouldn't

want the historical record on the genesis of this phrase to be distorted by

a flippant blog post.

All the best,

Rafael

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Visit guardian.co.uk - the UK's most popular newspaper website

http://guardian.co.uk http://observer.co.uk

To save up to 33% when you subscribe to the Guardian and the Observer visit

http://www.guardian.co.uk/subscriber

The Guardian Public Services Awards 2009, in partnership with

Hays Specialist Recruitment, recognise and reward outstanding

performance from public, private and voluntary sector teams.

To find out more and to nominate a deserving team or individual, visit

http://guardian.co.uk/publicservicesawards. Entries close 17th July.

Guardian News & Media Limited

A member of Guardian Media Group PLC

Registered Office

Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG

Registered in England Number 908396

I simply did as the community openly told me to do.99.141.251.67 (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it per se, but I must admit you do come off as having some kind of axe to grind... –xeno^talk 00:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - omfug! I never actually thought he would actually assume this? i actually had to wait to stop laughing to even write this - I've really underestimated the anon's grudge here. Ahhhhh. Thanks for the laugh! :D

Sigh, now that I've had that nice chuckle, it bears pointing out that even if the article is updated (ie, editorial oversight - reliability), the citaiton still works for the most important part of it. Not to start me laughing again, but I have to ask when the anon heard back from Rafael. this should be rather telling - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

::Axe? My edits are wholly neutral. I opposed only the use of a date which was so clearly wrong and easily proved by looking directly at a book printed years earlier. I also opposed the use of the Urban Dictionary and felt that the uncited use of "sarcastic" to color a quote was unencyclopedic. In short I've offered about 5 edits all of which sought to improve the article. These are the actions of someone working positively. For axe see my complaints here about another editors actions:[67] - those were the actions of someone having an axe to grind. Things seem a little one sided here and it appears that one editor gets away with bloody murder while I get harshly criticized for offering factual, well reasoned and fully referenced edits.99.141.251.67 (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not endorsing the actions of other editors on this page (there's a reason I recused), but I just get the feeling you have a past history with some of the other editors. If I am wrong, then I apologize. Appearances can be deceiving. –xeno^talk 01:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

They sure can be deceiving. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::I could show you dozens of examples of turning the other cheek and remaining focused on improving the article with careful research and intelligent suggestions for presenting content. Things like this[68] and the comment "the following was added by the anon, as commentary on the section below as presented by another editor" could easily be proved out - I created the section[69], Arcayne then came in and took over my text[70], I turned the other cheek and discussed content[71], Arcayne retitles my section again and deletes my original post[72], Arcayne then deletes my second post in which I had put forth succinct points relating to content. He deleted it entirely[73] - and on it goes until he accuses me of disruptive behavior while all the while rewriting, deleting, moving and retitling the posts he points to as evidence. These are bizarre, well practiced, and exceedingly bold deceptions. And yet, I'm the one getting pointed at while trying to go about making honest and well referenced edits.99.141.251.67 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And yet - amazingly enough - this article is still called "Talk:Grief porn", not 'I'm-throwing-some-more-punches-at-Arcayne-before-I-get-blocked'. You've done this before, anon75. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying your suggestions aren't good. Compromise can be reached. But it would help if you were an identified user. That's all. –xeno^talk 01:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying your suggestions aren't good. Compromise can be reached. But it would help if you were an identified user. That's all. –xeno^talk 01:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec x3) Oh, the anon's been identified, all right. Let's simply wait for the gears to turn. The ban hammer should be arriving shortly. The anon99 user is lilely a formerly banned user (also an anon). Everything we respond to is going to be removed anyway, so let's just move on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

How do we treat a withdrawn reference? The fact that it was copied and leaves a trace seems to complicate the matter. Is there a framework for this?99.141.251.67 (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the citation was never about what you want it to be about I see no need to change much of anything. And it does not leave a trace. The Internet is not like a sofa with tea stains, the blog entry can be found and the content is obviously (from your communication with the paper) under staff control and subject to revision and editorial review (thank you for that) so, again, I see no reason to change things. Padillah (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Anon99 identified as indef-banned user

I am unsure how to address this, as it's been clear that the user was here for a single intent - one which had nothing to do with the article. How do we undo this mess? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure it is clear as you want it to be. I took a cursory glance at the IPs contributions, and the editor made some valid points and worthwhile edits - regardless of whatever past disagreements you may or may not have had with him under another IP. I don't think you should have gone through and removed and/or struck through his contributions both here and at the AfD - it's all probably moot, though, since the article looks to be either deleted or merged when all is said and done. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I am not saying that he didn't offer some good input - but it wasn't his palce to offer it; there are thousands of users in Wikipedia. Any one of them could have brought up the problem. Instead, it was a dude who came to the article to dismantle it and attack me. I didn't remove the IP troll's comments - he was banned, and therefore should have had no say at all in our discussions or deliberations. As other people commented in response to these posts, I struck through them, to preserve the conversational thread, but I'll be damned if a banned IP troll gets a vote. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Who was it that first proposed the article for deletion? If it was the banned user, does that banner have to stay? Paul S (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Tim Vicker did. God, what an unholy mess that would have presented. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)