This article was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Mourning sickness. |
A fact from Grief porn appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 June 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
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:
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)
|
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)
Your reference is from 2005. The term was not, as you say, coined by that writer in 2005. My references,
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] show usage before that date.
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)
:::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."
- "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."
:::::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].
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)
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)
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)
::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)
::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.
::::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)
- 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. [6] ” many other instances of the term predate Yate's usage. [7] [8] [9] [10]
::::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 have failed to reference any Wikipedia rule that states we must use knowingly false information just because it was once printed in a blog.
- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"
:Why don't you seek a request for comment? It is a pure True/False statement:
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)
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.
::::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 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)
Here it is: [48]
Short Discussion Contained Here
|
---|
Also being reverted:
to:
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)
|
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" [12], 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. [12]
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)
::::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?
:::::That would cover this:
::::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)
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)
:::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)
::::::::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)
:::::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)
::::::::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:
::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)
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. citation needed
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)
:::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)
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.
:::::::::::::Yes. Why would you think this was my first day using a Wiki?
99.144.192.208 (
talk) 18:33, 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)
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?
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)
: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)
2. Is the term grief porn a neologism as defined?
Lengthy discussion
|
---|
|
::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)
- "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.
Please use supporting references - you make multiple unsupported claims of fact that are not true.
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)
::::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)
Please reconsider your opposition to supporting your edit in light of this fundamental rule:
:::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)
:: 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?
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)
== Changes to the article that Anon99. wants ==
*1: Remove mention of coining date and delete "Origin" from section title.
Please return this section and my edit to where it was when you removed my lengthy and reasoned response here:
[58] - the 99.anon
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)
- 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], 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. [12]
- "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'"
- 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.
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)
::::::::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)
:::::::::::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 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)
::::::::::::::::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)
:::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)
::::::::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)
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 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.
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 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.
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)
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)
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:
- 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)
::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 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)
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)
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)
OB
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This article was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Mourning sickness. |
A fact from Grief porn appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 June 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
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:
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)
|
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)
Your reference is from 2005. The term was not, as you say, coined by that writer in 2005. My references,
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] show usage before that date.
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)
:::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."
- "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."
:::::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].
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)
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)
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)
::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)
::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.
::::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)
- 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. [6] ” many other instances of the term predate Yate's usage. [7] [8] [9] [10]
::::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 have failed to reference any Wikipedia rule that states we must use knowingly false information just because it was once printed in a blog.
- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"
:Why don't you seek a request for comment? It is a pure True/False statement:
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)
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.
::::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 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)
Here it is: [48]
Short Discussion Contained Here
|
---|
Also being reverted:
to:
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)
|
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" [12], 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. [12]
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)
::::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?
:::::That would cover this:
::::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)
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)
:::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)
::::::::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)
:::::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)
::::::::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:
::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)
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. citation needed
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)
:::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)
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.
:::::::::::::Yes. Why would you think this was my first day using a Wiki?
99.144.192.208 (
talk) 18:33, 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)
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?
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)
: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)
2. Is the term grief porn a neologism as defined?
Lengthy discussion
|
---|
|
::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)
- "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.
Please use supporting references - you make multiple unsupported claims of fact that are not true.
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)
::::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)
Please reconsider your opposition to supporting your edit in light of this fundamental rule:
:::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)
:: 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?
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)
== Changes to the article that Anon99. wants ==
*1: Remove mention of coining date and delete "Origin" from section title.
Please return this section and my edit to where it was when you removed my lengthy and reasoned response here:
[58] - the 99.anon
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)
- 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], 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. [12]
- "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'"
- 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.
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)
::::::::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)
:::::::::::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 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)
::::::::::::::::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)
:::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)
::::::::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)
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 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.
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 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.
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)
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)
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:
- 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)
::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 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)
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)
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)
OB
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).