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

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:[15]...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[16], Google Books photocopy of the actual text in the book "Ten Little Indians"[17], Google Books photocopy of the actual text in the book "9/11 culture"[18], and Google Books photocopy of the actual text in the book "Understanding Sherman Alexie"[19].

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[20], "Ten Little Indians"[21], "9/11 culture"[22], and "Understanding Sherman Alexie"[23].

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)

I'm sorry, are you asking for my subjective interpratation 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)