|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grief article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Grief received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|A summary of this article appears in death.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Youngstown State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.|
|This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 28 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kpaon1. Peer reviewers: Alope13.|
Article Rewritten Substantially 2-21-11 by academic grief expert
I am a grief expert and rewrote the article substantially based on research published in RECENT peer-reviewed high-level psychology journals as well as articles summarizing similar research from the popular press. Much of what existed before was either so old as to be useless or just plain wrong or unsubstantiated. I kept as much as I could.
The bottom of the article "types of grief" is such a mess, though, that I think it should be deleted entirely. It is opinion from someone with much feeling but little knowledge of the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustynyfeathers (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering what the point of the first two sentences are. First of all, the link does not work for the first assertion. Also, I'm not sure if that statement is even valid. The wording makes it seem as if seeking professional support due to grief is not "normal" Making sweeping generalizations about who seeks professional support does is not relevant to describing grief and it is not necessary for wikipedia to state this in an article about grief. Again just those first two sentences. I do think this section is necessary. I have left the two statements in question as to not upset any frequent editors or contributors though I am concerned they are bait lines. I would appreciate any insight from experienced editors or those experienced with wikipedia's quality standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to talk about grief only as it pertains to humans. I think there should at least be some talk about whether and to what extent it can occur in the more intelligent animal species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
"Some researchers such as Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross and others have posited sequential stages including shock and numbness, denial, anger, depression and resolution." - I thought Kübler-Ross's stages were denial, anger, bargaining, depression and accceptance? Just off the top of my head... -Unregistered Anon. user
Maybe, and maybe one should read this excerpt of the book, too. It shows how willful imagination can overcome reality .
I read that loss of ideals can cause grief too in the scholarly (or scientific, I dunno the exact difference) book the Emotions by professor Nico Frijda of the Universiteit van Amsterdam. Andries 14:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence "Grief is one of nature's most powerful aphrodisiac." Such a provocative statement should be credibly cited. IMDB's page for the movie "Wedding Crashers" is far from an appropriate citation.
I too am wondering how DABDA plays into this and from whom it originated. (A wikipedia search for "DABDA" found nothing) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 Jun 2005.
Clarity of stages section
Kubler-Ross spoke of sequential stages, and that is made clear from the text. However, the information about the newer model omits whether the items listed are considered sequential, overlapping, or may occur in any order or even not at all. Could someone who knows please add that information. Mapping the Kubler-Ross stages, which may be more familiar to some people (such as me) onto the newer model might be helpful as well.
This article should include the 5 stages of grief. Denial Anger Bargaining Depression Acceptance.
I think it would be quite helpful
126.96.36.199 22:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- These were included, under "stages". They have been criticized, but they're 'common knowledge', so I'll try and make them a little more prominent. NcLean 14th September 2006
"The most common loss in our society of a loved one is that of the death of a spouse" Seems highly unlikely, given that each human will have two parents, who are likely to die within the individual's lifetime, whereas only one person per couple would have a chance of experiencing death-of-a-spouse. So I've removed this statement. NcLean 14th September 2006
Hello Grief Editors:
I'm requesting that you consider this ebook as a possible link from this page.
Grieving the loss of a child - ebook
Evolving Through Grief: A Mother’s Guide to Healing After the Loss of Her Child.
Thank you, Howard Richman
Thank you, Grief Editors
This is a very beautiful work you have done on Grief (grieving processes). thanks. Austerlitz 188.8.131.52 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
3rd paragraph looks like a copy paste
3rd paragraph looks like a copy paste from grief.net, sentences like "At The Grief Recovery Institute [www.grief.net] we have been working with grieving people for 27 years." are pretty unencyclopedic. I also dont agree about not being a single thing in common between grieving people, because they are all unique... Sure they are all unique, and they would experience things differently, but there is a lot in common too... (looks to me more like advertisement for that site, convincing people that they focus on each person specificially, and dont try any "silver bullet" solution) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Gentlemen; I do not wish to edit your page. I merely wish for you to re-examine your original document. People have been experiencing the normal and natural feelings called grief since the beginning of time. It is only in the past 60+ years that any concept of stages have been published. The two main authors are John Bowlby and Elizabeth Kubler-Ross. Bowlby's work on attachment and loss dealt mainly with children's reactions and in no way ever professed that the stages were clear cut enough to be applied to all. Kubler-Ross's work never pertained to grieving people follow a loss. In both case the research focused primarily on death as the causitive event. This ignores the 40+ other losses that are common to the human experience. With your assistance;
Hopefully we can put to rest the stage theory for grief once and for all. For accurate information please see An Empirical Examination of the Stage Theory of Grief - JAMA Feb. 23, 2007. See Results Section: RESULTS “Counter to stage theory, disbelief (denial) was not the initial dominant grief indicator.” From the Comments Section of the Yale Bereavement Study we find, "the temporal course of the absolute levels of the 5 grief indicators did not follow that proposed by the stage theory of grief" For more accurate information for your articles please see "Mortality after Bereavement: – A Prospective Study of 95,647 Widowed Persons. It appeared in the March, 1987, Vol. 77, No. 3, edition of The American Journal of Public Health. The 95,647 widowed persons were observed for 225,251 person-years. In this, most extesnxive study ever done, there is not a single mention of any stages of grief.
Claiming to be a source for valid information requires that your information be valid. It is not enough to have an opinion and the ability to publish it.
A truly careful reading of Bowlby's work will show that his stages were not experienced by all nor were they experienced in the same manner by any of subjects studied. After 30 years of working with the breaved I can tell you that only "numbness," seems to be consistent with the majority of grievers. Even then the period of numbness is unique to each person.
I would further like to share comments from personal conversations with Elizabeth Kubler-Ross. At the International Convention of The Compassionate Friends in Philadelphia, Elizabeth said, “If I’d known the problems that would arise from people misinterpreting and misusing the stages a dying person goes through [by applying it to the survivors], I wouldn’t have published the book in the first place.”
During a later and humorous conversation Elizabeth shared that she believed that her first stage, “Denial has become the most misused word in the English language.”
Finally, as it relates to all stage theory ideas I would ask each of you to simply do a test. Take a person who is 6'4" tall and who weighs 250 pounds. Sit them down next ot someone who is 5'2" tall and who weighs 100 pounds. Then read the directins on the back of an aspirin bottle. If you truly believe that both should take 2 aspirins to relieve the same headache then you will continue to believe in stage theory. And no amount of truth will change your mind.
For your consideration,
John W. James Founder The Grief Recovery Institute
why are there no references in this article?
Normal vs. Complicated paragraph
This paragraph seems to put suicide as a positive solution to emotional pain and/or suffering. Whether Wikipedia thinks the whole world should go kill themselves or not, It should be put in a more Neutral light. LIMEY 22:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Grief and bereavement counseling
Many forms of what we term 'mental illness' have loss as their root, but are covered by many years and circumstances this often goes unnoticed.
requires citation and I believe is an opinion, not fact. Cached 10:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Compassionate Friends quote in Sibling Section
I question the use of Compassionate Freinds quote in the Sibling Loss section. The quote makes it seem like Compassionate Freinds thinks Sibling loss is the worst type of loss. I find it even more questionable since Compassionate Freinds is a group devoted primarily to the loss of one's child, not sibling. -- Joseph Harper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
External links to patient support groups (especially online chat boards), blogs, and fundraising groups normally not accepted on Wikipedia. Also, to prevent a proliferation of links, it's good to avoid more than one link to any website. Please read the external links policy (and perhaps the specific rules for medical articles) and considering reviewing the long list of external links in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've cleaned this up. this article's primary audience shouldn't be considered to be those in need of counseling and support, but I can see why many people think it's important to have somewhere for people who need support to turn to. Still, we can't reasonably list all the support groups that would be useful, so I've put in a link to the Dmoz category on grief, loss and bereavement. If there's a better category (or a more authoritative but equally broad directory) we should replace it.
- There were only a few links that weren't to support centers - the Australian Centre for Grief and Bereavement link looked like it would be good, but the site just lists things people would have to pay for, so doesn't really meet our guidelines as that's not much use to a regular reader. The "Your Friend’s Loved One Just Died - Here’s How To Help"] wasn't actually about grief itself at all, and appears to have been added as part of a promotion of the website.
- I left one link, The Emotions of Grief During A Breakup article. I'm not that keen on it but it seemed like the most appropriate of the links there! It seems to be written by someone with credentials and experience in the subject area, but she doesn't appear to be a well respected expert in the field in her own right (for instance I couldn't find her cited by Journals), and it's a blog posting (i.e. it hasn't been peer reviewed or through any other sort of rigorous process to ensure it's good information). So I think it's quite questionable. If other editors don't think it should be there I wouldn't protest it going. -- SiobhanHansa 15:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The work at http://www.cloc.isr.umich.edu/ might be an interesting source. It reports that acute grief typically subsides within six months, and identifies several situations in which it frequently doesn't, including pre-existing depression. There's a partial description here WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I can not see why this source would not be important. I see your suggestion didn't generate any interest. I removed the reference tag as there are several references so the tag is vague. The source you pointed out is a different view than the one presented in the "Death of a spouse" section so certainly important to the article for NPOV. I didn't look at the reference history but there are still section reference issues so I will add relevant section reference tags. Otr500 (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph is written in a manner to suggest that psychological support isnt necessary. People dont "choose" to seek therapy, they need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it's probably not as useful as the paid professionals would like their customers to believe. This source says, "To date, the research has consistently shown that grief counseling and medications do not alleviate grief; they seem most helpful in the cases of people who had pre-existing mental health issues." It would be interesting to see if we could find a particularly strong medical source that confirms this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
complicated grief section & questionable quote applicability
The Allen Frances article, cited three times in this section, makes no mention of the term "complicated grief". That seems a little problematic to me.
- The existence of "complicated grief" is a current debate in the field... [citation: A.Frances article] An attempt is being made to create a diagnosis category for complicated grief in the DSM-V.[2nd citation] Critics of including the diagnosis of complicated grief in the DSM-V say that doing so will make a natural response a pathology and will result in wholesale medicating of people who are essentially normal.[3rd citation]
Grammar, sentence structure, general vagueness
I have made a few edits to try to clean up the grammar, subject verb agreement, weird sentence structure, and over all vagueness of the article. Some of the material appears to be copied from psychology texts, which (I contend) are not generally known for expressive lucidity. Take this example from the article:
- "The symptoms seen in complicated grief are specific because the symptoms seem to be a combination of the symptoms found in separation as well as traumatic distress. They are also considered to be complicated because unlike normal grief these symptoms will continue regardless of the amount of time that has passed and despite treatment given from tricyclic antidepressants”
I am not sure exactly what the author was trying to say. Maybe it was something like this:
- The symptoms seen in cases of complicated grief seem to be a combination of the kinds of reactions found in cases of separation and in cases of traumatic distress. The symptoms are considered to be complicated because, unlike those associated with normal grief, these symptoms will continue regardless of the amount of time that has passed, and will persist despite the fact that the individual may have been treated with tricyclic antidepressants....”
Two stages missing?
- Which section do you mean? In "Five stages theory" the text clearly says: "The five stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance." I count to five. Lova Falk talk 17:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Politically biased/propaganda content
The thumbnail image on the head of this article shows a family that mourns over a victim of a recent armed conflict. In this case it contains a link to Siege of Sarajevo article and its obvious that the uploading authority has an intent to promote their side's cause in the armed conflict - in this case its Bosnian War, which is a clear abuse of this article. I recommend replacing this image with a similar scene following a horrific event that is NOT related to the politics, armed conflict, or any other event involving human intention - at least not from the recent history. It may be replaced with a picture of people grieving over victims of a natural disaster or industrial accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Grief. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110618022921/http://www.time.com:80/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2042372.html to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2042372.html
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090507104808/http://www.tlcinst.org:80/Moving.html to http://www.tlcinst.org/Moving.html
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150929170937/http://www.theswansanctuary.org.uk:80/faq.php to http://www.theswansanctuary.org.uk/faq.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Adding to the section on grief
- I would like to add to the section of the article on grief. The two-track model of bereavement is introduced in this article. I would like to include how the model can be of therapeutical and clinical use to individuals following loss. It outlines how the model can be used to understand how grief and loss has affected an individuals life and possible ways to adapting to this post-loss life.Marisaolson5 (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Subject Controversy + Instructional Venturing
I find parts of the article to be inconsistent in using traditional vs. modern perspectives on grief.
Compare "[The] absence of grief or trauma symptoms is a healthy outcome, rather than something to be feared" with "[Mourning] is an essential part of healing". The former represents the modern perspective, namely those citing George Bonanno. The latter represents the traditional perspective, and is an example of the article getting instructional with "what's important for an individual" (no offense to any of his fans, but Alan Wolfelt definitely does not strike me as NPOV). How the article can sensibly go from providing skepticism of traditional grief ideas to supporting them (and without really refuting said skepticism) is beyond me.
One thing that I think would be of major help this article is a section about the controversy between the traditional and modern perspectives. Another would be the history of ideas about grief, particularly those based on (and later, those challenging) what is called the grief work hypothesis. Either or both of those topics may even be worthy of having their own pages, but I'll let others decide on that.
I know this is a controversial topic, but hopefully we can set aside how grief "should" be handled to make the article more NPOV and less instructional.
Examples of articles covering the controversy (both almost 20 years ago, but they should still be relevant):
Only one scholarly source is cited in this section. I propose removing the apparent advert reference to GriefShare, a sectarian group not generally thought by bereavement scholars to be in the mainstream. UnivProfWiki (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Normative and normal
The two words do not mean the same thing. I get the impression that someone was afraid to write "normal" because that term tends to a host of criticisms. These worries are understandable but cannot be alleviated by writing a longer, fancier word that begins with the same letters - it has a meaning of its own that looks bizarre in this context. Just say normal or something more apposite such as "generally expected" "generally accepted" "oft-occurring" and so on. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:14F5:DA2A:39C5:8E3E (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Williams, L., Haley, E. (2017). Understanding The Two-Track Model of Bereavement. What's Your Grief?. Retrieved from https://whatsyourgrief.com/rubin-two-track-model-of-bereavement/