Talk:Grief

message: 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)
thread_title: Article Rewritten Substantially 2-21-11 by academic grief expert

message: 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 75.128.153.150 (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional Support 

message: 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 203.206.226.70 (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Human-centric

message: "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
----
Aside from concurring with the previous commenter, wouldn't it be helpful to mention Viktor_Frankl and especially his Man's_Search_for_Meaning?
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)
thread_title: Some

message: This is a very beautiful work you have done on Grief (grieving processes). thanks. Austerlitz 88.72.4.77 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you, Grief Editors 

message: 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 200.55.195.217 (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd paragraph looks like a copy paste 

message: why are there no references in this article?
:SOFIXIT.--Ziji  (talk email) 21:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Normal vs. Complicated paragraph 

message: I am propsoing to start a new article with that title, rather than add a section to this one. What do you think?--Ziji  (talk email) 21:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grief and bereavement counseling 

message: This line:
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)
thread_title:  Opinion? 

message: 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 74.211.94.119 (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compassionate Friends quote in Sibling Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Interesting source 

message: 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 76.198.224.75 (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Professional Support" 

message: 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]
:: TyrS  make my day  23:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  complicated grief section & questionable quote applicability 

message: 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....”
The article seems to be "trying too hard" to sound like a psychology text, or to sound "technical." That's generally not a good thing, in my view. Famspear (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar, sentence structure, general vagueness

message: anger stage and bargaining stage.... a fivre stage process? Qazwiz (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Different authors count a different number of stages anyway.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Two stages missing?

message: 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 178.221.87.116 (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politically biased/propaganda content 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Adding to the section on grief 

message: 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):
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,24462-1,00.html
http://www.westword.com/news/the-wide-world-of-grief-5064303
GVO8891 (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject Controversy + Instructional Venturing 

message: 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)
replies: text: It does appear written as advertising. Gzuufy (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support Groups 

message: Can an expert please check the medical resource info and links just added? Unsure about ICD-10 F43.2 Notgain (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICD-10: F43.2  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Normative and normal 

message: The first and literal defining paragraph seems to be missing any sort of reference or citation. Any ideas on where this information was procured? DorianKarenina (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Paragraph 

message: I noticed that while the section on animal grief discussed birds, it did not make mention of corvids, which are very notable for possessing some similar behaviours to Elephants, Chimpanzees and Gorillas. Notably Crows and Magpies gather around the bodies of deceased members of their species and cry out. This footage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60Zg9sGnQf8&ab_channel=GuyOdishaw is a good example of this behaviour. The description reads: 
"In July of 2013 a Magpie died on our front street in Saskatoon and we witnessed what we believe is a Magpie death ritual.  It lasted about 10 minutes as a large number of Magpies came down and seemed to express their grief over their lost comrade.
Magpie rituals have been written about by Dr. Marc Bekoff of the University of Colorado."
While this initial source may not necessarily be reliable, I would suggest further investigation.
--L.H. (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greif in Corvids 

message: i noticed this marker was removed recently by an IP user (see revision history) and decided to reintroduce it because it hasn't been imrproved from that state. maybe i could try to rewrite it an encyclopedic way but for now i can't find the time
Wintermintleaf (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of a child>Suicide section written like essay 

message: This paragraph seems to be wrong..
This model found limited empirical support in a study by Maciejewski et al. That is that the sequence was correct although Acceptance was highest at all points throughout the persons experience. The research of George Bonanno, however, is acknowledged as debunking the five stages of grief because his large body of peer-reviewed studies show that the vast majority of people who have experienced a loss are resilient and that there are multiple trajectories following loss.
The words "This model found limited empirical support [...] the sequence was correct although" imply that the model is a sequence, which according to doctor Kübler-Ross herself is not correct. From the page Elisabeth Kübler-Ross.. "Kübler-Ross later noted that the stages are not a linear and predictable progression and that she regretted writing them in a way that was misunderstood".
Instead of "the sequence was correct" could be written "the stages were correct". The latter part of the sentence "although Acceptance was highest at all points throughout the persons experience" does not seem to add any value.
The "that there are multiple trajectories following loss" seems to then not make sense anymore, as "multiple trajectories" are possible in the Kübler-Ross model as well. Wallby (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  There seems to be misinformation on this page