Talk:catfishing

How can the term "catfish" be derived from a film called "Catfish" about catfishing? I.e. why would they call the film that if the term didn't already exist? 74.4.67.136 05:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The film can be about the idea or concept of catfishing, even if there wasn't a word for it yet. Equinox ◑ 00:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is probably the wrong entry for this discussion, as this is the entry specifically for the word "catfishing", in Wiktionary, the free online dictionary.
 * This discussion is about the origin and background of the slang term "catfishing", which is the social activity of deceiving others on social media through the use of a false persona, which is found in Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catfishing.
 * The Wikipedia entry contains the historical background of the term, why the term was appropriate in describing what the mans wife where it was first used (in the movie "Catfish") was doing, as well as explaining the historical reference to a use of catfish which began in fiction writing but was thought to be true by some who read it, and helped to spread the myth that the term "catfishing" refers to and was named after.
 * Read the Wikipedia article, and most likely all your questions will be answered... Gmeades (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * While this entry has been updated to finally include the two entirely different definitions of the word (previously only having the slang usage), the usage of the term "catfishing" is still unclear and difficult for someone unfamiliar with the term to understand on it's Wikipedia page. This is because still, nowhere is it stated that the first entry (referred to as "Etymology 1"), is the "literal" use of the word, and what it referred to the innocent persons mind, outside of its more obscure and hidden usage, being literally fishing for catfish, as is done commonly in the southern states of the US; while the 2nd entry (referred to as "etymology 2") nowhere indicates that this is the "slang" usage of the term, the arcane usage of the term, a colloquialism understood only by those who are familiar with the sexual reference, and being a reference to "deceiving another through a false persona, commonly being a false sexual identity" [my words] that was added to it's original meaning.
 * The original definitions and corrections which had been added to clarify this, and were subsequently removed due to someones lack of understanding of what a "definition" actually is; what a word's definition is intended to make clear; and a misunderstanding that the difference in usage that had been pointed out were merely "gerunds", amounting to nothing more than syntax and semantics, included in the very clear distinction that had been made, as good and proper definitions should do not exist and have not been incorporated into the new updated entry for this term on the Wikipedia page.
 * The clarity and distinction between entry 1 and entry 2 (which are now categorized merely as different "etymology", rather than definitions), fails to make the distinction that had previously been clearly pointed out, and so the person unfamiliar with these terms has no idea that one is a literal definition of what the word denotes, while the other is a corruption of the term, subverted for a different purpose and different meaning, and connoting something that the literal usage never did nor was intended to... and because this distinction is not clearly stated (i.e. with "lit. usage", and "slang" noted for the each definition appropriately), the person unfamiliar with these terms leaves the page with no awareness of this being the case, and is no more educated, informed, or aware of how the term is used in language in two entirely different contexts and must do further research into the terms actual etymology (i.e. "background") to gain this understanding.
 * While I understand the resistance to simply state that there are two different definitions of the word, since the individual doing the deleting, the revising, and basically commandeering the site seems to have an affinity for grammatical functions, and doesn't understand the difference between a definition, a gerund, and an etymology; and refusing to allow anyone else to add any clarity to any entry without his explicit approval and consent; it is still hard to comprehend how something so basic as indicating that a words definition is either a words literal meaning, or it's slang usage in order to provide a very quick and accurate understanding of the words actual usage and functioning within the English language, is rather hard to understand.
 * There is a basic understanding of the difference between a words "denotation" and a words "connotation" that is lacking in the individual who has taken over as the ruler of the site, and has made it impossible for anyone else to improve, clarify, or add missing information, regardless of how basic and essential that information may be.
 * When a word is known to have multiple meanings,it is important to make a distinction within the words "definition" (such as the word "run" with all of it's various connotations and the meaning that it is intended to impart within it's "literal" usage. It is also important for any uses of the word to be identified as being "slang" usage of the word, within it's definition, although both may share a **common etymology**. A words slang usage is not considered "etymology" normally, but simply how some group of individuals have redefined the word for their purposes, often being arcane in meaning to others outside of their group, but the slang usage not being considered to be part of the words actual "etymology" as etymology has in the past been defined to be the actual words origin, and did not refer to its subversion, or its slang usage, as appropriated by groups along the way.
 * Slang tends to go in an out of fashion. Someone who is familiar with a words "slang" usage as being a words meaning (e.g. "groovy") simply fades in time and is no longer recognized, understood, or used and is considered "dated" once it has gone out of favor. That is not a words "etymology", that is "slang", and it's usage only lasts for a short period of time, often being unknown by the majority of individuals within a society, whereas a words "etymology", it's actual meaning, based on it's component parts (e.g. "re-imagine") and language it is derived from, is constant, does not go out of favor, and is never used as "slang".
 * These are very simple things that should be present in any good dictionary, and would would provide the clarity which is sought for those who desire to gain an understanding of this, and other, terms, here on "Wikipedia - The Online Dictionary", who's purpose is to provide definitions, understanding, distinctions, and clarity for individuals of how words and terms are used; but I dare not attempt to alter what the person who has assumed personal authority over the site and all of it's entries had himself written, despite it's vagueness, inaccuracy, and inability to convey clarity to any individual visiting the site, and instead places them in a position of having to do further research into a words background in order to finally be able to understand that one entry (incorrectly referred to as an "etymology") is the words literal usage, and the other entry (which should be a 2nd "definition"), yet is referred to, as well, as another "etymology", which is not possible, as words cannot have two different etymologies were one to have a clear understanding of what a words "etymology" actually refers to, rather than an inaccurate and distorted understanding of it), requiring the visitor to do further research in order to comprehend why the difference of "etymology", what it's appropriate usage in conversation actually is, etc. instead of being able to grasp the difference in usage at one glance on the Wikipedia page for that word.
 * This commandeering of the website is why so many people view Wikipedia as a poor source of reference, refuse to use it, and disparage others who rely on it as a source of information, since the information is not always accurate, is sometimes skewed, and not uncommonly is missing basic information that leads to misunderstanding and misuse of terms simply because improvements, corrections, and edits which would provide clarity which is currently missing, is not allowed by those who themselves have a lack of awareness and understanding, and who insist on protecting their efforts, and disparaging and deleting the efforts of others.
 * So, all I can do, it seems, is to attempt to provide this basic background and understanding of the difference between these things - a words definition; a words actual etymology; what a "gerund" actually is; what the difference is between a words literal denotation and it's connotation; the difference between a words literal usage and its slang usage, and why these need to be identified as part of a words definition (not "etymology"); why a words slang usage (it's appropriation as "slang") is not a separate "etymology" of the word since it does not change any of the words component parts; how slang goes in and out of favor with time while the literal usage does not; etc. and hope some understanding is gained by this individual, and that they will be able to see at some point that there are some additions, corrections, improvements that they had previously been unaware of that are still needing to be made for this entry before it is accurate, useful, and clear so the visitor has have a good and clear understanding of the word and how it is used in different circumstances with the glance of the page, as any good dictionary should do, and leave any further research into the words history or appropriation as slang, as optional, should they individually choose to do so. Gmeades (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Gmeades, I think a large part of the confusion is due to the fact that you are supposed to click through to the catfish entry, where it explains in greater detail the difference between the various senses of the word. catfishing is just a "form" entry that points to a lemma entry, like how various conjugations of Latin verbs (e.g., amamus) point to the main entry for the verb. That entry does have labels like and  to indicate that it is only used in certain contexts. As for the point about etymology: it could be folded into the same etymology section and just listed as a separate sense, but I would oppose that change, since the explanation of the term's origin is good to have (and the semantic development is not at all obvious unless you are aware of that movie already).
 * I started a related discussion: Beer_parlour. Feel free to chime in. 70.172.194.25 07:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)