|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This article is unlocatable!? (almost)
Well, for all those without an extended character set anyway! Would it be possible to have the indexing in Wikipedia function so that the "ü" is not essential to locating the article i.e. that "Kubler-Ross" or even Kubler Ross" would turn up these articles? I searched here with no luck, went to Google, found the articles (the wrong spelling not being an impediment there)and discovered my error (or the error of my referencing source). LookingGlass 19:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Biased and uninformed
The article is biased and uninformed. The Kubler-Ross model, the article's main point of interest, is never explained, and the biographical information provided is limited. The article does contain, however, an entire paragraph regarding a supposed sex scandal in the 80s. However, (judging by 10 minutes of internet research) that sex scandal is not mentioned in any obituary or news article other than the Slate article linked to by the page. Even if true (and the scandal may well be fictictious), the paragraph describing it is terribly written--the words were haphazardly copied and pasted from the original article without attribution.
In short, the article is in desperate need of attention and correction. -- October 9
[--220.127.116.11 04:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)]
- Since the above writer questions the reality of the sexual charlatanry at Kubler-Ross's "healing center," here are some other references to it:
The Economist obituary, Sep 2, 2004: http://www.economist.co.uk/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3150610
The Independent (London) obituary, Aug 28, 2004: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20040828/ai_n12797581
- The Wikipedia article (as it is on March 31 2006) does not appear biased in view of these obituaries. (It could certainly be expanded - feel free to.) If the healing-center scandal and other manifestations of her increasingly unconventional view of reality were purposely left out of the article, on the other hand, that would seem to constitute obvious bias.
- tweaked references given by Rhacodactylus.
- —67-21-48-122 10:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- tweaked references given by Rhacodactylus.
A paragraph larger than those on her actual work, and devoted to something essentially unrelated (the behavior of a co-worker), seems wildly inappropriate, or at least out of proportion, here. Hgilbert 01:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is the only EK-R obit found at the site to which 67-21-48-122 linked, but it doesn't seem to be the one we were supposed to consult:
- Obituary that discusses her changed emphasis from the study of the process of dying to her increasing spiritulism (she'd sure be in vogue today); the scandal is addressed in a paragraph that focuses on Barham's wrong-doing, not implicating EK-R:
- This article disposes of the sex scandal in one complex sentence and discusses EK-R's deepened spiritual beliefs:
- [fun sidebar] Meryl Streep says she wants to participate in a film about EK-R:
- Wordreader (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Series of lectures
What does this mean?
- She began giving a series of lectures featuring terminally ill patients.
I can imagine at least two interpretations: She toured the lecture circuit with various terminally ill patients or she lectured about terminally ill patients. -- ke4roh 22:29, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
What does this mean, "The naked medium's penis was being held when someone unexpectedly pulled the tape off the light" ?!?
- There are three cited references to this incident. I can't find any description on-line. Someone who has access to the story needs to provide the details. --EPadmirateur (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
This will introduce you to this strange ball park: The Treacly Legacy of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross  You are expected to read other material, that is not on-line when you do research. Not every thing can be found on the net. Kazuba (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Pardon me, I am not the one questioning this incident. User:MTHarden made the original query here. I have heard the story and so believed it to be accurate but I don't have access to the original citations so I couldn't properly revert its deletion. In any case, neither his questioning of the content, nor my reply justify your snide responses, here or on my talk page. It's quite appropriate for an editor to question the content of an article, particularly if it appears to be out of place or dubious, and when sources are not readily available, to request what a cited reference says. I suggest you assume good faith a little more with respect to fellow editors. Merci, EPadmirateur (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Whether this incident can be cited or not, it concerns that Barham guy's behavior, not EK-R's. She was apparently nowhere in the vicinity when these actions took place and had no knowledge of them. She was embarrassingly hoodwinked, sure, like many other people are in life, but I think that the salacious stuff should be attached to an article on the psychic (if indeed he merits such an article at all) , not EK-R. Wordreader (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't the stages thing only for patients facing their own death, not survivors of another person's death? - cniinc
- I believe you are correct, 18.104.22.168. However, as students in a nursing class, we were shown a videotape of a young women who talked about a terrible rape experience she'd had and she clearly went through all five stages of grief over the course of about 30 minutes. It was the first time she'd ever discussed the event with anyone. From my RN experience, I personally think that these stages are attached to many human traumas. Wordreader (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Did Elisabeth Kubler-Ross have interest in reincarnation?
February 28, 2011 Revised, March 1, 2011
I have been told by someone that Ms. Kubler-Ross had a problem with the police in San Diego County, California, at some point due to running a for-profit spiritualist/séance program. I wonder if you know of anything of this sort? I would be interested to learn more about what kinds of things Ms. Kubler-Ross was involved in besides hospice care and thanatology. I would be surprised to learn that she was both a psychiatrist and involved in spiritualism.
- You seem confused. An honorary degree is an honor to receive. It is a public declaration of respect and perceived value. It is an award, not a smearing. In the real world, NINETEEN such awards indicate an extremely highly valued career and thus tell us plenty. What is your example supposed to prove, that they "even" award honorary degrees to US presidents? Whimwham (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There, all gone. Here is your response, not related to my question:
(1) I and others who got an education in critical thinking were taught that a claim must stand on its own merits, not on the credentials or ascribed social stature of the author of the claim. It would be naïve to accept a claim based solely on who the author was when one could otherwise think for oneself.
(2) I did not state or imply that an honorary degree is either a smear or an honor, but only that an honorary degree is irrelevant to the validity of a claim. For example: Astrology is nonsense. Nancy Reagan was a believer. Nancy Reagan received an honorary degree. Her belief in astrology is still nonsensical.
I notice that you express a strong view about what is sufficient reason to promote conformity of opinion, a topic of social psychology. If you have a window or article where you would like to discuss your point of view, I will be glad to discuss it there with you, but not here. (Your comments are worthy of respect, but I did not mean to elicit them.)
- I'm all for critical thinking. That's why I'm defending the the list of honors, because its absence would prevent critical insights such as "there's a twenty year hole of non-appreciation in that honors list". This window indicates a noteworthy deviation from mainstream thought. To me, the interesting issue is whether this marked a reduction or an increase in critical thinking on her part. Whimwham (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I would not be too concerned about "mainstream thinking"; whatever it means to you, it means something else to someone else. You may enjoy a review of Asch's studies of conformity, a topic easily found in survey texts of social psychology. (Critical thinking is not a democratic process, so "mainstream" has nothing to do with it.) I do have a reason to reject Kubler-Ross' general claim about stages of dying. Stage theories in psychology are not the most stable of foundations, and popularizing them via textbooks and interviews does not make up for problems in a theory. My interest is in whether or not Kubler-Ross was involved in the so-called paranormal, which is generally nonsense. I am trying to find out if there is any truth to the story relayed verbally to me. It is not one of those fundamental issues in psychological science, but is of some interest in psychology as discussed in popular culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araktsu (talk • contribs) 17:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
April 2, 2011
Errata: Should be stages of grief, not stages of dying.
Suppose we ask a survey question of patients with terminal illness, “Do you accept that you are going to die of your illness?” Or suppose we ask, “Do like it that you are going to die of your illness?” We can expect three possible rational answers to the question (answers—not responses that do not answer the question):
3. I don’t know
All respondents will give us one of the three possible answers. But from this we cannot then conclude that we have just discovered a profound truth about innate human behavior, nor can we use the survey results as foundation for a stage theory about grief in response to personal terminal illness.
Why not? When all possible outcomes are cited as proof of a theory, the theory is trivial, frivolous, and not science. It cannot fail under any circumstances. In this case, it does not reveal anything about human behavior. It only confirms that when asked a question for which there are only three rational answers we will get only three rational answers. That does not prove anything.
To see this in a different perspective, suppose we randomly select thousands of people and offer each of them a vanilla ice cream cone, asking, “Do you like vanilla ice cream?” We can expect only the same three possible answers noted above.
Clearly it would be trivial to claim, “Thousands of people gave one of the same three answers. This proves a profound fact about human behavior: All human beings go through this stage when faced with a free vanilla ice cream cone. It is a predictable, innate behavior.”
There are other weaknesses in her claims as they are reported in textbooks. Some authors note weaknesses and contradictions, other authors simply repeat the claims verbatim from wherever they found them without any critical analysis.
As I noted at top, I am only interested in tracking down a claim about Kubler-Ross’ involvement in so-called paranormal investigations, i.e., spiritualism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araktsu (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- This section seems to been chopped into pieces and has become very confusing to read. Who is saying what to whom? Some of the replies are non sequiturs.