Talk:Five stages of grief

Untitled

The problem with this article is that it is just a long criticism. It cites studies based on self report, and self report is unreliable. I think this article should be shortened to simply describe the history of Kubler Ross's idea instead of trying to scientifically invalidate it when this is impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:100:6D70:F175:DC80:81CC:C0B3 (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Czarina Encarnacion.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Order of Stages

A specific and very important inconsistency in this article is that the introduction states that the stages are experienced in no particular order. Subsequent sections, however, refer to "the second stage", "the third stage", and so on. Also, under the heading "Anger", the text states "the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue", further implying a strict order of stages.

As far as I can recall the Kübler-Ross Model, this is not a correct interpretation. In fact, it was my belief that there is no requirement that all five stages are experienced. In my experience with grieving patients, both bargaining and denial seemed quite rare. I think the important thing to understand in the Kübler-Ross Model is that the grieving individual typically does experience different stages of grief and that each stage may be characterised as one of the five which Kübler-Ross described. Expecting each person who grieves to experience every stage and in the order prescribed here might be an overly-simplistic interpretation of this important concept.

I have refrained from making any changes to the article because I recognise that I might be wrong. I do think it is important, however, that someone with more knowledge on the subject than I addresses this inconsistency. 128.250.229.72 (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the article is very inconsistent on this. Hoping someone will take sort this out. Particularly, could anyone find a source based on what K-R has written herself, rather than commentaries on it?

"In my experience with grieving patients, both bargaining and denial seemed quite rare" Of course, your experience could also be indicating that the model is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.37.61.165 (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the fact that something is rare doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And I don't really remember Kubler-Ross saying that all stages were always present - "As stated above, according to her hypothesis, Kübler-Ross claimed these stages do not necessarily come in order, nor are all stages experienced by all patients." I suppose it's just the name stages that is somewhat misleading; the so-called "stages" really seem to be (according to these articles) different responses to death or dying that sometimes come as stages.

Oh god, why do people like to argue even before they've really figured things out? Head-ache-y.Thomas J. S. Greenfield (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The order in the image is different from the order in the article (Depression after/before Bargaining) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.252.202.156 (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I came here to report the problem with the image as well. I don't know where it came from, but the sources I've found all show Bargaining before Depression. 24.91.251.19 (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it contradicts the article so I have removed it. Ericoides (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Grief Communication

"When a patient and physician could discuss this courageously and candidly a good death would be possible.[dubious – discuss] "

It's only dubious if Kubler-Ross didn't say it. If it's a paraphrase of something she said in her work, then the content of the statement may be dubious but the fact that she wrote it isn't. I agree that it needs to be clarified who the speaker of the statement is. It might also help if some explanation of what Kubler-Ross meant by a "good death" was included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.182.17 (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This section was deleted by User:Briantist on 11 February 2018. Lapabc (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 25 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. (non-admin closure) — YoungForever^(talk) 20:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Kübler-Ross model → Five stages of grief – Far, far more WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and the WP:COMMONNAME both in the popular press [1] [2] and in scientific papers [3][4][5]. Appears to rarely be actually referred to as the "Kübler-Ross model", if her name is mentioned it is as "the stages of grief as identified by Kübler-Ross" or "Kübler-Ross's 'five stages of grief' model". This move was suggested in 2012 but had little participation, with the opposes saying that the new title made it sound like these stages were clearly delineated or real, but I don't share that view at all. I think it's probable that every single reader of this article found it through Googling "(five) stages of grief" and not "Kübler-Ross". – Thjarkur (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Matter of fact, I found it via googling for Kübler-Ross, but I wanted to check the umlaut spelling of her name. (Btw, I'd Support the move.) Ericoides (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. By far this is the most common name in English. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I have encountered those five stages of grief in a different website, where they were applied to a different topic. The proposed title is indeed more recognisable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Simply because it is the more common name people will search for. Nathanzachary56 (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Psychosocial transition model: ?= psychosocial rehabilitation

Criticism section: other theoretically based, scientific perspectives that better represent the course of grief and bereavement such as .. [the] psychosocial transition model . . anyone know whether this model is the same thing as psychosocial rehabilitation?

If it is, do you fancy fixing the redlink?

2A04:B2C2:1002:6100:11D1:559B:62B9:296C (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)