| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Colin A. Ross article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
 | This page was proposed for deletion by an editor on 24 January 2012 with the comment: This article was deleted through the proposed deletion process. That deletion has been contested, and the article has been restored. Further attempts at deleting this article should be made through articles for deletion or the criteria for speedy deletion if the article meets any speedy deletion criteria except the recreation of deleted material criterion. |
Is Ross credulous?
editI found it a bit ironic that he was included in a Scientology video condemning the BBC Panorama expose Ross is currently practicing psychiatry (a so called "pseudo-science" by Scientology). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.23.248 (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Recent edits
editWLU: Re your recent edits, I doubt that that SRA paragraph (and the Randi section) merit inclusion at the stub stage of the article. I know Ross personally and have been, as a researcher, in his clinic and he is not as credulous of the paranormal as those paragraphs in the stub make him to look. We *might* use them in the future but presently a more useful article of, say, Ross' profesional publications in the American Journal of Psychiatry is in order. Vindarten (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- The AJP entries should be included in his biography, which should be complete for books and journal entries. Saying "Ross has published in AJP" doesn't add much beyond the more proper listing of publications that a bio page for an academic and looks like a weaselly way of bragging about his accomplishments. Also note my comments on User talk:Dr Colin A Ross - Dr. Ross shouldn't be editing his page, but he does have options and I will be raising them on his talk page. I know there are a variety of problematic issues that can be addressed through the appropriate sources, but simply doing it yourself is not one of them. I'll be asking him if there are any recent sources that he feels better represent his current notable accomplishments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Still, the "paranormal" bias of the page for a psychiatrist who publishes regularly on AJP looks a bit farfetched to me... Vindarten (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've followed-up on Dr. Ross' talk page. I'll have a better idea of the appropriateness of the current page after I've had some time to review and dig up sources. The page should certainly focus on what he's most well-known for, his academic work, though the other stuff may still have a place. I'll try to address it in the next day or so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Great. --Vindarten (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've followed-up on Dr. Ross' talk page. I'll have a better idea of the appropriateness of the current page after I've had some time to review and dig up sources. The page should certainly focus on what he's most well-known for, his academic work, though the other stuff may still have a place. I'll try to address it in the next day or so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Still, the "paranormal" bias of the page for a psychiatrist who publishes regularly on AJP looks a bit farfetched to me... Vindarten (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I tried to add a sentence citing his research into energy from the eye, but the system reverted the change. I believe this change: "In 2010, Dr. Ross published experimental data that supports his scientific hypothesis that the eyes emit energy that can be captured and measured in the Anthropology of Consciousness, a journal of the American Anthropological Association." would provide greater context regarding the supposed claims of paranormal ability. Here is the link to the published paper: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123310535/PDFSTART. I did post the external link to a video that provides greater depth of explanation regarding his research into the power he believes is emitted from the eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.156.238 (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I suddenly find that all unflattering references to Ross's work have been deleted with no comment whatsoever. Supported - as these links were - with court documents, etc., I'm not sure what justifies this move. Also, in regard to the comment above, the suggested change would be misleading, as the published "experimental data", as I understand it, was from the protocol that even Ross admitted proved nothing more than EEG eye-blink artifact.Akuma khan (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
This doesn't seem very NPOV or very useful. Is Ross having fallen flat on his face in a matter of parapsychology (which isn't his main field) really the most noteworthy thing about him? Apparently, he claimed to have done extensive research in the CIA's archives and compiled a much more comprehensive than usual list of which institutions were involved in the MKUltra project and what they worked on, and I possibly looked up this page wondering how credible a source he was, but there seems to be nothing here but the parapsychology thing and a bibliography - most of which is about things other than parapsychology, which sounds like nothing more than a hobby of his. Wombat140 (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- He seems to be a fan of fringe ideas in general, parapsychology just being one of them.
- This edit deleted the part about recovered memory with the justification "primary source". Some of that text may be salvageable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)