Talk:Louise Hay

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Her two most well known books Heal Your Body and You Can Heal Your Life directly associate physical problems such as cancer with specific negative emotional patterns, and make the controversial claim that healing the emotional components will also heal the physical conditions.

Is 'controversial' just a different way of saying 'unsupported', or even 'false'? Mr-Thomas 12:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with that statement. Saying that a statement creates controversy really has nothing to do with the validity of the statement. Scientists centuries ago claimed the earth was round...that was indeed controversial, but ultimately true. Thanks -Broadwaygal 17:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the issue is not whether it is "controversial" but whether Hay substantiates it with any science. The relationship she speaks of only seems incredulous when one thinks of emotion as a non-physical event. There is a substantial body of literature in the broad field of psychophysiology and the narrower field of behavioral medicine to support[1] and contradict[2] her apparently controversial claim. --Suidafrikaan 19:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, this article is a biography. It really doesn't matter whether she substantiates her claims, whether they prove to be true, or whether they prove to be false. This is just an article about her. Thanks-Broadwaygal 19:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add Psuedo-scientist to her titles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.215.185 (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a biography? Seems more like a carefully crafted advertisement to me ;) Pytrash (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intro should be an overview of the whole article (See

User:Ekabhishek has just made a large number of changes to this article (and to Hay House that introduce a large number of claims that are:

1. sourced to a large number of unscholarly sources of very doubtful reliability -- often little more than PR puffery;
2. often not contained in even these sources.

I have therefore reverted them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a strange and contrived construction. Better to have a single life section with items sourced from Autobiographical sources clearly flagged and cited. I have changed the section to "Life" so that material from may sources can be included in a single narrative.Lumos3 (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it was clumsy -- but I was concerned that a large amount of essentially autobiographical material (including some

extraordinary claims) was being presented uncritically as though it was verifiable fact. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It is ironical, one of the few noteworthy spiritual authors to come out of America, has few people approaching her life story with the reverence it deserves, and many tend to play with her biography, without adding anything susbstantial, rather taking pride in deleting matter, under the pretext of editorial license. We all know, what happens when a nation forgets to honour its wise. (Ekabhishek (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Prejudice against badly sourced puffery

Pur-lease -- America has been chock full of self-styled spiritual leaders for centuries, most of whom have seen fit to leave their thoughts in writing as a legacy --

This clearly shows that you are negatively biased against the article and the author, and are bringing personal prejudices to the space, which is no longer needed on wikipedia, let alone this article. And this proves that you are no longer qualified to be an editor to the article, either you stop working on this or I will have to report you! (Ekabhishek (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

For what? Calling you on your patently absurd claim that Hay is "one of the few noteworthy spiritual authors to come out of America", or for demanding that this article follow

WP:AGF. Again, pur-lease. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Wow!.. I clearly stand by what I said, while you may claim whatever you so desire...I leave you guys to it, go ahead, with your work, if it gives you peace of mind, so be it. (Ekabhishek (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You can stand by, on or under anything you please -- it still doesn't make your claim any more credible. It is a bare assertion, unsupported by facts -- and in fact heavily contradicted by them (specifically by the very long line of published spiritual leaders, gurus, etc that the US has produced). Stay or go as takes your fancy -- but please make sure any addition you wish to make are compliant with

WP:V. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Your assertions aside, Boy you are one vicious man, how do you manage in real life, when you cannot no longer throw jargon at people or debate?? There is no need to get vicious...it is only a website, your victories here mean nothing in real life, so chill!! (Ekabhishek (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No, it is you who has been making baseless assertions and wild threats and accusations -- so I find your accusation of 'viciousness' to be entirely

WP:V. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Extreme care needs to be taken to attribute all facts in the biography of a living person. All the facts reported in the life need to be attributed to a reliable source to avoid possible libel. I have labeled each fact with its source in this biography with its source yet User:Hrafn has removed these twice now. I suggest he reads Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. These are not autobiographical they are the work of the New York Times writer Mark Oppenheimer research at an interview with Louise Hay. In any case autobiography is an acceptable source. Lumos3 (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reverting two things:

1. Redundant citations -- where an entire paragraph is cited to a single source, a single citation at the end of the paragraph is all that is needed.
2. Removal of the {{primarysources}}-template. Per
   WP:PSTS
   "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source." The article very clearly states that "Over the next hour and a half, Hay told me the story familiar to tens of millions of her devoted readers" -- that this is Hay's own account, not the product of the author's own investigation or research. This arguably makes the information primary rather than secondary. I am not claiming that it is an unreliable source, merely that such primary material should not be the sole basis for the section.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Point one may be true for most articles on Wikipedia but in a biography of a living person each assertion about their life must be sourced, especially as later editing can split the statement from the citation.
• On point 2 I contend that the New York Times is a secondary source which cites its own source as the interview with Hay, who is the primary source. The NYT is staking its own reputation and legal liability on the accuracy of its own article. The NYT is not a random eyewitness, it is a professional news gathering and reporting organisation and takes responsibility for the accuracy of its work. It is secondary source. See See
  Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Lumos3 (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a look at this list of featured articles of Living people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carcharoth/Featured_articles_needing_regular_updates#Living_people_biographies_.2880.29. Since they are worked over by the whole community featured articles are a better indication of current good practice than those set out in the written procedures. It shows that where a Living person is concerned each statement needs to be unambiguously cited. Bunching multiple statements together under one citation might be easier and OK for most articles but for a Living person the standard is much higher. We cant leave claims seemingly unattributed or open to being separated from their source at some time in the future. Lumos3 (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. You are claiming 'ambiguity' where NO AMBIGUITY EXISTS! The paragraph starts "Hay recounted her life story in an interview with Mark Oppenheimer of the New York Times in May 2008" and ends with a footnote to the May 2008 New York Times article. How can this POSSIBLY be ambiguous?
2. While a few of the articles on this list occasionally have contiguous citations to the same reference, this appears to be the exception, rather than the rule.
3. It is NOT "bunching multiple statements together under one citation", it is avoiding ugly and redundant markup that serves no rational purpose and would not be found in any published work, no matter how formal.

If you think that I'm wrong, then you're welcome to take it up at

Todays featured article is a good example of a closely referenced text on a Living person. See Bradley Joseph. I don't think these citations detract from the aesthetic view of the piece.

Autobiography is an acceptable source for articles on Living people, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source which also unambiguously states "These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published." Living people guidelines are clearly different to those applied in other types of article. Lumos3 (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Bradley Joseph doesn't support your style extremity -- I counted a grand total of five pairs of contiguous duplicated citations (and never more than 2 contiguous duplicates in a run), and numerous instances of multiple statements with a single citation.

Your second comment is completely irrelevant, as I said several days ago that "I am not claiming that it is an unreliable source, merely that such primary material should not be the sole basis for the section", and have since abandoned this line of argument altogether. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one more citation at the first mention of the NYT interview and I'll be happy to leave it there for now until more material becomes available. Lumos3 (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louise Hay. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20081216083710/http://www.butler-bowdon.com/youcanheal.html to http://www.butler-bowdon.com/youcanheal.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louise Hay. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070429000056/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fhealth%2F2007%2F04%2F23%2Fhlouise123.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fhealth%2F2007%2F04%2F23%2Fhlouise123.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louise Hay. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20081007094346/http://www2.oprah.com/spiritself/slide/20080206/ss_20080206_284_101.jhtml to http://www.oprah.com/spiritself/slide/20080206/ss_20080206_284_101.jhtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK not sure how this works so I put it here ... This paragraph is copy/pasted:

Hay described how in 1977 or 1978 she was diagnosed with "incurable" cervical cancer, and how she came to the conclusion that by holding on to her resentment for her childhood abuse and rape she had contributed to its onset. She reported how she had refused conventional medical treatment, and began a regime of forgiveness, coupled with therapy, nutrition, reflexology, and occasional colonic enemas. She claimed in the interview that she rid herself of the cancer by this method, but, while swearing to its truth, admitted that she had outlived every doctor who could confirm this story.[1]

In the last sentence, isn't the use of the word "admitted" a little biased, did she admit or did she simply state ? Seems a possibly a little political to me, thoughts invited. Perhaps it could be marked with one of those 'citation needed' things or similar ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.104.55 (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]