Talk:Louise Hay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Suggestions

The intro should be an overview of the whole article (See WP:LEAD), followed by the details of her life and career. I did some reorganization, but the article needs dates to be inserted. When did she get married? When did the other events in her life happen? The references listed have more information, which should be used to expand the article, and more references should be identified and cited. The section about her books and teachings needs to be expanded and better cited. Also, the quotes section is unreferenced and unencyclopedic. If she is famous for these quotes, the article should say where they come from and explain their notability. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

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:

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

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

[edit] Autobiographical section?

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)

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)