Talk:You Can Heal Your Life

Hunh?
''This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (June 2015)'' Um. What the Library of Congress sez: ''Primary sources are the raw materials of history — original documents and objects which were created at the time under study. They are different from secondary sources, accounts or interpretations of events created by someone without firsthand experience. Using Primary Sources - Library of Congress www.loc.gov/teachers/usingprimarysources/''

Would that mean that this Wikipedia entry is the very secondary source that somebody is asking for in the Big Bold Box they've plunked on the page? And if so, would this perhaps suffice as the tertiary in the case? Just askin'. David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference to D.W. Griffith
Ideally, encyclopedias would not make analogies to pop-cultural icons There is a line in the article which says that Louise L. Hay is the D.W. Griffith of metaphysics. I have no idea who "D.W. Griffith" is.

I really think that statements of the form "Person X is like person Y" are not helpful. Notably, I don't know any celebrity names. Can we just stick to the facts? Write nice factual, borderline-scientific, encyclopedia articles? Statements like "[Person X] is the [Person Y] of the [W] world" are not helpful unless you are a New York city socialite who knows everybody's names and shit. 73.153.62.136 (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)