Jump to content

Talk:Byron Katie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disambiguation page

[edit]

There used to be a disambiguation page for "The Work". It seems to have been deleted. "The Work" currently points only to Opus Dei, while I know of at least two other incidences it's used: Byron Katie and another philosopher (whose name I've unfortunately forgotten, but he was on the original disambiguation page). NotElizabeth 10:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

took care of it.Sethie 18:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also took care of "The Work" and "The work" redirecting them all to "The Work"

Reverting

[edit]

I am going to revert to the last edit by NotElizabeth. While I honor that Stephens knows this topic 100 times better then I do, the way the article reads now, it reads too much like an advertisement or promotion of the topic. Wikipedia is really big on WP:NPOV, writing things from a netural point of view.

I think some of your changes are good however too many feel problematic, so I am going to undo them all and insert some of the ones that I think fit in with wikipedia, and then we can work on the others. Your work will not be lost, every edit you made is contained here [[1]]

So I have reinserted Stephen's version of the bio and removed some language that I think is sensational and tried to make it more neutral and descriptive.Sethie 07:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

criticism

[edit]

Could there be some kind of criticism section, it would help keep the article from being an advert? I'll try and find some reliable sources for the criticisms that are made of The Work etc. (to the person who was trying to think who was the other teacher who taught something called The Work, it was Gurdjieff)Merkinsmum 00:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


By all means if you find WP:RS please quote them. Sethie 03:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV/Wikify

[edit]

I have attempted to NPOV/wikify, hope you all like it. My concerns were that not everyone will believe it is an enlightenment experience that she had. Some people don't even believe such things exist. Others might gather something from the fact of her being in a mental health treatment facility at the time. So I tried to make the article neutral about whether what she experienced was 'enlightenment' or some other such word, or not.Merkinsmum 00:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

[edit]

(everyone calls her "Katie") is not verifiable (WP:V) Elyada (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it to (or "Katie" as she is called) Solbris (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name in inforbox

[edit]

I am not sure if it is correct to use her full name in the heading and her "author name" as other names. A 'full name' entity could solve the problem, but I did not manage to fix that. Solbris (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a lot

[edit]

I removed a fair amount (almost the entire thing) from this article. Nothing was verifiable and clearly pro-'whoever this woman is'. You can't just write whatever you want here. I randomly stumbled upon this article and immediately recognized it for shameless self-plugging. Please don't restore any of my edits without just cause.Montedison (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added criticism

[edit]

Okay, I ran across this article yesterday and it was making me crazy that it reads like a p.r. piece for BK. Surely there must be some dissenters. I've written up a brief summary of some concerns I found voiced on the web and attached a bunch of links. Most of them are from bloggers, but then again, so is all BK's stuff. Seems like there was a lot of discussion on the old site run by Rick Ross (himself a piece of work), but that was all lost when he changed his domain name. 11 Arlington (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undid revisions by Gmotyka (Byron Katie or associate)

[edit]

User Gmotyka, either Byron Katie or an associate, removed criticism. Restored criticism to eliminate biased edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoiledMango (talk • contribs) 12:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Byron Katie. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restored one of two critical paragraphs deleted by Gmotyka

[edit]

I read this article for the first time and was suspicious that no critical perspectives were included or acknowledged. Reading through the Talk page and looking at the history, it appears that user Gmotyka (whose only edits in 5 years have been the pages for Byron Katie and her husband, Stephen Mitchell) has once again deleted the critical paragraphs and references without explanation. I decided to restore the second deleted paragraph, along with its section heading, Criticism, because it is informative and mostly well-referenced. The first paragraph (also deleted by Gmotyka around the same time), while interesting, is not referenced, and unless a reference exists and can be provided, would appear to violate Wikipedia's policy of no original research, WP:NOR. Therefore I chose not to restore that paragraph. The first sentence of the paragraph I did restore includes two "citation needed" notes, but I don't believe those are grounds for removing the whole paragraph. If I had more time I imagine it would not be hard to find citations for these claims, especially as they relate closely to the immediately following claims for which 9 references are given. Macam14 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation of "The Work"?

[edit]

An old version of this page includes the following parenthetical sentence, after the first mention of "The Work":

(Her method is distinct from "The Work" of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky.)

I am tempted to restore this, as some readers (including myself and, it seems, a few others who have posted on this Talk page) may have heard of "The Work" in other contexts, for example, Gurdjieff, and might appreciate the clarification. Any opinions? Macam14 (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Some proposed changes

[edit]

Please replace:

Katie's philosophy, as described in her book Loving What Is, is that often when people think they are being rational, their own thinking is often interfering. This, she says, puts people into painful positions the lead to suffering, as she recognized to be the case with herself. Through self-questioning, she describes how a different, less-known capacity of the mind can reduce this suffering.[6]

with:

Often when people think they are being rational, as Katie says in her book Loving What Is, they are being controlled by their own thinking. That trait explains how people get themselves into the painful positions that she recognized in her own suffering. The self-questioning she discovered uses a different, less-known capacity of the mind to [find a way out of its self-made trap] or: to end its own suffering. [6]

Gmotyka (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Gmotyka[reply]

The reason I changed your verbiage is that the text was written as if it were a statement of fact, when it's from a book that Katie wrote herself, and as such is not a reliable source per WP:RS. That has to be made clear in the text or it's not encyclopedic. I thought my revision accurately conveys that point. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TimTempleton. Much of the editing over the past several months has been controversial but taken place with no discussion, except in the edit summaries. I appreciate that Gmotyka has now brought an edit here as a proposal, so others with various points of view can discuss what kinds of edits are more and less appropriate for Wikipedia, and why. Macam14 (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will also agree with Tim here, as changing the phrasing will not be suitable in this case, and make some statements clearly attributed to a source in the current text seem like facts. With 3 editors now against the request, I think that it's pretty clear that there is no consensus for the change. Edit request declined. Regards, VB00 (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit claiming I didn't follow a source I used

[edit]

With this edit [[2]], my edits were removed with the comment that they were not supported by the source I used, the LA Times. Info sourced from the subject's book,a primary source, was put in its place. I tried to follow the source as closely as possible, and reviewed the source to confirm. I changed it back, and fixed a typo another editor introduced. I welcome a discussion about what I might have missed. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Tim, Sorry for my clumsiness in addressing issues here. I don't see the info you present in the bio section, in the Guru LATimes article. What am I missing? Thanks. Gmotyka (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)gmotyka[reply]

I'm not sure what info you don't see. Here's what I added that you deleted:
In 1986, when she was 43 with three children and unhappily married to her second husband, she reportedly suffered from depression, agoraphobia, overeating and addiction to codeine and alcohol. She called her insurance company for help, and was referred to Hope House in Los Angeles, a woman's counseling center that has since closed. After two weeks at the house, she reportedly experienced an epiphany in her thinking which created a way for her to challenge and lessen the harmful effects of long-held beliefs. She credited the epiphany, which became known as "The Work", for a subsequent weight loss and other reductions in bad habits.
Here's what the LA Times says in this article [[3]], word for word:
In 1986 Katie was a mother of three, on her second marriage and had spent a decade falling into depression, agoraphobia, overeating and addiction to codeine and alcohol.
Eventually, Katie says, she called her insurance company, which referred her to Hope House, a Los Angeles residential treatment center for women with eating disorders that has since closed.
Less than two weeks into her stay, Katie says she awoke one morning to the sensation of a cockroach crawling across her foot. She opened her eyes and, she explains in her book, "It was as if something else had woken up. It opened its eyes. It was looking through Katie's eyes ... it was intoxicated with joy." At that moment, she claims, the four questions appeared in her consciousness.
She is not a therapist, a counselor or a religious leader, though her work--which she simply calls "The Work"--suggests elements of all these professions.

The last sentence I added to the article is the gist of the article. Perhaps you didn't see that there were multiple pages? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your patience with me Tim, I see now the multiple pages...silly me!!! xo Gmotyka (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)gmotyka[reply]

I WENT AHEAD AND MADE THE CHANGES since I haven't heard from any editors. Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmotyka (talk • contribs) 18:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request revisions to the Philosophy section.

[edit]

Hello dear Editors. Below is the Philosophy section with proposed revisions marked with Gmotyka (talk) before the paragraph. Also, please change "Philosophy" heading to "Teachings." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmotyka (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your consideration.[reply]


She describes her 1986 epiphany as follows:

I discovered that when I believed my thoughts, I suffered, but that when I didn’t believe them, I didn’t suffer, and that this is true for every human being. Freedom is as simple as that. I found that suffering is optional. I found a joy within me that has never disappeared, not for a single moment.

Gmotyka (talk)Katie calls her process of self-inquiry "The Work."[5]

Gmotyka (talk)Katie's experience, as described in her book Loving What Is, is that all suffering is caused by believing our stressful thoughts. Through self-questioning, she describes how a different, less-known capacity of the mind can end this suffering.[6]

Specifically. The Work is a way of identifying and questioning any stressful thought. It consists of four questions and a turnaround. The four questions are: 1. Is it true? 2. Can you absolutely know that it's true? 3. How do you react, what happens, when you believe that thought? 4. Who would you be without the thought?

Gmotyka (talk)The next step of The Work, the turnaround, is a way of experiencing the opposite of what you have believed. For example, the thought "My husband should listen to me," can be turned around to "I should listen to my husband," "I should listen to myself," and "My husband shouldn't listen to me."[7]

~~Each turnaround is tried on like a pair of new shoes, with specific examples of how it might be true.

Gmotyka (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Gmotyka[reply]

Don't Worry Darling

[edit]

Byron Katie is involved in the crew of that film. 58.108.122.0 (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Byron_Katie&oldid=1207925732"