Talk:The Secret (2006 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

The purpose of this article is neither to reveal to the public what a great idea is being presented by the film, nor what a terrible idea is being presented — not a place for idea spam. The Wikipedia Spam policy advises:

Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of ... ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is [or conversely how bad] ... you're in the wrong place.

The purpose is to reveal what the reliable sources are saying. Reliable does not necessarily mean enlightened. —WikiLen 03:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Criticism to be added

I believe it will be difficult to write a NPOV for this, but criticism regarding the manipulation of science to explain the Secret needs to be added. These teachers speak of the Law of Attraction and the Law of Polarity, and claim these are real scientific laws, which to a degree are true, but they apply them to emotional and mental states, whereas there veracity is in physical matter. Further more, at least on the Oprah Winfrey show, teachers claimed the scientific Law of Attraction says that 'like attracts like'. Firstly, there is nothing within the science community under the title of Law of Attraction. Secondly, like does not necessarily attract like, for example positively charged matter attracts negative. Additionally, there is no Law of Polarity within the science community. According the teachers, the Law of Polarity states that working in the positive improves results, i.e. instead of thinking I do not want to be fat, one should think I want to be thin, or better yet, healthy. This has no scientific basis. Additionally, many psychologists regard this as another attempt to provide a quick fix and for people to ignore what their problems truly are and deal with them in a healthy manner. This needs a citation, as all I can find are tertiary sources. Psychologists are concerned that this method may actually be harmful to mental health. Lastly, many of the leaders in history they recite as ‘knowing the Secret’ are obviously dead, and there is no proof they lived their life by the Secret in any form. Anyways, I hope others can help forming a larger, more skeptical and inclusive criticism section for this article. Silver 00:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Implementing many of your suggestions would require putting original research in Wikipedia since acceptable citations, for the criticism you would like to see, appear not exist yet. Obviously, Wikipedia cannot be a context for original research. See Wikipedia policy on No original research. Some of your concerns, however, appear addressed by the current Editorial coverage section. —WikiLen 01:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
And please post this at the end of the talk page in the future (you will get more readers there) —WikiLen 01:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about putting the material at the top, to me at the bottom seems counter-intuitive, as you see the top first and it's what's new, but that’s irrelevant really. What I was trying to say there have been scientists and psychologists who have already made statements regarding the validity of the laws they propose as science and possible negative affects on mental health. As stated, I have only found tertiary resources. From my reading around on the internet, there has been no formal psychology study on the impacts of 'the Secret' on mental health, but as seen in other articles, criticism can come from consensus of a scientific community and/or the general public, and a double-blind randomized sample study isn’t required for it to be listed as criticism. If there were known deleterious effects of this practice of thinking, it shouldn’t be under the heading ‘criticism’ anyways, more like ‘dangers’. Furthermore, there definitely doesn’t need to be research to show that no scientific Law of Polarity and Law of Attraction exists. For a NPOV, I think the section could list something to the regard that currently the principles of the Secret claimed to be scientific have not been proven. This doesn’t deny it outright, just states there is no such evidence yet. Silver 23:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This quote is in the "Editorial coverage" section:
Noting that the scientific foundations of the movie are clearly dubious, the Newsweek article quotes psychologist John Norcross, characterizing it as "pseudoscientific, psychospiritual babble."
Looks like that speaks to your concerns. As we find more sources, I expect we will expand it into its own section as you suggest. —WikiLen 00:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Alan Wolf and LoA

I wonder does this have any use in this article? http://thesecret.powerfulintentions.com/forum/thesecret/message-view/2134396 It is an email I recieved from Dr. Wolf about many things, but the key here is his comments on Law of Attraction and The Secret. I could have edited the rest out but I didn't want to further endanger the genuiness of it. DaSilvaArtur 13:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Very informative. WikiLen 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here also is a longer interview of Fred Alan Wolf titled, "something from nothing". WikiLen 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, wikilen, i definitely disagree with some of the links you consider spam. So, since when the actual books of the teachers in the film are not reference? What about the CBS News reports? Both had NO evidence of spam. If you cannot afford to buy or find the books and real references to this article please find your passion and let us those who want to make this a fair and balanced article do our jobs. Thank you. BTW, what did you think of The Secret in book version? Bet you haven't done your research yet, huh? BTW, I'm adding the links permitted by wikipedia rules right now and challenge you to remove them for no reason. Maybe you'll be the next to get blocked. I wish not. Watchrapid 17:29, 05 March 2007 (UTC)
I checked the book out last November. I like it (and the movie too). BTW I do think the article is too skimpy on the "praise" side of the issue. See if you can put something together just based on the written articles published by Time, Newsweek, and LA Times. I will help you edit so it stays within Wikipedia policy. —WikiLen 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, see my comments below at, External Link. —WikiLen 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Description

This page has some information about the film, and what "The Law of Attraction" really is (it's just thinking about what you will become or get). http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-001677.htm It's like, if you keep saying to yourself and others, all I ever eat is crappy food at Denny's, you'll probably end up eating crappy food at Denny's.

[edit] Request

Can someone who has seen the film flesh out the Plot some more? Is the film a drama or documentary, or both? --Feight 00:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I showed an interest in this article because there are some people policing it but not doing any research whatsoever. My apologies for erroneously deleting the opinion of a professor that I thought had nothing to do with the topic. As far as the deletion of youtube and google videos by wikipedia anti-researcher(s), the latest ones had no external websites linked to them. I will continue to make this "article" as unbiased as possible. I'm working on my sandbox now and am adding the essentials to the plot. Thank you for the opportunity. Watchrapid 17:20, 04 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the film and am willing to add more content as soon as I have the time. I just added an info box. Regarding your question about the genre of the film, thats a problem, Im not quiet sure what category it should fit into, it's more of a self-help style film. DaSilvaArtur 04:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
How does it look now? Fleshed out? WikiLen 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is basically a documentary - just like the ones you see on Discovery Channel. The only reason why this shouldn't have the label "documentary" is, that the science behind it is pseudo science and can't be proven. It's very well produced and contains some small dramatic sequences. Most of the movie is interviews or narrated drama sequences. The plot of the movie can be summed up in one sentence: Think about what you want, and you'll get it. Your brain will act like a magnet and retract what you desire.

[edit] Criticism

I deleted the lead comment by Watsona on Feb 22 charging that the Secret's claim to be what entrepreneurs already know and practice is false. First, the comment reads strictly like a personal viewpoint with no supporting evidence or explanation. Second, because I believe Watsona may have misunderstood part of the Secret. Third, because as a business consultant my experience confirms what the Secret says. Watsona is correct that most entrepreneurs may not verbally endorse this approach or explain their own success in this manner, but that does not mean it is not true for them -- it only means they are not conscious of the process of their own success or thinking of it in those terms. Certainly entrepreneurs who succeed are those who intensely fulfill the first condition outlined in the Secret, i.e. visualize and emotionalize, and the third condition, tune in. It is only the second that may be in question, i.e. wait for the universe to respond. That often depends on whether one knows how to act. In cases where an entrepeneur knows what to do to achieve the goal and how to do it, certainly most throw themselves into action. But usually formulation of the goal precedes the knowledge of how to achieve it, in which case waiting and watching is the only sound strategy. The cases cited in the Secret do not fully support the author's contention that waiting is the only strategy. Canfield's success came through a very aggressive program of outer action, but he began by trying to mentally formulate a solution and then waited 30 days for a confirmation of his approach, when the freelance reporter offered to write a story for the Enquirer. Watsona may also be overlooking the fact that to intenselve visualize and emotionalize is a form of action, far more difficult than taking physical initiative. For anyone interested in a more detailed discussion of this and related points relating to the validity of the strategy advocated in the film, an article will be available in early March on Human Science Wikia. Garryjacobs 09:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I restored a sentence that I had added a while ago and that had recently been removed due to a lack of attribution to a published source. I don't think the criteria for posting on wikipedia should include sourcing to a publication. This seems to me to be somewhat antithetical to the rather anarchic or at least democratic nature of wikipedia. The criticism I am referring to comes from numerous real life conversations that I have had as well as a weekly discussion group that I attend in California which dedicated three weeks to discussion of The Secret. All of these conversations were way more intelligent and authoritative to me than anything you would find on Larry King Live or some of the other sources that are deemed by my censor to be legitimate. Why should one have to source to some other publication when it is being published here and now on wikipedia? Herbanreleaf 19:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Secret was referred to as both a "documentary" and a "movie" in the article. First, it is irresponsible to refer to this film as a documentary (unless you consider self-help videos as documentaries too). Second, the article needs to be consistent with its terminology. I've replaced both instances with "film".

I updated the Secret Teachers section to more accurately reflect the importance of the people listed. The previous version included gems such as "transformational leading world renowned experts" which clearly isn't the case. I was particularly amused that one of the fields listed was "world leadership". This is promotional text, not factual.

I reverted the article to the version I last created. Too both 84.154.24.51 and Mamurph you cant just remove criticism because you dont like it. Also the editing of the description of the film to influence its credibility as a Film based on facts rather than claims is transparent and silly. DaSilvaArtur 23:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the removal of the critcism that the film claims the information in the film was banned by the church. The reason for its deletion that it was false that the movie claimed this, but if you check out the trailer for the film you will cleary see they propose the idea was banned by the church and that elite groups tried to hide it. DaSilvaArtur 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where else to comment on this, so I've done so under Criticism.

There is a rather aggressive marketing campaign being run on the Internet about this documentary. This article on Wikipedia seems to be a positive light and is probably being used for promotional purposes. In many of the Wikipedia articles that I believe are more credible, there is always free minded opinion raising questions.

However, in this article I hardly read anything negative about the documentary (which by the way, this documentary uses dramatised scenes as reconstructions of events which remains unproven as having occurred), but I don't think this docu was produced with the intention of public broadcast. The circles that gave me a copy of this disc is self help fanatics, even if they are good people.

Under the section that DaSilvaArtur has edited; The movie itself may seem to insinuate that Church and State has through the centuries been trying to surpress "the secret". However, I didn't need this movie to tell me about the "Law of Attraction", it's common sense to those of us that live with optimism as a way of life, so even if it was true, I don't think the "Church" succeedded in surpressing it.

Esther Hicks, previously interviewed with husband Jerry on "The Secret", said thisthis after the movie failed to air on Australian television, and after many fans bombarded them with emails and messages about their decision to (seemingly) not be involved in the Extended Edition;

... Jerry and I were uncomfortable with what felt to us like a rather aggressive marketing campaign (just not our style, nothing wrong with it) ..." - Ester Hicks

It's likely that this is documentary is here to make a buck, and therefore should not be given the credibility of a documentary that featured on Discovery Channel or the like. It's essentially a self-help device, which not everyone is going to be buying into. This being said, I have not found any negative articles on the Internet talking about this documentary, but perhaps not enough people have caught onto it. I will be forwarding it to (at least) Penn & Teller. They've done a documentary about self help mania, and this will fit neatly into that category.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Credibility must be earned, not gleaned by editing information on Wikipedia.

--ObseloV 07:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There are two more points of criticism that could be worked in: The movie claims that since thoughts are electromagnetic waves, this is how people's wishes propagate into and affect the universe.

The movie claims that quantum physics backs up its claims. This looks like quantum mysticism.

I don't recall the specifics in the film but sounds plausable. One could add to the page, "The movie offers a cursory explanation on the physics behind the Law of Attraction suggesting that thoughts are electromagnetic waves, a point-of-view considered quantum mysticism by the physics establishment." I am not sure this deserves mention. If the film presents it as pure speculation then they can hardly be criticized for have a speculation that falls short but provides food for thought. WikiLen 14:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film description

The film description has been changed to "essayistic" from "motivational", I dispute this change as the term "essayistic" is vague at best, and I think "motivational" is better. The "self help" description was also removed, and while I dont dispute that as much, it is quite fitting based on the fact that this movie is based on the "Master Key systems" book which is usualy found in a Self help section of a bookshop. DaSilvaArtur 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

I dispute the removal of part of the plot which describes "Law of Attraction", since the film is based on this theory, and the explanation of the theory was taken directly from the movies website, I see no reason for its deletion. DaSilvaArtur 00:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Somebody please explain what this movie is ACTUALLY about. At least a sentence explaining what the "Law of Attraction" is, or what "The Secret" actually is.

It's a blatent attempt at conning unsuspecting folks into parting with their hard-earned cash by promoting one of the worst examples of psudo-science non-sequiturs I've ever come across. Total ficticious garbage - don't waste your time (let alone your money) with it. T h e M a v e r i c k 03:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
They explain it on their video, why 92% of the wealth belongs to 1% of the people. It's because foolishness attracts fools, who are soon parted with 100% of their money, which is transferrerd to that special 1% who know how to attract money. 66.245.192.146 07:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
People born without magic powers deserve to be poor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.40.222.77 (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Praise

I don't think this section is needed, espccially in its current form. I think most people assume a film will recieve praise by alot, but with criticism its not allways the case, also criticism tends to point out the parts it disagrees with, while praise here just goes along the lines of "wow its great." DaSilvaArtur 14:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I removed it because it basically was a copied and pasted list of testimonials from the official web site and forums. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A deeper treatment of how excited many are about the film seems called for, if only to highlight the social impact the film is having and how far that impact goes (maybe not far). This perhaps needs to wait until some creditable organization does an article on the film — giving us a source for material. The section could be titled, "Impact on society". WikiLen 06:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I for one can say that this movie has completely changed my life. The ciritisms are weak in comparison to "What the Bleep..." which it is often compared to, and I think that regardless of what people think, anything that anyone can do to get people to watch it is important. I agree with all of you, but this documentary is huge and I am happier than I've ever been and I can promise everyone that it works. My 2 cents.

[edit] The whole secret teachers section reads as advertisement

I will mark the article with the appropriate tab, and propose not to be removed unless certain style corrections are made. There have been attempts to rectify this article (with citations etc) which always end up being reverted without any justification to the previous style of writing. Right now the matter of conflict seems to be whether this is a movie or a documentary film. In my opinion these statements are against NPOV


  • That are featured scientists in the fields of quantum physics, psychology, philosophy, medicine that affirm on the efficiency of the proposed method. Feng Sui, metaphysics and "personal development"(sic) were also misleadingly included among the sciences.
    • what is true and is purposefully omitted (and repeatedly deleted when it was mentioned) is that ALL the physicists, doctors and psychologists that contributed to this film are distanced from their peers , have not published in a peer reviewed journal for many years, are closely affiliated to the new age movement and make PROFIT from this either by direct cooperation with a new age organization or/and by buy selling motivational (NOT scientific) books. What these people (especially the physicists) are doing is purposefully evoking the so-called quantum folklore and it's mysterious and improbable connotations to legitimize their positions (most prominent in the sister movie "what the bleep do we know" where the same persons are present again).
I agree with your assesment about these individuals. Now if we could only get you to publish this critique some place else so that your original research would be outside Wikipedia, then we could present it here, referencing your work. So until then... WikiLen 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So:

        • John Haggelin: physicist. Left superstring theory for i)transcendental meditation ii) yogic flying iii)struggle for ascention to the position of the president of the united states of America (thrice) iv) last study on meditation's effect on crime in Washington, D.C. v)currently holds a position in Maharishi University of Management
        • Fred Alan Wolf (a.k.a. Dr Quantum (sic)) Away from academic life for at least 19 years [1]. Currently seens present and active lecturer not in physics conventions but in new age / spiritual events. Contributed to the similarly themed "what the bleep do we know" and cabala seminars. "Please attend my self-help seminars on love & management [2] or buy some of my book on the same subjects [3]"

Other say that are various things but the just sell motivational material and/or spiritual services. For instance

        • Bob Proctor is styled as a philosopher, but he holds no major or minor in philosophy. He also sells promises for succesful life ("Quantum Leap your life"-quote from his site. Quanta are really a recurring theme in this type of business I assume) Here is his site
          • If I recall correctly neither Plato nor Socrates had a degree in Philosophy :) Low Sea 00:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Neale Donald Walsch is another new age, spiritual medium.
        • Joe Vitalie is styled as possessor of a master and a doctoral degree in metaphysics (eat this Vienna Circle! we are science! we said SCIENCE!). In his professional and revered academic life is also addressed as Mr. Fire and ,surprise!, has a "Miracles Coaching Program" just for you. You can obtain The Power of Outrageous Marketing here
        • Esther Hicks, of "Abrahamic group" is also another spirit channeler and motivational speaker.

and the list goes on like this. I cannot find not one person that speaks objectively without personal interest and without promoting himself and his business. Yet in the article all these people are implied to be independent experts on their fields that are jointly revealing an objective truth.

Address, in a general sense, with re-work of the Plot section into a Synopsis. See, "interviews of leading professionals in the business of promoting..." WikiLen 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The second objection is the lengthy list of significant people "Past Secret Teachers" section] that are described by the authors as advocates of the "law of attraction" . They utilize a subliminal ad hominem validation of their views by attaching them to important historical personalities in their movie, and wikipedia is used to carry as well that message. (Instead of the list I propose the phrase "several historical personalities are described in the movie as using the said method" without further development of the subject
Addressed with the sentences, "The film does not explicitly claim..." and "Rather, the film implicitly presents". WikiLen 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And lastly, as is apparent from the above, a criticism section where the commercial affiliations of the persons presented and the possible advertising motives of the movie is wholly justified.
Agreed, but too weak an argument for the "advertising" flag. A criticism section is needed but it is too early in the life of the film for that. We need criticism outside of here that we can refer too. WikiLen 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that this whole thing is a little bit tl;dr. However, in case you disagree with me, please respect my effort and answer to my points before removing the advertisement tag.87.203.114.231

You may be mixing issues of normal verses extreme lack of NPOV. I don't think all your NPOV issues need to be answered before the advertising flag gets removed. That teacher's participation in the film may be motivated by advertising and marketing interests, as well as by service to truth, should get mentioned here, but for Wikipedia to present a broad expose of those relationships would be beyond the scope of Wikipedia — i.e.: would be presenting original research—investigative reporting—in Wikipedia. Tip: Posting while logged in has advantages :) . WikiLen 03:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing the advertisement tag — concerns addressed. WikiLen 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Great research here on the real backgrounds of the alleged scientists in this film. It would be nice if the article made it more clear that this is not a scientific documentary, but a new-age money-making scheme. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DonPMitchell (talk • contribs) 02:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Secret Teachers intro section

I am reverting the edits by Mac Davis back to what I wrote. Although I find Mac's edits both correct and honest (and perhaps a bit angry), I have these two problems with them:

1) The edits leave zero positive elements in this intro—way too negative to be NPOV.
2) The edits shows no sympathy for the many people that get great value out of the film and are not bothered by the tricks it plays.

I worked to have room for everyone to see what they see. i.e.: someone like Mac would see, "yea, the producer and director are playing tricks" and conversely one enthralled with the film would see, "yea, this film really hits it home". What I am determined to avoid is bland statements that mean nothing to the reader or conversely one-side statements that are only meaningful to half the readers. WikiLen 08:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Note, I did tone down the last sentence in the intro, to say, "skillfully raising in the hearts", a less positive phrase than, "smoothly and powerfully raising this personal question in the hearts...". I am somewhat troubled by the toning-down—too "milk-toast" for my stomach. I am revising it again to: "It fearlessly stays on message, smoothly and powerfully (shrewdly some suggest) raising this question in the heart of the viewer...". This film is anything but milk-toast and this article ought to reflect that. WikiLen 19:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of article

Would others please look at the article with an eye to the appropriateness of taking the "neutrality disputed" flag off—a goal I (and others) have been working towards. Please do this in a context of also listing any NPOV issues still needing fixing and/or debate. I don't think we can ever come to a perfect NPOV on a film like this, but have we crossed the threshold—do we still need the flag? (Take it off—with explanation—if you think it is ready.) WikiLen 00:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to attribute many of the statements to those that make them. I have removed material that was in violation of oroginal research, and moved the quotes to Wikiquote. I have removed the POV tagm as I see no longer the need for it after the cleanup. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts and concede that it no longer reads like an advertisement. However, my praise ends there. This article, whoever is responsible, has taken it to the other extreme. It now reads like sneering condemnation, by putting words like "transforming" in quotation. I'm not sure why "transforming" is in quotes, since I can't recall any of the presenters in the film describing it as a "transforming" message. I don't even why the word is there, but the effect of including the word in quotes is sarcasm. Why not simply state the the film argues for the existence of the Law of Attraction, and state what the Law of Attraction is? You could even point out that this theory has not been proven by any scientific method. There is no need to be so comtemptuous of it. I'm going to try and rewrite the first section. PatrickLMT 10:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I encourage you to make the changes you suggest. Additionally, I am thinking we need to have a section titled, "Celebrations" or "Positives" or some such thing, to follow the "Criticism" section. —WikiLen 06:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Is the film a documentary?

I refer to this edit: diff. I suggest, for a short form, just label it a "film" not "film/documentary". For a longer description label it "self-help film using the documentary format". WikiLen 04:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I started looking at this question a while back when I noted a user, 76.169.138.26 (Talk) (warned about spamming), a user who seemed dedicated to getting "documentary" put into this article (later, I too put in a spam warning). So I looked up the definition for "documentary":

"Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film."

I find no source other than those with a financial interest that claim the movie is "presenting facts objectively" and is not "editorializing". How creditable sources have labeled The Secret:

Calling the film a documentary looks to be an invention for the film's marketing campaign—to increase it creditability. Of note: the claim of "documentary" is made on virtually all the sites that sell the DVD. In lieu of this we should avoid using the unqualified label "documentary" unless we can find a creditable outside source that so identifies it. WikiLen 04:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well argued., WikiLen. Let's describe it as a movie or film. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rhonda Byrne's claim

I am reverting & revising this edit diff to reflect what is explicily spoken by Rhonda Byrne in the film. Reverted, this bit will read:

"The film also includes quotes by historical figures with Rhonda Byrne, the producer, stating in a voice-over in the film, 'I can't believe all the people who knew this, they were the greatest people in history'."

by WikiLen 04:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Principle verses Concept

I refer to this edit, diff. The film labels the "Law of attraction" as a principle. Looking up the definition for "principle" I find,

"A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes: the principle of jet propulsion."

And the definition for "concept":

A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion.

Both could be applied to describe the Law of attraction however, "principle" seems to be a subset of "concept." So therefore more specific. Also, it is the term the film uses. Furthermore, I find no sources that say or suggest the "Law of attraction" should be called something other than a "principle". In the absence of a reason to use "concept" I am going to revert back to "principle." Your thoughts... WikiLen 04:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links revisited

I am troubled by the deletion of links that provide the source material upon which Rhonda Byrne based "The Secret". I am refering to these edits:

diff — The Master Key System — Ms. Byrne is vague on the film's connection to this.
diff — The Science of Getting Rich — She clearly states this is the source of her inspiration for the film.

It strikes me that these belong in the article for it to fulfill its encyclopedic mission. They, of course, need to be as free of Spam as possible and perhaps belong in their own section, such as "Inspiration behind the film" or "Books referenced by the film." The copyrights on both these books have expired, so they are in the public domain and can be downloaded as PDFs. I know Wikipedia has articles for both these books and also, this article has links to these other articles. At the least, I think we should provide a reference to the PDF when this article mentions one of these books. WikiLen 05:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the hype?

I am refering to this edit, diff. — I probably put the quotes in the wrong place.

The film and the associated marketing campaign have incredible hype associated with them. The hype is an intimate part of the film and lacking any independent analysis of it, all I can do is quote it. The above edit took some excellent examples out.

":...experience The Secret ... the leading edge both in terms of technology and in pursuit of your life's dreams and desires."

And:

"For the first time, all the pieces of The Secret come together in an incredible revelation which will be life transforming for all who experience it."

I am looking at putting one or both back in, at the "Marketing campaign" section. Give me advice or just go for it yourself... WikiLen 06:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


I think that we need to add a section about reviews, and include some third party info about the subject, as 99% of the article is now based on the film itself, or their producers, and that makes the article not neutral. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think it puts weight onto the negative side. It is all too easy to show contradictions (negatives) quoting what producers/film and such say, but positive elements (and there are many) look promotional when the source is not a third-party.
I have also been thinking of making a subpage listing material others could be looking for. I suspect over time to see stuff on topics such as:
  • Theories/principles competing with the "Law of Attraction"
  • Praise (or some such title; the opposite of criticism) — how people celebrate the film
  • Packaging — reports on the hype, tricks, spin...
Maybe this bullet list, above, will serve that purpose — but not if it gets moved to an archive (which a subpage avoids). WikiLen 22:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


I watched the movie, and it seems to be to be more of an infomercial than a film. I am not so sure what are the implications for this article, as infomercials are not really encyclopedic. On the other hand, it seems that the phenomenon is notable enough to have an article about it, in which case we ought to research third party sources that describe the phenomenon and considerably reduce the use of primary sources in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I find the phenomenon is notable and also think it belongs as an article, pursuing third-party sources as you mention above. I think it a stretch to call it an infomercial. The film, by itself, pretty much follows the classic format for an inspirational self-help product. Just does it better than anyone else has to-date. Other people, however, are making money off the film, such as coaches that appear in the film, but never in the film does it say, see so-and-so coach for more help. The website/film combination is another story, but this article is not about that — or should it be too? Maybe some third-party will tie the two together under one rubric. WikiLen 23:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. But probably it is too early, as I have not seen any reputable source that refers to this product/film. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by Buddha379

Buddha379, please become familiar with our content policies. In particular pay attention to the policies of no original research and verifiability, so that your editing efforts are not reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History section?

This paragraph, below, was removed from the article as original research—historical analysis with no reputable or reliable sources cited for it's conclusions.

The Law of Attraction is not a new concept. Self Help and New Age authors began referring to the Law of Attraction in the 1970s and earlier. Books like "Creative Visualization" by Shatiki Gawain [1] talked about the Law of Attraction long before it became "The Secret." Esther Hicks who appeared in the first release of the DVD, talked about this idea in the early 1980s in a series of audio tapes created by her and her husband, Jerry Hicks. However, the idea goes back even further, showing up in major religious philosophies, like Buddhism. In the Dhammapada, the Buddha says: "all that we are is the result of our thoughts," a quote used by the film to illustrate the timelessness of its ideas.[2]

When reputable/reliable sources are found for the conclusions, I am not sure where this would belong. It may be in:

  • A "History" section for this article
  • A "Packaging Hyperbole" section for this article
  • A "Law of attraction" section for this article
  • In the Wikipedia article for Law of attraction
  • In criticism
  • In Synopsis

comments by WikiLen 06:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the original poster of this paragraph seems to have just copied whole sentences from the text of a copyrighted review at the site, Become Alpa. and unfortunately, although I liked the review, I don't think it qualifies as a reputable or reliable source. WikiLen 06:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That in itself is a basis for deletion. See WP:C. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to film at Google Video

See new section: For an update see below, Legal online version(s) of the film —WikiLen 09:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The link—at the References section—to a free version of the full film no longer works as of this version, 01:19, 29 December 2006.

When live, the video's page at Google had indicated it was being made available for a limited time. That time, on the face of it, appears to have expired. An attempt by user 76.169.138.26 to link it to a Spanish version of the film has correctly been reverted by user:Jossi. User 76.169.138.26 linked it again to the Spanish version and I have revised the link, changing it to a chapter-by-chapter version of the film (in English). With this link, one views Chapter 1 and then clicks on the link to Chapter 2 and so on. Of note, is the fact that Chapter 2 is missing and the link to it from Chapter 1 is dead. All the other chapters seem to be there. WikiLen 06:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User 76.169.138.26's behavior is interesting:
  • The user made 10 attempts—is this why—to use a redirect page; see list at user's talk page.
  • On at least five occasions, the user changed the link to the Spanish version when the link to the English version was dead.
(1) 18:24, 19 December 2006 diff
(2) 17:27, 3 January 2007 diff
(3) 23:59, 4 January 2007 diff
(4) 00:35, 6 January 2007 diff
(5) 04:01, 6 January 2007 diff

Of note: In the various English and Spanish versions, on Google Video, the id numbers have changed over time, for both the English and Spanish versions of the film. The means the film is getting re-uploaded to Google Video — a sign, one would think, of unauthorized uploading of copyrighted material. WikiLen 06:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe further clarification is needed from User 76.169.138.26 and/or an official at Dragon 8 Publicists or DrewPictures.net—supposed source of the uploaded film (per commentary at the film's former Google Video page). WikiLen 06:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This raises some questions: (1) should we bother with this crippled chapter-by-chapter version of the film (2) should we stop linking to any version of the film (the full-length English version may get uploaded again) and (3) is it time to block user 76.169.138.26, see User talk:76.169.138.26? — WikiLen 06:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the chapter by chapter even skips some of them, including the second one. I found a complete version in google video. Hope this helps, thank you. WikiLeni 05:35, 14 January 2007 (PST)

Note: This user has been permanently blocked due to taking on an ID too similar to mine. —WikiLen 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The director of the film Drew Heriot informed me that the previous complete version has been discontinued so they had to take it out of google. The newest authorized complete version was released to share with friends and family and I have added the link to the article. Also found another article at the Chicago Tribune that might help everyone contribute more expert quotes. Oprah is also doing a live show dedicated to The Secret, so I'll definitely keep collaborating more as the info is available. WikiLeni 4:34, 24 January 2007 (PST)

Note: Above user alleged to be a spammer —see talk page: user talk:wikiLeni. —WikiLen 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Have modified link authorized by Dragon 8 PR and DrewPictures.net. The company president has announced that thanks to their multiple marketing google campaigns Oprah Winfrey called them on January 3rd and 5th. They have made an agreement with documentary site jonhs.net to present a continuous screening of The Secret using both google video and youtube, link is http://www.jonhs.net/freemovies/secret.htm. I have added that new free link to The Oprah Winfrey Show as expert quotes can be taken from Oprah's interview. The link added is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4At9hVa1U1A (also added external link to google video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6970591609350288402) WikiLeni 9:48, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Note: Above user alleged to be a spammer —see talk page: user talk:wikiLeni. —WikiLen 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

See new section: For an update see below, Legal online version(s) of the film —WikiLen 09:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New thought film rather than self-help

I just saw this film today, and as a Wikiholic, I of course had to come home and read this article. I believe it's more accurate to call "The Secret" a new thought film rather than self-help. If you disagree, try reading the Wiki-articles on self help and new thought, and maybe they will change your mind.

Whether it's a documentary or not, I believe it's whatever "What the (bleep)!?" is. Personally, I don't think it's a documentary. To me, it's an informative, promotional film on metaphysics and new thought. DBlomgren 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move Health Claims to Criticism?

I'd like to move the "Health Claims" section to "Criticism" because I don't believe it warrants a separate section. Also, according to this article [4], which I've just referenced, the criticism is mostly about the focus on getting material things. In fact, I'd rather just delete the Health Claims section, but I don't want to destroy someone's heartfelt contribution. Can anyone show the health claims controversy isn't just one editor's belief? In the meantime, I'll research the history to see who added that section. DBlomgren 01:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's not just one editor's belief, but it's taken almost word for word from the referenced site at the end of the quote[5]. How about rewording it to make it less like plagiarism and moving to "Criticism"? DBlomgren 02:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Needs a deal of work. The health claim is in many ways one of the *least* controversial, since there's quite a deal of research about the effect of belief and attitude on various health issues, including cancer remission. The placebo effect is the most obvious manifestation of the effect of belief. The idea of thought directly influencing the universe in some kind of other metaphysical sense is the part I'd consider most controversial. From a health perspective if I recall the movie correctly they did make some claim about disease primarily being caused by attitude, which is a different thing altogether, and IMO moves past controversial into the realm of outright dangerous! I actually like the movie for it's overall message, but it's proposed theory or "mechanism" leads a lot to be desired :-). The whole "law of attraction" is based on fairly basic human psychology, no mysticism needed. I'll watch it again and check the health message. --Insider201283 02:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be moved to criticism and also that it is one of the least contoversial claims of the movie. One (of many) things that doesn't make sense to me in the movie is that the woman who overcame breast cancer says that she never for a minute believed that she was sick. The implication is that this explains why she miraculously triumphed without chemotherapy, but it begs the question, how did she get the cancer in the first place if she never attracted it with her thoughts. Herbanreleaf 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You will need to provide sources for the assertions you made in the article. Please read WP:V and WP:CITE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not every Statement needs a citation

(copied from my talk page)

Jossi, I appreciate your efforts to maintain a high standard of content on wikipedia, but you have twice interfered with a comment that I have made on The Secret (film) page without justification, I believe. I read the page on verification/citation and I don't see my contribution as falling within any category that would require citation. There is no quote and no risk of plagiarism nor any assertion that this is primary research nor is anyone likely to contest that The Secret has been criticized in the way that I mention. The source of my comment comes from various informal discussions and a weekly discussion group. I don't think these sources are citable, yet I consider them infinitely more credible than Larry King Live and some of the other sources that you let stand. So, I suggest that you reconsider demanding sources for every sentence of an article and instead look at what functions citations tend to serve and see if they are called for in each particular instance. As someone who has done a great deal of academic writing, where rigorous standards of citation are applied, I would say that my contribution would greatly benefit from a citation, but doesn't require one (especially since there is no published source of what I am saying).Herbanreleaf 20:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Herbanreleaf: I invite you to spend some time reading our content policies, as I can see from your comment that you may have misunderstood them. In particular read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability:

  1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
  2. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
  3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

From Wikipedia:No original research

  • Articles may not contain any unpublished material, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position


Given your statement above: "The source of my comment comes from various informal discussions and a weekly discussion group", I have deleted the material as it violates WP:V and WP:OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Herbanreleaf, you are kinda of right in that not always every statement needs a citation (otherwise you can end up with a mess of an article if every word has a source next to it!). However every contested statement needs a source, or in other words if another person disagrees with what was added then whoever added it will need to find a suitable source before putting it back in. Mathmo Talk 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly, Mathmo. Contributors to Wikipedia should not add their own opinion to articles. If someone adds material that he may have read in a book, for example, then your statement above is correct. But adding a personal opinion is never acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I feel that my point still remains, people are free to do whatever they like (even vandalise, but they need to accept the consequences of being quickly blocked!). So they can even add in an opinion to the article, but if anybody at all contests it they will need to find a suitable source for where this opinion has been expressed and then included both the sources and the way the source is refered to in a suitably NPOV way. Mathmo Talk 02:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


This is an opinion: The Secret is a virtual cheerleader for material greed and social and political apathy, blames the victim, overlooks socioeconomic inequities, and ignores the limits to how many fancy cars, jet-skis, multi-million dollar mansions, and other status-symbols the Earth can sustain.
This is a fact: The secret has also been criticized as being a virtual cheerleader for material greed and social and political apathy as well as for blaming the victim, overlooking socioeconomic inequities, and ignoring the limits to how many fancy cars, jet-skis, multi-million dollar mansions, and other status-symbols the Earth can sustain.
This is apparently what you are demanding: The secret has also been criticized by one of the various pop-culture authorities that are acceptable to Jossi as being a virtual cheerleader for material greed and social and political apathy as well as for blaming the victim, overlooking socioeconomic inequities, and ignoring the limits to how many fancy cars, jet-skis, multi-million dollar mansions, and other status-symbols the Earth can sustain. [Jossi approved pop-culture authority]Herbanreleaf 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well then, Jossi, since my statement wasn't an opinion, but a factual statement about how the film has been criticized and since it is unlikely to be contested that it has been criticized in this way, I don't see why it should need a citation. Herbanreleaf 16:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


If it is a "factual statement", Herbanreleaf, show us where. Otherwise how would you expect readers to trust our encyclopedia if they cannot verify the material? That is why WP:V exists. BTW, I concur with your assessment of the film, but nonetheless I do not add my opinion or what I believe to be factual, unless I have sources that describe it that way. That is the Wikipedia way. As said before, there are other wikis that do not carry the burden of verifiability, such a Wikiinfo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The fact that it has been criticized in such a way, I have witnessed first hand. If you want, I will criticize it for you in that very same way, so that you will hear first hand that it has been criticized in such a way. Do you trust published sources such as Larry King Live more than your own ears? You act as if only things that have been spoken by celebrities who get quoted in pop culture are authoritative. In fact, this usually cheapens rather than bolsters its respectability in my view. Who doubts that the film has been criticized in such a way? I will criticize it in that very way right before your eyes. Therefore, it is undisputable that the film has been criticized in that way. I'm sorry if you don't recognize me or any of the many other folks that have discussed this with me as being real, but just because we aren't on Larry King Live doesn't mean that the fact of our criticism isn't fact. The question for you is if a tree falls, and it isn't on Larry King Live does it still make a sound? By the way, I've viewed countless articles on wikipedia and most of them contain many sentences asserting facts that are not followed by citations. It's only those pages that seem to be monitored by totalitarian control freaks that are forced to adhere to such a limiting standard. In fact, there are only seven citations on The Secret (Film) page to four sources and there are quite a few more statements being made then that. However, you seem to have singled in on mine for some reason that is apparent only to you. Herbanreleaf 20:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken, I have not "singled out" anyone. I have invited you to read our content policies regarding verifiability and citing sources. Have you done so? If you have, you will know by now that we can only describe what reliable sources say about a subject. That's it, I am afraid. It does not matter who these sources are, as long as these have been published in a medium considered reliable by a source considered such. We are not asserting that these are true or false, we are asserting these as the opinions of these that hold them. The fact that there are articles in Wikipedia that do not carry sources for opinions, does not make these articles compliant with our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Herbanreleaf, don't single out ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) either! Isn't the only editor disagreeing with you. And remember one source doesn't automatically mean one statement, often a source is used to write more than just one sentence! Mathmo Talk

jossi, please elaborate on which element(s) of the Criticism section require additional sources. Is it the opening statement about entrepreneurial mindset or Scientific Inaccuracy? The former could be characterized as opinion (although the film contradicts virtually every authority on entrepreneurial behavior). Would it be permissible if I cited an authoritative source like Engineering Your Startup, by James Swanson and Michael Baird? The latter (Scientific Inaccuracy) is an important and factual statement in the context of this article. To omit it would be to allow (or even encourage) the reader to accept that the "Law of Attraction" (the central premise of the film) is supported by science. That would be an Error of Omission (EOO), as long as the film is being characterized as something akin to a documentary. If we agreed to re-characterize it as "metaphysical fantasy", then this would no longer be necessary. Further, there are no sources to cite because the film's claims exceed the state of current (and future) scientific knowledge and/or are fundamentally untestable (i.e. not science). Please advise.watsonta Talk

[edit] Book

It should be added that "The Secret" has also been released as a hardcover book. The book is almost a verbatim transcript of the video, but interspersed with commentary from the author, Rhonda Byrne. PatrickLMT 02:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] This flaming pile is getting played on channel nine - Australia

You heard it.. national TV.. this complete pile of **** —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.84.70.102 (talk • contribs).

  • G'day. And thank you very kindly sir for alerting us to this additional aspect of the film's notability. Cheerio. Mathmo Talk 17:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article is becoming a mess, due to editor's addition of unsourced and unattributed opinions. I will clean it up, keeping only the material that is properly sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up three sites added to end of article that were advertising amazon.com books and other products related to The Secret. The sites are explorethesecret.com, attractionlawsecret.com, and squidoo.com comprehensive guide blog advertising amazon.com books as mentioned before. WikiLeni 10:08, 13 February 2007 (PST)

And I cleaned up SPAM you added — links to spamming videos. I assume it is no accident you took on an ID similar to mine — WikiLen. For users who want to see what this user is up to check out my comments at this user's talk page: user talk:wikiLeni. —WikiLen 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Link

I think it would be appropriate to add a link to the following site which has a number of articles talking about "the secret", the law of attraction (in both spiritual and non-spiritual terms), and various related issues. The site is: goodkarma.org. Please review the site and post the link if you find it appropriate (or I would be happy to post the link as well)...I think it helps to clarify issues brought up in the film. Thanks! Scdunn 08:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a blog and may not qualify as a reliable source. The "articles" at the site are actually just posts to the blog. See Wikipedia's policy on "Self-published sources" for guidance. Of note, it states:
"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are usually not acceptable as sources..."
In my opinion, the site you mention—although interesting—does not qualify as a "reliable source", but keep looking. —WikiLen 22:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking it would be appropriate in the "external links" section...people who enjoy "the secret" would probably also enjoy the articles/blog entries on this site, and in addition can discuss the material further. Scdunn 23:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As a blog it still does not qualify, even as an external link. See Wikipedia's policy on "Links normally to be avoided" — mentions avoiding "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority." In all aspects, to quote from Wikipedia:Five pillars:
"Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments...Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory."
I see Wikipedia as a final report on knowledge that has grown elsewhere. I suggest starting a topic on "The Secret (film)" at wikiversity.org if you are interested in growing the knowledge about this film — see also, the Wikipedia article on Wikiversity. -WikiLen 06:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My latest additions to the external links are completely spam free and great material to add to the researching of this article. They are as follows:

Thank you again for clarifying that Prof. John Stackhouse have a degree on the subject matter and he will not be removed by my edits, and yes, I encourage everyone to keep adding unbiased links and documented information to this article in need of serious editors. Watchrapid 17:43, 05 March 2007 (UTC)

As I noted at your talk page, user talk:Watchrapid, all three of the videos you mention above were posted to "youTube" by user, thesecretsgrprogram. Each posted video provides a link to this user and when you click on that link you find it is a user selling, "The Secret Science of Getting Rich seminar program". Also, the listed website for that user is a commercial site selling products related to the film, The Secret. This makes the video a spamming video. Additionally I neglected to mention at your talk page, that the owner of the site—the site doing the posting—is obvously not the owner of the copyrights for these videos. Wikipedia cannot link to anything that is in voilation of copyrights. —WikiLen 02:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
See: External link spamming

[edit] Legal online version(s) of the film

It appears there is no version of the full film that is legally available, online, for free. There is this video, The Secret film, 1st 20 minutes, at Google Video, that claims authorization by TS Production LLC, the copyright holder for the official site, theSecret.tv. I find the claim creditable for these reasons:

  • The copyright notice, "Copyright © 2006 TS Production LLC - All Rights Reserved." appears at the bottom of most pages at the official site.
  • The first three seconds of the above Google video states:
"This DVD contains the first 20 minutes of the film The Secret. Its creation and use are authorized by The Secret, TS Production LLC...Its appearance on Google Video is authorized, however any other appearance on Google Video—or similar service—of The Secret, in whole or part, is not authorized by The Secret LLC."
  • The link—and only link—provided at the Google page showing the video, is a link to the official site — very compelling evidence!

I ask everyone's vigilance in keeping this article free of spammer attempts—there have been many—to insert links to spamming videos and videos in violation of copyrights. —thanks, WikiLen 09:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Link to Expert Blog

Someone--I assume it is "Watchrapid"--keeps deleting a link to a discussion of The Secret by professor of contemporary religion Dr. John Stackhouse. His bona fides are clearly listed at www.JohnStackhouse.com, and his commentary on contemporary religion has been featured in a wide range of both academic and popular media. Thus this blog falls within Wikipedia guidelines as expert commentary and should remain. Jossi deleted it once, understandably, and then restored it on these terms.

Getting academicians to participate in Wikipedia is a long-standing issue, and deleting good, accessible material by them is certainly not going to help. Is someone deleting this just because he or she doesn't like what is said? That, too, is out of keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. So I'm adding it back: Please don't delete it--and certainly don't do so without an explicit defense. PlymouthG 14:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well spoken. Clearly, this is a valid link and yes Watchrapid has been deleting this link. I note that Watchrapid is a very new ID and his/her first edit was to create a reference link to a spamming video. Either this is a user unaware of Wikipedia conventions or a sock puppeteer for a spammer — possibly, a spammer also controlling the two user IDs below (now blocked) who linked to similar spamming videos:
I hope to discover that Watchrapid is just a new user learning how Wikipedia works. -WikiLen 19:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Secret was on Nightline (NZ TV, is ONE's late night news)

Though I didn't get to watch it myself due to being otherwise "busy", just thought I'd note it here in case some otehr NZ editors could add something about this if they watched it? Mathmo Talk 15:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orifinal research and unsourced claims

This article is getting worse and worse with each day. Unless sources are provided for the unsourced material, such material will be deleted in a few days. See WP:ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to identify links to spamming videos

See: External link spamming

I am posting this here because of the frequency with which we are getting links to spamming videos. Adding links to online free videos that promote a site or product is not allowed [see exception below]. Often these videos have been uploaded in violation of their copyright which adds an additional reason for not linking to them. A video is a spammming video if:

  • It has a banner plastered across the video giving you a website address to go to.
  • It has links on the video page—the page that plays the video—that go to a commercial site or to another spamming video, even if it is only one link among many legitimate links. — [see exception below]
  • It has text at this video page that would lead readers to a specific commercial site. For example, "book available at xyzBooks dot net" — [see exception below]
  • It is a clone of a video that has been deleted. Here is how this typically happens: (1) A spammer post a video in in violation of a copyright (2) the copyright holder (or other party) notifies the Video sharing service that the video is not authorized (3) the video sharing service reviews that claim (4) the video sharing service deletes the video (5) the spammer posts the video again. Note: The ID in the address for the video at the video sharing service changes when this happens.

Exception for official site: This link is OK: The Secret film, 1st 20 minutes — authorized by TS Production LLC, the copyright holder for the official site, theSecret.tv. Although "theSecret.tv" is a commercial site, this is legitimate because it is both the official site and the only link provided at the page showing the video—has no links to spammers. —WikiLen 17:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title for "Critical Praise" sub-section

Note: This section is now titled, "Critics' closing remarks"

I am having trouble settling on a title for this sub-section, Critical Praise, in the Criticism section of the article — help! Any suggestions? The canidates so far:

  • Critic's caveats —my initial title
  • Critics —Jossi's edit
  • Critical Praise —weak: a critic's positive comment often falls short of praise.
  • Critic's positive assessments
  • Critic's most positive assessment —too long? & NPOV problem?
  • Critical response —offered by user:68.36.224.106, weak: suggests same content as "Editorial coverage" —WikiLen 02:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Critical support
  • Counterpoint from critics
  • Critic's closing remarks — positive leaning
  • Critic's closing remarks <current title>

Many sections of the article, in the current edition, lean negative. The only practical way to counter this—for NPOV—is to have a section dedicated for positive-leaning assessments. This new section [sub-section] serves that purpose and needs to have a title that reflects this intention (to help keep negative assessments out of this new sub-section). —WikiLen 17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have given up this positive-only attempt. I've settled on "Critic's closing remarks" as my choice for the section sub-title. Also, I added the closing remarks for the ABC News review. —WikiLen 17:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critics closing remarks

[currently re-named as, "Other remarks"] —WikiLen 04:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this section, it seemed designed simply to give a positive spin. Working some of these comments into the main critics section might be ok but this is clearly not NPOV. JoshuaZ 15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That is unacceptable. I do not care if it is positive of negative spin. These comments were made in reputable publoications and attributed to these that made the comments. If you do not like the style it is written, on fix it, but do not delete it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

For now I have switched the title for this section back to "Critic's closing remarks" from "Other remarks".

  • Closing remarks by critics are significant — the final note from others that we respect.
  • To title this section "Other remarks" opens us to even more NPOV struggles — i.e.: why just these seemingly positive remarks.
  • The over-all positive tone of the remarks is just how it panned out. No critics' closing remarks, with a negative tone, have been omitted (using the list of critics referenced or linked-to in this article).

—WikiLen 05:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


JoshuaZ, regarding note in your Edit summary:

spin is still spin, if you want to combine it with the other critics comments in a "reactions" section thats one thing, but this is POV, especially given the nonrepresentative nature of the quotes

I created this sub-section and:

  • I have addressed your assertion that this is spin at your talk page. I recognize that it looks like spin to some, so to fix this I have reverted the title to my original title (see above) and changed the first sentence (see below).
  • Regarding your suggestion to "combine it with the other critics comments": Closing remarks are notable. To mix them with other remarks dilutes that and makes for a more chaotic read.
  • And you assert "the nonrepresentative nature of the quotes". Please note that the critics used in this sections are the same ones used in the "Editorial coverage" section. Yes that section only references 3 critics—all in the print media—and this section references 5, but the two I added were Prof. John Stackhouse, a theologian and ABC news. I expanded the representation bringing in coverage from religion and TV. I didn't hand-pick these quotes. I just took the closing remarks of the currently known significant critics on this film. I may have ignored some closing remarks that were positive but none that were negative.

—WikiLen 20:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


I have revised the first sentence to include the phrase "countered their negative critiques". i.e.:

Professional critics of the film and contemporary culture have countered their negative critiques of the film with these closing remarks:

Justification:

  • The critiques obviously contain negative components — no OR problem here.
  • Should help reduce gut-reactions, by editors or any reader, that this sub-section is spinning — trying to hide negative criticism.

—WikiLen 20:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the purpose of any "Closing Remarks" section? It seems odd, and I can't say I've ever seen a collection of closing remarks presented as a representation of a book or film's critical reception. Typically, any excerpts from criticisms or analyses are chosen based on criteria other than their location in the actual piece; we don't count on critics to end every work with a tidy summary sentence, after all, and for good reason- most don't.

I guess all I'm asking is, why are closing remarks noteworthy or relevant?

Gozer gozerian 21:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Normally, closing remarks are just summaries of what a critic says in the body of a review or commentary — nothing unique in the closing. However, in all of these cases, the critic is saying something unique at the end of the review or commentary. There are two aspects to this uniqueness: (1) the critic says something positive where the rest of the review or commentary has been negative—irony—and (2) the critic chooses to position his/her positive remark—and the only positive remark—as the final word, adding punch to the irony. The irony is an important component of what each of these critic is saying. Maybe "Ironic critiques" would be a better title. —WikiLen 18:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this a common practice in entries like this? I've never seen it before, but I might have been reading the wrong entries. The title keeps changing, but unless I'm mistaken (and I may be), it still doesn't seem to serve any encyclopedic purpose.

Gozer gozerian 09:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

These are critics critiquing. Please elaborate on your comment "doesn't seem to serve any encyclopedic purpose".
I am sure there is a way to improve this. I am open to—and seek—suggestions. —WikiLen 20:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My primary suggestion would be to either find critic's treatments which are both positive and negative, take *representative* excerpts- not closing excerpts, or ironic excerpts, or excerpts which otherwise depend on context they lack- from those articles, and make this section a "Quotes from Critics" section. The reader shouldn't have to check with the source of the quote to find out what, in summary, the critic thought of the subject. As it is now, it seems like we keep bending and twisting this section to keep the actual quotes the same, rather than addressing the quotes themselves. An actual critical excerpts section would solve all this, whereas an "ironic" or "closing remarks" section is at once unprecedented, questionably informative, and atypical of Wikipedia entries of this nature. —Gozer gozerian 00:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments from above and my replies/questions, mixed together. Yours in italics.
My primary suggestion would be to either find critic's treatments which are both positive and negative,
problem here is the positive comments are only in the closing remarks. Should I treat that as a coincidence—to be ignored—or significant, i.e.: as part of the critics message?
take *representative* excerpts- not closing excerpts, or ironic excerpts, or excerpts which otherwise depend on context they lack- from those articles,
there were no other positive quotes I could find (by critics) when I put together the sub-section — amazes me...
and make this section a "Quotes from Critics" section.
I like this idea but it would mean refactoring the "Editorial coverage" sub-section since that is where negative comments can be found (from the same critics). I am for this, but we should plan carefully before making such a bold move.
The reader shouldn't have to check with the source of the quote to find out what, in summary, the critic thought of the subject.
Agree. Are you saying we should expand the section on closing remarks to give it more depth?
As it is now, it seems like we keep bending and twisting this section to keep the actual quotes the same, rather than addressing the quotes themselves.
Lost me here. I suspect I would be all for "addressing the quotes themselves" just not sure what you mean. Do you mean paraphase and quote, as needed, the critics' summaries? This would be a big challenge—but not impossible—since it is difficult to summarize irony.
An actual critical excerpts section would solve all this, whereas an "ironic" or "closing remarks" section is at once unprecedented, questionably informative, and atypical of Wikipedia entries of this nature.
atypical (yes), unprecedented yes (but so what), and questionably informative (I'm thinking insufficiently informative). My real concern has been that I am doing original research by bringing attention to the fact that 5 critics were 100% negative until they got to their closing remarks. I find that interesting. I find it communicates something but recognize saying what is original research. So perhaps I should let this go. If you are up to refactoring this whole thing I am game.

Recent reviews of the film (roughly, after 1 March 07) have lacked the ironic closing remarks of the early reviews. The review by Tony Riazzi (Dayton Daily News) is the first of these new reviews to be added to this sub-section. I have dropped my attempt to have this article catch the irony in the early reviews of this film (was doing OR?) — leave this to some historian to pick up. —WikiLen 05:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs Spoilers

Movie articles often have spoilers, especially when to understand the issue requires them. It seems reasonable that in this movie, where the central argument is based on their list of historical teachers and current examples, that we be given aguments on behalf of either. Like the bike example given, only give more (all) of them. And like the "Thomas Edison" mentioned, but give an argument. --Mrcolj 12:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MLM audiences

I have yet to see someone who owns The Secret but that said person is promoting an MLM or success formula of some sort. That should be mentioned. Around here, it is synonymous with Mary Kay, Quixtar, Xango, NuSkin, and various real estate investing companies. I'm not saying any POV, just that I assume this is 90% of the push and the market. --Mrcolj 12:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand these sentences (too terse I think):
I have yet to see someone who owns The Secret but that said person is promoting an MLM or success formula of some sort.
I'm not saying any POV, just that I assume this is 90% of the push and the market.
Please clarify. —WikiLen 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I think they're saying they have yet to see a person who owns The Secret, who isn't also promoting an MLM -- 12.116.162.162 21:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] News reports on "secret" teachers

I'm puzzled about why a 12 minutes official ABC News report with one of The Secret teachers is classified as unimportant by WikiLen. In yet another attempt to make this article more neutral I have again added the following link that complies with wikipedia guidelines. ABC7News (KGO-TV San Francisco): "The Secret to Success and Happiness" Please Jossi make sure you monitor everyone fairly. Also, my research shows that CBS TV corporation is now the owner of The Secret's book publisher, so we better find reports from the other networks as well. Let's continue finding other valuable resources and not ban them just because they don't have a negative connotation. What about the "Celebrations" or "Positives" section you were talking about? ≈ Watchrapid ≈ (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unimportant for these reasons:
  • It is a news video produced by ABC7News—a local news outfit—not ABC News.
  • The video is an interview of Maria Diamond and her coaching methods and philosophy. The video briefly mentions the film but it is not about the film.
Guideline states: ...the link should be directly related to the subject of the article.
Regarding your statement, "What about the "Celebrations" or "Positives" section you were talking about?" please checkout the sub-section, Critics' closing remarks.
Regarding your statement, "...we better find reports from the other networks as well." — please clarify. I am missing your point.
—WikiLen 03:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Show me where in the wikipedia policies it says that some news outlets are more important than others. The link with Maria Diamond is completely related to The Secret, twelve entire minutes talking about the teachings of the secret by an expert in The Secret. The link has to go back until and after you direct me to the proof contained in wikipedia policies. Please do not continue trying to mislead readers of this article. Neutrality is being killed by this article's "police." To clarify, the more different networks and reporters we get the less biased this article will become. I'm challenging WikiLen's neutrality, do you work for the government, what are you trying to do here? ABC7News (KGO-TV San Francisco): "The Secret to Success and Happiness" is going back because it is directly related to The Secret and there is no rule saying one media station is better than the next the same way Watchrapid and WikiLen are as important as each other. Please Jossi make sure you monitor everyone fairly. ≈ Watchrapid ≈ (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A) Watchrapid, you state:
Show me where in the wikipedia policies it says that some news outlets are more important than others.
See, Sources of dubious reliability. I respectfully submit that local TV news stations have a "poor reputation for fact-checking". Am I off-target on this? I'm open to correction from anyone. —WikiLen 01:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
B) Watchrapid, you state:
twelve entire minutes talking about the teachings of the secret by an expert in The Secret
as support for including a link to Maria Diamond. This is the version that would make it a direct relationship:
twelve entire minutes talking about the film by an expert (with relevant and recognized expertise)
If you and I had a common friend then we would have an indirect relationship. If we, ourselves, were friends then it would be a direct relationship. Maria Diamond needed to talk about the film itself for it to be a direct relationship to the film. Instead, she talked about a subject matter that the film also happens to talk about — indirect connection. And, most importantly, she would have to be deemed a notable expert. i.e.: self-published expertise would not qualify her. See, Self-published sources (online and paper) —WikiLen 01:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
C) Watchrapid, you state:
the more different networks and reporters we get the less biased this article will become
Wikipedia Attribution policy:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences...
Not a place for users to experience all TV reports and draw their own conclusions. And this External links policy:
Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article.
[italics mine] —WikiLen 03:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
D) I'm not insulted and don't work for the government... good laugh. I hope you were trying to be funny.
I'm challenging WikiLen's neutrality, do you work for the government, what are you trying to do here?
Metaphorically, I am trying to balance an egg (NPOV) on its end. It just doesn't want to be there. Additionally you may have noticed that I seem quite aggressive at staying on top of your edits. This is because about 90% of your edits have been to edit the External Links section. This is a red flag to me. In particular, I am concerned that either (1) you are trying to find a way to get a link that leads to Bob Proctor's affiliate seminar program or (2) your actions will inadvertently open the door for others to do so. Bob Proctor, a featured teacher in the film, has a $2000 program which—if you were an affiliate—would provide you with $500 every time someone signed up through your special affiliate link. Alternately, you may be in employ of Bob Proctor. The fundamental reason this all concerns me is that a number of your links to videos were to spamming videos for Bob Proctor related business. I don't want to document this here—as free advertising for Bob Proctor—however you can go to your own talk page User talk:Watchrapid where I have provided more details. The last thing this article needs is a flood of affiliates (spammers) trying to use this article as a pipeline to money — gets my blood going. You are correct in sensing policing action on my part. I wish to be transparent about this. Thanks for raising the issue. —WikiLen 01:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[See, Counter Quotes below for additional comments from Watchrapid.]

(Third opinion) Wikipedia policy provides no bias against local news sources. If a reference is a local print or broadcast news source, it is a reliable source, just as much as any other media mention. Bias regarding local or national market media should not be the basis for exclusion of sources. That way lies the slippery slope where "the media is biased" and "the media is inaccurate" arguments gain traction. Just my opinion. You're welcome to some grains of salt with it. Vassyana 20:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept Vassyana opinion. Perhaps as we get more local coverage sources we could separate the External links into national and local sub-sections. —WikiLen 03:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(Third opinion) I agree with Vassyana, but have to add that the second point by WikiLen (see below) is quite valid. --User:Krator (t c) 22:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

“ The video is an interview of Maria Diamond and her coaching methods and philosophy. The video briefly mentions the film but it is not about the film. ”

—WikiLen
I removed the link to these Maria Diamon videos. Even the second of the two videos does not talk about the film. It talks about Vision boards, a tool championed by the film. —WikiLen 03:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
To person(s) adding again the link to Maria Diamond videos: ABC7News (KGO-TV San Francisco): "The Secret to Success and Happiness" — please document here, or at the Edit summary, why you are adding this link when you add it. Otherwise, it just looks like you didn't read the above "third opinion" and are adding the link for trivial or spamming reasons. —WikiLen 04:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saturday Night Live spoof

Anyone have more info on this to post? Telogen 20:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter Quotes

I have moved the newly created "Counter Quotes" sub-section of the article to here. It had too many problems to remain there — had original research and lacked citations or used unreliable citations. I do not understand the intent of this section and recognize it may be a worthy sub-section to have (perhaps with a different title). Hence it's here to give it a chance. To keep comments from getting confused with the moved article, I have taken out all the formatting and put the dotted box around the article text. —WikiLen 23:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Ben Eastaugh and Chris Johnson of www.youcreatereality.com, 
counter that "Telling people about the Law of Attraction isn’t 
teaching them wishful thinking. The power to transform the world, 
the power to truly change everything begins within each of us. 
The Mind is the source of transformation. The first step in overcoming 
is always to change the way you think about the problem.
www.youcreatereality.com is a link to a forum and blog. It is Wikipedia policy to not use blogs and forums as sources. —WikiLen 22:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is one of society's favorite quotes: “Give a man a fish; 
you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have 
fed him for a lifetime.” — Author Unknown
"Author unknown", can this be a source? —WikiLen 22:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This is what the entire process of revealing the Secret is, 
it is to teach people how to see differently. To teach someone 
that they are NOT a victim - to teach them that they alone get to 
choose the life they will experience, that is powerful stuff. 
Much more powerful than handing them a couple twenties and turning away!
Original research. —WikiLen 22:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Kim Mulford of the Courier Post Online interviewed a number of people 
who say The Secret is working for them. [what follows is a quote from 
the article] Byrne makes the concept easy to understand and 
incorporate into one's life," said Leah Rubba-Cameron, a licensed 
clinical social worker and psychotherapist with a private practice in 
Marlton. She recommends The Secret to her clients and holds workshops 
and group discussions on it.
This is the article: 'The Secret' is out. The Courier Post is a local South Jersey paper. I don't think this meets Wikipedia's standards for reliable source. —WikiLen 22:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not just on top of all my contributions to neutrality but are simply adding your opinions and not looking at the facts of wikipedia policies. When I add anything to external links I expect other collaborators to read the sources and use them as part of the article. I personally do not agree with having links to Bob Proctor's secret program, I'm not an affiliate of his, and am not employed by him. You are going to have to live with the fact that all the secret teachers are aggressively promoting their programs. Because of that, I promise to help you delete any link that may lead to his program. However, please watch both segments of feng shui expert Marie Diamond, watch The Secret film in its entirety, and/or read the book. The two segments are about the film The Secret, they discuss dreamboards, the book and dvd, Rhonda Byrne, and the steps to achieve success outlined on The Secret. Aside from your opinion about local media being "inferior" or as you specifically claim have "poor reputation for fact-checking" (very serious claim and generalization there), Marie Diamond is an expert who appears on The Secret and is not self published, her publisher is Learning Strategies Corporation, a company certified by the US Department of Higher Education. In addition she is an expert columnist for AOL. Please drop the debate about this link and stop finding excuses to keep wikipedia readers and editors misinformed and biased by the opinions of a minority. About the link 'The Secret' is out. Tell us where in wikipedia it says that this is not a reliable source? Please don't delete without specific proof from the guidelines. ≈ Watchrapid ≈ (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Local news station again. —WikiLen 20:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be at an impass. In essence, you seem to disagree with this:
If you and I had a common friend then we would have an indirect relationship. If we, ourselves, were friends then it would be a direct relationship. Maria Diamond needed to talk about the film itself for it to be a direct relationship to the film. Instead, she talked about a subject matter that the film also happens to talk about — indirect connection.
And what do you say to the Wikipedia Attribution policy:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences...
Not a place for users to experience all TV reports and draw their own conclusions.
As for Maria Diamond as an expert, you may be right, but expert on what? Let's ignore that issue until the other stuff gets straightened out.
P.S.: Glad to hear you will be an ally in keeping spammers off this article. I have watched the film at least half-dozen times — seen both versions. I also watched the Marie Diamond video, but what was the second segment—missed that. In fact, every link added to this site, kept or removed, I have read or watched. Formerly I added links to this article that were in violation of policy and sympathize with your struggle. I encourage you to consider that you are confusing truth with reliability. It was a painful one for me to get and I still don't like it. Whether of not something is true is less important then perhaps both you and I are comfortable with.
—WikiLen 20:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Age Criticisms

This section still has original research. Granted that,

one must also rid oneself of any suppressed subconscious negativity which may obstruct or adversely distort the fulfilment of one's desires

and

without clearing out the negatives, positive thinking alone may produce undesired results

is true, it still remains that only Aum108 is claiming that film does not support this. What is needed to, free this section from being original research, is a reliable source clearly taking the position that Aum108 is taking. —WikiLen 13:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I can do to purge the 'original research' spectre from this section, even after citing three books which go into great detail about the frequent failure of positive thinking resulting from the failure to clear subconscious patterns. Do you want more book references? I've been a therapist and practitioner trainer in mind-body disciplines for 12 years, and have observed hundreds of people's experiences with attempting to apply the Law of Attraction. One major problem is that mind-body disciplines lie largely outside of the normal 'academic' spectrum, and so their knowledge resides much more in practitioners' experience and self-help texts than in 'respected' academic publications. As for citing a 'reliable source', what constitutes such? For instance, I doubt that this matter has been addressed in the journals of the APA. Also, since mind-body disciplines are heavily intuitive, such knowledge is very organic and difficult to constrain within academic systems. Could I be baning my head against a subtle wall of wikipedia systemic bias? I need advice here. Aum108 14:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I agree, as you suggest, that to "purge the 'original research' spectre from this section" will be difficult. It is not that your insights are not correct it's that,
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.
The above is quoted from, Wikipedia's policy on attribution—what makes Wikipedia encyclopedic. It's not additional book sources that you need. It's sources talking about the film, applying the point you see. My suggestions:
  • Do Google searches looking for stuff. I have tried some and couldn't find anything.
  • Look for stuff using the External links section. That is kept reasonably up-to-date, so if there is material that makes your point, it should be there.
  • Alternately, become a contributor at The Secret Project, a site that supports original thought on the film and related topics.
In the end, the "New Age Criticisms" section may have to be deleted, waiting for the day when reliable sources write about it. As to what is a reliable source, see the policy pages, Reliable sources and Reliable sources/examples for Wikipedia's policy on this. As I understand it, reliable sources can be sources that are respected within the New Age institution, since this is New Age criticism, even though they may not be respected within—for example—the institution of science. —WikiLen 17:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Give me a few days, or even a couple of weeks if you can. I know some sources. I do question your requirement that these sources should be discussing the film explicitly, since IMHO the matter at hand is regarding the veracity of the Law Of Attraction as a standalone principle as presented in the film, not the film per se. Aum108 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I will leave it in. Others may remove it, but you can just put your revised version back in when it is ready. The old version will always be in the history at this link, 03:48, 26 March 2007 changes. —WikiLen 01:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I had to look up IMHO — "in my humble opinion". I'm somewhat new to this stuff. Regarding your, "I do question..." comment, I do not consider myself a Wikipedia expert. Wikipedia has a request-third-opinion process that I have found useful in this situation (where two disagree). I suggest that. I note you are new to Wikipedia, so I can make the request if you think it will be useful. —WikiLen 01:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Critics closing remarks" section...

Professional critics of the film and contemporary culture have countered their negative critiques of the film with these closing remarks.

Huh??? Who added this? Are we supposed to list critics' blurbs for all films on Wikipedia now? I can't see any reason for having all these random quotes.Lcduke 02:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I added this. What is amazing is the quotes are not random at all — really! Check out the section above, Talk:The Secret (2006 film)#Critics closing remarks. Regarding your statement,
Are we supposed to list critics' blurbs for all films on Wikipedia now
of course not. This is just being bold in Wikipedia fashion — the modern day equivalent of the Wild west. There is no solid standard as to what is in the "Criticism" section for any article on a film. This is a unique attempt to source to critics without losing the irony they intentionally created—and without doing OR. I make limited claims to having the appropriate solution. I suggest you get involved with how to refactor this. I think you will find it interesting. Please put your next comments in the above mentioned section. —WikiLen 12:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goal Setting?

There was some marketing hype and a couple people in the film I didn't particularly care for, in addition to being misleading. That said, I thought that overall the film does a lot of good. Does anyone else see that the concept can also be thought of as a more interesting way of talking about goal setting--looking at it from another angle? The people I know who are most successful in setting and *achieving* their dreams and goals basically practice what 'The Secret' talks about. It's focused thought and action toward what you want. This includes goals I've achieved myself. A lot of people spontaneously yawn at the term 'goal setting' because they don't realize that in its most fundamental form, it is about keeping in your mind exactly what you want, as opposed to what you don't want. This causes you to take action towards things, allows you to notice things you haven't before, and yes from my own experience I believe it also increases the chances of attracting things into your life that you wouldn't have before. I don't think this film is perfect, nor is it "pure" and free of lower values like greed etc. However, the genius of it is that it distills something so important (having goals and direction in life) down to its most basic fundamental form. It has also sparked a lot of discussion about many important things. While related of course, I do not think this film is not the same as just 'positive thinking'. Genius is the simplification of the complicated - not adding more complexity to the simple. If more people in the world did what this film talks about (including myself more often), it would be hard to argue that we won't be better off.

I'm not someone that believes that it's fair to say that a starving person in the third world is in that position only because of their thoughts and choices. If you see some of these situations for yourself as I have, you will realize that is arrogance because they weren't necessarily born with the same choices and opportunities. So 'The Secret' should be best applied to holding *ourselves* accountable and not used to point the finger to other people who are struggling. My view of how 'The Secret' works is that it doesn't prevent bad things from happening in your life, but it certainly increases the chances of more positive things happening no matter what your situation in life. Our thoughts, our biology, our actions, and our environment/circumstances affect what happens to us in life. It's a fact that our thoughts have a significant influence over most if not all of these things (more than we think). On a personal basis (not to be used to judge other people) I've found that the most USEFUL (whether true or not) belief to have is to believe that I carry at least some responsibility for everything that happens in my life. This holds me accountable and leaves me with fewer excuses to use - translating into a much better life overall. Siraj555 23:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Great musings... but not in line with Wikipedia's Talk page guidelines. Check out The Secret Project. —WikiLen 04:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WRONG CATEGORY - New Thought is not the same as New Age

Published literature exists describing the "Law of Attraction" and other New Thought concepts aged over 100 years and generally are written to present material as a quasi-scientific type of philosophy/theology.

The New Age movement on the other hand is only about 40 years old and mostly represents a more mystical or magical type of philosophy. New Age concepts have occasionally borrowed from New Thought writings but the reverse is chronologically impossible.

It is an error to equate The Secret, The Law of Attraction or New Thought articles in general as being in the same category as New Age articles.

I am removing the New Age category from this article. Low Sea 00:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Secret_%282006_film%29_ee6e.html"