Talk:The Secret (2006 film)/Archive 1

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.

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)

Criticism from The Advocate, a very influential LGBT publication. Should be referred to in the article's section on criticism. http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid44343.asp 89.168.20.6 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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).

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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.

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)

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.