Talk:The Secret (2006 film)/Archive 3

Seperate page for the book

I have started a separate page for the book at The Secret (Book) because there is a lot to be said about the book alone Cubrilovic (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Misleading is an understatement

I don't know how to better put it in words but if somebody can rephrase me in a tone that is befitting of Wikipedia, please do so and add this to the article.

The people in the movie have an agenda and they will say ANYTHING to push it. In one scene Proctor says: "No one knows what electricity is and we still use it in every day life" (!) No one knows what electricity is? Are you kidding me? As a professor of electrical engineering at UCLA I can tell you with confidence that I am typing these lines and you are reading them thousands of miles away because we know EXACTLY what electricity is and how it works. In fact, we have known it for over 150 years. We have formulated it. It is predictable and it is repeatable.

Then a so-called PhD in quantum physics shows up and says: "Quantum physics says mind affects the balance in nature" No sir! I don't know who died and gave you a PhD (if in fact you didn't get it online from a University of Ixtapalanamjoojoj) but quantum physics says no such thing. In a language that you MR PhD can understand, it says that if you measure the speed of a particle you disturb its location and vice versa, So, if you know the speed precisely your knowledge of its location is imprecise and the other way around. THAT IS IT. So please keep your mouth closed and do not talk about thing you do not understand!

Then another wise guy claims that "It is scientifically shown that positive thoughts are a hundred thousand times more powerful than positive thoughts" Really? And who made this discovery? Where is it published? Where is the peer review of this scientific measurement? What is the SI unit of thought power anyway? Watts? Horsepower?

Then some guy says: "our minds release magnetic waves" First of all I doubt that this guy releases any magnetic field because he is brain-dead. But as far as other people, the electromagnetic waves of the brain (which by the way, Mr. Proctor, we completely understand and in fact measure in devices such as MRI machines to diagnose abnormalities in the brain) are so weak that they cannot even move a compass, let alone absorb or direct cars and jewelry and stuff.

I could go on forever but then I suspect these people know very well that they are full of it and they say these things anyway so people pay 5 dollars to sit through their boloney for one and half hour and make them richer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.226.8 (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Although , dare say it, the Wiki nazis won't exactly take kindly to your own personal opinions (how dare you have them on wikipedia!), you are spot on in what you have said. The last thing we need is this article getting taken over by brain dead "secret" fanatics and their irrational ideals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.17.34 (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir(UCLA), regarding "you need not know what electricity means but you are using it....", I think it has been said in a general form for lay man out there who are not educated in science(not all people are lucky enough to get in to UCLA!). So it was not for people knows what electricity is. " As a professor of electrical engineering at UCLA I can tell you with confidence that I am typing these lines and you are reading them thousands of miles away because we know EXACTLY what electricity is and how it works. In fact, we have known it for over 150 years. We have formulated it. It is predictable and it is repeatable." I feel not every person living on this earth has studied under you. So let me put it this way, a person working as a waiter in some Hotel(or take any human being who is not an electrical engineer, or has never ever studied electrical engineering, a non-scientist) may use internet for some or the other purpose, he need not to learn the laws formulated by "WE". The Mr.Ph.D that you are referring to, I was also curious after reading your interesting discussion, so I went through his profile and found that that Mr.Ph.D received his Ph.D from UCLA in 1963! and yes he do have a couple of publications and has also taught at San Diego State University, University of Paris, University of London, etc...! " In a language that you MR PhD can understand, it says that if you measure the speed of a particle you disturb its location and vice versa, So, if you know the speed precisely your knowledge of its location is imprecise and the other way around. THAT IS IT. So please keep your mouth closed and do not talk about thing you do not understand!" "THAT IS IT" Quantum Physics is all about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yax 006 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Misleading

The article reads: "The film features short dramatized experiences and interviews of a team of personal transformation specialists, spiritual messengers, feng shui masters, and moneymaking experts.[4]"

This is misleading in the extreme and obviously not neutral. The implication is to accord authority, expertise, and specialty, to what are, it's fair to say, deeply manipulative pseudoscientist con-artists. Further, the impliation is that "spiritual messengers" and "feng shui masters" are actually competent experts. This is obviously misleading, it gives a false sense of veracity to the secret -- despite the rest of the articles criticality.

I would strongly recommend revision. Even just the use of "scare quotes" to disavow commitment to the supposed "expertise" of The Secret's actors would be a good start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.221.246 (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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:

• The magazine LA Yoga, in a review, calls it a "self help" film.
• Barns & Noble lists the book version on its Self-Improvement list.
• Borders tags the book version as, Metaphysical > Metaphysical St > General Metaphysical

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)

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)

Since my last attempt to remark on this topic was removed, I'll take another crack at it. The "Law of attraction" is not a law, nor a principle. If you really want to be accurate in catagorizing the term, I suggest defining it as nothing more than a marketing ploy. Now, that is neither here nor there, but the term can not be considered to be a principle. Why, you ask? For starters, there is no evidence to suggest that there is any such thing as the "law of attraction". The term has no meaning outside of the movie, the book, and certain circles in the new thought movement. Calling it a law does not make it so. Based on the definitions above, the "law of attraction" is best described as a concept, and a fallacious one at that.204.188.174.248 01:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)P.Cogan

A statement does not have to be true to be a principle. It merely has to have the relationship ascribed to the word "principle". In this case the question becomes: does the so called "law" concern the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes." It does concern such.

You state,

The term has no meaning outside of the movie, the book, and certain circles in the new thought movement.

True, however it is still considered noteworthy enough to be included in Wikipedia. See, Talk:Law of Attraction.

You state,

Calling it a law does not make it so.

Ah, but truth or correctness is not the issue. To quote from Verifiability policy, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." —WikiLen 08:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What "reliable source" has published anything regarding the "law of attraction"? Labeling something as a principle lends it a sense of authenticity; the word itself suggests validity. A principle is a generally accepted fundamental parameter of the system in question. The "law of attraction" is not a principle; it is a concept being dressed up as a principle. As an analogy, I suspect a lot of white supremacist groups will try to invoke the fundamental supperiority of the white race as a fact and as a principle on which to build and defend their idiotic belief system. Just because a small group wants to consider any old arbitrarily defined convenience as a principle, doesn't make it so. The world at large defines this particular group's "principle" as more a case of predjudice founded in ignorance. User:204.188.174.248

The film labels it as a principle, not this article or a reliable source. To take issue with the film's use of "principle" we need to have a reliable source that does just that. I do not know of a source that does. Do you have one? —WikiLen 08:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As for, "the word itself suggests validity" — that's a stretch. See the New York Times quote below. —WikiLen 08:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, it is certainly possible for independant groups to hold a variety of otherwise meaningless ideas as principles and, to be fair, a second definition I have found has a principle as a "fundamental truth or *proposition*. I guess this covers the law of attraction. I still feel the term lends an unwarrented sense of validity to the "law of attraction", where calling ti a concept leaves it as what it really is. How about calling it an "ostensible principle"? Or perhaps indicatng that only the true believers consider it to be a principle, while mainstream science, skeptics, and rationalists all consider it to be nonsense. By the way, the Wikipedia page for the "law of attraction" does not have it defined as a principle, while the opening paragraph there calls into question its validity as a claim. User:204.188.174.248

It is not our job to ferret out truth, but rather to represent what reliable sources say about the film. Reliable critics do label LoA as a "principle". Here an example from the New York Times:

The secret that the movie purports to reveal after millenniums of obscurity is "the law of attraction." This principle, said to be known by an elite few...

This appeared in an article by Allen Salkin and was published in the New York Times — "Shaking Riches Out of the Cosmos." Also, the word "principle", in reference to LoA, is only used twice in this Wikipedia article:

1. "As put forth in the film, the "Law of Attraction" principle posits that..." — usage here is qualified with "as put forth in the film."
2. "The film also suggests that there has been a strong tendency by those in positions of power to keep this central principle hidden from the public." — again this is merely representing the stance the film takes.

In neither case do these represent more than the stance the film takes. —WikiLen 08:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn it, you sold me. I'm not happy about it, but I can't give you a good argument against the phrasing based on the semantics alone. I'm going to have to get ahold of the good folks over at Webster's have them go ahead and re-write the dictionary for me. In the meantime, the qualifiers you've pointed out above make me feel a whole lot beter about the situation; it seems pretty fairly worded as is. Thanks for the efforts in keeping it straight.209.59.94.155 02:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)P.Cogan

...very welcome. Great to see a new participant in Wikipedia! —WikiLen 04:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I noticed you apparently used more than 1 computer in this discussion (your IP address was not the same for all contributions). I suggest you create an ID for yourself and log on with it whenever you contribute. This will make it easier for others to follow the flow of the discussions you participate in. —WikiLen 04:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add a small "footnote" of sorts on this old conversation. In New Thought teachings (and particularly in Religious Science) there are many ideas which are identified as "The Law of ___" or "The ___ Principal". These are sometimes clarified as being Spritual Laws or Spiritual Principals which describe New Thought religious beliefs on how the physical universe interacts with the spiritual realm. -- Low Sea (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hi all, I just clicked on the link at the bottom of the main page (first link) that says 1st 20 minutes and the video it linked to does not have the above warning on it and actually goes for 1hr and 29 minutes - can someone check it out and verify that this is a ripped copy of the entire movie? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whitehatnetizen (talk • contribs) 02:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Fixed. Apparently the copyright holder of the 1st 20 minutes made changes:

• Moved video to youTube from Google Video
• Added "www.thesecret.tv" [the official site] to the bottom of nearly every frame of the video.

This appears to be legit as there are no links to non-official sites. —WikiLen 06:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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 goes 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)

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)

Saturday Night Live spoof

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

See SNL Reference below. —WikiLen 16:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Regarding your comment,

...the matter at hand is regarding the veracity of the Law Of Attraction as a standalone principle as presented in the film

You are describing the responsiblity of a critic or expert. Wikipedia only edits and reports (with NPOV) on what they say. Also, there is a Wikipedia article for the Law of attraction. Your "New Age" section belongs there. —WikiLen 07:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Refactoring regarding marketing

I propose a section titled "Marketing" that would have in it these sub-sections"

• Packaging [New sub-section. Present critics' stuff on re-packaging of old ideas, etc.]
• Marketing campaign [move from Criticism]
• Aggressive marketing [move from Criticism]

Seeking feedback before I do this refactoring. —WikiLen 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring done. —WikiLen 14:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

SNL Reference

Saturday Night Live transcript — a terse summary, not an actual transcript.

Very funny still shot of Amy Poehler playing Rhonda Byrne

References to spoof on Saturday Night Live belong at the article for Rhonda Byrne, not the article for the film, The Secret. I have not seen the SNL piece, but the evidence suggests the spoof is essentially a very funny editorial comment on Rhonda Byrne and Oprah, not the film. Also, the spoof references the book version of The Secret not the film version — perhaps too minor a point to matter. —WikiLen 06:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

the spoof is about "the secret", rhonda is only one person in it. Please don't delete another persons research. Thx. User talk:76.169.130.221

Regarding to your comment "please don't delete another persons research", it is regrettable that deleting your contribution is appropriate. Wikipedia policy on Attribution states:

Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.

The references you provide were at best ambiguous as to whether the SNL spoof was essentially a spoof of the film or of Rhonda Byrne. At the moment it is only your judgement or mine that answers that question — the links do not provide transcripts. Since this is an encyclopedia we are working on, we are not able to assert the correctness of an article's content based on the word of an editor (i.e.: your or I) — must have a reliable, published source. You will note that I added the link you provided to the article on Rhonda Byrne. If someone deletes or challenges that link, it will be upon me to prove it belongs in. —WikiLen 05:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Whereas no one knows the name Rhonda Byrne outside of The Secret (and only devotees know it in relations to The Secret), the spoof is obviously a reference to the film. The film simply has not become popular outside of Oprah watchers and MLMs, and to imply that there could be an SNL skit about Rhonda Byrne is ridiculous. I vote with the first user, that it should be included in this article, not that of Rhonda Byrne. --Mrcolj 15:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mrcolj makes a good point — in the absence of definitive information it seems more likely the spoof is about the book. This would be a spoof of the book though, not the film — book is an expanded version of the film, with additional material personally written by Byrne. —WikiLen 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There you go again, WikiLen, can't concede when youre wrong can you. The other guy is obviously right, but still you resist. Control freak editor strikes again, censoring all those who dare spoof on the sacred secret. Also, I'm sure you noticed that someone else quoted the once again COMMON CRITICISM about material greed and blaming the victim. Herbanreleaf 02:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be OK to put a spoof about the book in an article about the film when the book and the film are not the same? Also, I am not alone in questioning the mention of SNL —see edit 21:02, 14 April 2007 by Bartleby. In removing the mention of SNL he stated, "poehler is playing a character, not acclaiming the film. pretty obvious". —WikiLen 07:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, why is that ridiculous section on the useless closing remarks in the criticism section?Herbanreleaf 02:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A video of the spoof is at a MySpace page. This cannot be used in the article itself as Wikipedia does not support links to MySpace pages. Also, Wikipedia cannot link to videos lacking information to establish the video is free of copyright violations. —WikiLen 17:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about the integrity of some editors

[Herbanreleaf comment below is copied from "SNL Reference" section above —WikiLen 04:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)]

There you go again, WikiLen, can't concede when youre wrong can you. ... Also, I'm sure you noticed that someone else quoted the once again COMMON CRITICISM about material greed and blaming the victim. Herbanreleaf 02:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You must be referring this edit on greed and blaming-the-victim: 09:56, 29 April 2007. Please note that it is my edit! Credit also belongs with User:88.70.64.18's for the original post here: 01:04, 26 April 2007. I refined and expanded 88.70.64.18's edit—instead of deleting it—because there was a source to support it. A while back, I removed your edit because I could not find a source to support it. Now with a valid source, I revised 88.70.64.18's contribution so that the point on greed and blaming-the-victim—your point—was clearly made. I even added this line:

[Catherine Bennett, of the Guardian] describes adherence to The Secret's "law of attraction" as a "creed so transparently ugly and stupid that it seems impossible that anyone could take it seriously."

If you have any doubts about all this, check the history of my edits. My removal of your edit did not mean I thought your contribution was inherently wrong. I am not against negative criticism of the film, as you seem to think. —WikiLen 07:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see your talk page for my response to your comments, "can't concede when you're wrong" and "there you go again". —WikiLen 22:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Other remarks

[Herbanreleaf comment below is copied from "SNL Reference" section above —WikiLen 04:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)]

Also, why is that ridiculous section on the useless closing remarks in the criticism section?Herbanreleaf 02:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it useless. I find it reveals the underlying attitude critics have about the film. Some take the film lightly, some ironically or with satire and some very seriously. Generally, that only gets revealed at the end of their commentary. If I tried to name the section "Critics' underlying attitude" and then had the same quotes I would get hit with accusations of doing original research. This way, by just using the closing remarks, I am taking myself out of the picture. I do think, however, that it is a bit too long. The Time quote seems redundant. I will delete it. —WikiLen 07:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Source — look for this

Scottandrewhutchins posted this bit to the article, without a source — hence moved to here.

USA Today compared The Secret to the Unity Church; however, Unity is preparing its own version, The Source, which refutes Byrne's claims of the easiness of the techniques presented.

User talk:Scottandrewhutchins says he has the sources and will post it soon. I did a Google search and found nothing. Scottandrewhutchins' not using Google. Any one else: keep eye out for any news/rumors on this. (rumors go here of course) —WikiLen 11:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the article mentions The Source, but the minister of Unity of New York says there is a team at Unity Village working on it. I'm in a class about the Unity interpretation of The Secret, and it's dwindling as he reveals just what a mess The Secret is, even if the concepts are basically right. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not mention "The Source". I looked up the article at USAtoday.com. I have revised the paragraph to take out mention of "The Source" and hopefully some reporter will report on it soon so it can get put back in. You will note I also extensively revised your contribution — hopefully in the spirit of your original intentions. —WikiLen 18:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring regarding phenomenon

I propose a section titled "Phenomenon". I will move some content from other parts of the article to these sub-sections below (and add new content as appropriate). I plan for an introduction that gives an overview of the popularity of the film.
The sub-sections:

• Blogs — [there are now critics who mention blogging related to the film]
• Satire
• Impact on "New Thought" — [may be difficult to find secondary sources for this — there are primary sources]
• Impact on religion — [also may be difficult to find sources]

Others are welcome to do it or to participate. I am open to comments, thoughts, suggestions... —WikiLen 15:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC

Refactoring done — not really to plan above. Thanks to Watchrapid for starting it with the "In popular culture" section (now named "Cultural phenomenon") —WikiLen 07:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference for packaging sub-section

[See Packaging and this edit, 14:59, 6 May 2007 ]

Regarding the reference to be used for this phrase:

the Law of Attraction, a concept originating in the New Thought ideas of the late 19th century.

I have reverted the edit by User:76.169.136.178 an edit that removed the reference without any guidance. Editors need direction on what to fix. Presumably the issue is one of these:

• Reference not needed here.
• Source is not reliable. If so please explain on the talk page.
• Source does not in fact provide support for the point.
• Source is OK but there is a better source.

What reason for deleting the reference — anyone? —WikiLen 20:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is an alternate source: A History of the New Thought Movement, Chapter 7 - The New Thought —WikiLen 20:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Sections

I deleted the sections on New Age Thought/Rebirthing/Whatever and Other/Closing Remarks as per long-standing discussions with WikiLen and other people's comments about the sections. They seemed to detract from the quality of the article rather than add to it. WikiLen assured me that I could just go ahead and delete what I didn't like and so I'm taking his advice since this is the Wild West and I am encouraged to be bold.

The New Age section seemed totally out of place in this article and seemed to be posted by someone who really wanted to insert Rebirthing into the article about The Secret. I like Rebirthing, but it has nothing to do with this movie and neither did any of the other statements. They were not criticism of the movie at all, but at best someone else's opposing viewpoint.

I agree with this deletion. —WikiLen 02:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Other Remarks Section was a collection of statements that were utterly un-noteworthy. They were the tongue in cheek final remarks of editorials and served to add levity to the sign off of the authors. They had little if any valuable content and didn't reflect the criticism of the authors. It seems that this section was intended to provide some balance for the negative criticisms of the film, ironically, made by the same authors who didn't intend their statements to be taken out of their sarcastic contexts. A better way to balance the criticisms would just be to include quotes from positive editorials about the film. With millions of copies sold, I'm sure there must be a few published authors with positive statements out there. Although, I suspect that most of the people who feel positive about the film aren't likely to be intelligent enough to get published. Herbanreleaf 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I long ago gave up the notion of trying to provide a more positive balance. It was misguided and partially based on complaints at that time that the article was way too negative. I am happy to just capture what is being said about the film (by reliable sources). I think Herbanreleaf is correct in saying "sarcastic contexts" is being lost in the way these quotes are presented. And he is the first person to note that. —WikiLen 08:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I wouldn't have done this based on my feelings alone. I took into account that the overwhelming majority of contributors that commented on either of these sections agreed that they were detracting from the quality of the article. Herbanreleaf 17:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that these individual no longer object because of changes made that addressed their objections. This section represents a collaboration and should not be deleted. I will revert it, with changes, in an attempt to capture the "sarcastic context" and other contexts. There are significant things said by critics that we are loosing by deleting this section. The issue should be how to honestly represent what these critics said. I have no quarrel with claims that the section was failing to do so. That I and other editors failed to achieve this honesty should not mean that our work gets deleted. It should mean it gets improved. —WikiLen 08:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Societal benefit

My adding this section has put positive quotes back that were a point of discussion in the past. See (in order from newest to oldest):

• Deleted Sections (above)
• Other remarks
• "Critics closing remarks" section...
• Critics closing remarks

As revealed by User:Herbanreleaf, the root of the problems seemed to be that the context was being lost—especially sarcastic context—and hence the quotes took on no meaning. The original sub-section "Other remarks" was deleted by Herbanreleaf and later replaced by me via new sub-sections: "Religious criticism", "Criticism of society" and this one "Societal benefit" — containing the quotes formerly in "Other remarks". The quotes are now grouped (with a few new ones) by similar context and the context is clearly spelled out in the intro for each sub-section. Additional tweaks have been done to make the context even clearer. —thanks to Herbanreleaf for finding the knot. —WikiLen 18:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Past secret teachers

[ regarding this edit ]

I believe that "Prophet Muhammad" is not identified by the film as a past secret teacher — hence removed it from the article. Also, the list at official website does not match the list in this article. The official website does not list these: Charles Fillmore, Wallace D. Wattles, Thomas Troward, and Charles F. Haanel. They are all clearly connected somehow and may even be in the film in some way, but apparently are not officially considered "Past secret teachers" for the story line of the film. The official site also lists two that are not in the current article: Hermes Trismegistus, Buddha. I have revised the article to make the list here be the same as list at the official website: http://www.thesecret.tv/pastteachers.html. —WikiLen 21:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Evangelical Christian ministries — needs source

Regarding Religious criticism sub-section that had this paragraph added by user Theevident:

Evangelical Christian ministries are creating websites to refute the principles taught in The Secret. One such site is http://www.theevident.com The home page states, "The Truth about The Secret - The Christian Perspective. What God says in the Scriptures..."

Reference supplied: name=theevident | title = The Evident permission granted | language = English | date = 2007-02-21 | url = http://www.theevident.com |accessdate = 2007-05-15

Although I agree the point made eventually belongs in the article—assuming it is true—I have nevertheless removed it (this original edit) on two accounts:

1. The reference supplied is not a reliable source in Wikipedia terms.
2. And unpublished synthesis of published material is in play here. The reference supplied is an example for the statement "evangelical Christian ministries are creating websites...". As it stands, the truth/falsehood of "evangelical Christian ministries are creating websites" rests solely on the conclusion (synthesis) we editors make from the example supplied.

Eventually, I expect someone may find a reliable source for this. The source found will need to directly and explicitly support the statement, "Evangelical Christian ministries are creating websites to refute the principles taught in The Secret" —WikiLen 08:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Questionable motives sub-section

[regarding this edit ]

This has been moved to here from the article:

Videos of the Oprah show are being removed from public websites as a result of copyright claims from the EIP group. Such actions may indicate that the primary motivation here is not to help people, but to generate profit, and also highlight that the theories may be flawed if there is such a need to be so protective of the property of the authors who supposedly have "unlimited power".

These sites provide details regarding the above:

• Warning: Rant Ahead — a post to a blog
• Entertainment & Intellectual Property Group (EIP) — a law firm that specializes in entertainment and intellectual property law.

Note:

1. A Google search on this issue finds virtually nothing, except the above — it is off the radar.
2. This is about Oprah, her motivations and the possiblity she is attempting to protect the copyrights she has on her shows.
3. It is a struggle to find even an indirect connection of this issue to the film. The connection must be direct to qualify for inclusion in the article.

Thank you, User:203.214.33.209 for your efforts. I suggest Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Attribution for related reading. —WikiLen 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The DVD gives further details on film editing by Gozer Media

[see this edit — Synopsis section & this earlier edit — Packaging section ]

I find numerous problems with paragraph added to the Synopsis:

• Seems Gozer Media is in fact not the editor. There is no source, including the credits at the end of the film, that lists "Gozer Media" as the editor. The film does list "Gozer" as one of three responsible for "visual effects & graphic design". The press kit lists Damian Corboy and Daniel Kerr as the editors. Furthermore, at the site for Gozer it claims,

Gozer worked closely with the producers of The Secret to develop the visual style of the show. We supplied all visual effects and other graphical components for the show and it's subsidaries.

• The paragraph presents details only understood by fans of film, history or mysticism, such as: "green screen", "Knight Templar", "Emerald Tablet" and "mural of Azoth".
• The paragraph is too busy with details:

...the film describes the discovery and suppression of The Secret, showing an Egyptian burying the Emerald Tablet at Giza, a Knight Templar taking a scroll from a Catholic priest, and the Emerald Tablet being analyzed by alchemist St. Germain next to a mural of Azoth, followed by a contemporary board room meeting.

• Paragraph has original research:

...matching the overall packaging of The Secret.

• Lacks secondary sources, suggesting reliable sources do not find the details addressed by this paragraph noteworthy. That is, the reference is to the DVD itself and the press kit instead of sourcing to a film expert reporting on the DVD. —see Primary and secondary sources
• Paragraph presents details in the absence of more important details. More important detail absent: The film is divided into 10 chapters and nowhere in the article does it mention this nor the names of the chapters (such as "The secret to Money", "The Secret to the World", etc.)

I started thinking maybe some of this would work well in the Trivia section, but after reading Wikipedia policy on trivia, I think not. I have deleted it for the above reasons. Also, if this edit is to get back in it needs to not look like it is spamming for Gozer Media. —WikiLen 02:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

See Refactoring regarding Production, below, for plans to mention that Gozer Media gets credit for the "visual style of the show". —WikiLen 13:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This source elaborates on the visual details seen in the opening cinematics. While they are not mentioned directly, the items in the cinematic have specific names that are familiar to followers of Hermeticism and Alchemism. To leave them "unnamed" adds confusion to the context of film. They are identifiable to those familiar with Alchemy concepts, such as the Azoth mural, but the majority of the audience is not expected to recognize the elements of the opening sequence as anything other than a nameless mural, a nameless scholar, and a nameless tablet. Compare to a historical film where a character or place is not specifically named, but using the article to mention exactly what is in the film helps give the reader real information. —comment added by 24.10.180.13

I agree, "using the article to mention exactly what is in the film helps give the reader real information" is valid. The issue becomes how to do this well. My deletion of this paragraph, although I think for valid reasons, was perhaps the wrong direction to go in. Improving it is the better direction. I see these "improvement" issues: —WikiLen 14:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• There may insufficent (reliable) sources to support the desired improvements. However, many read this article, so if we provide this information, in the limited (or summary) fashion that is now supportable, we can expect that reliable sources will show up eventually with the detailed information.
• I think it best to call this "objects in the opening sequence" instead of "A cinematic portion" — more specific.
• Giving credit to Gonzo Media—if supportable—needs to be separated from content about the opening sequence.
• This is potentially a complex topic. It belongs in neither the "Synopsis" nor the "Packaging" section. I propose as "Historical foundation" section which would include the content addressed here.
• The size of this section could grow to be very large. I expect it to eventually to spin off into another main article, perhaps titled, "The Secret's (2006 film) foundation in New Thought ideas", See this example. It is from an article on Søren Kierkegaard. The section "Kierkegaard's thought" serves as a summary of the article, "Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard" and it refers the reader to that article—Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard—for additional details.

I have started a section, below, to address this: "Refactoring regarding 'Historical foundation' in New Thought ideas". —WikiLen 14:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring regarding Production

I plan to create a "Production" section and move this material to the section:

• About 55 teachers and authors were interviewed... —from Trivia
• Byrne's inspiration for creating The Secret came after reading the 1910 book... —from Synopsis
• Esther Hicks declined to continue with the project... — from Aggressive marketing

And add:

• The film was created by Prime Time Productions of Melbourne Australia...
• Mention that the "visual style of the show" was created by Gozer Media (this may not fly as the source for this 'fact' is Gozer Media).
• Include stuff from an interview of Paul Harrington, the producer.
• Brief mention about financing of the film.
• Brief mention about Channel Nine — commissioned the film.

WikiLen 13:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring done. —WikiLen 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring regarding "Historical foundation in New Thought ideas"

I propose an "Historical foundation" section and to move this content to the new section:

• The Science of Getting Rich was preceded by numerous other books... — from Synopsis
• The Secret website cites the Emerald Tablet, purportedly... — from Teachers of the Law of Attraction
• "Rosicrucian", as text, appears 12 times... — from Trivia

And add:

• Material about the controversy in the New Thought Movement over Byrne's use of New Thought ideas.
• Material about Byrne's research on tracing New Thought ideas back through history.
• Mention that the opening sequence is a quick overview, through images, of what Byrne sees as the history of the law of attraction. —is there a reliable source for this?
• Identification of the imagery in the opening sequence and other sequences. Do this as a table so as to be readable. May have some original research struggles over this. Example of a table — table of details about the characters in the TV show "The Office".

WikiLen 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. —WikiLen 09:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Byrne companies?

Anyone have more information on these companies? WikiLen 17:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Prime Time Productions
• The Secret LLC (CEO is Bob Rainone)
• TS Production

It appears that Prime Time and The Secret are both Australian companies, as evidenced by Alexa, a reputable "web information company". WikiLen 17:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

TS Production address, listed at theSecret.tv web site, is given as:

TS Production, LLC

PO Box 578010

Chicago, IL 60657

suggesting it is a US company. WikiLen 17:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In simple (summary) terms, what are the relationships between each other, there purposes, and the CEOs of these companies? —WikiLen 17:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

John Stackhouse in "Religious criticism"

[see this edit in section Religious criticism of the article]

[see External Link in archives]

[see External Link to Expert Blog in archives]

User 68.51.134.233 deleted the short section quoting Prof. John Stackhouse. User 68.51.134.233 noted in the edit summary that it "...lacks relevance other than a contrary opinion. Also, he is introduced through hyperboyle".

I have reverted the deletion with these revisions in response to user 68.51.134.233's above comments: —WikiLen 05:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding "contrary opinion": Revised to put more meat in it — partially to bring out the relevance and partially to just bring out some compelling stuff.
• Regarding "introduced through hyperboyle": The phrase at issue is:

a theologian, philosopher and critic of contemporary culture regarding religion and spirituality

In researching his credentials it appears the above is technically correct, however I find it is too wordy and does have the feel of "hyperboyle". I have replaced it with:

Prof. John Stackhouse, Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College in Vancover, Canada...

I used these references: —WikiLen 05:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Regent College / About Regent / Faculty, "In addition to being the Sangwoo Youtong Chee Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent, John Stackhouse is also..."
• Morris Institute for Human Values, "John's commentary on religion and contemporary culture..."
• John Stackhouse's Academic Page

I will add the above references to the article for John Stackhouse (if no one else does). —WikiLen 05:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What text for Schirmer paragraph?

[regarding this edit: 20:03, 6 June 2007 ]

I propose that most of the new content be moved [done — WikiLen] to an article for David Schirmer with this text below replacing the above edit (WikiLen 03:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)):

---

David Schirmer, the "investment guru" featured in the film, has his business activities under investigation by the Australian Securities Investment Commisson (ASIC). This was reported on 1 June 2007 by A Current Affair—an Australian TV tabloid show—in a segment titled "The Secret Con" with those words and The Secret logo appearing in the background behind the newscaster. The show initialling confronted Schirmer in a segment titled "The Secret Exposed", aired on 28 May 28, with complaints from people who say Schirmer owed them money.

---

Ref: this video —WikiLen 03:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And considering that no reliable source has editorialized [yet] on how this impacts on the film, I recommend this be moved from the "Editoral coverage" section to the "Trivia" section. —WikiLen 11:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User, Thiudareiks previously made this arguement:

The allegations are of direct relevance to "The Secret" since Schirmer is held up by the DVD as being a "teacher" - who are touted at the beginning of the documentary as being among the world's leading "scientists, philosophers and thinkers". Which of these categories Schirmer is supposed to fall into is unclear, but if he is in fact an investment adviser of dubious reputation, that's something people reading about The Secret should know. Especially since he appears on the DVD talking about how "the Universe" sent him cheques in the mail simply because he visualised them. The disgruntled customers on the ACA report potentially shed some light on where those cheques actually come from. And Schirmer's seminars and investment claims are not part of his "private life" - they are his business life and very much in the public domain.

And this arguement:

The relevance is blindingly obvious. Schirmer assures the viewers of "The Secret" DVD that cheques began appearing in the mail because he visualised them. His unhappy customers tell a very different story as to why they *sent* him those cheques. Schirmer is touted as one of the DVD's "leading scientists, philosophers and thinkers". His unhappy customers say he's a shyster who has broken promises to them regarding large sums of money. Pretty damn relevant.

Yes, the relevance is"blindingly obvious". The basis of your arguement is "it's something people reading about The Secret should know". Ironically, the truth of something is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia — makes edit debates so much simpler. I still find that the reliable sources—only one so far: A Current Affair—are editoralizing about Schirmer not the film. I find Thiudareik's synthisis of the facts to be very compelling but not what "A Current Affair" says or even implies. The only editorial comment in the show that could be construed to be about the film is the title they use for the piece, "The Secret Con", since they include the film's logo in the graphic for the segment's title. In the show they never make clear whether they mean, Schirmer is secretly conning people or whether the film is a con (or both). In fact, the show doesn't even discuss the film. I ask other editors to look for reliable sources editorializing on the points Thiudareik so succinctly puts forward. —WikiLen 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism unfocused, conciliatory

This article lists very high in a Google search for secret. People are coming here to find out whether there is truth to this material. Considering its central claim amounts to, "Wishing something can make it so," the current criticism section seems inappropriately unfocused and conciliatory. While I understand that Wikipedia does not give preference to scientific or skeptical viewpoints, I think some work can fairly be done to provide for people who are coming here for information on this material and value scientific and skeptical perspectives. dircha 08:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[comments/replies to this at topic, "Call for scientific perspective", below —WikiLen 22:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The central claim and subject of The Secret material is that the Law of Attraction is an accurate characerization of reality, not that thinking positively makes you feel good. Since this so-called Law is the primary claim of the material, it seems only appropriate that what we present as criticism in this article (by placing it in the Criticism section) should reflect foremost the criticism presented of its central claim (Note the Criticism section in the linked Law of Attraction article). Since its claim is to the accuracy of a particular characterization of reality, responses and reactions relevant and appropriate for presentation in the Criticism section should generally focus on disputing the accuracy of this characterization. Criticism involving the ill effects likely to arise from this particular mischaracterization of reality are also appropriate, but should (logically) be secondary.

I recommend the themes of the existing Criticism section of the Law of Attraction as a starting point for a revised Criticism section here, because it is relatively more focused and succint.

Not necessary. The Wikipedia way is not to duplicate information. As I have seen it done at other articles, we can link to Law of Attraction article as a sub-article of this article and summarize here what is in the sub-article. I see you are new at this and I want to learn more about it, so I will give it a go. —WikiLen 23:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally unfocused, conciliatory, and even complimentary reactions currently presented in the Criticism section would be better put into a Responses or Reactions section, or even into the existing Reception section.

dircha 08:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I agree that the criticism section doesn't hold much. I feel like I want more. Granted we can't "cross the line" - can't we go a bit closer to it?

Not in Wikipedia. There is no latitude. One must simple report and summarize what published, reliable sources are saying. One needs to look for is published sources that address the concerns one might have. —WikiLen 01:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And how can you say the article doesn't hold much. There is a lot compelling stuff there. Do you mean it doesn't hold much scientific substance? — with that I agree. —WikiLen 01:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, a lot of the criticism refers to so-and-so "satirically" or use the word "satire" - I'm confused, how can so much of the criticism be in a satirical form? Surely people have given more clear-cut and straightforward forms of criticism? Rfwoolf 13:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[comments/replies to this at topic, "Satirical form of criticism", see below —WikiLen 22:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)]]

Regarding Dircha's comment, "positive remarks are] better put into a Responses or Reactions section...": Criticism is not inherently negative. From the definition of criticism: "The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating...". Criticism that was only negative would, in this case, lack NPOV — would say there is no one saying anything positive about the film. —WikiLen 20:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Call for scientific perspective

[as part of talk refactoring—to keep topics untangled—Dircha's science related comment at, "Criticism unfocused, conciliatory" (above) is made into its own discussion topic, here —WikiLen 22:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)]

This article lists very high in a Google search for secret. People are coming here to find out whether there is truth to this material. Considering its central claim amounts to, "Wishing something can make it so," the current criticism section seems inappropriately unfocused and conciliatory. While I understand that Wikipedia does not give preference to scientific or skeptical viewpoints, I think some work can fairly be done to provide for people who are coming here for information on this material and value scientific and skeptical perspectives. dircha 08:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a sub-section, "Scientific criticism" would be appropriate — if only I could find reliable scientists writing about the film and/or the Law of Attraction — maybe I haven't looked hard enough. However, we serve Wikipedia readers, not by providing them the truth, but by providing them published reliable sources and summaries of what those reliable sources say. The net results is that Wikipedia, as a whole, does a decent job at providing the truth. —WikiLen 23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Call to the Wikipedia community: We need to find reliable scientific published sources that address the film and its tenets. —WikiLen 23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, your presumption that a "scientific" perspective is capable of saying anything significant about the film may be flawed. A scientist might say that the essence of the film is spiritual—or religious—in nature not physical and that science is only able to address physical phenomenon. —WikiLen 23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Satirical form of criticism

[as part of talk refactoring—to keep topics untangled—Rfwoolf's comment at, "Criticism unfocused, conciliatory" (above) is made into its own discussion topic, here —WikiLen 22:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)]

Another thing, a lot of the criticism refers to so-and-so "satirically" or use the word "satire" - I'm confused, how can so much of the criticism be in a satirical form? Surely people have given more clear-cut and straightforward forms of criticism? Rfwoolf 13:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I find two places in criticism where "satirically", "satire", or any other form of the word is used. From the article:

1. Catherine Bennett, of the London based Guardian—using a satirical voice—compares the behavior of the leader of the UK Conservative Party to the principles espoused in film.
2. A number of critics wrote hard hitting satirical comments about society's relationship to the film.

Rfwoolf, your statement, "how can so much of the criticism be in a satirical form", seems unsupported. Point (1) is a single case and point (2) is saying there are other cases. If your concern is with the phrase "a number of critics" you could change it to "some critics" — but you would already have done such a trivial edit if such was your concern. —WikiLen 22:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read my question, it was a curiousity, as to why the criticism has been so much in satirical form, instead of other forms of criticism. I wasn't asking for proof or verifiability that there is some/any/all satirical criticism out there. Rather I was querying whether there may be other forms of criticism out there, aside from those in the satirical form. Rfwoolf 18:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Good question. My impression on critiques free of satire:

• Plainly negative — mostly from Christian circles. (modest number of these)
• Mostly technical — from New Thought circles. (very few of these)
• Positive critiques in blogs. (lots of these)

The vast majority of notable critiques do seem to employ satire — so easy and fun to do, not really being scholarly. —WikiLen 15:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Legal controversies — plagiarism

Does the claim of plagiarism by Bonnette belong in this article? I think not. I see these problems: (WikiLen 02:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

1. The claim is about the book, not the film. The book has additional material in it that is not in the film. It is this additional material that is at issue.
2. This is a very serious charge and there is only one published, reliable source on this (a TV news tabloid).
3. There is blog traffic suggesting this is a fraud or at the very least, suggesting the plagiarism claim has not crossed the threshold of being credible.

—WikiLen 02:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Beato's Reason

Regarding this edit

I find "write" just too dry as the context for the Greg Beato "Salma" quote from Reason Magazine. I recognize the former phrase "imaginatively thought" was technically incorrect as Beato was not reporting on his thoughts. I've revised it to be "imaginatively reported." I realize the use of "imaginatively" is, in the strictest sense, OR. I am invoking WP:Ignore all rules to ignore OR in this instance, arguing the phrase, "imaginatively reported" faithfully portrays the tongue-in-cheek and over-the-top context from which this quote was pulled. —WikiLen 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Law of Attraction versus science

Regarding this edit that was done with Edit summary: "unloading this sentence"

Edits in contention:

• ORIGINAL VERSION: criticized for implying the law has a scientific foundation when science has not studied it
• REVISED VERSION: criticized for implying the law has a scientific foundation when no such basis exists
• NOW REVISING TO THIS: criticized for claiming "quantum physics is a part of the Law"

The citation for the above states:

These concepts are not in the scientific community," ... "Science deals with measurable quantities. It attempts to explain the universe rationally and measurably. You can't justify faith or religion through science. It's not in opposition; it's just not measurable."

I find the phrase "no such basis exists" is WP:OR. The cited article only says LoA is not in science and can't be in science. To say "has no basis" implies science has both studied it and found it to be false — goes beyond what the cited article states. —WikiLen 05:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with this last statement. Saying that there is "no basis" for suggesting a scientific foundation in no way suggests that the "law of attraction" has been studied within the bounds of scientific rigor. It simply states that no evidence exists. Whether this absence of evidence is due to negative results of a study or the fact that no studies have been carried out is immaterial. That being said, given the fact that the "law of attraction" rejects or ignores fundamental laws of physics, the inference is clear that it is refuted by scientific principles. When a properly controlled study shows any validity to the "law of attraction", we can come back and discuss the greater scientific community's inherently implied and explicit rejection of the concept.69.57.247.231 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)P.Cogan

Regarding Science of Mind

The link to Science of Mind in the see also section has been removed. The Science of Mind link redirects to Religious Science and this article already has link to Religious Science. The guidelines regarding see also advise one to not list anything that is already linked to within the article. —WikiLen 01:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

On second look, the text within quoted material was altered to insert "Religious Science" into the quote — reverted with this. Altering text within a quote is considered vandalism. —WikiLen 02:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

This article needs a lot of work. It needs to be reorganized and whole sections of it actually need to be written.

• The lead needs to be a standalone summary of the article which references each major section. See WP:LEAD (please read carefully - it has hints on writing leads).
• The drop-down boxes are unnecessary and, in my opinion, unsightly. Either the information is important enough to include in the article or it isn't. Decide.
• The "Teachers of the Law of Attraction" is simply a prose list. Cut it down and discuss only the most relevant. Also include brief descriptions of who they are and what their views of the "Law" are. All such claims also need to be carefully sourced.
• Any quotation needs to have an identified author in the prose. The reader needs to know who is saying what.
• The article is full of bulleted lists. Most of these need to be turned into prose paragraphs.
• Be careful that the article always discusses the film. At times, it seems to veer off into a discussion of "The Secret" itself, a philosophy which should have its own page. (e.g. "Historical foundations", "Criticism")
• The "Criticism" section should be broken up and the material worked into the relevant sections. Wikipedia frowns on criticism sections. Note as well that any "criticism" should be related to the film itself. "Criticism" of "The Secret" should be on another page.

If you have any questions regarding this review, please let me know. Awadewit | talk 20:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A big thanks. Very useful and clearly spoken. —WikiLen 22:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I encourage others to follow through on suggestions from Awadewit, above, especially on converting bullets to prose — not my strong point. —WikiLen 22:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite odd that you would suggest that the article only discuss the movie, and not the substance of its claims. Particularly when, in another bullet-point, you ask for a biography on those who "teach the law of attraction" as well as a summary of their views on the matter. You are contradicting yourself in seeming favor of a "pro-secret" agenda. I'm in favor of peppering relevant and reasonable criticism throughout the article, as well as having a section specifically dedicated to it. Th point of the article is to inform and it will come up short if criticism is down-played.206.48.58.75 06:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)P.Cogan

Bullets to prose

Initial thoughts: The bullets in the Historical foundations are probably OK. Most of the bullets in the Broadcast coverage section might be the only useful way to do that section. However, all material in the Cultural phenomenon section would certainly be more interesting if the bullets were turned into prose — probably true for the rest of the article. It strikes me that this is difficulty writing. Any one up to the challenge? —WikiLen 22:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I could do a little on this, I think... not changing meaning just converting to prose.(olive 14:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

This would be a great service. —WikiLen 21:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Too much on 'Reception' and 'Criticism'

I just read this article for the first time, and I'm surprised and confused by the size of the 'reception' and 'criticism' sections. These are far too long - longer than those for almost any other Wikipedia article about a film - and the 'Reception' section in particular looks as though it's simply meant to document every single mention of the film in the mass media. I don't see how, for example, the quotes from Maureen Dowd, Time magazine and the New York Post are in any way notable.

I propose combining the 'Reception' and 'Criticism' sections into a single section, composed entirely of prose rather than bulleted lists, and drastically cut down in length so it gives merely a broad outline of how the film has been received rather than trying to list every single quote that mentions it. I'll post a first draft of this rewritten section below. Terraxos 00:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts... I hadn't realised how much work rewriting those sections would be. I'll try to get it done another time. But if anyone else wants to try, please go ahead - I feel those sections could stand to lose at least 3/4 of their material and the overall article would improve as a result. Terraxos 01:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not enough criticism, though it should be worked into the article. Shouldn't the secret cure people with phantom limbs providing them with real ones? Tat 06:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to comment on this point Terraxos made:

"I don't see how, for example, the quotes from Maureen Dowd, Time magazine and the New York Post are in any way notable."

As I understand it, material in an article does not need to pass tests of notability. That is, something can be relevant but not notable. Quotes from Maureen Dowd and other news sources are relevant to establishing appropriate pieces of information -- information relevant for an encyclopedia article. I do recognize the information would be better represented as prose, with the quotes as the sources supporting the prose. —WikiLen 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly resist combining the 'Reception' and 'Criticism' sections. Its mixing apples and oranges. The reception for the film has been very positive and the criticism for the film has been very negative. Combining the two is a NPOV nightmare. I tried the "combined" approach when I first started working on this article -- couldn't make it work. —WikiLen 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Terraxos's comment, "surprised and confused by the size of the 'reception' and 'criticism' sections." The 'reception' and 'criticism' sections are justifiably long in my opinion. The film had a surprising impact on society, an impact that was both wide-reaching and deeply controversial; an impact that spilled over the boundaries of "new-age" phenomenon and hence generated many diverse points of view. —WikiLen 15:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "impact on society" is a good way to describe it - I haven't seen much more impact than discussion and talk. However, there has been a huge amount of talk about it, and I think that the amount of discussion and analysis it has generated is one of the most interesting things about it.

I agree with your comment before - the combined approach is not a good one. I think that most of the discussion I've seen has been extremely polarized. People either agree with all of it, or disagree with all of it. In an article on, say, some historical battle, one historian might agree with the consensus except on what sort of swords were used. That type of discussion would be appropriate to integrate into the article. However, in the case of The Secret, I've seen much criticism that attacks virtually every word in the movie. The criticism itself is a narrative that stands on its own. Bhimaji 02:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible deletion of any material referring to the book

I offered a few days ago to do some work on this site mostly attempting to change bullet points into prose. This is going to be a huge job because as Terraxos noted there is a lot of material on Reception/Criticism that should probably be combined and shortened to create a more compact version.I noticed immediately that there is material on the book, and I would like to mention the book at some point in the article, but then preliminary to somehow putting these sections together delete most material on the book as a way of focusing in on the most pertinent material - material that is about the film specifically since that is what this particular article is about. I am deleting a very obvious book section that won't interfere with the rest of the article, but if anyone really objects to the deletion go ahead and put he material back. I would like to see how editors feel about this point of removing material on the book. I thinks as others have noted that there are several sections that are just too long and drawn out and this may be the first step in changing this. I realize also that some or many editors have put a lot of work in on this article so whatever changes I make I will post here first so all editors have input on the changes. I have seen this DVD but I am no expert. Anything I do will be more in the technical line so everyone should be comfortable commenting on the changes and making sure that as I edit and combine I also get it right.(olive 22:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC))

I want to apologize. Although I have started working on this I find myself drawn into heated arguments on another article. I would still like to work on this article but just don't know when I can get to it.(olive 16:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

In editing this article I found it difficult to separate the book from the film. Initially, I fought to keep the two separate, but now have come to see them as parts of one product. The book seems to contain a complete transcript of the film -- see page xii in the forward: "This book contains The Secret teacher's words...". Also, the book is written by the producer of the film and comes across as the Producers commentary on the concept behind the film -- much like commentaries one finds as extras on DVDs. When I contemplated starting an article for the book, I found the book just didn't seem notable enough to have its own article. As sheet music is to a rock song, so the book seems to be to the film. It is the tune (film) that is notable, not the sheet music (book). I suspect I may be wrong on this, since so many copies of the book have been sold. But in any case, I suggest making an article for the book first. If that effort survives then clean up the few references to the book in this article. Just a suggestion... —WikiLen 21:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see the problem. My thought was to separate the two somehow so that the material could be shortened, and clarified .... as per past discussions. I am not attached to the separation of book and film but maybe this could be noted somewhere in the intro , that is, that this is about book and film... or... maybe a separate section on the book could be added and material in the body of the article on the book moved there. Your call. I am not a major editor on this article and certainly on these points feel you should have the say.I had started to edit some of the material to get rid of the bullets but I am drawn into other articles where I am somewhat more knowledgeable so, keep getting sidetracked. Apologies.If someone else wants to take that on go for it. (olive 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

All excellent suggestions... lets do them with a "Book edition" section or similar name. Ironically (if it gets long), it could eventually get spun off into its own article, but remaining as a child to this article, as per Wikipedia:Summary style. —WikiLen 15:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Societal Benefit section

I have restored the "Societal Benefit" section. It was removed with this comment: - (WikiLen)

"Removed section of Criticism that didn't apply (wasn't critical.) Move this to another section later?

My reasons:

• Makes sense to leave the section in until it is actually moved, else it could be lost forever.
• Removing the section causes a POV shift to the negative — to a point of view that does not represent the point of view taken by the critics. Note: I am assuming criticism can be both positive and negative — mistaken assumption?

—WikiLen 22:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging criticism section

I would argue that a merge of the material on the "Criticism" section into the main body of the article will give a more NPOV representation of the subject, and give readers a better picture on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi's assessment, also supported by Awadewit in the GA fail section above. The section "Teachers of the Law of Attraction" seems like on obvious place to start as the section most in need of improvement. Per the GA review, it is currently "simply a prose list." As the rework on that section is done selected chunks can be moved (and refactored) from the "Criticism" section into the "Teachers of the Law of Attraction" section. Just my thoughts on where to start. —WikiLen 14:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. A separate "criticism" section clearly separates facts from other considerations ABOUT the facts. An objective texts always states clearly when it's critisizing, so as not to influence the reader, just inform the reader of criticisms that may be or have been made about the subject, without issuing an opinion on the value of those criticisms, which should be left to the reader's discretion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.188.45 (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There's something to be said for both views. The article is far from neutral *and* it would do well with a separate criticism section too. Please maintain the criticism but incorporate in an effort to make the article more neutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.221.246 (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that for an article to be considered neutral it must be neutral the whole way through. It is possible to have it split up into sections (with a criticism section) and yet still be neutral as a whole. I also think there is a difference between presenting criticism of a topic and being neutral. It is possible to present criticism while still maintaining neutrality as long as it is made clear that the the topic in question is contested and that there are many differing opinions on it, both positive and negative. I also think that with topics such as this it is important to have a criticism section as it allows people to identify areas in which it the topic is contested to do so quickly and easily. From a aesthetic point of view, incorporating the criticisms into the main body of a text which is often very formal would do nothing for the readability. I cannot see how it can be done and yet still achieve the clarity that a separate section attains.

--58.107.255.187 (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding new material

Although I did edit this for syntax, I don' think this is in the right place and I definitley think there is already too much material in this article . I will leave this here for now and delete in the article . If someone really wants this back in should it be discussed, and should there be discussion about new material at this point when the article really should be compacted rather than enlarged and extended.

A copy of The Secret that she throws away was handed to Nancy by U-Turn in the 5th episode of season 3 in Weeds. (olive 18:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:TheSecretLogo.jpg

Image:TheSecretLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks go to user SkierRMH for fixing this. —WikiLen 03:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering semi-protection for article

I am considering requesting a semi-protect on this article to cut down on the work load for reverting vandalism. A semi-protect would mean only signed in editors would be allowed to edit. Over the last 30 days I count 53 edits and find less than a dozen were real edits. All the other edits were either vandalism or reverts to fix vandalism. Of note: I was not able to find any vandalism that was done by signed in editors. Any objections to semi-protection? —WikiLen 05:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism should only be tolerated, if the vandals delete changes made by people who obviously have some kind financial interest in an overly POV pro article. Wikipedia.org is not a promotional site to market DVDs. If the promoters / producers / sellers of this DVD can't handle the heat of criticism, then go and produce a legitimately scientific film that will actually help people and make sense. Go and peddle your superstitious good luck charm scam somewhere else. The authors of the criticism section are doing a great job, keep up the good and HONEST work! --Cantsi Wontsi (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mention of churches needs to be supported by citations

I notice editors sometimes add "Religious Science" (or "Divine Science") to the article where the Unity Church is mentioned. This has happened at lease 3 or 4 times to-date. In all cases, the referenced citation did not support mentioning "Religious Science". I realize Unity Church and Religious Science both fall under the umbrella of New Thought churches, but we can't just stick the church of "Religious Science" into this article unless the citation also mentions it and the mention is relevant. -- Len Raymond (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"THE SECRET" vs "A NEW LIFE"

Im Sarah. Im 18. And I would say im a spiritual type person.

I read "A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose" by Eckhart Tolle and I watched "The Secret: The Law Of Attraction" I liked what "The Secret" had to say, and how you act as if the universe was your gennie and you get unlimited wishes if it's what you truely desire. All you have to do is to think more positive and you'll recieve more positive. But on the other hand "A New Earth" reads that items, things in life, DONT make up who you are and just builds up your ego.

So I dont know which to believe...

If i wish for a better career in fame... does that really bring on egoic behavior? Is it so bad? Or is it good for myself?

If you could get back to me that would be great!

Sincerely,

Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.23.202 (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, These talk pages are really supposed to be for talking about the text of the articles rather than opinions about the books/movies/etc. If you want folks to discuss other matters the best way to do that is to create a free account here and then ask for folks to respond to your above question on your own talk page. It will look just like this page but it will be under your name and so talking to you about you is OK there (within reason, WP is not a "myspace" type site). -- Low Sea (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted the most recent edit because...

apparently the edit may have been heavily corrupted somehow. Citations and a table plus the header and part of the next section were all deleted yet the diffs showed only a fraction of that. Would the IP editor (assuming you are not a vandal) please advise if they actually removed all that text intentionally, by accident or was the edit was not as intended?

I ask because I went to WikiMedia's Bugzilla and reported this as a problem with the diffs report (see Bugzilla:10511) then found a similar bug -- with a better description -- under Bugzilla:9533. A little more searching found Bugzilla:9112 which really concerns me since it indicates that it may have been Wikimedia that corrupted the edit.

Anyone else seeing anything like this? -- Low Sea (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Objectivity?

Is it possible that this article can approach the same level of objectivity as the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer Dsunlin (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is just about a film -- a work of cinamatic art. In seeking objectivity, you must be thinking of the concept/principle, "Law of Attraction" -- see article Law of Attraction. And yes, it would be great to see the Law of Attraction article get the depth and objectivity the Wikipedia prayer article has achieved! --Len Raymond (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

a thing I discuss diffrent from others , hope Rhonda Byrne can answer for her reader!!

Lets say we apply The Law of Attraction in life , then every BEST things should be in hand . On the other hand is it mean that no dissappointed in our life?? COZ BEST THING HAPPEN , NO BODY WILL BE DISAPPOINTED WITH GOOD THING HAPPEN ON HIM/HER ! What's the explain for over trillion human being living on earth giving up something when they know some situation cant change . some even commit sucide??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.6.175.25 (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

hello

hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenfuture (talk • contribs) 14:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism, NPOV

Are there still feelings that the criticism section might fail NPOV? The section, as it stands, seem appropriate to me, given the volume of criticism that this falm has attracted. Would anyone care to comment? Blowfish (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just seems weird to me that Bob Proctor doesn't get even a stub on wikipedia... but umpteen worthless manga and other fictional crud does. That's some encyclopedia the few the proud are editing here. A function of the disparity noted by commentators that so few people do so much of the editing (information controlling) on wikipedia?

I can't see how having a stub for each and every person in The Secret is anything but positive.

And the general tone of the article on The Secret drips bias. It should be completely neutral, simply summarise the plot of the film, which would take two or three lines- "a television producer discovers the so-called law of attraction and uses it to fulfill what she sees as the promise of her life" and leave it at that.

The whole structure of the article is horrible, and this is because of the obvious desire by writers to put as much of a spin on the article as possible. It just isn't necessary. The truth or falsity of the content of the film can be put under a "Reception" heading. Also glorifying a SNL sketch with its own subsection is just embarassing.

People are to this hour and day still googling and otherwise researching The Secret. To that extent it is an idea, enshrined in a film, that clearly has some power and relevance. As much as I think wikipedia needs another 4,000 articles about cartoon character nobody with a day job cares a fig for, it might also be appropriate to create stubs for living breathing people who aren't connected to hollywood in some way.

Radical, I know. But hey.

Orion the Hunter (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC

I'm Sorry, but pseudoscientific right in the opening statemen --- I guess this subjct attracts the bias of Penn & teller: Bullshit!! ```` turnagealfonsojermaine

James Arthur Ray gets at least one line in the critism section - shouldn't John Assaraf get also at least one also? A company that he was involved with (he claims that he hadn't been running the company "OneCoach" for the last two years, but his writing on his YouTube page indicates that he was involved when it went bankrupt) went belly up. There really should be a separate critism section focusing only on the people that were in this 'film' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.155.100 (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)