Talk:The Secret (2006 film)/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: How does it look now? Fleshed out? WikiLen 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Film description 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Addressed with the sentences, "The film does not explicitly claim..." and "Rather, the film implicitly presents". WikiLen 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The whole secret teachers section reads as advertisement

message: 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)
thread_title:  Secret Teachers intro section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rhonda Byrne's claim 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits by Buddha379 

message: 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 Creative Visualization 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.The Secret Revealed
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)
replies: text: That in itself is a basis for deletion. See WP:C. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section?