Talk:The Science of Getting Rich

message: The Science of Getting Rich Seminar may not actually be based on this book. I don't know since it costs $2000 to find out. In any case, a citation is needed to support this claim since, otherwise, any mention of the SGR Program would be nothing other than SPAM. And yes, SPAM is not allowed in Wikipedia. See, Wikipedia:Spam —WikiLen 03:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above source is a blog. Blogs—except in rare cases—are not acceptable sources for citations — see Links normally to be avoided. —WikiLen 03:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SGR Program 

message: These links are to be avoided (see Wikipedia policy on Links normally to be avoided):
* Links to booksellers
* Links to blogs — some exceptions
* Links to commercial sites — some exceptions
* Links to sites that only have an indirect relationship to this site
—WikiLen 04:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about links 

message: Please note that some assessment team has rated this page as a stub of "Top Importance" in the Business area of Wikipedia. I did not do that, and have no connection to or knowledge of that team. I suggest that rather than redirect or merge this page, hrafn should contact the assessment team that made that ranking and see if they can spare an editor to come here and help upgrade this TOP IMPORTANCE page. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, how silly of me. I asked hrafn to do some work around here. My bad. Of course he put us all in our places by telling us that he would be slapping a notability tag on the article. I repeat, a litte louder this time: I suggest that rather than redirect or merge this page, hrafn ought to contact the assessment team that made that ranking and see if they can spare an editor to come here and help upgrade this TOP IMPORTANCE page. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64"64.142.90.33 (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is silly to ask someone else to do what is just as easily done by oneself. This of course also includes adding tags instead of improvements.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

text: General sources on a topic are quite easy to find, sources to verify a specific claim (as needed to source un/mis-sourced statements inserted by another editor) are generally far more difficult. HrafnTalkStalk 03:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page is of "Top Importance"

message: Maunus has removed the notability template stating "it is notable according to criteria 3 & 5 and probably 1"
#Criteria 3 states "The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country." This book has not been "made or adapted ... into a motion picture". The Secret (2006 film) is not a film adaptation of this book, merely influenced by it.
#Criteria 5 states "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." However, the paucity of sources on Wallace Wattles‎ clearly contrdicts this. Wattles is of, at best, very marginal historical significance, as attested to by the lack of third party coverage of him.
#Maunus may eventually be proven correct that it can establish notability under criteria 1 "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience", but this has yet to be established by identification of such "non-trivial published works".
Unless somebody can come up with evidence that this book meets any of the criteria in WP:BK, I'll be restoring this template shortly. HrafnTalkStalk 07:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This book is very notable, if only for being in print for as long as it has.  If you don't feel its notable, please nominate it for deletion.  Madman (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Catherine has sourced the claim that:
To a source that is quoted as stating:
This quote says nothing whatsoever about similarity of Wattles work, or about Haanel or Haddock at all. And people are surprised that I tag this article for faults in sourcing & potential WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk 11:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrafn, let me explain and then i will rewrite this material in a way that you can more easily understand. The first part of the sentence refers to similar books with similar titles, focussed on the specific keywords Master/Mastery and Success. Do you understand that? Okay, good. After the word "Towne" there is a comma, followed by a "specific claim" that Towne published Wattles's magazine articles as well as his books. I will now break these two ideas into two complete, very short sentences, so as to eliminate your obvious confusion. My apologies for using a comma; i did not intend to alarm you in any way, or make it difficult for you to read the message that was being conveyed. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I was clearly tagging the first part of the sentence, before the comma as unsourced, not the sentence as a whole. The conjunction of the two statements into the same sentence wasn't the main problem (though conjoining an unsourced statement with and before a sourced one inevitably raises confusion as to whether both are meant to be sourced to the same citation). Regardless, the latest version of this statement "similar keywords about will power, mastery, and success are found in the writings of his contemporary early 20th century authors Charles F. Haanel (The Master Key System), the Methodist minister Frank Channing Haddock (Power of Will, Power for Success, Mastery of Self for Wealth Power Success), and Elizabeth Towne (How to Grow Success)." remains unsourced, and is most probably WP:OR. Please source it, or it will be removed again. HrafnTalkStalk 03:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: Please don't tag this book as teaching "The Law of Attraction," ala the writings of William Walker Atkinson or Rhonda Byrne. This book did inspire Byrne, but the teaching in this book is something called "the Certain Way of Thinking," that is, thinking with certainty, purposefulness, and orientation toward achievement. 
The "Law of Attraction" is a mystical or spiritual concept. The "Certain Way" is a mental technique. 
Within the New Thought Movement, the former derives primarily from the writings of James Allen and William Walker Atkinson, while the latter originated with Wallace Wattles and was carried on by Charles F. Haanel and Napoleon Hill, among others. 
Rhonda Byrne casually fused the two concepts in her film and book The Secret, but for about 100 years they were considered separate ideas -- and they are still consided entirely separate by those who study them outside of the fused conceptual framework provided by Byne and her followers.  
I have removed two references in which this book was spuriously connected with the Law of Attraction, one in the lead graph and one in the Criticisms section, where a criticism of the Law of Attraction were incorrectly applied to this book merely because some author had criticized the ideas of Rhonda Byrne, without refernce to this book at all. 
I realize that spirituality, science, mental self-training, religion, politics, and mysticism are hot button topics for some editors at Wikipedia, as well as for many readers. We must be particularly careful in writing about hot button topics that require familiarity with old books. Since this book is online, however, one need not take my word for the above. Open the Google electronic version of "The Science of Getting Rich" and search on the keyword term "Law of Attraction" in quotes. No results. The reason should be obvious: this book does not mention the Law of Attraction. 
Thanks for reading what i write, and best wishes for your own success! 
Cordially, cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to reliable sources such as Karen Kelly it is a law of attraction book, even if it doesn't mention the law. It will require better sources to say that it is not. ·Maunus·ƛ· 04:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A caution to editors: This is not a "Law of Attraction" book