Talk:The Secret (2006 film)/Archive 2

message: I wonder does this have any use in this article? http://thesecret.powerfulintentions.com/forum/thesecret/message-view/2134396
It is an email I recieved from Dr. Wolf about many things, but the key here is his comments on Law of Attraction and The Secret. I could have edited the rest out but I didn't want to further endanger the genuiness of it. DaSilvaArtur 13:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very informative. WikiLen 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Also, see my comments below at, External Link. —WikiLen 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fred Alan Wolf and LoA 

message: Would others please look at the article with an eye to the appropriateness of taking the "neutrality disputed" flag off—a goal I (and others) have been working towards. Please do this in a context of also listing any NPOV issues still needing fixing and/or debate. I don't think we can ever come to a perfect NPOV on a film like this, but have we crossed the threshold—do we still need the flag? (Take it off—with explanation—if you think it is ready.) WikiLen 00:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have attempted to attribute many of the statements to those that make them. I have removed material that was in violation of oroginal research, and moved the quotes to Wikiquote. I have removed the POV tagm as I see no longer the need for it after the cleanup. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: There was some marketing hype and a couple people in the film I didn't particularly care for, in addition to being misleading.   That said, I thought that overall the film does a lot of good.  Does anyone else see that the concept can also be thought of as a more interesting way of talking about goal setting--looking at it from another angle?  The people I know who are most successful in setting and *achieving* their dreams and goals basically practice what 'The Secret' talks about.  It's focused thought and action toward what you want. This includes goals I've achieved myself.   A lot of people spontaneously yawn at the term 'goal setting' because they don't realize that in its most fundamental form, it is about keeping in your mind exactly what you want, as opposed to what you don't want.  This causes you to take action towards things, allows you to notice things you haven't before,  and yes from my own experience I believe it also increases the chances of attracting things into your life that you wouldn't have before.   I don't think this film is perfect, nor is it "pure" and free of lower values like greed etc.   However, the genius of it is that it distills something so important (having goals and direction in life) down to its most basic fundamental form.  It has also sparked a lot of discussion about many important things.  While related of course, I do not think this film is not the same as just 'positive thinking'. Genius is the simplification of the complicated - not adding more complexity to the simple. If more people in the world did what this film talks about (including myself more often), it would be hard to argue that we won't be better off. 
I'm not someone that believes that it's fair to say that a starving person in the third world is in that position only because of their thoughts and choices.  If you see some of these situations for yourself as I have, you will realize that is arrogance because they weren't necessarily born with the same choices and opportunities. So 'The Secret' should be best applied to holding *ourselves* accountable and not used to point the finger to other people who are struggling. My view of how 'The Secret' works is that it doesn't prevent bad things from happening in your life, but it certainly increases the chances of more positive things happening no matter what your situation in life.  Our thoughts, our biology, our actions, and our environment/circumstances affect what happens to us in life.  It's a fact that our thoughts have a significant influence over most if not all of these things (more than we think).   On a personal basis (not to be used to judge other people) I've found that the most USEFUL (whether true or not) belief to have is to believe that I carry at least some responsibility for everything that happens in my life. This holds me accountable and leaves me with fewer excuses to use - translating into a much better life overall. Siraj555 23:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great musings... but not in line with Wikipedia's Talk page guidelines. Check out The Secret Project. —WikiLen 04:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goal Setting? 

message: I'd like to move the "Health Claims" section to "Criticism" because I don't believe it warrants a separate section. Also, according to this article , which I've just referenced, the criticism is mostly about the focus on getting material things.  In fact, I'd rather just delete the Health Claims section, but I don't want to destroy someone's heartfelt contribution. Can anyone show the health claims controversy isn't just one editor's belief? In the meantime, I'll research the history to see who added that section. DBlomgren 01:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs a deal of work. The health claim is in many ways one of the *least* controversial, since there's quite a deal of research about the effect of belief and attitude on various health issues, including cancer remission. The placebo effect is the most obvious manifestation of the effect of belief. The idea of thought directly influencing the universe in some kind of other metaphysical sense is the part I'd consider most controversial. From a health perspective if I recall the movie correctly they did make some claim about disease primarily being caused by attitude, which is a different thing altogether, and IMO moves past controversial into the realm of outright dangerous! I actually like the movie for it's overall message, but it's proposed theory or "mechanism" leads a lot to be desired :-). The whole "law of attraction" is based on fairly basic human psychology, no mysticism needed. I'll watch it again and check the health message. --Insider201283 02:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: This article is becoming a mess, due to editor's addition of unsourced and unattributed opinions. I will clean it up, keeping only the material that is properly sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I cleaned up SPAM you added — links to spamming videos. I assume it is no accident you took on an ID similar to mine — WikiLen. For users who want to see what this user is up to check out my comments at this user's talk page: user talk:wikiLeni. —WikiLen 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I just saw this film today, and as a Wikiholic, I of course had to come home and read this article.  I believe it's more accurate to call "The Secret" a new thought film rather than self-help.  If you disagree, try reading the Wiki-articles on self help and new thought, and maybe they will change your mind.
Whether it's a documentary or not, I believe it's whatever "What the (bleep)!?" is.  Personally, I don't think it's a documentary.  To me, it's an informative, promotional film on metaphysics and new thought. DBlomgren 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New thought film rather than self-help 

message: I'd like to move the "Health Claims" section to "Criticism" because I don't believe it warrants a separate section. Also, according to this article , which I've just referenced, the criticism is mostly about the focus on getting material things.  In fact, I'd rather just delete the Health Claims section, but I don't want to destroy someone's heartfelt contribution. Can anyone show the health claims controversy isn't just one editor's belief? In the meantime, I'll research the history to see who added that section. DBlomgren 01:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs a deal of work. The health claim is in many ways one of the *least* controversial, since there's quite a deal of research about the effect of belief and attitude on various health issues, including cancer remission. The placebo effect is the most obvious manifestation of the effect of belief. The idea of thought directly influencing the universe in some kind of other metaphysical sense is the part I'd consider most controversial. From a health perspective if I recall the movie correctly they did make some claim about disease primarily being caused by attitude, which is a different thing altogether, and IMO moves past controversial into the realm of outright dangerous! I actually like the movie for it's overall message, but it's proposed theory or "mechanism" leads a lot to be desired :-). The whole "law of attraction" is based on fairly basic human psychology, no mysticism needed. I'll watch it again and check the health message. --Insider201283 02:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: You heard it.. national TV.. this complete pile of **** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.70.102  (talk • contribs) 
*G'day. And thank you very kindly sir for alerting us to this additional aspect of the film's notability. Cheerio. Mathmo Talk 17:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This flaming pile is getting played on channel nine - Australia 

message: This article is becoming a mess, due to editor's addition of unsourced and unattributed opinions. I will clean it up, keeping only the material that is properly sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I cleaned up SPAM you added — links to spamming videos. I assume it is no accident you took on an ID similar to mine — WikiLen. For users who want to see what this user is up to check out my comments at this user's talk page: user talk:wikiLeni. —WikiLen 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Though I didn't get to watch it myself due to being otherwise "busy", just thought I'd note it here in case some otehr NZ editors could add something about this if they watched it? Mathmo Talk 15:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Secret was on Nightline (NZ TV, is ONE's late night news) 

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

message: Note: This section is now titled, "Critics' closing remarks"
I am having trouble settling on a title for this sub-section, Critical Praise, in the Criticism section of the article — help! Any suggestions? The canidates so far:
* Critic's caveats  —my initial title
* Critics  —Jossi's edit
* Critical Praise —weak: a critic's positive comment often falls short of praise. 
* Critic's positive assessments
* Critic's most positive assessment  —too long? & NPOV problem?
* Critical response  —offered by user:68.36.224.106, weak: suggests same content as "Editorial coverage" —WikiLen 02:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title for "Critical Praise" sub-section 

message: The purpose of this article is neither to reveal to the public what a great idea is being presented by the film, nor what a terrible idea is being presented — not a place for idea spam. The Wikipedia Spam policy advises:
:Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of ... ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is [or conversely how bad] ... you're in the wrong place.
The purpose is to reveal what the reliable sources are saying. Reliable does not necessarily mean enlightened. —WikiLen 03:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article purpose