Talk:The Secret (Byrne book)

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology Start‑class

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Literature / Epistemology / Ethics / Contemporary Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Epistemology
	Ethics
	Contemporary philosophy

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Spirituality Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Books Start‑class

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Content

While this book is clearly a cynical pack of nonsense designed to separate screwed up dunces from their money, this article should deal more with its contents and less with criticism. In particular, this is not a page for Barbara Ehrenrich's theories of media. While it is obivous to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that 'the secret' is the sort of exploitative, brainless pablum that the desperate and semi-literate will keep on the best seller list for years, the exact flavor is relevant hear. The article should include some of the (doubtless ludicrous and contradictory) claims made by the book as well as feature a section for the books defenders (including the whimsically gullible Oprah) to reveal their gross ignorance and poor judgment. In short, the editors should give more space to the actual contents and philosophy of 'the secret' and less to criticism, since the half-baked contents will do the job themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.145.229 (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although you make some very accurate points about the article (that it should deal more with the contents and less with the criticism, for example), they are lost in your angry rant. Please refrain from your criticisms of the book and nasty comments about readers. Your personal criticisms, no matter how valid, are unwelcome. Please note that I'm not disagreeing with what you say. I'm saying that this is not the place for it. Instead of venting here, why don't you pick up the book, read it, and write a decent summary of it. Then you can spend some time researching the criticisms of the book, and write a nice summary of them. And please remember the words that appear on the bottom of the edit page: please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view. 170.145.0.100 (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this isn't the place to rant. It's odd how 'rational' people get upset when their own belief systems are challenged. 'New Thought' and it's predecessors have been around for a while now, it would at least have been useful to set this book in it's historical context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.238.4 (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a rant, and yet, so accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.214.233 (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I'm surprised that nowhere in the article reviewing this book has anyone discussed a connection between the idea of "the law of attraction" and "self-fulfilling prophecy" or "the power of positive thinking." Don't any of you have anything to say about that? - Mary Slepowicz, 9 East Genesee Street, Auburn, NY, 13021. orionarm@basicISP.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.150.201 (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work in Progress

adding references
going to expand more on the criticism of the book, especially from those who are former believers
the book was highly popular in Australia before it was a hit in the USA, and it was highly controversial there - being widely covered in mainstream media
the book needs a separate page because the film wasn't made until the book became a hit in the USA.
any help filling this out would be greatly appreciated

Image copyright problem with File:TheSecretLogo.jpg

The image File:TheSecretLogo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this page

is unlike any other page for a book on wikipedia. there is hardly any discussion of the content of the book. the lengthiest part of this article is the "criticism" section and all the references discuss Barbara Ehrenreich and her completely different books. such a shoddy article for such a popular book.74.97.7.12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It says something very bad about a Wikipedia article about a book if I can read it from beginning to end and walk away with precisely zero information about the substance of the book. It appears as though this article was written by someone who has not read the book and is skeptical - on the basis of second-hand criticism - of its value. Ironically, the article's ambiguity probably suits the book's author and publishers just as well. The less people know of its contents, the more likely they are to buy the book to find out. And that's what all this hokum is about, right? Making money. On the one hand, I wish I had read the book, so I could contribute meaningfully to the editing process. On the other hand, you couldn't pay me to read this book.--72.73.16.235 (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a how-to book on building stairs included poor instruction that led to hundreds of injuries, there'd be no question of a lengthy "criticism" section, would there? Some categories of non-fiction, particularly self-help, should be held to a different (not higher, mind you) set of standards, which allow their premises and general content to be outlined as with any other genre, followed by a structured area for controversy (and any book worth one's money will have garnered some).PacificBoy 22:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as NPOV

At an absolute minimum this page is in dire need of more objective content rather than focusing on criticisms - as justified as those may be. As it is, there little meaningful information about the book itself, the structure, main themes, writing technique, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.20.2 (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of book basis

The Secret is a best-selling 2006 self-help book written by Rhonda Byrne and based upon William Walker Atkinson's prior works and school of thought. A film based on The Secret was released before the book in DVD format.

Whilst I also believe that William Walker Atkinson was a great contributor to the field of new thought there is no indication that the book was based on his works but instead a collection of many writers in personal growth throughout history. Spanning millennia of quotes and in the foreward, The Secret states it takes from ancient writings well before the writings of Atkinson. Furthermore there is no reference in the book or anywhere of the book being based on these writings, if anything it would be based on other new thought pioneers such as Wattles or Haanel. However the book states the film was the original vision for The Secret as stated on Pg x, of the foreword in The Secret. Therefore the book came out after the film as that is what it was based on. I would like to clarify that i am not implying that this is original thought but simply the only reference made for what the book is based on is the film itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findjoshg (talk • contribs) 00:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book 'Tenet' correction

The tenet of the book is that focused positive thinking can have life-changing results such as increased wealth, health, and happiness.

The tenet of this book is more than positive thinking but in fact spends the majority of the book referring to a concept it calls the law of attraction. It goes into the law stating that while positive thinking is important so to is positive affect. The writer spends the majority of the book explaining the way the law of attraction relates to peoples lives and what it refers to as the creative process of ask, believe, receive. Therefore i changed the tenet of this book as it appears to be a misrepresentation of the book. Findjoshg (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

This book has been translated into many languages, not just spanish, and published worldwide by many publishers. I know because I have the greek translation by Livani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.189.96 (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox amended to match text. —SMALL JIM 11:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is based on which now?

The disambiguation link at the top directs the reader to "the film based on the book", but then, in the first sentence of the article, we state that the book is "based on the earlier film of the same name." Obviously, both cannot be true, so which is correct? 199.2.205.141 (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]