Talk:Law of attraction (New Thought)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

paragraph about Srinivasan Pillay[edit]

See the change I made. Here's my reasoning:

  • "According to several other scientists,[...] certainly believes and teaches"--this is the way I first tried to parse the sentence. It's missing a subject. There are other ways to try to parse it, but I couldn't find one that gave a working sentence.
  • Which books he has written is not germane to the body of the article. If he is of sufficient notability to warrant his own article (none exists at this writing), those details could go there.
  • The book seems to me to be careful not to claim that the law of attraction is supported by science, but rather to posit that science explains the law of attraction.
  • The "several other scientists" and the "and many others" I can find no support for in this primary source, at a brief glance.
    • If there are other scientists who hold this or a similar position, that would need to be supported by a reliable secondary source.
    • I could find no obvious reliable secondary source regarding this book.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Law of attraction (New Thought). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Law of attraction (New Thought). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Plausibility[edit]

Overscepticism also is non neutrality, this article would look awsome with a resume of the experiments realized if any to proof the supposed law.--Neurorebel (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

not done it’s not clear what change you want to make. Also, as a registered user, you can make any edits (based on sources) to the article you feel are necessary. Edaham (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Claims of its effects - section[edit]

Related policies: WP:CLAIMWP:WEASEL
A couple of issues. Firstly the language used in this section of the article repeatedly makes use of the word claim. It sounds unencyclopedic. The claims aren’t attributed to anyone or thing in the text, making it sound weasely. Secondly the citations given all look as if they are linking to commercial sites on the subject. These aren’t good sources. There’s a section on health here. The sources referenced should be up to WP:MEDRS if we are going to say anything about the subject. I personally think this whole section is an excuse to stuff in a bunch of commercial links. As an encyclopedia we shouldn’t give a hoot what people claim about their Harry Potter notions on how the world works unless those claims have been reported on by reliable secondary sources and are notable for having been so. Pending a discussion on this section and the use of similar links throughout the article I will leave the content alone for a reasonable period and remove it afterwards if there’s no objection (from editors, not new thought sales-persons) Edaham (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

.....and I think that time has now arrived!Edaham (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I've removed a section based solely on these sources.
These sources are either: Personal websites/blogs, commercial sites or written by authors from an "in-universe" perspective. While we can argue that they are useful for validating their own claims, we cannot use these sites to verify the merit-worthiness of the authors of this content within their field. We need academic sources (or at least more mainstream sources) if the the content is to be restored. Please refrain from restoring without discussion or at least a good summary. Please also address the rest of the article, which contains similarly sourced content. Cheers! Edaham (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)