Talk:The Secret (2006 film)/Archive 2

Fred Alan Wolf and LoA

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)

Very informative. WikiLen 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here also is a longer interview of Fred Alan Wolf titled, "something from nothing". WikiLen 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Also, see my comments below at, External Link. —WikiLen 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of article

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)

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)

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)

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)

Goal Setting?

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)

Great musings... but not in line with Wikipedia's Talk page guidelines. Check out The Secret Project. —WikiLen 04:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Link to film at Google Video

See new section: For an update see below, Legal online version(s) of the film —WikiLen 09:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The link—at the References section—to a free version of the full film no longer works as of this version, 01:19, 29 December 2006.

When live, the video's page at Google had indicated it was being made available for a limited time. That time, on the face of it, appears to have expired. An attempt by user 76.169.138.26 to link it to a Spanish version of the film has correctly been reverted by user:Jossi. User 76.169.138.26 linked it again to the Spanish version and I have revised the link, changing it to a chapter-by-chapter version of the film (in English). With this link, one views Chapter 1 and then clicks on the link to Chapter 2 and so on. Of note, is the fact that Chapter 2 is missing and the link to it from Chapter 1 is dead. All the other chapters seem to be there. WikiLen 06:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User 76.169.138.26's behavior is interesting:

• The user made 10 attempts—is this why—to use a redirect page; see list at user's talk page.
• On at least five occasions, the user changed the link to the Spanish version when the link to the English version was dead.

(1) 18:24, 19 December 2006 diff

(2) 17:27, 3 January 2007 diff

(3) 23:59, 4 January 2007 diff

(4) 00:35, 6 January 2007 diff

(5) 04:01, 6 January 2007 diff

Of note: In the various English and Spanish versions, on Google Video, the id numbers have changed over time, for both the English and Spanish versions of the film. The means the film is getting re-uploaded to Google Video — a sign, one would think, of unauthorized uploading of copyrighted material. WikiLen 06:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe further clarification is needed from User 76.169.138.26 and/or an official at Dragon 8 Publicists or DrewPictures.net—supposed source of the uploaded film (per commentary at the film's former Google Video page). WikiLen 06:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This raises some questions: (1) should we bother with this crippled chapter-by-chapter version of the film (2) should we stop linking to any version of the film (the full-length English version may get uploaded again) and (3) is it time to block user 76.169.138.26, see User talk:76.169.138.26? — WikiLen 06:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the chapter by chapter even skips some of them, including the second one. I found a complete version in google video. Hope this helps, thank you. WikiLeni 05:35, 14 January 2007 (PST)

Note: This user has been permanently blocked due to taking on an ID too similar to mine. —WikiLen 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The director of the film Drew Heriot informed me that the previous complete version has been discontinued so they had to take it out of google. The newest authorized complete version was released to share with friends and family and I have added the link to the article. Also found another article at the Chicago Tribune that might help everyone contribute more expert quotes. Oprah is also doing a live show dedicated to The Secret, so I'll definitely keep collaborating more as the info is available. WikiLeni 4:34, 24 January 2007 (PST)

Note: Above user alleged to be a spammer —see talk page: user talk:wikiLeni. —WikiLen 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Have modified link authorized by Dragon 8 PR and DrewPictures.net. The company president has announced that thanks to their multiple marketing google campaigns Oprah Winfrey called them on January 3rd and 5th. They have made an agreement with documentary site jonhs.net to present a continuous screening of The Secret using both google video and youtube, link is http://www.jonhs.net/freemovies/secret.htm. I have added that new free link to The Oprah Winfrey Show as expert quotes can be taken from Oprah's interview. The link added is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4At9hVa1U1A (also added external link to google video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6970591609350288402) WikiLeni 9:48, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Note: Above user alleged to be a spammer —see talk page: user talk:wikiLeni. —WikiLen 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

See new section: For an update see below, Legal online version(s) of the film —WikiLen 09:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Move Health Claims to Criticism?

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 [1], 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)

Okay, it's not just one editor's belief, but it's taken almost word for word from the referenced site at the end of the quote[2]. How about rewording it to make it less like plagiarism and moving to "Criticism"? DBlomgren 02:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

I agree that it should be moved to criticism and also that it is one of the least contoversial claims of the movie. One (of many) things that doesn't make sense to me in the movie is that the woman who overcame breast cancer says that she never for a minute believed that she was sick. The implication is that this explains why she miraculously triumphed without chemotherapy, but it begs the question, how did she get the cancer in the first place if she never attracted it with her thoughts. Herbanreleaf 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Not every Statement needs a citation

(copied from my talk page)

Jossi, I appreciate your efforts to maintain a high standard of content on wikipedia, but you have twice interfered with a comment that I have made on The Secret (film) page without justification, I believe. I read the page on verification/citation and I don't see my contribution as falling within any category that would require citation. There is no quote and no risk of plagiarism nor any assertion that this is primary research nor is anyone likely to contest that The Secret has been criticized in the way that I mention. The source of my comment comes from various informal discussions and a weekly discussion group. I don't think these sources are citable, yet I consider them infinitely more credible than Larry King Live and some of the other sources that you let stand. So, I suggest that you reconsider demanding sources for every sentence of an article and instead look at what functions citations tend to serve and see if they are called for in each particular instance. As someone who has done a great deal of academic writing, where rigorous standards of citation are applied, I would say that my contribution would greatly benefit from a citation, but doesn't require one (especially since there is no published source of what I am saying).Herbanreleaf 20:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Herbanreleaf: I invite you to spend some time reading our content policies, as I can see from your comment that you may have misunderstood them. In particular read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
2. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

From Wikipedia:No original research

• Articles may not contain any unpublished material, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position

Given your statement above: "The source of my comment comes from various informal discussions and a weekly discussion group", I have deleted the material as it violates WP:V and WP:OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Herbanreleaf, you are kinda of right in that not always every statement needs a citation (otherwise you can end up with a mess of an article if every word has a source next to it!). However every contested statement needs a source, or in other words if another person disagrees with what was added then whoever added it will need to find a suitable source before putting it back in. Mathmo ^Talk 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly, Mathmo. Contributors to Wikipedia should not add their own opinion to articles. If someone adds material that he may have read in a book, for example, then your statement above is correct. But adding a personal opinion is never acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel that my point still remains, people are free to do whatever they like (even vandalise, but they need to accept the consequences of being quickly blocked!). So they can even add in an opinion to the article, but if anybody at all contests it they will need to find a suitable source for where this opinion has been expressed and then included both the sources and the way the source is refered to in a suitably NPOV way. Mathmo ^Talk 02:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an opinion: The Secret is a virtual cheerleader for material greed and social and political apathy, blames the victim, overlooks socioeconomic inequities, and ignores the limits to how many fancy cars, jet-skis, multi-million dollar mansions, and other status-symbols the Earth can sustain.

This is a fact: The secret has also been criticized as being a virtual cheerleader for material greed and social and political apathy as well as for blaming the victim, overlooking socioeconomic inequities, and ignoring the limits to how many fancy cars, jet-skis, multi-million dollar mansions, and other status-symbols the Earth can sustain.

This is apparently what you are demanding: The secret has also been criticized by one of the various pop-culture authorities that are acceptable to Jossi as being a virtual cheerleader for material greed and social and political apathy as well as for blaming the victim, overlooking socioeconomic inequities, and ignoring the limits to how many fancy cars, jet-skis, multi-million dollar mansions, and other status-symbols the Earth can sustain. [Jossi approved pop-culture authority]Herbanreleaf 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well then, Jossi, since my statement wasn't an opinion, but a factual statement about how the film has been criticized and since it is unlikely to be contested that it has been criticized in this way, I don't see why it should need a citation. Herbanreleaf 16:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is a "factual statement", Herbanreleaf, show us where. Otherwise how would you expect readers to trust our encyclopedia if they cannot verify the material? That is why WP:V exists. BTW, I concur with your assessment of the film, but nonetheless I do not add my opinion or what I believe to be factual, unless I have sources that describe it that way. That is the Wikipedia way. As said before, there are other wikis that do not carry the burden of verifiability, such a Wikiinfo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it has been criticized in such a way, I have witnessed first hand. If you want, I will criticize it for you in that very same way, so that you will hear first hand that it has been criticized in such a way. Do you trust published sources such as Larry King Live more than your own ears? You act as if only things that have been spoken by celebrities who get quoted in pop culture are authoritative. In fact, this usually cheapens rather than bolsters its respectability in my view. Who doubts that the film has been criticized in such a way? I will criticize it in that very way right before your eyes. Therefore, it is undisputable that the film has been criticized in that way. I'm sorry if you don't recognize me or any of the many other folks that have discussed this with me as being real, but just because we aren't on Larry King Live doesn't mean that the fact of our criticism isn't fact. The question for you is if a tree falls, and it isn't on Larry King Live does it still make a sound? By the way, I've viewed countless articles on wikipedia and most of them contain many sentences asserting facts that are not followed by citations. It's only those pages that seem to be monitored by totalitarian control freaks that are forced to adhere to such a limiting standard. In fact, there are only seven citations on The Secret (Film) page to four sources and there are quite a few more statements being made then that. However, you seem to have singled in on mine for some reason that is apparent only to you. Herbanreleaf 20:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I have not "singled out" anyone. I have invited you to read our content policies regarding verifiability and citing sources. Have you done so? If you have, you will know by now that we can only describe what reliable sources say about a subject. That's it, I am afraid. It does not matter who these sources are, as long as these have been published in a medium considered reliable by a source considered such. We are not asserting that these are true or false, we are asserting these as the opinions of these that hold them. The fact that there are articles in Wikipedia that do not carry sources for opinions, does not make these articles compliant with our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Herbanreleaf, don't single out ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) either! Isn't the only editor disagreeing with you. And remember one source doesn't automatically mean one statement, often a source is used to write more than just one sentence! Mathmo ^Talk

jossi, please elaborate on which element(s) of the Criticism section require additional sources. Is it the opening statement about entrepreneurial mindset or Scientific Inaccuracy? The former could be characterized as opinion (although the film contradicts virtually every authority on entrepreneurial behavior). Would it be permissible if I cited an authoritative source like Engineering Your Startup, by James Swanson and Michael Baird? The latter (Scientific Inaccuracy) is an important and factual statement in the context of this article. To omit it would be to allow (or even encourage) the reader to accept that the "Law of Attraction" (the central premise of the film) is supported by science. That would be an Error of Omission (EOO), as long as the film is being characterized as something akin to a documentary. If we agreed to re-characterize it as "metaphysical fantasy", then this would no longer be necessary. Further, there are no sources to cite because the film's claims exceed the state of current (and future) scientific knowledge and/or are fundamentally untestable (i.e. not science). Please advise.watsonta ^Talk

Cleanup

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)

Cleaned up three sites added to end of article that were advertising amazon.com books and other products related to The Secret. The sites are explorethesecret.com, attractionlawsecret.com, and squidoo.com comprehensive guide blog advertising amazon.com books as mentioned before. WikiLeni 10:08, 13 February 2007 (PST)

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)

External links

I think it would be appropriate to add a link to the following site which has a number of articles talking about "the secret", the law of attraction (in both spiritual and non-spiritual terms), and various related issues. The site is: goodkarma.org. Please review the site and post the link if you find it appropriate (or I would be happy to post the link as well)...I think it helps to clarify issues brought up in the film. Thanks! Scdunn 08:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a blog and may not qualify as a reliable source. The "articles" at the site are actually just posts to the blog. See Wikipedia's policy on "Self-published sources" for guidance. Of note, it states:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are usually not acceptable as sources..."

In my opinion, the site you mention—although interesting—does not qualify as a "reliable source", but keep looking. —WikiLen 22:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking it would be appropriate in the "external links" section...people who enjoy "the secret" would probably also enjoy the articles/blog entries on this site, and in addition can discuss the material further. Scdunn 23:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As a blog it still does not qualify, even as an external link. See Wikipedia's policy on "Links normally to be avoided" — mentions avoiding "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority." In all aspects, to quote from Wikipedia:Five pillars:

"Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments...Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory."

I see Wikipedia as a final report on knowledge that has grown elsewhere. I suggest starting a topic on "The Secret (film)" at wikiversity.org if you are interested in growing the knowledge about this film — see also, the Wikipedia article on Wikiversity. -WikiLen 06:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My latest additions to the external links are completely spam free and great material to add to the researching of this article. They are as follows:

• "The Secret" on CBS News "Eye to Eye" with Katie Couric
• CBS's The Early Show: "The Secret" - The Debate
• "The Secret" on Ellen

Thank you again for clarifying that Prof. John Stackhouse have a degree on the subject matter and he will not be removed by my edits, and yes, I encourage everyone to keep adding unbiased links and documented information to this article in need of serious editors. Watchrapid 17:43, 05 March 2007 (UTC)

As I noted at your talk page, user talk:Watchrapid, all three of the videos you mention above were posted to "youTube" by user, thesecretsgrprogram. Each posted video provides a link to this user and when you click on that link you find it is a user selling, "The Secret Science of Getting Rich seminar program". Also, the listed website for that user is a commercial site selling products related to the film, The Secret. This makes the video a spamming video. Additionally I neglected to mention at your talk page, that the owner of the site—the site doing the posting—is obvously not the owner of the copyrights for these videos. Wikipedia cannot link to anything that is in voilation of copyrights. —WikiLen 02:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

See: External link spamming

Link to film at Google Video

See new section: For an update see below, Legal online version(s) of the film —WikiLen 09:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The link—at the References section—to a free version of the full film no longer works as of this version, 01:19, 29 December 2006.

When live, the video's page at Google had indicated it was being made available for a limited time. That time, on the face of it, appears to have expired. An attempt by user 76.169.138.26 to link it to a Spanish version of the film has correctly been reverted by user:Jossi. User 76.169.138.26 linked it again to the Spanish version and I have revised the link, changing it to a chapter-by-chapter version of the film (in English). With this link, one views Chapter 1 and then clicks on the link to Chapter 2 and so on. Of note, is the fact that Chapter 2 is missing and the link to it from Chapter 1 is dead. All the other chapters seem to be there. WikiLen 06:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User 76.169.138.26's behavior is interesting:

• The user made 10 attempts—is this why—to use a redirect page; see list at user's talk page.
• On at least five occasions, the user changed the link to the Spanish version when the link to the English version was dead.

(1) 18:24, 19 December 2006 diff

(2) 17:27, 3 January 2007 diff

(3) 23:59, 4 January 2007 diff

(4) 00:35, 6 January 2007 diff

(5) 04:01, 6 January 2007 diff

Of note: In the various English and Spanish versions, on Google Video, the id numbers have changed over time, for both the English and Spanish versions of the film. The means the film is getting re-uploaded to Google Video — a sign, one would think, of unauthorized uploading of copyrighted material. WikiLen 06:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe further clarification is needed from User 76.169.138.26 and/or an official at Dragon 8 Publicists or DrewPictures.net—supposed source of the uploaded film (per commentary at the film's former Google Video page). WikiLen 06:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This raises some questions: (1) should we bother with this crippled chapter-by-chapter version of the film (2) should we stop linking to any version of the film (the full-length English version may get uploaded again) and (3) is it time to block user 76.169.138.26, see User talk:76.169.138.26? — WikiLen 06:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the chapter by chapter even skips some of them, including the second one. I found a complete version in google video. Hope this helps, thank you. WikiLeni 05:35, 14 January 2007 (PST)

Note: This user has been permanently blocked due to taking on an ID too similar to mine. —WikiLen 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The director of the film Drew Heriot informed me that the previous complete version has been discontinued so they had to take it out of google. The newest authorized complete version was released to share with friends and family and I have added the link to the article. Also found another article at the Chicago Tribune that might help everyone contribute more expert quotes. Oprah is also doing a live show dedicated to The Secret, so I'll definitely keep collaborating more as the info is available. WikiLeni 4:34, 24 January 2007 (PST)

Note: Above user alleged to be a spammer —see talk page: user talk:wikiLeni. —WikiLen 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Have modified link authorized by Dragon 8 PR and DrewPictures.net. The company president has announced that thanks to their multiple marketing google campaigns Oprah Winfrey called them on January 3rd and 5th. They have made an agreement with documentary site jonhs.net to present a continuous screening of The Secret using both google video and youtube, link is http://www.jonhs.net/freemovies/secret.htm. I have added that new free link to The Oprah Winfrey Show as expert quotes can be taken from Oprah's interview. The link added is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4At9hVa1U1A (also added external link to google video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6970591609350288402) WikiLeni 9:48, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Note: Above user alleged to be a spammer —see talk page: user talk:wikiLeni. —WikiLen 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

See new section: For an update see below, Legal online version(s) of the film —WikiLen 09:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

New thought film rather than self-help

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)

Move Health Claims to Criticism?

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 [3], 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)

Okay, it's not just one editor's belief, but it's taken almost word for word from the referenced site at the end of the quote[4]. How about rewording it to make it less like plagiarism and moving to "Criticism"? DBlomgren 02:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

I agree that it should be moved to criticism and also that it is one of the least contoversial claims of the movie. One (of many) things that doesn't make sense to me in the movie is that the woman who overcame breast cancer says that she never for a minute believed that she was sick. The implication is that this explains why she miraculously triumphed without chemotherapy, but it begs the question, how did she get the cancer in the first place if she never attracted it with her thoughts. Herbanreleaf 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Not every Statement needs a citation

(copied from my talk page)

Jossi, I appreciate your efforts to maintain a high standard of content on wikipedia, but you have twice interfered with a comment that I have made on The Secret (film) page without justification, I believe. I read the page on verification/citation and I don't see my contribution as falling within any category that would require citation. There is no quote and no risk of plagiarism nor any assertion that this is primary research nor is anyone likely to contest that The Secret has been criticized in the way that I mention. The source of my comment comes from various informal discussions and a weekly discussion group. I don't think these sources are citable, yet I consider them infinitely more credible than Larry King Live and some of the other sources that you let stand. So, I suggest that you reconsider demanding sources for every sentence of an article and instead look at what functions citations tend to serve and see if they are called for in each particular instance. As someone who has done a great deal of academic writing, where rigorous standards of citation are applied, I would say that my contribution would greatly benefit from a citation, but doesn't require one (especially since there is no published source of what I am saying).Herbanreleaf 20:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Herbanreleaf: I invite you to spend some time reading our content policies, as I can see from your comment that you may have misunderstood them. In particular read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
2. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

From Wikipedia:No original research

• Articles may not contain any unpublished material, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position

Given your statement above: "The source of my comment comes from various informal discussions and a weekly discussion group", I have deleted the material as it violates WP:V and WP:OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Herbanreleaf, you are kinda of right in that not always every statement needs a citation (otherwise you can end up with a mess of an article if every word has a source next to it!). However every contested statement needs a source, or in other words if another person disagrees with what was added then whoever added it will need to find a suitable source before putting it back in. Mathmo ^Talk 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly, Mathmo. Contributors to Wikipedia should not add their own opinion to articles. If someone adds material that he may have read in a book, for example, then your statement above is correct. But adding a personal opinion is never acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel that my point still remains, people are free to do whatever they like (even vandalise, but they need to accept the consequences of being quickly blocked!). So they can even add in an opinion to the article, but if anybody at all contests it they will need to find a suitable source for where this opinion has been expressed and then included both the sources and the way the source is refered to in a suitably NPOV way. Mathmo ^Talk 02:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an opinion: The Secret is a virtual cheerleader for material greed and social and political apathy, blames the victim, overlooks socioeconomic inequities, and ignores the limits to how many fancy cars, jet-skis, multi-million dollar mansions, and other status-symbols the Earth can sustain.

This is a fact: The secret has also been criticized as being a virtual cheerleader for material greed and social and political apathy as well as for blaming the victim, overlooking socioeconomic inequities, and ignoring the limits to how many fancy cars, jet-skis, multi-million dollar mansions, and other status-symbols the Earth can sustain.

This is apparently what you are demanding: The secret has also been criticized by one of the various pop-culture authorities that are acceptable to Jossi as being a virtual cheerleader for material greed and social and political apathy as well as for blaming the victim, overlooking socioeconomic inequities, and ignoring the limits to how many fancy cars, jet-skis, multi-million dollar mansions, and other status-symbols the Earth can sustain. [Jossi approved pop-culture authority]Herbanreleaf 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well then, Jossi, since my statement wasn't an opinion, but a factual statement about how the film has been criticized and since it is unlikely to be contested that it has been criticized in this way, I don't see why it should need a citation. Herbanreleaf 16:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is a "factual statement", Herbanreleaf, show us where. Otherwise how would you expect readers to trust our encyclopedia if they cannot verify the material? That is why WP:V exists. BTW, I concur with your assessment of the film, but nonetheless I do not add my opinion or what I believe to be factual, unless I have sources that describe it that way. That is the Wikipedia way. As said before, there are other wikis that do not carry the burden of verifiability, such a Wikiinfo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it has been criticized in such a way, I have witnessed first hand. If you want, I will criticize it for you in that very same way, so that you will hear first hand that it has been criticized in such a way. Do you trust published sources such as Larry King Live more than your own ears? You act as if only things that have been spoken by celebrities who get quoted in pop culture are authoritative. In fact, this usually cheapens rather than bolsters its respectability in my view. Who doubts that the film has been criticized in such a way? I will criticize it in that very way right before your eyes. Therefore, it is undisputable that the film has been criticized in that way. I'm sorry if you don't recognize me or any of the many other folks that have discussed this with me as being real, but just because we aren't on Larry King Live doesn't mean that the fact of our criticism isn't fact. The question for you is if a tree falls, and it isn't on Larry King Live does it still make a sound? By the way, I've viewed countless articles on wikipedia and most of them contain many sentences asserting facts that are not followed by citations. It's only those pages that seem to be monitored by totalitarian control freaks that are forced to adhere to such a limiting standard. In fact, there are only seven citations on The Secret (Film) page to four sources and there are quite a few more statements being made then that. However, you seem to have singled in on mine for some reason that is apparent only to you. Herbanreleaf 20:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I have not "singled out" anyone. I have invited you to read our content policies regarding verifiability and citing sources. Have you done so? If you have, you will know by now that we can only describe what reliable sources say about a subject. That's it, I am afraid. It does not matter who these sources are, as long as these have been published in a medium considered reliable by a source considered such. We are not asserting that these are true or false, we are asserting these as the opinions of these that hold them. The fact that there are articles in Wikipedia that do not carry sources for opinions, does not make these articles compliant with our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Herbanreleaf, don't single out ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) either! Isn't the only editor disagreeing with you. And remember one source doesn't automatically mean one statement, often a source is used to write more than just one sentence! Mathmo ^Talk

jossi, please elaborate on which element(s) of the Criticism section require additional sources. Is it the opening statement about entrepreneurial mindset or Scientific Inaccuracy? The former could be characterized as opinion (although the film contradicts virtually every authority on entrepreneurial behavior). Would it be permissible if I cited an authoritative source like Engineering Your Startup, by James Swanson and Michael Baird? The latter (Scientific Inaccuracy) is an important and factual statement in the context of this article. To omit it would be to allow (or even encourage) the reader to accept that the "Law of Attraction" (the central premise of the film) is supported by science. That would be an Error of Omission (EOO), as long as the film is being characterized as something akin to a documentary. If we agreed to re-characterize it as "metaphysical fantasy", then this would no longer be necessary. Further, there are no sources to cite because the film's claims exceed the state of current (and future) scientific knowledge and/or are fundamentally untestable (i.e. not science). Please advise.watsonta ^Talk

Book

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)

This flaming pile is getting played on channel nine - Australia

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)

Cleanup

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)

Cleaned up three sites added to end of article that were advertising amazon.com books and other products related to The Secret. The sites are explorethesecret.com, attractionlawsecret.com, and squidoo.com comprehensive guide blog advertising amazon.com books as mentioned before. WikiLeni 10:08, 13 February 2007 (PST)

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)

External links

I think it would be appropriate to add a link to the following site which has a number of articles talking about "the secret", the law of attraction (in both spiritual and non-spiritual terms), and various related issues. The site is: goodkarma.org. Please review the site and post the link if you find it appropriate (or I would be happy to post the link as well)...I think it helps to clarify issues brought up in the film. Thanks! Scdunn 08:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a blog and may not qualify as a reliable source. The "articles" at the site are actually just posts to the blog. See Wikipedia's policy on "Self-published sources" for guidance. Of note, it states:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are usually not acceptable as sources..."

In my opinion, the site you mention—although interesting—does not qualify as a "reliable source", but keep looking. —WikiLen 22:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking it would be appropriate in the "external links" section...people who enjoy "the secret" would probably also enjoy the articles/blog entries on this site, and in addition can discuss the material further. Scdunn 23:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As a blog it still does not qualify, even as an external link. See Wikipedia's policy on "Links normally to be avoided" — mentions avoiding "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority." In all aspects, to quote from Wikipedia:Five pillars:

"Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments...Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory."

I see Wikipedia as a final report on knowledge that has grown elsewhere. I suggest starting a topic on "The Secret (film)" at wikiversity.org if you are interested in growing the knowledge about this film — see also, the Wikipedia article on Wikiversity. -WikiLen 06:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My latest additions to the external links are completely spam free and great material to add to the researching of this article. They are as follows:

• "The Secret" on CBS News "Eye to Eye" with Katie Couric
• CBS's The Early Show: "The Secret" - The Debate
• "The Secret" on Ellen

Thank you again for clarifying that Prof. John Stackhouse have a degree on the subject matter and he will not be removed by my edits, and yes, I encourage everyone to keep adding unbiased links and documented information to this article in need of serious editors. Watchrapid 17:43, 05 March 2007 (UTC)

As I noted at your talk page, user talk:Watchrapid, all three of the videos you mention above were posted to "youTube" by user, thesecretsgrprogram. Each posted video provides a link to this user and when you click on that link you find it is a user selling, "The Secret Science of Getting Rich seminar program". Also, the listed website for that user is a commercial site selling products related to the film, The Secret. This makes the video a spamming video. Additionally I neglected to mention at your talk page, that the owner of the site—the site doing the posting—is obvously not the owner of the copyrights for these videos. Wikipedia cannot link to anything that is in voilation of copyrights. —WikiLen 02:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

See: External link spamming

External Link to Expert Blog

Someone--I assume it is "Watchrapid"--keeps deleting a link to a discussion of The Secret by professor of contemporary religion Dr. John Stackhouse. His bona fides are clearly listed at www.JohnStackhouse.com, and his commentary on contemporary religion has been featured in a wide range of both academic and popular media. Thus this blog falls within Wikipedia guidelines as expert commentary and should remain. Jossi deleted it once, understandably, and then restored it on these terms.

Getting academicians to participate in Wikipedia is a long-standing issue, and deleting good, accessible material by them is certainly not going to help. Is someone deleting this just because he or she doesn't like what is said? That, too, is out of keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. So I'm adding it back: Please don't delete it--and certainly don't do so without an explicit defense. PlymouthG 14:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well spoken. Clearly, this is a valid link and yes Watchrapid has been deleting this link. I note that Watchrapid is a very new ID and his/her first edit was to create a reference link to a spamming video. Either this is a user unaware of Wikipedia conventions or a sock puppeteer for a spammer — possibly, a spammer also controlling the two user IDs below (now blocked) who linked to similar spamming videos:

• User talk: Wikileni — [this user is not me]
• User talk: 76.169.138.26

I hope to discover that Watchrapid is just a new user learning how Wikipedia works. -WikiLen 19:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Secret was on Nightline (NZ TV, is ONE's late night news)

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)

Orifinal research and unsourced claims

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)

Title for "Critical Praise" sub-section

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)
• Critical support
• Counterpoint from critics
• Critic's closing remarks — positive leaning
• Critic's closing remarks <current title>

Many sections of the article, in the current edition, lean negative. The only practical way to counter this—for NPOV—is to have a section dedicated for positive-leaning assessments. This new section [sub-section] serves that purpose and needs to have a title that reflects this intention (to help keep negative assessments out of this new sub-section). —WikiLen 17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have given up this positive-only attempt. I've settled on "Critic's closing remarks" as my choice for the section sub-title. Also, I added the closing remarks for the ABC News review. —WikiLen 17:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Critics closing remarks

[currently re-named as, "Other remarks"] —WikiLen 04:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this section, it seemed designed simply to give a positive spin. Working some of these comments into the main critics section might be ok but this is clearly not NPOV. JoshuaZ 15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That is unacceptable. I do not care if it is positive of negative spin. These comments were made in reputable publoications and attributed to these that made the comments. If you do not like the style it is written, on fix it, but do not delete it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

For now I have switched the title for this section back to "Critic's closing remarks" from "Other remarks".

• Closing remarks by critics are significant — the final note from others that we respect.
• To title this section "Other remarks" opens us to even more NPOV struggles — i.e.: why just these seemingly positive remarks.
• The over-all positive tone of the remarks is just how it panned out. No critics' closing remarks, with a negative tone, have been omitted (using the list of critics referenced or linked-to in this article).

—WikiLen 05:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, regarding note in your Edit summary:

spin is still spin, if you want to combine it with the other critics comments in a "reactions" section thats one thing, but this is POV, especially given the nonrepresentative nature of the quotes

I created this sub-section and:

• I have addressed your assertion that this is spin at your talk page. I recognize that it looks like spin to some, so to fix this I have reverted the title to my original title (see above) and changed the first sentence (see below).

• Regarding your suggestion to "combine it with the other critics comments": Closing remarks are notable. To mix them with other remarks dilutes that and makes for a more chaotic read.

• And you assert "the nonrepresentative nature of the quotes". Please note that the critics used in this sections are the same ones used in the "Editorial coverage" section. Yes that section only references 3 critics—all in the print media—and this section references 5, but the two I added were Prof. John Stackhouse, a theologian and ABC news. I expanded the representation bringing in coverage from religion and TV. I didn't hand-pick these quotes. I just took the closing remarks of the currently known significant critics on this film. I may have ignored some closing remarks that were positive but none that were negative.

—WikiLen 20:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have revised the first sentence to include the phrase "countered their negative critiques". i.e.:

Professional critics of the film and contemporary culture have countered their negative critiques of the film with these closing remarks:

Justification:

• The critiques obviously contain negative components — no OR problem here.
• Should help reduce gut-reactions, by editors or any reader, that this sub-section is spinning — trying to hide negative criticism.

—WikiLen 20:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the purpose of any "Closing Remarks" section? It seems odd, and I can't say I've ever seen a collection of closing remarks presented as a representation of a book or film's critical reception. Typically, any excerpts from criticisms or analyses are chosen based on criteria other than their location in the actual piece; we don't count on critics to end every work with a tidy summary sentence, after all, and for good reason- most don't.

I guess all I'm asking is, why are closing remarks noteworthy or relevant?

Gozer gozerian 21:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Normally, closing remarks are just summaries of what a critic says in the body of a review or commentary — nothing unique in the closing. However, in all of these cases, the critic is saying something unique at the end of the review or commentary. There are two aspects to this uniqueness: (1) the critic says something positive where the rest of the review or commentary has been negative—irony—and (2) the critic chooses to position his/her positive remark—and the only positive remark—as the final word, adding punch to the irony. The irony is an important component of what each of these critic is saying. Maybe "Ironic critiques" would be a better title. —WikiLen 18:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this a common practice in entries like this? I've never seen it before, but I might have been reading the wrong entries. The title keeps changing, but unless I'm mistaken (and I may be), it still doesn't seem to serve any encyclopedic purpose.

Gozer gozerian 09:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

These are critics critiquing. Please elaborate on your comment "doesn't seem to serve any encyclopedic purpose".

I am sure there is a way to improve this. I am open to—and seek—suggestions. —WikiLen 20:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My primary suggestion would be to either find critic's treatments which are both positive and negative, take *representative* excerpts- not closing excerpts, or ironic excerpts, or excerpts which otherwise depend on context they lack- from those articles, and make this section a "Quotes from Critics" section. The reader shouldn't have to check with the source of the quote to find out what, in summary, the critic thought of the subject. As it is now, it seems like we keep bending and twisting this section to keep the actual quotes the same, rather than addressing the quotes themselves. An actual critical excerpts section would solve all this, whereas an "ironic" or "closing remarks" section is at once unprecedented, questionably informative, and atypical of Wikipedia entries of this nature. —Gozer gozerian 00:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments from above and my replies/questions, mixed together. Yours in italics.

My primary suggestion would be to either find critic's treatments which are both positive and negative,

problem here is the positive comments are only in the closing remarks. Should I treat that as a coincidence—to be ignored—or significant, i.e.: as part of the critics message?

take *representative* excerpts- not closing excerpts, or ironic excerpts, or excerpts which otherwise depend on context they lack- from those articles,

there were no other positive quotes I could find (by critics) when I put together the sub-section — amazes me...

and make this section a "Quotes from Critics" section.

I like this idea but it would mean refactoring the "Editorial coverage" sub-section since that is where negative comments can be found (from the same critics). I am for this, but we should plan carefully before making such a bold move.

The reader shouldn't have to check with the source of the quote to find out what, in summary, the critic thought of the subject.

Agree. Are you saying we should expand the section on closing remarks to give it more depth?

As it is now, it seems like we keep bending and twisting this section to keep the actual quotes the same, rather than addressing the quotes themselves.

Lost me here. I suspect I would be all for "addressing the quotes themselves" just not sure what you mean. Do you mean paraphase and quote, as needed, the critics' summaries? This would be a big challenge—but not impossible—since it is difficult to summarize irony.

An actual critical excerpts section would solve all this, whereas an "ironic" or "closing remarks" section is at once unprecedented, questionably informative, and atypical of Wikipedia entries of this nature.

atypical (yes), unprecedented yes (but so what), and questionably informative (I'm thinking insufficiently informative). My real concern has been that I am doing original research by bringing attention to the fact that 5 critics were 100% negative until they got to their closing remarks. I find that interesting. I find it communicates something but recognize saying what is original research. So perhaps I should let this go. If you are up to refactoring this whole thing I am game.

Recent reviews of the film (roughly, after 1 March 07) have lacked the ironic closing remarks of the early reviews. The review by Tony Riazzi (Dayton Daily News) is the first of these new reviews to be added to this sub-section. I have dropped my attempt to have this article catch the irony in the early reviews of this film (was doing OR?) — leave this to some historian to pick up. —WikiLen 05:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

MLM audiences

I have yet to see someone who owns The Secret but that said person is promoting an MLM or success formula of some sort. That should be mentioned. Around here, it is synonymous with Mary Kay, Quixtar, Xango, NuSkin, and various real estate investing companies. I'm not saying any POV, just that I assume this is 90% of the push and the market. --Mrcolj 12:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand these sentences (too terse I think):

I have yet to see someone who owns The Secret but that said person is promoting an MLM or success formula of some sort.

I'm not saying any POV, just that I assume this is 90% of the push and the market.

Please clarify. —WikiLen 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they're saying they have yet to see a person who owns The Secret, who isn't also promoting an MLM -- 12.116.162.162 21:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

News reports on "secret" teachers

I'm puzzled about why a 12 minutes official ABC News report with one of The Secret teachers is classified as unimportant by WikiLen. In yet another attempt to make this article more neutral I have again added the following link that complies with wikipedia guidelines. ABC7News (KGO-TV San Francisco): "The Secret to Success and Happiness" Please Jossi make sure you monitor everyone fairly. Also, my research shows that CBS TV corporation is now the owner of The Secret's book publisher, so we better find reports from the other networks as well. Let's continue finding other valuable resources and not ban them just because they don't have a negative connotation. What about the "Celebrations" or "Positives" section you were talking about? ≈ Watchrapid ≈ (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unimportant for these reasons:

• It is a news video produced by ABC7News—a local news outfit—not ABC News.
• The video is an interview of Maria Diamond and her coaching methods and philosophy. The video briefly mentions the film but it is not about the film.

Guideline states: ...the link should be directly related to the subject of the article.

Regarding your statement, "What about the "Celebrations" or "Positives" section you were talking about?" please checkout the sub-section, Critics' closing remarks.

Regarding your statement, "...we better find reports from the other networks as well." — please clarify. I am missing your point.

—WikiLen 03:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Show me where in the wikipedia policies it says that some news outlets are more important than others. The link with Maria Diamond is completely related to The Secret, twelve entire minutes talking about the teachings of the secret by an expert in The Secret. The link has to go back until and after you direct me to the proof contained in wikipedia policies. Please do not continue trying to mislead readers of this article. Neutrality is being killed by this article's "police." To clarify, the more different networks and reporters we get the less biased this article will become. I'm challenging WikiLen's neutrality, do you work for the government, what are you trying to do here? ABC7News (KGO-TV San Francisco): "The Secret to Success and Happiness" is going back because it is directly related to The Secret and there is no rule saying one media station is better than the next the same way Watchrapid and WikiLen are as important as each other. Please Jossi make sure you monitor everyone fairly. ≈ Watchrapid ≈ (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A) Watchrapid, you state:

Show me where in the wikipedia policies it says that some news outlets are more important than others.

See, Sources of dubious reliability. I respectfully submit that local TV news stations have a "poor reputation for fact-checking". Am I off-target on this? I'm open to correction from anyone. —WikiLen 01:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

B) Watchrapid, you state:

twelve entire minutes talking about the teachings of the secret by an expert in The Secret

as support for including a link to Maria Diamond. This is the version that would make it a direct relationship:

twelve entire minutes talking about the film by an expert (with relevant and recognized expertise)

If you and I had a common friend then we would have an indirect relationship. If we, ourselves, were friends then it would be a direct relationship. Maria Diamond needed to talk about the film itself for it to be a direct relationship to the film. Instead, she talked about a subject matter that the film also happens to talk about — indirect connection. And, most importantly, she would have to be deemed a notable expert. i.e.: self-published expertise would not qualify her. See, Self-published sources (online and paper) —WikiLen 01:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

C) Watchrapid, you state:

the more different networks and reporters we get the less biased this article will become

Wikipedia Attribution policy:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences...

Not a place for users to experience all TV reports and draw their own conclusions. And this External links policy:

Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article.

[italics mine] —WikiLen 03:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

D) I'm not insulted and don't work for the government... good laugh. I hope you were trying to be funny.

I'm challenging WikiLen's neutrality, do you work for the government, what are you trying to do here?

Metaphorically, I am trying to balance an egg (NPOV) on its end. It just doesn't want to be there. Additionally you may have noticed that I seem quite aggressive at staying on top of your edits. This is because about 90% of your edits have been to edit the External Links section. This is a red flag to me. In particular, I am concerned that either (1) you are trying to find a way to get a link that leads to Bob Proctor's affiliate seminar program or (2) your actions will inadvertently open the door for others to do so. Bob Proctor, a featured teacher in the film, has a $2000 program which—if you were an affiliate—would provide you with $500 every time someone signed up through your special affiliate link. Alternately, you may be in employ of Bob Proctor. The fundamental reason this all concerns me is that a number of your links to videos were to spamming videos for Bob Proctor related business. I don't want to document this here—as free advertising for Bob Proctor—however you can go to your own talk page User talk:Watchrapid where I have provided more details. The last thing this article needs is a flood of affiliates (spammers) trying to use this article as a pipeline to money — gets my blood going. You are correct in sensing policing action on my part. I wish to be transparent about this. Thanks for raising the issue. —WikiLen 01:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[See, Counter Quotes below for additional comments from Watchrapid.]

(Third opinion) Wikipedia policy provides no bias against local news sources. If a reference is a local print or broadcast news source, it is a reliable source, just as much as any other media mention. Bias regarding local or national market media should not be the basis for exclusion of sources. That way lies the slippery slope where "the media is biased" and "the media is inaccurate" arguments gain traction. Just my opinion. You're welcome to some grains of salt with it. Vassyana 20:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept Vassyana opinion. Perhaps as we get more local coverage sources we could separate the External links into national and local sub-sections. —WikiLen 03:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(Third opinion) I agree with Vassyana, but have to add that the second point by WikiLen (see below) is quite valid. --User:Krator (t c) 22:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

“ The video is an interview of Maria Diamond and her coaching methods and philosophy. The video briefly mentions the film but it is not about the film. ” — WikiLen

I removed the link to these Maria Diamon videos. Even the second of the two videos does not talk about the film. It talks about Vision boards, a tool championed by the film. —WikiLen 03:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To person(s) adding again the link to Maria Diamond videos: ABC7News (KGO-TV San Francisco): "The Secret to Success and Happiness" — please document here, or at the Edit summary, why you are adding this link when you add it. Otherwise, it just looks like you didn't read the above "third opinion" and are adding the link for trivial or spamming reasons. —WikiLen 04:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Counter Quotes

I have moved the newly created "Counter Quotes" sub-section of the article to here. It had too many problems to remain there — had original research and lacked citations or used unreliable citations. I do not understand the intent of this section and recognize it may be a worthy sub-section to have (perhaps with a different title). Hence it's here to give it a chance. To keep comments from getting confused with the moved article, I have taken out all the formatting and put the dotted box around the article text. —WikiLen 23:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ben Eastaugh and Chris Johnson of www.youcreatereality.com, 
counter that "Telling people about the Law of Attraction isn’t 
teaching them wishful thinking. The power to transform the world, 
the power to truly change everything begins within each of us. 
The Mind is the source of transformation. The first step in overcoming 
is always to change the way you think about the problem.

www.youcreatereality.com is a link to a forum and blog. It is Wikipedia policy to not use blogs and forums as sources. —WikiLen 22:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it gets better than that. Ben and I (I'm Chris) are the designers of a WordPress theme that the mentioned website was presumably using at one time. We are not the authors of that quote. Our names are at the bottom of over 15,000 blogs using the theme. I ask anyone seeing us cited as such to remove it. — ceejayoz ^talk 04:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is one of society's favorite quotes: “Give a man a fish; 
you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have 
fed him for a lifetime.” — Author Unknown

"Author unknown", can this be a source? —WikiLen 22:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what the entire process of revealing the Secret is, 
it is to teach people how to see differently. To teach someone 
that they are NOT a victim - to teach them that they alone get to 
choose the life they will experience, that is powerful stuff. 
Much more powerful than handing them a couple twenties and turning away!

Original research. —WikiLen 22:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Kim Mulford of the Courier Post Online interviewed a number of people 
who say The Secret is working for them. [what follows is a quote from 
the article] Byrne makes the concept easy to understand and 
incorporate into one's life," said Leah Rubba-Cameron, a licensed 
clinical social worker and psychotherapist with a private practice in 
Marlton. She recommends The Secret to her clients and holds workshops 
and group discussions on it.

This is the article: 'The Secret' is out. The Courier Post is a local South Jersey paper. I don't think this meets Wikipedia's standards for reliable source. —WikiLen 22:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not just on top of all my contributions to neutrality but are simply adding your opinions and not looking at the facts of wikipedia policies. When I add anything to external links I expect other collaborators to read the sources and use them as part of the article. I personally do not agree with having links to Bob Proctor's secret program, I'm not an affiliate of his, and am not employed by him. You are going to have to live with the fact that all the secret teachers are aggressively promoting their programs. Because of that, I promise to help you delete any link that may lead to his program. However, please watch both segments of feng shui expert Marie Diamond, watch The Secret film in its entirety, and/or read the book. The two segments are about the film The Secret, they discuss dreamboards, the book and dvd, Rhonda Byrne, and the steps to achieve success outlined on The Secret. Aside from your opinion about local media being "inferior" or as you specifically claim have "poor reputation for fact-checking" (very serious claim and generalization there), Marie Diamond is an expert who appears on The Secret and is not self published, her publisher is Learning Strategies Corporation, a company certified by the US Department of Higher Education. In addition she is an expert columnist for AOL. Please drop the debate about this link and stop finding excuses to keep wikipedia readers and editors misinformed and biased by the opinions of a minority. About the link 'The Secret' is out. Tell us where in wikipedia it says that this is not a reliable source? Please don't delete without specific proof from the guidelines. ≈ Watchrapid ≈ (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Local news station again. —WikiLen 20:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be at an impass. In essence, you seem to disagree with this:

If you and I had a common friend then we would have an indirect relationship. If we, ourselves, were friends then it would be a direct relationship. Maria Diamond needed to talk about the film itself for it to be a direct relationship to the film. Instead, she talked about a subject matter that the film also happens to talk about — indirect connection.

And what do you say to the Wikipedia Attribution policy:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences...

Not a place for users to experience all TV reports and draw their own conclusions.

As for Maria Diamond as an expert, you may be right, but expert on what? Let's ignore that issue until the other stuff gets straightened out.

P.S.: Glad to hear you will be an ally in keeping spammers off this article. I have watched the film at least half-dozen times — seen both versions. I also watched the Marie Diamond video, but what was the second segment—missed that. In fact, every link added to this site, kept or removed, I have read or watched. Formerly I added links to this article that were in violation of policy and sympathize with your struggle. I encourage you to consider that you are confusing truth with reliability. It was a painful one for me to get and I still don't like it. Whether of not something is true is less important then perhaps both you and I are comfortable with.

—WikiLen 20:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Critics closing remarks" section...

Professional critics of the film and contemporary culture have countered their negative critiques of the film with these closing remarks.

Huh??? Who added this? Are we supposed to list critics' blurbs for all films on Wikipedia now? I can't see any reason for having all these random quotes.Lcduke 02:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I added this. What is amazing is the quotes are not random at all — really! Check out the section above, Talk:The Secret (2006 film)#Critics closing remarks. Regarding your statement,

Are we supposed to list critics' blurbs for all films on Wikipedia now

of course not. This is just being bold in Wikipedia fashion — the modern day equivalent of the Wild west. There is no solid standard as to what is in the "Criticism" section for any article on a film. This is a unique attempt to source to critics without losing the irony they intentionally created—and without doing OR. I make limited claims to having the appropriate solution. I suggest you get involved with how to refactor this. I think you will find it interesting. Please put your next comments in the above mentioned section. —WikiLen 12:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Editorial coverage

See, versions in contention

See review by Klein: Self-help gone nutty

Herbanreleaf, your recent edit put this in the first paragraph of "Editorial coverage":

The editorial also gives voice to the common criticism that the film provides a dubious recipe for material greed, social apathy, and blaming the victim.

citing this review: Self-help gone nutty by Karin Klein. Nowhere in the review do I find anything to support the above statement — Klein just doesn't say that. It appears that you reasoned this from your analysis of the review and other reviews you have read. Wikipedia policy on No origional research states:

Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis.

Also see, Attribution:No original research. I think simply quoting what the review states gets the job done without being "overzealous". Also, citations are need for the claim it is a "common criticism". —WikiLen 05:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[the following is quoted, by Herbanreleaf, from the Klein article —WikiLen 06:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)]

[Material Greed:] Americans are never too jaded for another get-rich-quick chimera. In "The Secret," real and sustained effort is unnecessary, even frowned on. The scheme lays out a "law of attraction" — a strange misreading of quantum physics — that asserts that the universe grants your wishes because you are the "most powerful transmission tower on in the world." Send out "wealth frequencies" with your thoughts and the universe's wealth frequencies will be pulled to you.

I agree that one could deduce from this parargraph that the film taps into "material greed. However, Klein's point is the film serves as a recipe where "sustained effort is unnecessary", not as a "recipe for material greed". —WikiLen 06:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[the following is quoted, by Herbanreleaf, from the Klein article —WikiLen 06:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)]

[Blaming the Victim and Social Apathy:] On the flip side, nothing — nothing — happens to people that isn't brought to them by their own persistent thoughts, and the book strongly implies that this includes those killed in the Holocaust and the World Trade Center. Under this philosophy, why bother contributing to Oxfam or worrying about Darfur? What a guilt-reliever.

I agree that one could deduce from this paragraph that the film could be characterized as having a blame-the-victim positon. However, Klein is impressed with how the film is a "guilt-reliever". This sets the fondation for the point iin the next paragraph: Rhonda Bryne "customized ... [well-worn ideas] for the profoundly lazy". —WikiLen 06:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Which part don't you see?Herbanreleaf 14:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I get it and note you have a possible future as a professional critic! Your obvious intelligence about this suggests you know what I am going to say next... so I won't pain you with an unecessary lecture. Just note I have reverted back to the straight quote. [If you want the lecture, read the intro above the table of contents at this talk page.] —WikiLen 04:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out this article, Oprah's 'Secret' Could Be Your Downfall — a possible source for ideas you express. —WikiLen 04:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiLen, I don't get it. My above comments are direct quotes from the article showing that my characterization was accurate. I'm not sure if you understand that or if you are under the impression that the above statements were my original words. If you do get that those are quotes from the article, then I'm not sure why you eliminated my sentence. Are we not allowed to reduce the statements of the orignal author to the essential points they are making? I get the feeling that there is a lot of ego attached to being right, admittedly on my part, too. But doesn't the democratic nature of Wikipedia suffer if we eliminate another's input just because we want to exert control where it is unwarranted?Herbanreleaf 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Herbanreleaf, I did not realize you were quoting Klein. I suggest you put quotes around—or other wise mark—such things in the future so I and others don't waste our time... thanks. See my newly added comments above. Respectfully, I do not think you understand Klein's points. I find you are confusing what Klein says with what the film says. This, of course, is about what point(s) Klein is making, not the topics Klein's words invoke. —WikiLen 06:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do think there is a case to be made for a section/sub-section on Bryne's packaging of the ideas behind the film. Your edits suggest an interest in that. —WikiLen 06:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And you still need citations if you use the phrase "a common criticism". —WikiLen 06:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiLen, I'm now convinced that you are letting your ego get in the way of seeing the obvious. If you asked Klein, the answer would be of course, it's obvious to a dummy that I am exactly referring to material greed, blaming the victim, and social apathy. Don't you get the sarcasm with which Klein uses the "guilt-reliever" comment? Your refusal to read at all between the lines flies in the face of the purpose and tradition of citation to published sources. I agree that there could, but not should, be a citation for "a common criticism." Those criticisms are common to many of the editorials already cited. Whatever, I am letting go of all this nitpicking; I'm done with contributing to Wikipedia and battling with its control freak editors. Herbanreleaf 17:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If my "control freak" behavior improves the quality of Wikipedia then it is a good thing. The real issue is whether or not we are abiding by the published policies of Wikipedia. I think we have narrowed down our disagreement to two issues:

1. Is it obvious or is it original research to say Klein is talking about "material greed, blaming the victim, and social apathy" in her "guilt-reliever" paragraph?
2. Does the context require that there be citations to back up the phrase "a common criticism".

I will submit this to Wikipedia's informal process for a third opinion. —WikiLen 15:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While you are sitting here nitpicking with an obvious agenda over one sentence, there are whole sections that are utterly ridiculous and absolutely detract from the quality of the article. You could start with the section on rebirthing that has absolutely nothing to do with the film. Next look at the section on closing comments which is inane and adds no value whatsoever. With regard to the nitpicking, why not just remove the word "common" instead of the whole sentence or add the citations yourself, rather than remove someone elses contribution, since you know how to do citations and the sentiments are expressed in many of the editorials already cited as well as the one you sent me. As far as "directly" goes [removed—my mistake WikiLen 21:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)], if you load the question in such a way, you already know what the answer will be. There is nothing direct about it; it's not a quote it is a summary or reduction to the essence. Herbanreleaf 15:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am already involved with the sections you mention above.

• You mention "rebirthing": This is the New Age Criticisms sub-section. See Talk: New Age Criticisms.
• You mention "section on closing comments": This is Other remarks sub-section. I created this. I like to think it has been fixed since you last looked at it. A few others have had issues with it and this has inspired modest improvements. —see Talk: Other remarks
• You mention "add the citations yourself" in regard to "common criticism": Well, I have edited out the sentence that had that phrase. I am planning to put it back in as part of a sub-section on Packaging, in which case I will add the citations myself. See below, Refactoring regarding marketing.

As to "nitpicking" — with hindsight I realize I should have attempted refactoring first. The sentence I deleted would have been refactored into the "Packaging" sub-section, with different citation(s). :) —WikiLen 22:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiLen, your bias grows ever more evident. Look at the slew of people that think your closing remarks section is lame. Yet, you insist on keeping it. Closing remarks are just fluff and don't tend to reflect the article at all. It's just the author's way of signing off with a light-hearted quip. Definitely not noteworthy. It is so evident that you're trying to have this article be a cheerleader for the film, even in the section marked criticism. I like your idea of the marketing section, but not the packaging of ideas part. That belongs in the criticism section. I am biased too. I think that The Secret is the biggest load of crap and anyone who goes for it has no critical faculties whatsoever. The difference between you and me is that I don't bend over backwards to find excuses for censoring ideas that I don't like. Do the right thing and restore my sentence in criticism where it belongs. Take out the word common or add the citations, which you are very well aware of. Ditch the rebirthing section and the ridiculous closing comments section. Herbanreleaf 16:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Herbanreleaf, you don't need to convince me that I am biased — going to the wrong person. Convince the other editors in Wikipedia. I have responsed to the criticism on "Other remarks" by both changing the section and by giving justification for having the section in. No one is complaining about it now. This is getting personal. Let's move it to my talk page — on friendly terms. —Talk WikiLen 21:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion. I came here because of the posting at WP:3O. I have to agree with User:WikiLen, that this attempt to summarize Karin Klein, the LA Times reviewer, is not correct in Wikipedia.

The editorial also gives voice to the common criticism that the film provides a dubious recipe for material greed, social apathy, and blaming the victim.

The phrase 'common criticism' must refer to information outside the review, which is not cited. The phrase 'dubious recipe' is making a value judgment (whose judgment is it?) and is not neutral. The sentence itself appears to violate NPOV, which is why I reached my conclusion without trying to make a thorough study of possible sources. Even the phrase 'gives voice to' is troublesome. We appear to be saying that Karin Klein is speaking for a large group of people somewhere (who exactly?). EdJohnston 16:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Using a new article by Catherine Bennett in the Guardian—as the reliable source—I was able to work in the themes of greed and blaming-the-victim. —WikiLen 11:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Section on allegations about David Schirmer's business practices in "Criticism" removed

[see below]

David Schirmer allegations

Last week Australia's "A Current Affair" ran two stories raising some serious allegations about the honesty of The Secret's "teacher" David Schirmer. Since Schirmer is the "teacher" who appears in the DVD of "The Secret" talking about how "The Law of Attraction" attracted money to him via cheques sent to him in the mail, the way in which he earned those cheques and the allegations of deceit made against him are directly relevant to the "Criticism" section of this article.

This section has been removed, with no explanation.

The moderators of the forum on the website of "The Secret" also tried to censor any discussion of these allegations (on the grounds they contributed to "negative thinking"). Who removed this information about Schirmer from the article and why? (210.23.148.243 00:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

User 210.23.148.243, the section was removed with this edit: 6:33, 1 June 2007 by TimidGuy (Talk | contribs) — determined by using Wikipedia's History feature. When he removed the section he posted the reason (in the edit summary field) as "poorly sourced material that's about the personal life of one of the "teachers" rather than being about the film". I find his reasoning sound and concur with the deletion. This from the Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Citing sources applies: (WikiLen 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

...attribution is required...for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor. [reason for the deletion should be given, of course]

I suggest that an article for David Schirmer as the correct place for this content and that reliable source(s) are needed for the content. I note that as of this date an article needs to be created, which you can do just by clicking on David Schirmer and putting some content in. Incidently, there are administrators (globally for all articles) but no moderators or administrators specifically for this article. This article and its talk page are part of an encyclopedia not a forum—big difference. We are all on equal footing (except for administrators—which I am not—they can block a user.) Adminstrators, except for special situations, do not have more editing authority than others. This talk/discussion page is a place for discussion, and discussion should always be on topic, negative or positive does not matter—politeness does. Articles, however, should always be neutral (NPOV). See box at top of this page for more help. —WikiLen 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the "History" (tab at the top of this page), I find no evidence that anyone "tried to censor any discussion of these allegations". Have you checked the "History" tab to see what has been deleted or changed? I think, as a new user, you were unaware of the distinction between an article page and a discussion (talk) page. The article pages are sacred and can never have discussion on them! However, at the talk page (here), it is OK to have discussions (on topic of course) — for an example, see section above "Evangelical Christian ministries — needs source". —WikiLen 10:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. But I'm puzzled as to how the information was "poorly sourced" when it included (a) a link to the segment on A Current Affair and (b) a link to David Schirmer's response. Anyone wanting to see what ACA claimed and what Schirmer said in reply could go to those links. To my knowledge, there ARE no other sources of information on this controversy. That's it. So how much more "well sourced" could this section be?

The allegations are of direct relevance to "The Secret" since Schirmer is held up by the DVD as being a "teacher" - who are touted at the beginning of the documentary as being among the world's leading "scientists, philosophers and thinkers". Which of these categories Schirmer is supposed to fall into is unclear, but if he is in fact an investment adviser of dubious reputation, that's something people reading about The Secret should know. Especially since he appears on the DVD talking about how "the Universe" sent him cheques in the mail simply because he visualised them. The disgruntled customers on the ACA report potentially shed some light on where those cheques actually come from. And Schirmer's seminars and investment claims are not part of his "private life" - they are his business life and very much in the public domain.

The reasons for the removal of this information are, therefore, all totally invalid.

I did check the Page History section, but couldn't find the reasons given, mentioned in your note above. Given that the people at The Secret HAVE been censoring all mentions of the controversy about Schirmer, I suspected foul play here. If they weren't responsible for this removal, that's fine (assuming that TimidGuy has no axe to grind). But the reasons he gave for removal are invalid and the information, which is of direct relevance to the topic, should be reinstated. If any part of it did not maintain a NPOV then that's something which could be discussed and remedied, but simply removing directly relevant information on one of The Secret's "teachers" is totally inappropriate. - Thiudareiks 21:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No link is provide that verifies the accuracy of the claim regarding Schirmer. —WikiLen 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My contribution didn't say anything about the *accuracy* of the claims, just that the claims had been made and that Schirmer had responded to them.

Fair point, but how do we know what claims have been made... is everyone who reads Wikipedia supposed to accept your word on what the TV show broadcast? —WikiLen 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A link to a Wikipedia article on the show does not quailify — that's what you provided (and it didn't talk about Schirmer anyway). —WikiLen 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously that link was provided for anyone who wanted to know what the program was, not to substantiate the claim.

Wikipedia has a policy of not trusting the word of editors—that is you and me. I am sure you understand why. What we need is a source that is regarded as reliable that we can quote and reference. Since this is a living person there is also a legal compulsion to do so. Jimbo Wales stated, (WikiLen 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{Fact}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page.

And this policy: (WikiLen 05:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.

As well as this on living persons: (WikiLen 05:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it's about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page.

Unless you can get a link to a transcript of the show (a video that violates the show's copyright would not do) we cannot put this material in Wikipedia. —WikiLen 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is a transcript more acceptable than video of the segment? They contain exactly the same material. And the video is hosted on ACA's own website and so, in this case, does not violate copyright - they have made it public domain material.

As far as I know either is acceptable. I was only addressing the copyright issue and not expecting there to be a legit published video. —WikiLen 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If the accusations are true, print media will pick up the story and write articles on it — so just wait. That is step (1.). That would get the information into an article on Schirmer. —WikiLen 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And if the print media can't be bothered to follow up this story, the story doesn't exist as far as Wikipedia is concerned? Why? And why is the print media the touchstone of reliability? Not that the *accuracy* of the story was ever mentioned in my contribution anyway.

I distracted you with this print media stuff — sorry, can be any published media. I just know from experience, that there are usually many more sources published in print (text) as compared to video and text is much easier to search. Pretty hard to search all videos for a specific word. And yes, if no reliable source can be bothered to publish anything on this story (in any media), then "the story doesn't exist [yet] as far as Wikipedia is concerned". —WikiLen 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Step (2.): We must find reliable sources that connect the Schirmer controversy to the film. If no one makes a connection then we can't put anything about the controversy into The Secret (2006 film) article, no matter how true it is. —WikiLen 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The relevance is blindingly obvious. Schirmer assures the viewers of "The Secret" DVD that cheques began appearing in the mail because he visualised them. His unhappy customers tell a very different story as to why they *sent* him those cheques. Schirmer is touted as one of the DVD's "leading scientists, philosophers and thinkers". His unhappy customers say he's a shyster who has broken promises to them regarding large sums of money. Pretty damn relevant.

I expect every reporter is going to connect it to the film (if the allegations are valid), just as you did above, so it may prove to be a non-issue when the time comes. —WikiLen 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Investigative reporting is not something we editors can do. That is just how Wikipedia is set up (it evolved through trial and error into using this approach) — what makes Wikipedia such a great encyclopedia, in my opinion. There are other wiki's that do allow original research. —WikiLen 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet a *transcript* of the segment would be okay? Why? And what is the problem with reporting the FACT that one of the DVD's "teachers" has been accused of dubious dealings and has responded. This is not an opinion, it's a real world fact.

The fact needs to be in the published world not the "real world". There are good reasons of efficiency for only using the "published world". —WikiLen 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems highly specious and contrived. - Thiudareiks 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably is... doing my best. Here is the official policy: no original research. Read it and forget what I have said. This policy is what all the editors go by. I was just trying to help you get on board. This statement, below, from the Wikipedia:Attribution policy, brings to the fore what all new editors must find a way to accept: (WikiLen 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true.

P.S.: Let's shorten the title of this section to, "David Schirmer allegations". Such a long title, as we currently have, makes the History page more difficult to browse. —WikiLen 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To summarise and answer your points above, therefore:

For the record, these links were just found to support Thiudareiks claim: (WikiLen 21:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

• The Secret's David Schirmer exposed — a video that can only be viewed on a Windows platform.
• The Secret Con — a video that can only be viewed on a Windows platform.

1. "Fair point, but how do we know what claims have been made?" - By watching the segement, which the broadcaster has made public domain material and for which I provided a link.

But you provided no link for watching it. —WikiLen 21:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

2. "I was only addressing the copyright issue and not expecting there to be a legit published video." - Now you know there is one, the copyright issue is invalid. As I answered above, we know what claims were made because the broadcaster made them publicly available. As did Schirmer when he posted his response on YouTube. My Wiki contribution simply said (i) there were allegations and (ii) Schirmer responded. These are facts and the *public domain material* I linked to substantiated what I said. So where is the problem?

Agreed no copyright issue. Again, you need to provide the specific link to the "A Current Affair" page with the video to establish this fact. —WikiLen 21:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

3. "if no reliable source can be bothered to publish anything on this story (in any media), then "the story doesn't exist [yet] as far as Wikipedia is concerned"." - One of the highest rating current affairs programs in Australia *has* published its claims in the public domain. And Schirmer published his response. I linked to both. So it "exists" as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

I see no link to an "A Current Affair" video in the edit you did: 18:37, 31 May 2007. —WikiLen 21:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

4. "I expect every reporter is going to connect it to the film (if the allegations are valid), just as you did above, so it may prove to be a non-issue when the time comes." - The time has already come. Both ACA and Schirmer made that link, so the "relevance" to The Secret is not even vaguely close to being at issue.

Agreed. —WikiLen 21:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

5. "The fact needs to be in the published world not the "real world"." - Again, it IS in the "published" world - both ACA and Schirmer publically published the allegations and the response. I linked to both. Where is the problem with this?

I see no link to an ACA video in the edit you did: 18:37, 31 May 2007. —WikiLen 21:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So far you've said nothing that justifies the removal of what I wrote. My contribution should be reinstated. - Thiudareiks 09:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no formal "reinstating" process — just put it back in yourself (with improvements). I will support you, making any needed improvements to keep it in. However, there was justification for deleting your original edit. I know this is sounding like a broken record, but you provided no link to the "A Current Affair" video to back up your claims and without the link your contribution was insufficiently sourced. You were told this right from the start: "poorly sourced material" was in the Edit Summary. Also stated as a reason for deletion: "about the personal life of one of the 'teachers' rather than being about the film" — correct point but a non-issue since fixing that is trivial. —WikiLen 21:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

When you put this back in I suggest putting it in a new main section titled, "Significant controversies". There is something else I have run across that needs to be there too. —WikiLen 21:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read my related comments at your talk page. (WikiLen 21:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

My contribution has been reinstanted, with some amendments. The lack of a footnote linking to ACA's online video of their segment does seem to have been missing from the original contribution, which seems to have been the source of our confusion. This was probably user error on my part.Thiudareiks 00:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad it is straightened out. I am going to make an article for Schirmer and change the citations you added to "cite video" instead of "cite news" and possibly other very minor fixes. And hey, you are not putting anything into the Edit Summary when you save your edits. In this case just a "see talk" would do. On a more major level, I think the paragraph can be improved to be less about Schirmer and more about editorial comments ACA makes about the film. The second ACA video on this might be useful for this. —WikiLen 01:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Article purpose

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)