Jump to content

Talk:The Secret (2006 film): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
New thought film rather than self-help
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(533 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
== Fred Alan Wolf and LoA ==
{{Article history
I wonder does this have any use in this article? http://thesecret.powerfulintentions.com/forum/thesecret/message-view/2134396
|action1=GAN
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. [[User:DaSilvaArtur|DaSilvaArtur]] 13:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
|action1date=29 July 2007
|action1result=not listed
|action1oldid=147913426
|topic=film
|currentstatus=FGAN
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject Film}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Low}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 4
|algo = old(31d)
|archive = Talk:The Secret (2006 film)/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}


== This article is a typical hit-job... ==
:Very informative. [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
...by the usual left-wing mob. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/146.162.240.241|146.162.240.241]] ([[User talk:146.162.240.241|talk]]) 14:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Is editorial coverage unfocused? ==
Here also is a longer interview of Fred Alan Wolf titled, [http://www.monday9am.tv/archive/intro/14 "something from nothing"]. [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


[[User dircha|Dircha]] in the "Criticism unfocused, conciliatory" section above finds the Criticism section unfocused. I have been somewhat concerned myself about the focus of the "Editorial coverage" section in Criticism. The rest of the Criticism section seems fine to me. As a follow-up '''I am asking editors''' how the "Editorial coverage" reads — does it lack focus?<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Len Raymond|Len Raymond]] ([[User talk:Len Raymond|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Len Raymond|contribs]]) 06:48, 11 June 2007‎ (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
== Description ==
This page has some information about the film, and what "The Law of Attraction" really is (it's just thinking about what you will become or get).
http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-001677.htm
It's like, if you keep saying to yourself and others, all I ever eat is crappy food at Denny's, you'll probably end up eating crappy food at Denny's.


== Request ==
== External links modified ==
Can someone who has seen the film flesh out the Plot some more? Is the film a drama or documentary, or both? --[[User:Feight|Feight]] 00:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:I have seen the film and am willing to add more content as soon as I have the time. I just added an info box. Regarding your question about the genre of the film, thats a problem, Im not quiet sure what category it should fit into, it's more of a self-help style film. [[User:DaSilvaArtur|DaSilvaArtur]] 04:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on [[The Secret (2006 film)]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=699887544 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
:How does it look now? Fleshed out? [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070221030456/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/opinion/la-oe-klein13feb13,0,3953992.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail to http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-klein13feb13,0,3953992.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929170308/http://www.nypost.com/seven/03042007/news/regionalnews/a_secret_oprah_craze_hits_new_yorkers_regionalnews_jill_culora.htm?page=0 to http://www.nypost.com/seven/03042007/news/regionalnews/a_secret_oprah_craze_hits_new_yorkers_regionalnews_jill_culora.htm?page=0


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
This is basically a documentary - just like the ones you see on Discovery Channel. The only reason why this shouldn't have the label "documentary" is, that the science behind it is pseudo science and can't be proven. It's very well produced and contains some small dramatic sequences. Most of the movie is interviews or narrated drama sequences. The plot of the movie can be summed up in one sentence:
''Think about what you want, and you'll get it. Your brain will act like a magnet and retract what you desire''.


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
As a scientist I laughed out loud a few times during the "explanations". It's like Penn and Tellers "bullshit" - only in reverse. But that doesn't make the movie a waste of time. I'm a firm beliver in positive thinking and most of the concepts in "The Secret" are simply Positive Thinking reframed into something else. It contains some very fine advices on life and should not be dismissed due to the factual errors.


Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 01:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not quite get the hype about this film, I have been invited to view this film in a few weeks and I am looking forward to see it. If it is going to help me think positive great, it has been described several times as self help film.
Is this some scary brain washing film? I do not get the feeling that it is. Every one is criticizing the fact that there has been put a lot of effort to bring it to the public, jeha. Any film will buy their specialist that will say it is the greatest. What is the danger? Is this film like CRACK? Addictive? Well if it helps one person not committing suicide it has succeeded. Is this film associated with any religious group/sect? Is this where you are going to lose your money? Or is it wasting Money buying a DVD?
Well, I love the film Pay it forward. I do not know who made it but I bet there was also a great effort in publicizing this one...and I bought it did I waste my money? Well, I think I have wasted more money on Kids DVD's.. DesperateFather@telus.net


== Criticism ==
== External links modified ==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
Isn't this just a libereal-christian attempt at doing a Dan Brown in reverse? The listed scientists and scholars may have all believed in the power of positive attitude, but that is hardly evidence of a clandestine "Secret" society hiding in the shadows preserving the truth. All one has to do it look at any of the Bhuddist writings and you can find the Law of Attraction (perhaps called something else) everywhere. The whole thing is nothing more than a marketing gimmic in Dan Brown style. One would be better off reading the 7-Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey. Granted, the title of the book is a marketing gimic in itself, but at least the content delivers.


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[The Secret (2006 film)]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=705324846 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
----
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090705224817/http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21824989-5005941,00.html?from=public_rss to http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21824989-5005941,00.html?from=public_rss


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
The Secret was referred to as both a "documentary" and a "movie" in the article. First, it is irresponsible to refer to this film as a documentary (unless you consider self-help videos as documentaries too). Second, the article needs to be consistent with its terminology. I've replaced both instances with "film".


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
----


Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 20:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I updated the Secret Teachers section to more accurately reflect the importance of the people listed. The previous version included gems such as "transformational leading world renowned experts" which clearly isn't the case. I was particularly amused that one of the fields listed was "world leadership". This is promotional text, not factual.


==Censored version==
----
The intro refers to a "censored version" of the film, yet the article contains no explanation of what was censored. I put a citation-needed tag, but a bit of detail explaining what was cut and why a censored version got attention would probably suffice. (I have no stake on any controversy related to this production - I'm just pointing out a "plot hole" in the article that renders the use of the word "censored" without explanation a possible [[WP:NPOV]] issue. [[Special:Contributions/136.159.160.8|136.159.160.8]] ([[User talk:136.159.160.8|talk]]) 22:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


== What a heap of gibberish ==
I reverted the article to the version I last created. Too both 84.154.24.51 and Mamurph you cant just remove criticism because you dont like it. Also the editing of the description of the film to influence its credibility as a Film based on facts rather than claims is transparent and silly. [[User:DaSilvaArtur|DaSilvaArtur]] 23:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


If the Law of Attraction is supposed to attract good writing to this article, it's not working. Hopeless mess. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 01:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I dispute the removal of the critcism that the film claims the information in the film was banned by the church. The reason for its deletion that it was false that the movie claimed this, but if you check out the trailer for the film you will cleary see they propose the idea was banned by the church and that elite groups tried to hide it. [[User:DaSilvaArtur|DaSilvaArtur]] 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:I agree your comment is hilarious. I tried to add some tidbits there and there. I do not think it was written by fans though.[[User:Filmman3000|Filmman3000]] ([[User talk:Filmman3000|talk]]) 15:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

----

I don't know where else to comment on this, so I've done so under Criticism.

There is a rather aggressive marketing campaign being run on the Internet about this documentary. This article on Wikipedia seems to be a positive light and is probably being used for promotional purposes. In many of the Wikipedia articles that I believe are more credible, there is always free minded opinion raising questions.

However, in this article I hardly read anything negative about the documentary (which by the way, this documentary uses dramatised scenes as reconstructions of events which remains unproven as having occurred), but I don't think this docu was produced with the intention of public broadcast. The circles that gave me a copy of this disc is self help fanatics, even if they are good people.

Under the section that [[User:DaSilvaArtur|DaSilvaArtur]] has edited; The movie itself may seem to insinuate that Church and State has through the centuries been trying to surpress "the secret". However, I didn't need this movie to tell me about the "Law of Attraction", it's common sense to those of us that live with optimism as a way of life, so even if it was true, I don't think the "Church" succeedded in surpressing it.

Esther Hicks, previously interviewed with husband Jerry on "The Secret", [http://www.drewpictures.com/kb.asp?ID=8 said this]this after the movie failed to air on Australian television, and after many fans bombarded them with emails and messages about their decision to (seemingly) not be involved in the Extended Edition;<blockquote>... Jerry and I were uncomfortable with what felt to us like a rather aggressive marketing campaign (just not our style, nothing wrong with it) ..." - Ester Hicks</blockquote>

It's likely that this is documentary is here to make a buck, and therefore should not be given the credibility of a documentary that featured on Discovery Channel or the like. It's essentially a self-help device, which not everyone is going to be buying into. This being said, I have not found any negative articles on the Internet talking about this documentary, but perhaps not enough people have caught onto it. I will be forwarding it to (at least) Penn & Teller. They've done a documentary about self help mania, and this will fit neatly into that category.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Credibility must be earned, not gleaned by editing information on Wikipedia.

--[[User:ObseloV|ObseloV]] 07:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

----
There are two more points of criticism that could be worked in:
The movie claims that since thoughts are electromagnetic waves, this is how people's wishes propagate into and affect the universe.

The movie claims that quantum physics backs up its claims. This looks like [[quantum mysticism]].

:I don't recall the specifics in the film but sounds plausable. One could add to the page, "The movie offers a cursory explanation on the physics behind the [[Law of Attraction]] suggesting that thoughts are electromagnetic waves, a point-of-view considered [[quantum mysticism]] by the physics establishment." I am not sure this deserves mention. If the film presents it as pure speculation then they can hardly be criticized for have a speculation that falls short but provides food for thought. [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 14:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

== Film description ==
The film description has been changed to "essayistic" from "motivational", I dispute this change as the term "essayistic" is vague at best, and I think "motivational" is better. The "self help" description was also removed, and while I dont dispute that as much, it is quite fitting based on the fact that this movie is based on the "Master Key systems" book which is usualy found in a Self help section of a bookshop. [[User:DaSilvaArtur|DaSilvaArtur]] 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

== Plot ==
I dispute the removal of part of the plot which describes "Law of Attraction", since the film is based on this theory, and the explanation of the theory was taken directly from the movies website, I see no reason for its deletion. [[User:DaSilvaArtur|DaSilvaArtur]] 00:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Somebody please explain what this movie is ACTUALLY about. At least a sentence explaining what the "Law of Attraction" is, or what "The Secret" actually is.

:It's a blatent attempt at conning unsuspecting folks into parting with their hard-earned cash by promoting one of the worst examples of psudo-science non-sequiturs I've ever come across. Total ficticious garbage - don't waste your time (let alone your money) with it. [[User:T h e M a v e r i c k|T h e M a v e r i c k]] 03:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

::They explain it on their video, why 92% of the wealth belongs to 1% of the people. It's because foolishness attracts fools, who are soon parted with 100% of their money, which is transferrerd to that special 1% who know how to attract money. [[User:66.245.192.146|66.245.192.146]] 07:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== Praise ==
I don't think this section is needed, espccially in its current form. I think most people assume a film will recieve praise by alot, but with criticism its not allways the case, also criticism tends to point out the parts it disagrees with, while praise here just goes along the lines of "wow its great." [[User:DaSilvaArtur|DaSilvaArtur]] 14:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
*I removed it because it basically was a copied and pasted list of testimonials from the official web site and forums. [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] [[User talk:Zzyzx11|(Talk)]] 19:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A deeper treatment of how excited many are about the film seems called for, if only to highlight the social impact the film is having and how far that impact goes (maybe not far). This perhaps needs to wait until some creditable organization does an article on the film — giving us a source for material. The section could be titled, "Impact on society". [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 06:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

==The whole secret teachers section reads as advertisement==
I will mark the article with the appropriate tab, and propose not to be removed unless certain style corrections are made. There have been attempts to rectify this article (with citations etc) which always end up being reverted without any justification to the previous style of writing. Right now the matter of conflict seems to be whether this is a movie or a documentary film. In my opinion these statements are against NPOV


*That are featured scientists in the fields of quantum physics, psychology, philosophy, medicine that affirm on the efficiency of the proposed method. Feng Sui, metaphysics and "personal development"(sic) were also misleadingly included among the sciences.
**what is true and is purposefully omitted (and repeatedly deleted when it was mentioned) is that ALL the physicists, doctors and psychologists that contributed to this film are distanced from their peers , have not published in a peer reviewed journal for many years, are closely affiliated to the new age movement and make PROFIT from this either by direct cooperation with a new age organization or/and by buy selling motivational (NOT scientific) books. What these people (especially the physicists) are doing is purposefully evoking the so-called quantum folklore and it's mysterious and improbable connotations to legitimize their positions (most prominent in the sister movie "what the bleep do we know" where the same persons are present again).

::I agree with your assesment about these individuals. Now if we could only get you to publish this critique some place else so that your original research would be outside Wikipedia, then we could present it here, referencing your work. So until then... [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So:
****John Haggelin: physicist. Left superstring theory for i)transcendental meditation ii) yogic flying iii)struggle for ascention to the position of the president of the united states of America (thrice) iv) last study on meditation's effect on crime in Washington, D.C. v)currently holds a position in [http://www.mum.edu Maharishi University of Management]
****Fred Alan Wolf (a.k.a. Dr Quantum (sic)) Away from academic life for at least 19 years [http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page2.htm]. Currently seens present and active lecturer not in physics conventions but in new age / spiritual events. Contributed to the similarly themed "what the bleep do we know" and cabala seminars. "Please attend my self-help seminars on love & management [http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page4.htm] or buy some of my book on the same subjects [http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page3.htm]"
Other say that are various things but the just sell motivational material and/or spiritual services. For instance
****Bob Proctor is styled as a philosopher, but he holds no major or minor in philosophy. He also sells promises for succesful life ("Quantum Leap your life"-quote from his site. Quanta are really a recurring theme in this type of business I assume) [http://www.bobproctor.com/default.htm Here is his site]
****Neale Donald Walsch is another new age, spiritual medium.
****Joe Vitalie is styled as possessor of a master and a doctoral degree in metaphysics (eat this Vienna Circle! we are science! we said SCIENCE!). In his professional and revered academic life is also addressed as Mr. Fire and ,surprise!, has a "Miracles Coaching Program" just for you. You can obtain The Power of Outrageous Marketing [http://www.mrfire.com/ here]
****Esther Hicks, of "Abrahamic group" is also another spirit channeler and motivational speaker.

and the list goes on like this. I cannot find not one person that speaks objectively without personal interest and without promoting himself and his business. Yet in the article all these people are implied to be independent experts on their fields that are jointly revealing an objective truth.

::Address, in a general sense, with re-work of the Plot section into a Synopsis. See, "interviews of leading professionals in the business of promoting..." [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

*The second objection is the lengthy list of significant people "Past Secret Teachers" section] that are described by the authors as advocates of the "law of attraction" . They utilize a subliminal ad hominem validation of their views by attaching them to important historical personalities in their movie, and wikipedia is used to carry as well that message. (Instead of the list I propose the phrase "several historical personalities are described in the movie as using the said method" without further development of the subject

::Addressed with the sentences, "The film does not explicitly claim..." and "Rather, the film implicitly presents". [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

*And lastly, as is apparent from the above, a criticism section where the commercial affiliations of the persons presented and the possible advertising motives of the movie is wholly justified.

::Agreed, but too weak an argument for the "advertising" flag. A criticism section is needed but it is too early in the life of the film for that. We need criticism outside of here that we can refer too. [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that this whole thing is a little bit tl;dr. However, in case you disagree with me, please respect my effort and answer to my points before removing the advertisement tag.[[User:87.203.114.231|87.203.114.231]]

:You may be mixing issues of normal verses extreme lack of NPOV. I don't think all your NPOV issues need to be answered before the advertising flag gets removed. That teacher's participation in the film may be motivated by advertising and marketing interests, as well as by service to truth, should get mentioned here, but for Wikipedia to present a broad expose of those relationships would be beyond the scope of Wikipedia — i.e.: would be presenting original research—investigative reporting—in Wikipedia. Tip: Posting while logged in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account%3F has advantages :) ]. [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 03:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing the advertisement tag — concerns addressed. [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

== Secret Teachers intro section ==

I am reverting the edits by Mac Davis back to what I wrote. Although I find Mac's edits both correct and honest (and perhaps a bit angry), I have these two problems with them:

:1) The edits leave zero positive elements in this intro—way too negative to be NPOV.

:2) The edits shows no sympathy for the many people that get great value out of the film and are not bothered by the tricks it plays.

I worked to have room for everyone to see what they see. i.e.: someone like Mac would see, "yea, the producer and director are playing tricks" and conversely one enthralled with the film would see, "yea, this film really hits it home". What I am determined to avoid is bland statements that mean nothing to the reader or conversely one-side statements that are only meaningful to half the readers. [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 08:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Note, I did tone down the last sentence in the intro, to say, "skillfully raising in the hearts", a less positive phrase than, "smoothly and powerfully raising this personal question in the hearts...". I am somewhat troubled by the toning-down—too "milk-toast" for my stomach. I am revising it again to: "It fearlessly stays on message, smoothly and powerfully (shrewdly some suggest) raising this question in the heart of the viewer...". This film is anything but milk-toast and this article ought to reflect that. [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 19:31, 16 December 2006 (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.) [[User:WikiLen|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 [[WP:NOR|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. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 02:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

== Is the film a documentary? ==

I refer to this edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Secret_%28film%29&diff=95876978&oldid=95671094 diff]. I suggest, for a short form, just label it a "film" not "film/documentary". For a longer description label it "self-help film using the documentary format". [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 04:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I started looking at this question a while back when I noted a user, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.169.138.26 76.169.138.26] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.169.138.26 (Talk)] (warned about spamming), a user who seemed dedicated to getting "documentary" put into this article (later, I too put in a spam warning).
So I looked up the [http://www.answers.com/documentary&r=67 definition for "documentary":]

:"Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film."

I find no source other than those with a financial interest that claim the movie is "presenting facts objectively" and is not "editorializing". How creditable sources have labeled ''The Secret'':
* The magazine ''LA Yoga'', [http://www.layogamagazine.com/issue31/departments/belinoff.htm in a review,] calls it a "self help" film.
* Barns & Noble lists the book version on its [http://browse.barnesandnoble.com/browse/nav.asp?bncatid=914196&visgrp=nonfiction&z=y Self-Improvement list.]
* Borders tags the book version as, [http://www.bordersstores.com/search/title_detail.jsp?id=56351564&srchTerms=Rhonda+Byrne&mediaType=1&srchType=Author Metaphysical > Metaphysical St > General Metaphysical]

Calling the film a documentary looks to be an invention for the film's marketing campaign—to increase it creditability. Of note: the claim of "documentary" is made on virtually all the sites that sell the DVD. In lieu of this we should avoid using the unqualified label "documentary" unless we can find a creditable outside source that so identifies it. [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 04:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
:Well argued., WikiLen. Let's describe it as a movie or film. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 04:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

== Rhonda Byrne's claim ==

I am reverting & revising this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Secret_%28film%29&diff=95878075&oldid=95877942 diff] to reflect what is explicily spoken by Rhonda Byrne in the film. Reverted, this bit will read:

:"The film also includes quotes by historical figures with Rhonda Byrne, the producer, stating in a voice-over in the film, 'I can't believe all the people who knew this, they were the greatest people in history'."

by [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 04:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

== Principle verses Concept ==

I refer to this edit, [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Secret_%28film%29&diff=95877268&oldid=95876978 diff.] The film labels the "Law of attraction" as a principle. Looking up the [http://www.answers.com/principle&r=67 definition for "principle"] I find,
:"A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes: ''the principle of jet propulsion.''"
And the [http://www.answers.com/concept&r=67 definition for "concept":]
:A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion.
Both could be applied to describe the Law of attraction however, "principle" seems to be a subset of "concept." So therefore more specific. Also, it is the term the film uses. Furthermore, I find no sources that say or suggest the "Law of attraction" should be called something other than a "principle". In the absence of a reason to use "concept" I am going to revert back to "principle." Your thoughts... [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 04:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

== External links revisited ==

I am troubled by the deletion of links that provide the source material upon which Rhonda Byrne based "The Secret". I am refering to these edits:
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Secret_%28film%29&diff=95878793&oldid=95878702 diff] — The Master Key System — Ms. Byrne is vague on the film's connection to this.
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Secret_%28film%29&diff=95878421&oldid=95878335 diff] — The Science of Getting Rich — She clearly states this is the source of her inspiration for the film.
It strikes me that these belong in the article for it to fulfill its encyclopedic mission. They, of course, need to be as free of Spam as possible and perhaps belong in their own section, such as "Inspiration behind the film" or "Books referenced by the film." The copyrights on both these books have expired, so they are in the public domain and can be downloaded as PDFs. I know Wikipedia has articles for both these books and also, this article has links to these other articles. At the least, I think we should provide a reference to the PDF when this article mentions one of these books. [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 05:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

== Where's the hype? ==

I am refering to this edit, [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Secret_%28film%29&diff=95876978&oldid=95671094 diff.] — I probably put the quotes in the wrong place.

The film and the associated marketing campaign have incredible hype associated with them. The hype is an intimate part of the film and lacking any independent analysis of it, all I can do is quote it. The above edit took some excellent examples out.
:":...experience ''The Secret'' ... the leading edge both in terms of technology and in pursuit of your life's dreams and desires."
And:
:"For the first time, all the pieces of ''The Secret'' come together in an incredible revelation which will be life transforming for all who experience it."
I am looking at putting one or both back in, at the "Marketing campaign" section. Give me advice or just go for it yourself... [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 06:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


I think that we need to add a section about reviews, and include some third party info about the subject, as 99% of the article is now based on the film itself, or their producers, and that makes the article not neutral. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 22:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

:I agree. I think it puts weight onto the negative side. It is all too easy to show contradictions (negatives) quoting what producers/film and such say, but positive elements (and there are many) look promotional when the source is not a third-party.
:I have also been thinking of making a subpage listing material others could be looking for. I suspect over time to see stuff on topics such as:
:* Theories/principles competing with the "Law of Attraction"
:* Praise (or some such title; the opposite of criticism) — how people celebrate the film
:* Packaging — reports on the hype, tricks, spin...
:Maybe this bullet list, above, will serve that purpose — but not if it gets moved to an archive (which a subpage avoids). [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 22:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


:I watched the movie, and it seems to be to be more of an [[infomercial]] than a film. I am not so sure what are the implications for this article, as infomercials are not really encyclopedic. On the other hand, it seems that the phenomenon ''is'' notable enough to have an article about it, in which case we ought to research third party sources that describe the phenomenon and considerably reduce the use of primary sources in the article. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 22:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

::I find the phenomenon ''is'' notable and also think it belongs as an article, pursuing third-party sources as you mention above. I think it a stretch to call it an infomercial. The film, by itself, pretty much follows the classic format for an inspirational self-help product. Just does it better than anyone else has to-date. Other people, however, are making money off the film, such as coaches that appear in the film, but never in the film does it say, see so-and-so coach for more help. The website/film combination is another story, but this article is not about that — or should it be too? Maybe some third-party will tie the two together under one rubric. [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 23:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, indeed. But probably it is too early, as I have not seen any reputable source that refers to this product/film. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 23:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

== Edits by Buddha379 ==

Buddha379, please become familiar with our content policies. In particular pay attention to the policies of [[WP:NOR|no original research]] and [[WP:V|verifiability]], so that your editing efforts are not reverted. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

== History section? ==

This paragraph, below, was removed from the article as original research—historical analysis with no reputable or reliable sources cited for it's conclusions.
:The [[Law of Attraction]] is not a new concept. Self Help and New Age authors began referring to the Law of Attraction in the 1970s and earlier. Books like "Creative Visualization" by Shatiki Gawain <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3ABooksources&isbn=1577312295 ''Creative Visualization'']</ref> talked about the Law of Attraction long before it became "The Secret." Esther Hicks who appeared in the first release of the DVD, talked about this idea in the early 1980s in a series of audio tapes created by her and her husband, Jerry Hicks. However, the idea goes back even further, showing up in major religious philosophies, like [[Buddhism]]. In the Dhammapada, the [[Buddha]] says: "all that we are is the result of our thoughts," a quote used by the film to illustrate the timelessness of its ideas.<ref>[http://www.becomealpha.com/article.php?get=the-secret-revealed ''The Secret Revealed'']</ref>
When reputable/reliable sources are found for the conclusions, I am not sure where this would belong. It may be in:
* A "History" section for this article
* A "Packaging Hyperbole" section for this article
* A "Law of attraction" section for this article
* In the Wikipedia article for [[Law of attraction]]
* In criticism
* In Synopsis
comments by [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 06:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the original poster of this paragraph seems to have just copied whole sentences from the text of a copyrighted review at the site, [http://www.becomealpha.com/article.php?get=the-secret-revealed Become Alpa.] and unfortunately, although I liked the review, I don't think it qualifies as a reputable or reliable source. [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 06:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
:That in itself is a basis for deletion. See [[WP:C]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 11:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

== Link to film at Google Video ==

The link—at the [[The_Secret_(film)#References|References]] section—to a free version of the full film no longer works as of this version, [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Secret_%28film%29&oldid=97089732 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 [http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=The+Secret+Chapter 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. [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 06:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

;''User 76.169.138.26's behavior is interesting:''
* The user made 10 attempts—[[url redirection#Logging_outgoing_links|is this why]]—to use a [[url redirection|redirect]] page; see [[User_talk:76.169.138.26#Attempts_to_use_a_redirect_page|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) [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Secret_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=95404237 18:24, 19 December 2006 diff]
: (2) [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Secret_%28film%29&diff=98238134&oldid=97089732 17:27, 3 January 2007 diff]
: (3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Secret_%28film%29&diff=98583106&oldid=98297225 23:59, 4 January 2007 diff]
: (4) [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Secret_%28film%29&diff=98816468&oldid=98585869 00:35, 6 January 2007 diff]
: (5) [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Secret_%28film%29&diff=98840282&oldid=98821488 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.'' [[User:WikiLen|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). [[User:WikiLen|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]]? — [[User:WikiLen|WikiLen]] 06:34, 5 January 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. [[User:Dblomgren|DBlomgren]] 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:41, 8 October 2024

Former good article nomineeThe Secret (2006 film) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 29, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

This article is a typical hit-job...

[edit]

...by the usual left-wing mob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.162.240.241 (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is editorial coverage unfocused?

[edit]

Dircha in the "Criticism unfocused, conciliatory" section above finds the Criticism section unfocused. I have been somewhat concerned myself about the focus of the "Editorial coverage" section in Criticism. The rest of the Criticism section seems fine to me. As a follow-up I am asking editors how the "Editorial coverage" reads — does it lack focus?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Len Raymond (talk • contribs) 06:48, 11 June 2007‎ (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Secret (2006 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Secret (2006 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Censored version

[edit]

The intro refers to a "censored version" of the film, yet the article contains no explanation of what was censored. I put a citation-needed tag, but a bit of detail explaining what was cut and why a censored version got attention would probably suffice. (I have no stake on any controversy related to this production - I'm just pointing out a "plot hole" in the article that renders the use of the word "censored" without explanation a possible WP:NPOV issue. 136.159.160.8 (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a heap of gibberish

[edit]

If the Law of Attraction is supposed to attract good writing to this article, it's not working. Hopeless mess. EEng 01:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree your comment is hilarious. I tried to add some tidbits there and there. I do not think it was written by fans though.Filmman3000 (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Secret_(2006_film)&oldid=1250084744"