Talk:Law of attraction (New Thought)/Archive 3

This article opens with a point of view
This article opens with a point of view: ‘Warning - PseudoScience!’. tut tut tut. Should we begin the articles on religion with: ‘Warning - its all false!’? Why is it that certain individuals find it so difficult to give an unbiased objective account of such things? By the way, a citation is need for : ‘Warning - PseudoScience!’ I also note that the ‘The Montreal Gazette’ is used as a source for criticism. Is that justifiable? Perhaps we could use Marvel/DC comics as citation sources? No, I think not. Sources used should have some credibility and be recognised by the appropriate scientific community. In this case it would be the Psychology establishment or some published author within the appropriate field, not some freelance journalist writing a review in the Montreal Gazette. This encyclopaedia is supposed to be NOP. The FACT is the Law of attraction is a concept within a movement called New Thought. It should be elucidated and explained as such. Nothing more, nothing less. Any notable criticisms made by individuals who are recognised in the field may be placed in the relevant section.

For purposes of understanding the concept better, I'm going to add several references made from as far back in history as reference to the term can be found (1870. If anyone has suggestions on how better to format, I appreciate your help.  I am relatively new to the Wikipedia system and primarily just want to provide a depth of information that supports enhanced understanding.--Ahnalira (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I just made a a contribution that was removed. I responded to the feedback to summarize referenced quote and make the contribution smaller. It was removed again. The references were published and the material was written to specifications on Wikipedia on how contribute. Why was it removed?--Ahnalira (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your contribution wasn't removed, I changed the wording some what and moved it into the history section where it belongs. One paragraph was removed that had substantial problems. That paragraph is not sitting at the bottom of this page along with the reasons it was removed. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to right area to respond, Tmtoulous. You will find my response to the paragraph removal there. As well, I question moving the information into History. The intent was to clarify the definition, and to use the references to build an understanding of how the term is currently used. It was not an historical edit - rather a clarification of definition edit to my way of thinking. I am open to placing it elsewhere as long it fits with the intention of the contribution. I am planning to write something for the History as well, but this wasn't "that".--Ahnalira (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Saying that the law of attraction is pseudoscience is not a POV. It's just fact.  It claims to be scientific, and claims to have basis in science, but provides absolutely no evidence, just a bunch of technical sounding nonsense.  There are literally dozens of scientific sources that would corroborate that viewpoint.  Should we pretend that there is no criticism of all other pseudo scientific nonsense, like homeopathy?  Maybe we should present a headline on the flat earth theory that provides no criticism of the theory, because after all, that would violate peoples precious pseudo scientific beliefs.  74.227.63.107 (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This article reads clearly as though it were written by a severe skeptic of the idea. Is that what wikipedia is about. Then nonsense statements about people being led to be victims is absurdly one sided. There should be data discussed on both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.49.251.72 (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading through the entire article again it is amazing to me that the article is allowed in the state it is. It is very unprofessionally attacking the idea of the law of attraction. Wiki should be describing the idea and its history and giving both critique and support arguments or references to them. The only arguments for are just saying that such and such book made the bestseller list. And the only books mentioned are The Secret and The Hicks' books when there are thousands of books on the topic. How there can be an article about this topic and not mention Louise Hay is another clue that no basic background research was done before the writing of the article. And completely dismissing quantum physics as an explanation nonchalantly is ridiculous. What about Penrose's work on Orch OR or Wheeler's work on the quantum conciousness? This particular article is as poorly written as the global warming one and is clearly written from one point of view with a particular agenda to convince others that any different point of view is incorrect.

Wikipedia MUST do better than this.

Regards, Dr. Travis S. Taylor, Scientist, Engineer, & Author! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.49.251.72 (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Added in Hay for you. I do agree it's worth mentioning quantum mind theories in the context of this article, I'll see if there's a place fr that. Mind you, the quantum mind concept is not generally accepted in the scientific field either. The tone of this article is bound to be sceptical as there is no solid evidence for this theory what so ever and it defies common sense.BabyNuke (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, in this article, we have both evidence for and evidence against. The thing is, that there is a hell of a lot of evidence against, and the only evidence for is that "The Secret" made the best seller list.  We could remove the evidence against to make it more balanced, but it would be a false balance.74.227.63.107 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC).

Removed paragraph
I have removed the following paragraph from the article:

"More recently, the Law of Attraction is discussed in both concept and working principles in many teaching venues. Phrases like "birds of a feather flock to together" and "the essence of that which is like unto itself is drawn" give metaphoric analogy and clarification to the meaning of the principle.  In current teachings, the Law of Attraction is the foundation for understanding the principles for creating a fulfilling life.  In the book, Law of Attraction by Esther and Jerry Hicks, it states: "You see it evidenced when you wake up feeling unhappy, and throughout the day, things get worse and worse, and at the end of the day you say, “I should not have gotten out of bed.” You see Law of Attraction evidenced in your society when you see that the one who speaks most of illness has illness; when you see that the one who speaks most of prosperity has prosperity… You see Law of Attraction evident when you set you radio dial on 630AM and expect to receive the broadcast from the transmitting tower of 630AM because you understand that the radio signals between the transmitting tower and your receiver must match. As you begin to understand, or better stated, as you begin to remember this powerful Law of Attraction, the evidence of it, which surrounds you, will be easily apparent, for you will begin to recognize the exact correlation between what you have been thinking about and what is actually coming into your experience. "

There are several problems with this. First it seems to be original research since it is taking multiple ideas and synthesizing them into a new concept that is not sourced to an appropriate reliable source. The other problem is that the quote from Hicks I am not sure is important or needed and would seem to violate undue weight clauses. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

First question: Who determines "undue weight"? What are you saying is the more popular viewpoint that isn't given proportional presence? First Issue: This is an idea discussed and developed over a century. The third reference, The Law of Attraction, is on the New York Times Best Seller's list as a reference to the concept. How is that considered original research? Second Issue: You say the Hicks material doesn't seem important or necessary. I say, "The logic of the references follows a pattern of deductive reasoning with the Hick's quote establishing concrete examples for the previous references. Here is the contribution I made in full: - The concept is discussed as early as 1902 in the explanation of how physical mass grows from the formation of a nucleus: "“All branches of   - physical science demonstrate the fact that every completed manifestation, of   - whatever kind and on whatever scale, is started by the establishment of a   - nucleus, infinitely small but endowed with an unquenchable energy of attraction, - causing it to steadily increase in power and definiteness of purpose, until the - process of growth is completed and the matured form stands out as an  - accomplished fact."    -    - Judge Thomas Troward goes on to deduct that something must precede the physical nucleus and extrapolates it is - by logic - thought that precedes the physical form. He says, "we are, therefore, not only making a logical - deduction from certain unavoidable intuitions of the human mind, but are also - following on the lines of the most advanced physical science, when we say that - the action of Mind plants that nucleus which, if allowed to grow undisturbed, will - eventually attract to itself all the conditions necessary for its manifestation in  - outward visible form. -   - More recently, the Law of Attraction is discussed in both concept and working principles in many teaching venues. Phrases like "birds of a feather flock to together" and "the essence of that which is like unto itself is drawn" give metaphoric analogy and clarification to the meaning of the principle. In current teachings, the Law of Attraction is the foundation for understanding the principles for creating a fulfilling life. In the book, Law of Attraction by Esther and Jerry Hicks, it states: "You see it evidenced when you wake up feeling unhappy, and throughout the  - day, things get worse and worse, and at the end of the day you say, “I should not have   - gotten out of bed.” You see Law of Attraction evidenced in your society when you see   - that the one who speaks most of illness has illness; when you see that the one who   - speaks most of prosperity has prosperity… You see Law of Attraction evident when you   - set you radio dial on 630AM and expect to receive the broadcast from the transmitting   - tower of 630AM because you understand that the radio signals between the transmitting   - tower and your receiver must match. As you begin to understand, or better stated, as you   - begin to remember this powerful Law of Attraction, the evidence of it, which surrounds   - you, will be easily apparent, for you will begin to recognize the exact correlation between - what you have been thinking about and what is actually coming into your experience. --Ahnalira (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The goal of this article is not to provide a logical/deductive argument for the law of attraction, but rather summarize what the concept is and the various views about it. Undue weight comes from the fact that I am not convinced that what Esther Hicks has to say about the law of attraction deserves more 20 percent of the article space. The original research comes in because you start tossing around cliches and try and synthesize those into the law of attraction with out a source. Can you summarize the paragraph in question in a couple of sentences? Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarification, how do we resolve an situation where we have divergent perspectives? When you say you are not convinced, are you saying that I am required to convince you before I can contribute what I believe is accurate and relevant?--Ahnalira (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Per your request, I shortened the paragraph by several sentences and, to what I believe, is the most concise possible quote that makes sense.--Ahnalira (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We resolve them through discussion and consensus building between editors actively watching and participating on the article. At the moment that is you and me. The best thing to do at this point is to not add anything to the article until we have arrived at a consensus on what that should be. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the deal, there is no way a paragraph long quote from Esther Hicks is appropriate for the lead of this article. Try summarizing what they are saying without using a direct quote first of all. And why are we including this material at all? What is the point your trying to make using the Hicks material? Please talk about it on this page before adding it to the article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Since neither of us is the final word, I'd like to suggest we come to agreement regarding what will stay up until other editors have a chance to weigh in. I've responded to all of your editing requests, and I think it is equitable to keep the most recent contribution I made in place until a further discussion can bring a consensus. I don't think it is equitable for you to overwrite the contributions I make and then tell me to leave it alone, given that we are of equal stature as contributors/editors.--Ahnalira (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We are on equal stature as contributors yes, but this is not a battle merely of opinion, we are dealing with established wikipedia policy. Your contributions violate wp:undue, wp:npov, it violates manual of style guidelines, it is non-encyclopedic and tone and your use of Esther Hicks material is likely a violation of wp:coi. Therefore your edits are not acceptable and need to be removed. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've read the rules you cite, and I believe the contribution is within the established policies of Wikipedia. Since you are unwilling to consider finding a resolution that includes my perspective as an editor - and since there are only two of us involved in this disagreement - I made a dispute submission. If I discover in the next 24 hours that your position is supported by someone with an objective viewpoint, I will reconsider the submission. Otherwise, I'll replace the contribution in its most recent structure and request that you respect the process. Thanks for this lively opportunity to exercise my mind.--Ahnalira (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In rereading your points, TMToulouse, I see I haven't responded fully to your questions as to why I included materials written by Esther and Jerry Hicks. I'll elucidate: Besides the fact that the book, Law of Attraction, is well-known and respected on the subject as evidenced by the lenght of time it was on the New York Times Bestsellers list, the term "law of attraction" can be cited in the Hicks' writings and teachings since 1988. The twenty years of educational material by the Hicks on the topic of the term, law of attraction, gives credibility to the use of this book as a citation for defining the point of view of Law of Attraction.

I see you also take issue with how much is written from the perspective that law of attraction is a valid concept, citing undue weight. During this discussion, I've asked for more information on what the majority perspective is that has more weight and how to determine an accurate ratio. So far, the only response you've given me is that your opinion has more value than mine on this topic. I would like to see verifiable indicators that support your assessment. From my perspective, while the concept has had minority support over the last century, in the past 10 years it is a growing phenomonen as evidenced by the number of books, DVDs, and self-help organizations relying on the concept, law of attraction, as the foundation of their teachings. Because of the expansion of awareness of the use of the term, law of attraction, it's weight - by definition - is shifting and deserves representation.

As far as neutral point of view goes, we have to acknowledge that every editor has a point of view/perspective that is weighted somehow. Just as you are forthcoming as skeptic, I am forthcoming as a believer. So, then, it has to be the material itself that is assessed for neutrality - not the editor - and there has to be room within the article to allow for all contributing perspectives. By using referenced citation for statements and responding to all of your suggestions to eliminate any phrase that wasn't referenced, I believe I am maintaining the standard of neutrality and collaborative effort as described in the Wikipedia policies--Ahnalira (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
We should be dispassionately reporting what is said in the body of reliable sources about a topic. In doing so, everything should be presented according to how prominent it is in the sources. We should not insert our own line of reasoning, nor should we include every tangentially related fact. The introduction to the article should not be bogged down with quotes or similarly detailed material. It should simply be a broad and brief overview of the topic, generally serving the purposes of introducing the concept and summarizing the article. Short version: I believe Tmtoulouse has a legitimate objection to the additions in the intro.

The article as whole suffers from problems with original research, coatracking and poor sources. Reviewing the first few paragraphs of the article body as an example: The concerns raised by Tmtoulouse, and similar issues, can be found throughout the article. I would strongly recommend a major cleanup and a rewrite involving a much better class of sources, with much less editorial slant. Vassyana (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Courier Journal is not exactly a great source for our purposes here. Local dailies aren't really very suitable or reliable for reporting trends in theology and religious history.
 * A 121 year old primary text on Theosophy is not a good source for claiming the same concept appears in theosophical texts. Historical and primary texts should be used to complement claims made in modern reliable sources, not to establish claims (as our purpose is to represent the current state of knowledge and research without presenting our own interpretations). Whether or not this fact is noteworthy, represents a prominent fact or so on, can only be answered by reviewing modern references. There are also concerns about editors including their deductions and interpretations to derive a claim or present a view when using such sources.
 * Citing Blavatsky's Isis Unveiled has similar issues to the above. Additionally, this appears to just be throwing together claims about the phrase being used. The claims that follow, sourced to a late 19th century newspaper, has similar issues.
 * The following claims about similar ideas run afoul of involving both editorial interpretation and coatracking.


 * While you were writing, I was adding this:
 * In rereading your points, TMToulouse, I see I haven't responded fully to your questions as to why I included materials written by Esther and Jerry Hicks. I'll elucidate: Besides the fact that the book, Law of Attraction, is well-known and respected on the subject as evidenced by the lenght of time it was on the New York Times Bestsellers list, the term "law of attraction" can be cited in the Hicks' writings and teachings since 1988. The twenty years of educational material by the Hicks on the topic of the term, law of attraction, gives credibility to the use of this book as a citation for defining the point of view of Law of Attraction.


 * I see you also take issue with how much is written from the perspective that law of attraction is a valid concept, citing undue weight. During this discussion, I've asked for more information on what the majority perspective is that has more weight and how to determine an accurate ratio. So far, the only response you've given me is that your opinion has more value than mine on this topic. I would like to see verifiable indicators that support your assessment. From my perspective, while the concept has had minority support over the last century, in the past 10 years it is a growing phenomonen as evidenced by the number of books, DVDs, and self-help organizations relying on the concept, law of attraction, as the foundation of their teachings. Because of the expansion of awareness of the use of the term, law of attraction, it's weight - by definition - is shifting and deserves representation.


 * As far as neutral point of view goes, we have to acknowledge that every editor has a point of view/perspective that is weighted somehow. Just as you are forthcoming as skeptic, I am forthcoming as a believer. So, then, it has to be the material itself that is assessed for neutrality - not the editor - and there has to be room within the article to allow for all contributing perspectives. By using referenced citation for statements and responding to all of your suggestions to eliminate any phrase that wasn't referenced, I believe I am maintaining the standard of neutrality and collaborative effort as described in the Wikipedia policies


 * If you would respond to this, I'd appreciate--Ahnalira (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In Favor Section
I agree with several perspectives given throughout the discussion page, that - to balance the Criticism and Skepticism sections - the Law of Attraction needs an "In Favor" section. I propose to add this contribution to that section:

- The concept is discussed as early as 1902 in the explanation of how physical mass grows from the formation of a nucleus: "“All branches of  - physical science demonstrate the fact that every completed manifestation, of   - whatever kind and on whatever scale, is started by the establishment of a   - nucleus, infinitely small but endowed with an unquenchable energy of attraction,   - causing it to steadily increase in power and definiteness of purpose, until the   - process of growth is completed and the matured form stands out as an   - accomplished fact." -   - Judge Thomas Troward goes on to deduct that something must precede the physical nucleus and extrapolates it is - by logic - thought that precedes the physical form. He says, "we are, therefore, not only making a logical  - deduction from certain unavoidable intuitions of the human mind, but are also   - following on the lines of the most advanced physical science, when we say that   - the action of Mind plants that nucleus which, if allowed to grow undisturbed, will   - eventually attract to itself all the conditions necessary for its manifestation in   - outward visible form.   -    - In current teachings, the Law of Attraction is the foundation for understanding the principles for creating a fulfilling life. In the book, Law of Attraction by Esther and Jerry Hicks, it states: "You see it evidenced when you wake up feeling unhappy, and throughout the - day, things get worse and worse, and at the end of the day you say, “I should not have - gotten out of bed.” You see Law of Attraction evidenced in your society when you see - that the one who speaks most of illness has illness; when you see that the one who - speaks most of prosperity has prosperity… You see Law of Attraction evident when you - set you radio dial on 630AM and expect to receive the broadcast from the transmitting - tower of 630AM because you understand that the radio signals between the transmitting - tower and your receiver must match. As you begin to understand, or better stated, as you - begin to remember this powerful Law of Attraction, the evidence of it, which surrounds - you, will be easily apparent, for you will begin to recognize the exact correlation between - what you have been thinking about and what is actually coming into your experience. --Ahnalira (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * POV based sections are essentially the same thing as a a pov fork and need to be avoided at all costs. The solution to balancing out criticism is not to add sources "in favor" but to make sure the criticism is reliably sourced, not contributing undue weight and is presented in NPOV language. The same thing for content that might be "in favor." This article is suffering greatly as has been pointed out many times and the best thing to be done is rewrite the whole thing. Since you seem interested in getting a balanced article out of this let us discuss the ideal way this article should be structured and avoid the need for POV sections for either criticism or favorable content. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to wait awhile to see if the topic below leads to a more equitable re-write. However, if the Criticism section stays up for any length of time, balance requires the addition of an In Favor section. And - if there is criticism in the top section - balance requires a support reference be included there as well. Balance is inherent in neutrality.--Ahnalira (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As I am getting no response in this section - and the consensus in the section below - is to remove the Criticism section, I extrapolate no one objects to the idea that the Criticism section slants the article away from npov--Ahnalira (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Major rewrite needed
As stated above in several places but most succinctly by the third opinion contributor this article as a whole should probably be rewritten. I think the first place to start is to figure out a cohesive structure that does not rely on he said/she said style. I am not an expert on the law of attraction. So Ahnalira if you would like to propose an initial outline under this section I will take a look at it and make recommendations. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I agree, it should be re-written. I haven't been commenting a lot, but I do pay attention. I'll try to contribute a bit more. Also, re: Ahnalira's paragraph, I agree with Tmtoulouse's removal of it. It appears to be a synthesis taking individual sources and attaching them together. That is dangerous. To use an analogy, that's the trick people use to prove 1==2 in math. Each statement on its own is correct, but things are always a bit more complicated than that. Bhimaji (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern, Bhimaji. I can see that the statement could be shaped differently to prevent a misconstruction of logic. However, the references are valid, and the statements support a definition of Law of Attraction. It is acceptable in every research system I know to provide abstract references followed by references with concrete descriptions. I will make edit adjustments based on your feedback.

In terms of you suggestion, TmToulouse, to provide an outline, I propose first clarifying the intention of the page; and then developing an outline from there. As I understand it, Wikipedia intends to provide information on topics based on documented references that portrays both historical and current trends in society and culture. If this intention is accurate, then it follows this isn't a page to prove or dis-prove whether Law of Attraction exists or meets anyone's criteria for validity. It is, rather, a page to describe how Law of Attraction is defined through literature, media, and research. Is this agreed?--Ahnalira (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this should be a page for informational purposes. Along those lines, I feel that the 3rd paragraph discussing the scientific community and their reactions seems like it belongs in the "Criticism" section along with the other criticisms. The main section should only contain information about the concept, not a minority opinion against the concept. --Alyanm (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all we should be striving to avoid a criticism section at all. Valid, sourced criticism will be in this article (as there is plenty of it out there) but it should be placed coherently through out the article not merely in a criticism section. The view of the scientific community is not a "minority" view and its criticism is certainly significant enough to belong in the lead of the article.
 * As for the purpose of the article, validity of the law of attraction is certainly well with in the scope of a wikipedia article and the significant criticisms that it has received from a variety of communities such as the scientific community, communities with in the new age movement itself, as well as general criticisms from the popular press will all be included in the article. Basically the article should state what the law of attraction is, its history, how it is used/promoted, and various views and criticisms about it. The limitation of information in the article is not so much an issue of content or scope but rather reliable sourcing. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about the reliability of the source for this particular paragraph about the scientific community, Montreal Gazette? Can't you find a more reliable and reputable source for this? I am also concerned that there is no mention of members of the scientific community who support the concept, where is the balance here? Finally, whether you like it or not, the scientific community represents a minute, allbeit influential, minority of the population and is by no means representative of the popular perspective. I am also against having a criticism section. I just don't understand why there seems to be undue weight given to the representation of critical viewpoints. At teh least it should be 50/50 if this is supposed to be a neutral representation. At this point the article reads more like a critique than a balanced perspective. Every critical point can and should be balanced by a positive perspective on the topic if this is to be fair and impartial. I do agree with the overall intention for the article, I just don't think this has been achieved in a balanced way yet. I also find it odd that the reference to Law of Attraction book is not listed with ISBN information like the other book references? --Alyanm (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of what Wikipedia represents is different than yours. when I come to Wikipedia for information, I'm interested in expanding my awareness in regard to the meaning of a topic - debating the topic's validity belongs on debate forums, as far as I'm concerned. As long as there is criticism of the concept on the page, the definition of balance requires there be support as well. I will, of course, represent a balance in the information to that end. You'll have to explain to me how it would serve the interests of the this page for me to submit an outline for your review when we are equals in terms of editorship, and we don't agree on how the page needs changing.--Ahnalira (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Montreal Gazette fits fine with wikipedia policy in regards to reliable sources. I will look for other sources as we go. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about what wikipedia policy is by users on this talk page. Please review wp:npov and wp:undue very carefully. Any scientist that support the idea of law of attraction would fall under an extreme minority opinion and probably not have published in a reliable source. If you continue along the vein that we have to get rid of all criticism or do a he said/she said article you will be in for a very frustrating experience as an editor. I suggest disabusing yourself of these ideas now. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View article states: "When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed." It is clear to me that this article is biased towards criticism. That would be my point. My intention is to evolve this article towards a neutral point of view. As it exists now, it is biased. My understanding is clear in this regard. I suggest you open your mind to the intentions of my communication--Ahnalira (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, at this point a long drawn out argument about policy is pointless, instead I suggest we move towards specific issues. If there is something you wish to be added then please put it on this talk page so we can discuss it, if there is something you would like to see removed, please bring it up on the talk page so we can discuss it. I am going to go ahead and add the NPOV dispute template while we work this out. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." How is the Montreal Gazette an authority on Law of Attraction or the scientific community? As to removal of Criticism suggestion, that was your idea. I just agreed with you. Do you have a reliable source which indicates the numbers of scientists who agree or disagree with law of attraction or is that just something you made up? I thought the point here was to make verifiable statements? Just because a couple of scientists in Montreal find fault with the concept really doesn't seem relevant to me at all and certainly does not belong in the main section where we are trying to achieve a very brief, clear and unbiased overview of the topic at hand. --Alyanm (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Montreal Gazette is a reliable source for reporting on what people have said. There are plenty of other sources out their that discuss criticism of the law of attraction. A google news search of "law of attraction" and criticism will yield plenty. There are several skeptical websites that discuss it as well. I propose the removal of a criticism section not removal of criticism. Criticism should be contained through out the article as a part of its natural structure. POV sections whether "for" or "against" should be avoid per wikipedia policy on the issue. I will work on changing the criticism in the lead and gathering some sources. In the mean time I suggest others do something similar and work towards proposing specific things to add to the article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to differientiate and clarify between the terms critical analysis and criticism. Critical analysis seems relevant providing accurate information on any article; criticism of the concept is based on perceptual bias and requires alternate viewpoints to balance it in order to maintain neutrality. I would like to see a less ambiguous beginning which cites more examples than one movie to exemplify the concept as well as offering a more concrete description of the term and its application. When introducing a critical analysis of the concept, I would like to see references that are measurable rather than anecdotal.--Ahnalira (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point I am interested in specifics, I will address points once we are dealing with specific content issues or source issues rather than vague and obtuse meta-discussion on wikipedia policy. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe the point is whether criticism exists, but whether the criticism is relevant and verifiable. Anybody can criticize the concept, but it is only meaningful if they have actual proof that the concept is flawed. I believe that it is nearly impossible to scientifically prove that the Law of Attraction is invalid. If that is the case, then all we have are a bunch of opinions and anecdotes, skeptics and believers. How do you determine which ones deserve to be represented here? Does Wikipedia policy insist that critical viewpoints be dominantly represented in articles? Can you please point me to the policy that discusses the necessity for criticism as a natural part of the structure so I can understand this better? --Alyanm (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am discussing specifically the content of the first section. I'm not sure what you mean by "vague and obtuse meta-discussion"... sounds like you are upset, Tmtoulouse. I'm collaborating here on a rewrite.--Ahnalira (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

tmtoulouse: I am specifically requesting that the paragraph regarding scientific communities in the first section either be removed or rewritten with more specific information from better references that are authorities on the topic Law of Attraction. --Alyanm (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The information seems perfectly specific to me and the references meet the criteria of wp:rs. I therefore fail to see anything wrong with it at all. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph until we can come to a consensus about this, since tmtoulouse has the minority opinion here as far as I can tell. --Alyanm (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not the way it works, wikipedia policy is what matters. The material is appropriate and meets all states criteria its removal is inappropriate. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was a community decision. How is it that you are the only one deciding what is appropriate according to your own personal standards and beliefs? --Alyanm (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy policy guides actions. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I recommend an outline similar to the one used for Optimism In searching through various topics, like Optimism and Christianity and Muslim I noticed there were no sections on Criticism in any of them. In fact, none of the three focused at all on any type of critical analysis. I recommend we create an outline structure for this topic that aligns with the three mentioned--Ahnalira (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Write up the outline and we can discuss it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The outlines are provided on pages I provided. Any one of them establishes a fully rounded exploration into the topic and will work to make this page neutral. I also recommend all statements that indicate a citation is needed be removed until such citation is provided. --Ahnalira (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would you recommend we do that? How does that make any sense? The reason the citation needed tag is there is to alert people to the fact that it is an uncited claim that need citation. Scratch that do you mean the actual statement or the tag? Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Its primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion". I don't think its a consensus, and you refused to reply to several of my points at all so how is that a discussion? You simply override other peoples changes and claim it is policy. You never supported your claim that criticism is required to be present, so how is it policy that you insist on inserting it? Several other similar topics do not have criticism in them, why does this one warrant it when those don't? That seems hypocritical to me. I also find that your paragraph contains spelling and grammatical errors, some of which I fixed. If you insist on restoring your flawed paragraph I think you should at least follow rules of English grammar. --Alyanm (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to fix any spelling or grammar mistakes, but please do not add weasel words to the paragraph. The material I have added is sourced to high quality news articles, your only argument against the material being in the article seems to focus on the fact that you don't want criticism in the article at all. That is just not going to fly, there is notable criticism that can be reliably sourced. It will therefore be included in the article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It seems to me that the phrase "has received criticism from the scientific community" is in fact qualifying as "weasel words" since it is sufficiently vague and misleading to make one believe that somebody reputable has made the criticism without actually giving specifics. Who exactly are these people in the scientific community that have said this? My other issue is that you claim to be following Wikipedia policy as your bible, yet you make claims that apparently have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy to justify your edits. For example, your requirement that criticism be unduly represented in this article in particular even though it is not standard practice in Wikipedia to do this. This seems to me to be your personal agenda and therefore I take issue with skewing the article according to your personal agenda.

The sentence "It has also received criticism from psychiatrist and others in medical fields ..." is flawed gramatically. I'm not even sure how to rewrite it accurately. Can't you say what you need to say in a better formed sentence? I guess at the least it should say "psychiatrists" although that is still an ugly sentence at best. I also accuse you of using weasel words in the phrase "others in medical fields". Again, who exactly and what medical fields exactly? Its so vague and yet the use of "medical" makes it sound valid.--Alyanm (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think one of the problems here is that there is a combination of disagreements about the actual article content, and some confusion about Wikipedia policies. Generally speaking, I think that Tmtoulouse's interpretation of Wikipedia policy is consistent with my interpretation.
 * Regarding the relatively small amount of scientific commentary on the LoA, I don't think that's a big surprise. For the "full" LoA to be true (eg: worrying about lateness makes traffic get worse), the vast majority of our scientific knowledge would have to be completely re-written. Fundamental parts of physics, physiology, chemistry, etc. etc. would be immensely changed.
 * My wife had a good way of putting it - how much scientific commentary can you find against the Tooth Fairy? I suspect it will be difficult to find a reliable source explaining how transmogrification of teeth to small coins by invisible fairies is not possible. Yet, I think we all agree, the consensus is that there is no tooth fairy.
 * When a book on the NYT bestseller list claims, in non-scientific language, that virtually everything we know about the universe is totally wrong, and provides scant evidence of why our knowledge is incorrect, it will have very little impact in the scientific community. Most physical laws can be verified through numerous different types of experiments. I have not seen a properly controlled LoA experiment. Why would a scientist write an article explaining why the LoA is false, and why would a journal publish it? Bhimaji (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Good morning, Bhimaji. It is an accurate statement to say you don't believe in the tooth fairy, but to conjecture from there to "there is no tooth fairy", gives wp:undue to your personal worldview. This, I believe, is an accurate application of the Wikipedia policy. As well, since there is very little measurable research done by the scientific community on this topic, the npov would be more like: The scientific community has neither proved nor disproved the veracity of this concept. I think your example gives an excellent example of where the current article on Law of Attractin lost npov--Ahnalira (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the scientific community has not generally discussed the Law of Attraction. That begs the question, why are they being quoted at all? The scientists have made no effort to either prove or disprove the law of attraction. You mention the Tooth Fairy, I think this is a weak analogy. Perhaps if you replace that with Jesus Christ we have a more interesting analogy. The Law of Attraction is fundamentally a metaphysical concept more along the lines of Positive Thinking (which has received supporting scientific research) than the Tooth Fairy. However, I think the Tooth Fairy is about as knowledgeable about the Law of Attraction as your average scientist and deserves to be quoted about as much. Do we go around asking homeless people what their opinion is about Einsteins theory of relativity? I think not, because they aren't expected to know anything about it. In fact, if you had quoted the scientific community at the time Einstein proposed his revolutionary theories you would have gotten a very similar response: this turns everything upside down and we can neither prove nor disprove it. 80 years later it is a completely different story. Similarly, I don't expect scientists to know anything about the Law of Attraction nor do I expect them to discusss it in Scientific Journals. So why are they being quoted? What is the relevance to the topic? - I have to take the lack of response to my other two points to be agreement that my points are valid: - 1) There is no Wikipedia policy requiring criticism in an article  - 2) "other medical fields" is an excessively vague references which seeks false credibility through the use of the authoritative sounding word "medical". --Alyanm (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You won't win a fight to get criticism removed from this article, it won't happen. Source criticism is always going to be in the article because the idea deserves to be criticized, because it has been criticized and because the criticism is discussed in reliable sources. The best thing to do is to drop this Quixotic quest before it creates needless friction. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is why scientist belong in this article. The Law of Attraction violates everything we know in the fields of physics and neuroscience. The universe does not work in the way that proponents of this idea claim it does. The "mind" and its "electrical impulses" does not work in the way proponents claim it does. The law of attraction makes science claims when it purports to be a real life "law" that can affect the universe. They also bring in tons of sham quantum physics. When you make science claims, when you make claims based on a misunderstanding or a misuse of scientific knowledge the people best suited to call a spade a spade and bullshit bullshit are scientist. QED. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable references using scientific method and show measurable results that point to the way it doesn't work as you suggest above are just what the article needs for critical evaluation. Quotes from individuals that are opinion-based and aren't measurable are just he said/she said as you pointed out earlier, and they don't do your argument for criticism justice. They just make the article look slanted.--Ahnalira (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If they existed that would be great but the law of attraction is so utterly and completely ridiculous and obviously false and so contradictory to established knowledge it is going to be tough to find someone that bothered with a double blind study. As for using newspapers that quote experts, that has a very long very established history at wikipedia. If you don't agree that it is a valid way to write an article your fight starts on the policy pages, not here. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no fight. I just want to make sure the rules and policies are consistently applied. I am happy to use he said/she said references as a standard. I was attempting to find congruency between your statement that you didn't want a he said/she said article and the statement above that you think referencing criticism with he said/said quotes is viable. If it is a true statement that law of attraction is untrue in the field of science, there must be measurable evidence to document that statement. Otherwise, scientific method requires the statement be: There is no proof. "Established knowledge" requires measurable evidence. "Ridiculous and obviously false" is a strong opinion, but it doesn't merit referencing without measurable demonstration. That's scientific method.--Ahnalira (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When something is obviously wrong a scientist gets nothing from doing research on it. I am currently doing research in the field of neuroscience I would be unable to find a granting agency interested in testing the idea that "thoughts manifest reality" just as if I was a physicist I would be laughed out of the DOE for asking for money to test the hypothesis that aluminum dipped in non-fat milk will actually fall "up" not "down." That is why there is not much in the way of gold-standard peer review dealing with the law of attraction. I won't say it is not there but I have yet to find it and am looking. In the mean time secondary and tertiary reliable sources are perfectly fine for a wikipedia article.
 * Allow me to clarify what I mean be "he said/she said" it is not the sources that are the problem but rather the writing style. The style, particularly when done in "sections," violated the manual of style. That is why we do not want a "criticism" section and a "supporter" section. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to determine what is Wikipedia policy and what is personal bias. I think that your rabid skepticism expressed on the topic at hand has pretty well proven the point; the criticism section is simply your personal angry rant on a topic that you don't really understand to begin with. I do believe it is inappropriate to be attacking my personal beliefs in such an incendiary fashion, I am not attacking your religion (assuming that you have one!) and I expect the same sort of civil and respectful treatment from you tmtoulouse. As to scientific claims, I make none and am not inclined to give the ones others make much credit. I do not propose that this article should support the Law of Attraction as a scientific phenomenon. To me it is a valid and verified personal experience and deserves to be treated as such by Wikipedia, even if toulouse is incapable of this type of respect and prefers to rant and rail. My primary requests are these: 1) Criticism be presented by people who are knowledgeable about the topic they are criticizing. 2) Criticism be presented in proper English grammar. 3) That weasel words be avoided throughout the article, and in particular the use of weasel words to emphasize criticism sections needs to be eradicated. 4) Criticism be presented as merely one viewpoint among many, which is exactly what it is. Honestly toulouse, your complete bias and dismissal of this concept seems to me to make your participation in this article questionable. I would not invite a Satanist to contribute to the article on Christianity, similarly I do not think you are an appropriate contributor here. I believe your feelings are better restricted to your skeptic forums where your behavior would be appropriately received.--Alyanm (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not personally attacked you, I have attacked a belief in the abstract. Beliefs are not deserving of respect merely because someone holds to that belief. Ridiculous ideas are ridiculous QED. I particularly enjoy how you pamper your comment accusing me of ranting and personal attacks, with rants and personal attacks. Hypocrisy is amazing. Anyway, you can not prevent people from editing an article. I plan on being a major contributor to this article. I will however abide by wikipedia policy, which I might add, you are not. Your view for how this article should look is simply your view, chances are it will not look the way you want, nor will it look the way I want. You should take a breather mate. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"obviously wrong" is an extrapolation of your opinion, Tmtoulouse, and places undue weight on your personal worldview in terms of the article's premise. To provide a npov this opinion can be represented only as it is referenced by reliable sources and enhances the depth and scope of the concept without use of weasel words--Ahnalira (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The obviously wrong comment was made on the talk page not the article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are quite guilty of hypocrisy in your pretense at objectivity, when in fact you are anything but objective. Calling an idea ridiculous does not make it so, that is the ploy of a 2 year old. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be based on something a little more carefully considered than that. Obviously you believe that by battering down any dissension that you will dominate this article with your perspective that loa is ridiculous. I guess Hitler felt much the same way... good luck with that "mate".--Alyanm (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Godwin's Law. I win. I think it is timeout time. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You won what? I'm not sure what the prize is. I personally believe that a persons religious/spiritual beliefs deserve respect. --Alyanm (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An internet joke, click the link and learn. I do not "believe" that "beliefs" of any sort inherently deserve respect. There are criteria for which they can be judged. Just as you do not respect Hitler's belief in extermination I do not respect your belief in the law of attraction. See now I have violated Godwin's Law so it can be a tie. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. As things appear to be "heated" I wanted to emphasize my comparison to Hitler was in jest as part of the joke about Godwin's Law. An amazingly prescient law. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think my analogy was understood, so I'm going to try again. Ahnalira: Do you agree that the scientific community as a whole agrees that there is no tooth fairy? Your statement,
 * "The scientific community has neither proved nor disproved the veracity of this concept."

...worries me. My point is that the scientific community has a lot to say about:
 * Biology. Small humanoid creatures with wings are generally not thought to exist.
 * Physics at the molecular level. Converting the molecules of bone to base metals is generally not possible.
 * Physics / materials science at a higher level. Making a coin out of metal without a die and metal stamping hardware - something I never see the tooth fairy depicted as possessing - is considered impossible.
 * Remote sensing / psychic sensing. No way for the Tooth Fairy to know there is a tooth under a pillow.

The scientific community has looked into all of the individual characteristics necessary for the tooth fairy to exist, and the consensus is that they are impossible.

Alyanm: "I agree that the scientific community has not generally discussed the Law of Attraction. That begs the question, why are they being quoted at all? The scientists have made no effort to either prove or disprove the law of attraction." They have already done research into the individual areas of physics, biology, etc. that would have to be true for the LoA to be possible. If there was nobody talking about it, then that would be a problem. I was just trying to point out that when we're dealing with a combination of numerous impossibilities, there will be a lot more scientific discussion about the individual components than about all of it together. There are scientists talking about the entire LoA, but not as often as they talk about the individual parts of it.

Also: I think it's very healthy for an article to include editors of different viewpoints. An article about Jesus Christ should not include just those who are totally convinced that the Bible is literal 100% fact. Equally, it should not be written entirely by atheists. Every topic needs critical thinking for balance. Bhimaji (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

toulouse: ok, I can live with a tie. Godwin's law is an interesting concept, I guess I should have used Saddam Hussein ;) Bhimaji: I really don't think science is relevant to areas of spirituality, that would be my point.  I believe the Law of Attraction is a spiritual law, perhaps similar to the 10 commandments.  Do scientists attempt to validate the 10 commandments?  I don't see a problem with representing a diversity of opinions.  My concern is that toulouse has a very extreme skeptical point of view and by sitting on this article for the last 2 years has managed to dominate the pov of the article to reflect his personal bias, and effectively removed any alternate perspective.  Therefore, it is my side of the discussion that is unfairly lacking in representation.  It would seem that since you compare loa to the tooth fairy that you share his disregard for loa as a viable theory.  All I'm asking for here is fair representation. Obviously I can't sit on this article for the next few years the way toulouse can (and probably will) so he will be able to overwrite me at will. --Alyanm (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The LoA is claimed to be a physical law that is as universally true at the law of gravity. My use of the tooth fairy was intended for one purpose: to point out that not everything widely believed to be false has explicit peer-reviewed papers that identify it by name. I was not trying to say that they were both obviously false. Bhimaji (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

- Hi, Bhimaji. In response to your clarification regarding the tooth fairy: What seems clear to me is that everyone has an opinion, and groups of people often share the same opinions based on their world view. However, opinion is not proof. While your statements follow a line of reason/logic, they are not proven through scientific method. Until something is proven, it is not fact and the veracity of the belief is determined by personal experience. Whether or not fairies exist is, therefore, a personal experience. Without a a basis of proof that evidences the lack or value of the concept, as indicated in this discussion about Law of Attractioni, then the article has to rely on personal experience to the criteria for validity. From there, logic reasons that the more people who find validity in the concept Law of Attraction, the more validity the concept has in terms of Ahnalira (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody is saying that an opinion is proof. I am absolutely not relying on personal experience to justify my statements. The existence or non-existence of fairies is an objective fact. The inability to determine a fact doesn't make it not a fact. The way you talk about proof and personal experience here make me think that you aren't very familiar with the scientific method. Proof is something that is, at least in my experience, generally avoided outside of mathematics. Science gives evidence rather than proof. My argument, again is: The scientific consensus is that the LoA is false. This is consensus is an informed consensus, because, for the LoA to be true, a large number of widely accepted and experimentally verified characteristics of the universe would be totally disproven. Physics experiments don't care what name you call your theory. If an experiment disproves a necessary component of the LoA, then the LoA is disproven even if the experiment was done before the LoA was named. Bhimaji (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In the field of psychology, Bhimaji, there is term called "Group Think". It describes a phenomonen that happens when a group of people with a similar worldview start to develop similar attitudes and opinions by 'proximity' to each other. There are numerous studies in this topic. (Since this is discussion and I'm not required to provide references here, I hope you'll just take my word. Otherwise, I'm sure you can google the term for more elucidation.)  Because of "Group Think", I am less inclined to make assessment on the validity or lack of validity on any topic as determined by a group of like-minded thinkers. For me, there are two ways to determine validity. Either it's been irrefutably proven through repetition that has a consistent outcome and is documented through a process of testing variables... or I have a personal experience that proves validity to me through my own senses. I am willing to read the opinions of groups of people and draw my own conclusions, but I don't base fact on anyone else's opinion no matter how large the consituency. I believe you when you say fairies are not real for you. I know others for whom fairies are very real. Both of you offer the same level of proof from the reality of your perspective, as far as I am concerned. To apply this analogy to the article at hand: I can see the value of including both perspectives on the topic of fairies. However, neither perspective deserves to be dismissed based on the opinion of either perspective. To establish an article on Law of Attraction that is npov, I believe that we have to allow for a foundational premise that is inclusive and well represented by reliable references rather than dismissive because it is outside of anyone's belief system.--Ahnalira (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This maybe how you view the issue, but this is not how NPOV policy currently views that issue. Your desire to have the wikipedia community redefine what NPOV means is better taken to the appropriate venues for policy discussion. Until such a time that you gain wide spread acceptance of what you think NPOV should be we are confined to what NPOV currently is. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tmtoulouse, here is a quote from the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View page: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I am in no way attempting to change this policy in fact, what I wrote is a paraphrase of it.  I am reiterating that it be applied consistently in the article on Law of Attraction--Ahnalira (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, the problem is in how you attempt to interpret whats written into practicle changes in the article. I am done discussing abstract wikipedia policy on this page. I am more than happy to review specific issues and specific changes but from now on I plan to ignore anything I feel is purely metadiscussion. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This works for me. I was respectfully responding to the comments of you and Bhimaji. I would love to get to the business of rewriting and relocating the Criticism Section. I did as you suggested and went through the section in the Sandbox, wrote commentary here in the Discussion area, and am waiting to hear your response. I'd like to the appropriate changes made to the live page as soon as we can reach agreement.--Ahnalira (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

- TmToulouse, relative to this statement: "The obviously wrong comment was made on the talk page not the article." Actually, I was referring specifically to how this opinion is translated into the verbiage you write for the article. However, for the sake of clarity and consistency, can you point me to the policy that indicates Wikipedia policy is not relevant to the discussion page? Thanks.--Ahnalira (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Bhimaji -- it seems I misunderstood your use of tooth fairy. I can only reiterate my position that loa can not currently be considered a scientific fact, only a personal one. If you have references from the scientific community offering experiments which disprove the theory I invite you to add those to the article. All I have heard so far is what I would call hearsay, not admissible in court!

Just because something contradicts currently accepted theories does not make it invalid. All worthwhile scientific discoveries (Freud, Einstein, Galileo to name a few) flew in the face of what was currently considered to be scientific fact. Science is an ever evolving set of theories used to describe the nature of our reality.

My proposal would be to write something along these lines: "There are those who claim a scientific basis for the Law of Attraction [ref here]. There is currently no known scientific proof of the Law of Attraction beyond the personal experience of its proponents." --Alyanm (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

'''Please note that the discussion above is vering way too much off topic for a talk page of an article. This is not a place to discuss the philosophical underpinings of our personal epistemologies. Talk pages should focus as much as humanaly possible on the task at hand which is improving this article.'''Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be delighted to discuss specific improvements to the article, thanks toulouse. First of all, my suggestion above for an addition to the article that would present a more neutral pov: "There are those who claim a scientific basis for the Law of Attraction [ref here]. There is currently no known scientific proof of the Law of Attraction beyond the personal experience of its proponents." Second improvement, lets get that last paragraph in the criticism regarding ego a real reference so that it doesn't look like original research, it doesn't appear to adhere to Wikipedia policy. These are both concrete suggestions which nobody has responded to yet.--Alyanm (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where would you like to enter your first statement? And for your second statement I think I all ready removed the criticism you are talking about didn't I? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Accurate interpretation
The following sentence: "This is considered by many to be an inaccurate interpretation of the Law of Attraction." needs a citation and attribution or it needs to be removed. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This has now been cited to a book, would you mind quoting the passage and offer a page number so I can double check what the source actually says? Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. When I get a chance I will dig up the specifics.--Alyanm (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have provided page number. I can't quote here, the entire chapter is devoted to topic but you are welcome to go and read the reference. I believe this satisfies Wikipedia policy.--Alyanm (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you quote a relevant passage for me? So I understand what it is saying? I am unable to check the actual book for sometime. I agree its a reliable source but would like to know exactly what it is saying. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Toulouse, you have attacked and denigrated my personal beliefs in an uncivil fashion, I believe you have violated Wikipedia policy in that regard. I myself have adhered to wikipedia policy, you told me that was all that mattered.--Alyanm (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What policy of wikipedia says I have to respect a belief? I have not attacked you personally which would be a violation. Attacking an abstract belief is not a violation of policy. Beliefs do not have a right to be respected nor do you have a right not to be offended. Important points to remember in life. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And when will you tell me what wikipedia policy indicates that criticism must be included? --Alyanm (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Information that is relevant to the article and can be linked to reliable sources probably argues for inclusion due to its very nature of existence. Wikipedia errs on the side of inclusion for relevant, verifiable information. However, information or the way in which it is presented can be altered or removed based on other guidelines. So an argument that criticism does not belong is invalid, however, an argument that a particular criticism should be removed or rewritten because of a specific guideline violation would be valid. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can see the logic in that statement. The last paragraph of criticism section bothers me, there are no citations and it appears to be original research. Can you please do something about that? --Alyanm (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section Moved
I am placing it here so that those who feel this information necessary to the article and find reliable referenced and weave it into the fabric of the article--Ahnalira (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

The Law of Attraction, especially in its less religious contexts, has been criticized for:


 * Implying the law has a scientific foundation when no such basis exists.
 * Not defining its methodology correctly according to denominational New Thought practitioners.

Criticism of the Law of Attraction comes from other directions as well.

In the mainstream media, talk show hosts such as Larry King have pointed at the sufferings in the world and asked: "If the Universe manifests abundance at a mere thought, why is there so much poverty, starvation, and death?" This theological problem is known as theodicy.

A scathing critique of Bernie Seigel's "Love, Medicine and Miracles," a book that espouses a version of the law of attraction, can be found in Robert Sapolsky's "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers." Sapolsky warns that if one believes positive thinking alone can produce incredible change, those unable to produce such change may be seen, or see themselves, as blameworthy.

It has also been pointed out that most of the people discussed in recent books on the subject live in a culture that has paths to allow people to overcome adversity and that the same is not true for much of the world. The same cannot be said of earlier proponents of the Law of Attraction, however, especially those who, like Wallace Wattles (1860–1911), claimed in his book The Science of Getting Rich (1910) to have used the principle to rise from a life of grinding poverty to one of merely comfortable industry.

Scientists are critical of the lack of falsifiability and testability of the claims. All of the evidence is both anecdotal and, because of the self-selecting nature of positive reports, as well as the subjective nature of any results, highly susceptible to misinterpretations like confirmation bias and selection bias.

The few claims by proponents that seem to reference modern scientific theory remain under question. While brainwaves do have an electrical signal, it is unclear what principles of quantum physics behave the way proponents of the Law of Attraction claim. Opponents claim that the use of the term "Law" and the vague references to quantum physics to bridge any unexplained or seemingly implausible effects are hallmark traits of modern pseudoscience.

Within spiritual circles, the Law of Attraction has been criticized for conflating ego with the higher self, and promoting narcissism. The concept is also criticized by members of various predestinarian and fundamentalist Christian denominations, due to its deviance from their teachings.
 * The removal of the material needs to wait it being included in the article, do not just remove sourced material like that. The consensus is that ideally we do not want a criticism section per wikipedia style guidelines but that does not mean remove criticism. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest you create a sandbox version of the article in your userspace if you wish to remove large amounts of material during a rewrite? Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The onus is not on me to re-write the Criticism section. Based on the above discussion, the consensus is that a Criticism section doesn't belong in the article. Several of the points in the section don't have citation as well. If you want these points included in the article, I suggest you take the initiative to do the rewrite. I am taking the iniative to follow through on the consensus that the section needs to be removed. I am happy to wait another 24 hours to give you opportunity to insert these statements (with reliable reference and without the use of weasel words, of course) before adding an In Favor Section to balance what is there.--Ahnalira (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your misstating what the consensus is. The consensus is to ideally not have a criticism section, not the removal of criticism. The appropriate action is to do exactly what I have done and add it to the template of problems being discussed. Not the removal of sourced material. You can not remove the material. I will review the unsourced statements and see what I think about them. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So, if I understand accurately, because you only re-wrote the sourced material I contributed the other day until it was no longer what I intended and placed it in another section of the article, you weren't 'technically' removing it. As long as I maintain the sources, I can rewrite and move these statements to where ever I think they should go as long as I don't literally remove them from the article. I note you didn't make your changes in any sandbox. Is this the policy as you ascribe to it? I just want to make sure I understand your perpective on editorial license.--Ahnalira (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is time for another wikipedia policy to be introduced: Assume good faith. I changed your material because it had some serious problems and could not as it was entered be apart of the article. There is much discussion above about what policy and style guidelines were violated as well as a "third opinion" that agreed in general with what I said. If there is significant style or policy issues with the criticism as presented please lay out your case here on the talk page and I will see if I agree or not. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out Assume good faith. I like this policy and appreciate the gentle reminder. My case in terms of criticism is this: References need to be available, and - if those references don't require measurable documentation - the critical statements need to reflect accurate the specifics of the criticism. For example, if one person makes a statement of opinion in a book or article, that doesn't extrapolate justifiably to the entire (or majority) of that person's professional group. Critical statements should not imply that it does without measurable data. Therefore, criticisms without citation need to be removed now, and criticisms that exagerate or slant the source reference need to be re-stated--Ahnalira (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Material from lede removed
This material was removed because it doesn't make sense as presented and need considerable rewrite:

"In the physical application: "started by the establishment of a nucleus, infinitely small but endowed with an unquenchable energy of attraction,causing it to steadily increase in power and from a psychological perspective: "Emotion deepens by repetition. define the concept."

Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point -I will rewrite above phrase. This phrase: "Since many of the claims of the law of attraction violate established scientific principles... " requires citation and uses weasel words so I removed it until edited--Ahnalira (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I re-organized statement above to be more easily understood. I also changed link to Esther Hicks' biography page to include just her name as the page is not a biography of Jerry Hicks, and I restated the line as it isn't accurate to say Jerry and Esther Hicks stated the interpretation was inaccurate. Another contributor wrote that and it wasn't cited. It is accurate to say Jerry and Esther published clarifying information as per the cited reference--Ahnalira (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse, you are over-writing the changes I make without discussion. I believe Wikipedia etiquette requires collaborative discussion to prevent edit wars, doesn't it?--Ahnalira (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The last change you made broke the article reference section. I am going over it now figuring out what happened. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, please replace the changes when you have figured it out or bring substantive reasoning for why you over-wrote me, please.--Ahnalira (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you help me understand what:

"Law of attraction proponents and teachers Jerry and Esther Hicks provided clarification to of the Law of Attraction in their published books. "

This means exactly? I don't understand it and it needs rewording. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the rewording of the first citation reference I added regarding atomic structure - nice contextual reference, imho. I made the statement in question above more specific in regard to citation intention, per your request--Ahnalira (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We want to say how they address this concern, not just simply that they address it. That's our job, to tell the reader what people have said about the topic not simply tell them "people have said stuff about this." Tmtoulouse (talk)

I wrote a short summary describing how the concern is addressed.--Ahnalira (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Needs to be much more specific than that. Providing a direct quote would work well here. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A one line quote won't represent the citation accurately, and to put enough to fully represent the reference would make the text too long (per previous feedback you've given me) If you research the reference cited, you'll find the statement is an accurate representation--Ahnalira (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It says nothing though, and is not appropriate wording for a wikipedia article. It needs to say exactly how they have respond to the criticism. Can you quote a relevant passage here on this talk page? I can look at it and come up with a way to summarize for the article if you do not want to. As it stands now it just won't work. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the book is available to read in the Google Books section at: http://books.google.com/books?id=yjbESkADWWUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Astonishing+Power+of+Emotion&sig=ACfU3U2yFhEpd-8pItRNVVlp3n4VXdZIjw#PPR8,M1 How about if you read there? With your better understanding of how Wikipedia works, you may be able to extract a salient quote better than I can. However the book is not a rebuttal to the criticism and I haven't cited it as a rebuttal. It does, however, respond to the concerns.--Ahnalira (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for the link, can you help me zero in on a chapter or anything at least? 200+ pages is a lot to cull. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you see my dilemma. The criticism states a concern that - because the concept of law of attraction promotes the idea that everything we experience is a reflection of our own thinking and feeling nature, there is a possibility that people who have experienced the trauma of experiences like violent crimes of abuse, disability, illness, etc,- and especially those who are burdened as well with some type of mental illness or disability - will be harmed by the feelings of guilt/powerlessness/misplaced responsibility that the misunderstanding of this concept can evoke. This is a criticism that covers a wide range of variables. The book responds with concrete applications throughout, and more than half of the book is a step by step process of a variety of situations that might be included in the above concerns. I looked through the book, attempting to find a section that would serve well, but wasn't able to extract a paragraph or page. It is the wholeness of the material that responds to the concern. But, like I said, you are more familiar with how to develop a quote for Wikipedia than I am--Ahnalira (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just don't think it is an adequate source for the statement in the article, I have looked through it and don't see anything that is really a response to the criticism leveled or that corresponds to the statement in the article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandboxed edition
I have sandboxed this article over at User:Tmtoulouse/loa rewrite feel free to go over there and do anything you like to that version of the article. Write it how you think it should be written. Once you are done I can take a look and have a go and make the changes I think belong. After that we can talk about substituting the sandbox version for this article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse, I went through all of the criticisms. They either lack citation or are referenced through the same newspaper article. This particular article is vague and misrepresents information (ie what constitutes the medical field). I removed all of the critcisms from the Sandbox version until reliable references can be cited.--Ahnalira (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All you did was just remove all criticism. I agree some of the criticism needs sourcing/better sourcing but the news article is perfectly appropriate and without a doubt a reliable source based on WP policy. I have a copy of the criticism section in my user space I will work on over the next few days. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can see what I am playing with at User:Tmtoulouse/loa criticism. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed anything that wasn't cited and everything that was cited by same article. Each critical thought requires a citation and reference specific to that statement. The article that was used as reference for everything that was cited, is not a reliable reference since it mis-used the definition of what a medical professional is (ie attended some form of medical school) I look forward to reading what you pull together.--Ahnalira (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing that says the same article can not be used for different points, and just because you have a problem with an article does not mean it is not a reliable source based on wikipedia policy. Anyway, as I said I am working on it now in between other work. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse, I did some reading of the Wikipedia policy WP:SOURCES. Accuracy is a consideration, and the Montreal Gazette provides inaccurate information. According to www.wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Medical profession is defined as: "the body of individuals who are qualified to practice medicine" --Ahnalira (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is perfectly accurate, I see no problems with it at all. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tmtoulouse, I appreciate that. The addition of citations that reference different articles can only strengthen the critical analysis of the article--Ahnalira (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There's an article in Scientific American talking about the LoA. I also found a CSI article. One of the two co-authors of the CSI article is a general editor at Newsweek.

I'm very confused by the claim that scientists have not properly tested the LoA. I have two problems with this claim. The first problem is that it is factually untrue - there are numerous experiments that have been done that test what the LoA claims. No, they don't call it the LoA, but the last I checked, my test equipment didn't care about the title of my research. Secondly, who is qualified to judge what sort of experiments need to be done to test a theory? The LoA makes specific claims about physics. If a physicist believes that they have done sufficient experimentation, you are going to have to come up with a very good explanation to justify why you think you know more about experimental physics than they do.

I think you were actually the person who made the statement, Bhimaji, there therew wasn't sufficient concrete testing to cite on the article. I know I didn't make it. My point is find it and use it. Then the criticisms won't sound like original research that skew the neutral point of view.--Ahnalira (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have frequently presented ideas to experts only to have them dismissed very quickly. When I asked them how they were able to dismiss something new so quickly, they explained how it was actually the same as something they already knew didn't work. Some of my ideas have taken longer to be dismissed, and, a few times, they've been new and original and worked out well. That's not to say that experts are perfect. They're not. But it's a mistake to believe that every idea is so clearly new and novel enough that it requires long and careful analysis. Bhimaji (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

TmToulouse, the reference you cited for this criticism: "Not defining its methodology correctly according to denominational New Thought practitioners.[27]" is actually a criticism of the book, The Secret, and how it is written. It is not a reference that refers specifically to the concept Law of Attraction. It seems more accurate to say: The book, The Secret, is criticized for poor methodology and definition of the Law of Attraction by New Thought Practioners. Would you object to my changing the statement to more accurately reflect the cited reference?--Ahnalira (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I found a reference that proves the relationship between thought and healing to respond to this criticism: A scathing critique of Bernie Seigel's "Love, Medicine and Miracles," a book that espouses a version of the law of attraction, can be found in Robert Sapolsky's "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers." Sapolsky warns that if one believes positive thinking alone can produce incredible change, those unable to produce such change may be seen, or see themselves, as blameworthy.

The reference is here: http://www.arthursmithphd.com/Dissert.htm#contents. The specific passages are in chapters 5, 6, and 7. How wuold you like to integrate this with your criticism?--Ahnalira (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"I am waiting for response still. If I don't get one in the next few hours, I'll edit as makes sense to me.--Ahnalira (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By all means write something up, but I suggest that you post it here first so I can offer feedback/changes and we can arrive at consensus before editing the actual article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am happy to do that, TmToulouse, as long as you follow the same standard - no arbitrary edits to the live page, period... no matter how sure you are you know better than any other editor.  Here is what I propose:  The removal of weasel words from the criticism like "scathing", the addtion of a statement that indicates there are scientifically based studies that show evidence of a mental healing of a physical condition (citing the dissertation reference I linked to above), and moving the point into the principles section, thus chipping away at the inappropriate Criticism section. Of course, if this is one of the criticisms that has no citation, it should just be removed per Wikipedia policy that says statements without citation should be aggressively removed. That's how I will edit.--Ahnalira (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am generally in agreement with what you have proposed, I have all ready removed the word scathing as that is really inappropriate per multiple policy. The rest we will have to work out the wording carefully and I will have to review the source your offering closely. But I think we can work something out. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to the reference: http://www.arthursmithphd.com/Dissert.htm#contents  I also placed a little higher up in this topic a couple of days ago.  Please review it, and let me know if you think it doesn't meet the standards for WP:SOURCE as soon as possible since I've been waiting on this for response to it for awhile.  If we need to discuss policy related to the reference, we can do that.  If not, we can proceed to collaborating on the edit.--Ahnalira (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First thanks for using the indent feature on comments, it makes following threads easier. Second, I don't have a problem with the source since it is a dissertation accepted at an accredited university. What matters is then how the source is used. You could not make a statement like "there is scientific evidence for mental healing" and source it to the dissertation. Instead it would have to read like "Arthur Smith (a whatever he is) has argued that X and Y show evidence of mental healing." Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It does make for easier reading! Thanks for the tip; >) I agree that the statement has to be an accurate reflection of the reference without extrapolation to larger groups or plural studies.  If it is a statement in response to the criticism currently posted, I would word to say something like: On the other hand, Arthur Smith, Phd, did a study that evidenced a direct relationship between neural activity and the immune system with cancer and heart diseased patients in his dissertaton, The Ontology of Faith Healing.. followed by a reference.  This is assuming the critical statement has a citation provided.  Without the cited criticism (and I think the current statement needs to be removed soon if a reference isn't placed), I would say leave out "on the other hand".  In either case, I think the statement is an accurate representation of the cited reference.  I think it could be placed with or without the criticism at the bottom of the Principles section.  Do you agree?--Ahnalira (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have started reworking the paragraph at User:Tmtoulouse/sandbox. Would you like to add your rebuttal there? Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Smith Dissertation
I am starting to have serious doubts about Arthur Smith's dissertation as good source. It appears as if you want to use it to make a "science" claim but it is a dissertation for a theology degree. It is also appears to have only a been cited one time in a CAM journal. I think this falls clearly into wp:undue. Now if Smith is citing sources in his dissertation to make a point we might be able to use his sources but as a source itself I do not think it works. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I responded in Sandbox.--Ahnalira (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets talk sources on this though, as I said above I don't think the Arthur Smith dissertation can be used to make an empirical claim like you want to do. Reasons are it is dissertation for a theology degree not a science degree, and that it has not garnered any attention in the scientific community (no one cites it). However, he does have references in the dissertation that maybe more usable. My recommendation is to mine his dissertation for sources that meet wikipedia standards and use those sources instead. My understanding is you want to add a statement responding the "just anecdotal evidence" by saying there is more than anecdotal evidence. We need a really solid source for that kind of claim: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since The Montreal Gazette (the reference for the definition of Law of Attraction and several other statements in the article) states: "The point is to understand that (the Law of Attraction) is a real spiritual principle.", a PhD in Theosophy is relevant in regards to referencing the topic. Wiki policy doesn't require a reference to meet the conditions you are asking for in terms of "scientific community". Indeed, without concrete documention to support the statement, it fall under the category of opinion on your part.--Ahnalira (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy that dictates the problems with this source is at wp:undue, while I think my argument that a "science" claim should not be referenced to a theology dissertation is valid, I will drop that point for now and focus on the undue weight aspect. This link shows all the articles published in places indexed by google scholar (which is the largest indexing site in the world for scholarly papers) that have cited Smith's dissertation. Quoting the wp:undue article: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." At this time Smith's viewpoint appears to fall in the second category. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. as I said I think you are better off mining his dissertation for sources that might meet wikipedia standards. Find a claim in the dissertation that you want included and find what he references it to and bring that source over. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point on the wp:undue, Tmtoulouse. Can you provide a citation that shows a ratio of majority and minority viewpoints on this topic?  In a effort to research further into the idea of who in the scientific and medical community might be proponents of this concept, I found this: 5 physcicist and 7 medical professional listed with their credentials who actively support the concept that thoughts and emotions influence matter: http://www.whatthebleep.com/scientists/  I think this is a good beginning in clarifying that there are members of the "scientific community" who give credence to concept.  We need to balance of the weight of the article to allow for representation.--Ahnalira (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to avoid the risk of original research I am not sure that is the best path to follow. Rather I would advocate to possibilities. First is finding main stream media publications that have discussed this issue that might include quotes we could mine. Or two, check the sources of your sources, that is likely to reveal potential articles that would meet wikipedia standards. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We do want to prevent original research. I agree.  Do we agree that presenting a balanced article requires representation of more than one point of view?  If so, I think the dissertation meets qualifications, and I am willing to add a disclaimer that it represents a minority perspective and shouldn't be given undue weight--Ahnalira (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on how it is phrased, can you pull out some quotes from the dissertation that you would want to integrate into the article? Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What a coincidence. I just had a friend send me a link to What The Bleep, and I looked in to some of the sources. Dr. David Albert is one of the five physicists you refer to who were featured on What The Bleep. Here's what he had to say:
 * "I don't think it's quite right to say I was 'tricked' into appearing, but it is certainly the case that I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film ... Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed."
 * John Hagelin is one of the other physicists. It is safe to say that he is not currently part of the mainstream scientific community - he won an Ig Nobel prize in 1994. If you choose to attend the prize ceremony, you are presented your award by genuine Nobel laureates. I often use Hagelin's Ig Nobel award winning research as a good example of the ex-post-facto fallacy in a predictive model / machine learning context.
 * The NY Times and LA Weekly have both written articles critical of What The Bleep. The  Wikipedia article on the film contains a lot of referenced criticism as well. Bhimaji (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Off-topic but, I am surprised by the number of my usually intelligent and skeptical friends that bought into that movie hook line and sinker. It was very ultra-chic in "counter-culture" circles. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition and Cited Reference
Currently written: "More modern consensus among New Thought thinkers is that the Law of Attraction takes the principal "Like Attracts Like" and applies it to conscious desire. That is, a person's thoughts (conscious and subconscious), emotions, and beliefs cause a change in the physical world that attracts positive or negative experiences that correspond to the aforementioned thoughts, with or without action. This process has been described as "harmonious vibrations of the law of attraction"[2]" The reference cited for this definition is the Montreal Gazette. Since I found evidence that the accuracy of the Montreal Gazette uses for establishing definitions is questionable, specifically the term medical profession (www.wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Medical profession is defined as: "the body of individuals who are qualified to practice medicine"), using this article to cite the definition of Law of Attraction falls short of WP:SOURCES I will look for another reference and adjust the definition according to that citation--Ahnalira (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't buy it, in what way specifically is the article inaccurate? Is it objectively inaccurate? Or merely inaccurate in your opinion based on what appears to be a pedantic semantic disagreement? Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, the article includes an interview with a pyschoterapist/life coach to extrapolate generally to a larger group of "medical professionals". by definition, a medical professional has to have a medical degree to practice medicine, and a pyschotherapist/Life Coach doesn not. Therefore, the reference is unreliable based on WP:SOURCE As well, according to WP:QS: any article that relies heavily on personal opinion as the main source of reference is questionable. All of the references in this resource are based on the personal opinion of a select group of people interviewed. Acording to WP:Sources, "the greater degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, the more reliable the resource" Since I've already discovered an inaccurate definition referenced as a fact within the article, this article is unreliable as a reference in terms of the remainder of facts stated.--Ahnalira (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This smacks of some serious Wikilawyering I am afraid. The article quotes more than just one person, and everything on wikipedia is "personal opinion" because everything that's allowed to appear on this site has to be sourced to a secondary or tertiary source. Which means we report on what people say, this is according to you personal opinion. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable references are important and the definition of what is a medical profesional is very concrete. This reference doesn't meet the standsrds set by the Wikipedia policies. If you read the standards for reliable source, preference is given to articles that are referenced. I found an article written by a PhD with cited references that offers a more concrete definition, and I've added it to the article.--Ahnalira (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now the article you found is a perfect example of where accuracy impeaches a source. The content was total nonsense, not to mention it was published in a poor source. You can't override a superior source with new age woo. Your focusing on only one person interviewed in an article that interviewed many people and appear to be getting close to Gaming the system. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I just read the policy you are referring to, and I would have to point you back to the Good Faith policy. I am doing my best to make this an article that references all perspectives equitably and reliably. I suggest you consider the quality of the reference you are using for so many statements. It isn't standing well under scrutiny. That isn't "wikilawyering". It's a process of editorial analysis supported by the Wikipedia npov "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

The issue isn't whether or not you agree with the content of the reference, the issue is that is written with cited references by an academic in the field of study.--Ahnalira (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You have picked one point to complain about in an article published by an established reporter, in an established media outlet. I have pointed out why I think your one point is invalid. In turn you came back with what amounts to a self-published sourced from a fringe group making highly questionable claims. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't your place to determine what claims are valid or whether the source is of a standard you personally permit. I've read through the Talk page, and many people question the standard of the Montreal Gazette as a reference in this application. I don't, because it isn't my place to make that assessment. Nor is it yours.

In response to your most recent accusation, I have introduced the topic of this reference and its lack of reliabilty with you on the Discussion page several times. This is a good faith attempt at finding a reference that meets the scrutiny of reliabilty. We are on equal footing here in terms of editorship. And, while you know how to use Wikipedia policies to support whatever position you take, I am well versed in writing referenced authorship. In most cases, I concede to your experience in the Wikipedia system. However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention to the points I am making or dismmiss them off-hand because we have different world view perspectives.--Ahnalira (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You do realize of course that the article that is cited in reference to medical professionals is not the Montreal Gazette right? Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. "Medical professionals" is now limited exclusively to people with medical degrees? As a former EMT, I can assure you that I worked with people who were called "medical professionals" but were EMT-Bs and paramedics. I was a volunteer rather than a professional.
 * EMT-Bs are the medical professionals who usually staff the ambulances which respond to the scene of medical emergencies
 * ... an EMT, Paramedic or other emergency medical professional

Those are two links that come up in a quick google search. Analyzing and fact-checking sources is good, but this really looks like grasping at straws because you don't like the content. Bhimaji (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points Bhimaji, I have been trying to do this stepwise but it is one of many issues with trying to impeach the sources on this article. The point being made is semantic and relies heavily on a limited definition as you laid out. Even based on the definition given the article still interviews people who qualify. And last and most important to me the article that talks about medical professionals is not the same article whose credibility is being called into question. You can't impeach one article based on a perceived fault in a different article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarify for me, Tmtoulouse, please: When I went in and edited the line that referred to the psychotherapist as a medical professional to a Psychology professional (the accurate definition), you informed me that I was changing a quote from the article cited. I am baffled by your statement: "You can't impeach one article based on a perceived fault in a different article." Are we talking about the article in the Montreal Gazette or not? If I misunderstood, my apology. Please point me to the reference that does mis-define the term 'medical professional'.

Bhimaji, when are you going to contribute to the improvement of the article as TmToulouse has requested? EMTs have medical training - no argument there. Psychotherapists don't.--Ahnalira (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Look closely, next to the quote is a footnote, click that footnote. Now is the footnote linking to an article in the Montreal Gazette? Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Please point me to the reference that does mis-define the term 'medical professional'." When did you stop beating your wife? Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You sound upset. This looks to me like it qualifies as a personal attack (misguided as well since I'm female) and violates civility policy. I also note and can reference, if necessary, that Bhimaji shows up consistently at points of disagreement to argue on your behalf without offering edit contribution. This violates good faith and meets the criteria for Wikigaming. Do we need referees? Or can you shift the way you are communicating with me?--Ahnalira (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, I take it you have never heard that phrase before? Check out Loaded question and learn! Your complaints about Bhimaji are sophomoric, transparent and silly. You have learned the lingo (I have taught you well) but you have not learned the spirit of the law young padawan. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse, I followed your guidance and checked the footnotes. I do see that the previous statement I took issue with has been removed and that the Montreal Gazette doesn't use the term medical professional. My confusion, please excuse. It would have been considerate if you had clarified for me the first two times I brought up that I was misunderstanding the reference. I would call that good faith. I did search the article and didn't find the definition as you wrote it referenced in the article. I do believe this is required for citation. There were several definitions, and all of them work from my perspective - they are shorter, clearer, and more readable. We can pick one of those and cite your reference if you want. Your comments to me are crossing the line into personal attack. You are not acting in good faith. YOu asked earlier to keep the dialogue specific to edits. Please ask your friend to do the same.--Ahnalira (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tmtoulouse is not my friend. I don't know who he is. I have never had a single private discussion with him. The "Do you still beat your wife" question is a cliched rhetorical joke. Unfortunately, that is fairly culture-specific. There's an urban legend (untrue, of course) that, if you are testifying in court, the attorney questioning you can demand you answer a question with "yes" or "no." In college I would often see people ask the question as a joke, if you said, "yes, I'll answer your question." I'll try to do some work on the article, but right now I'm actively working on projects in three four time zones in addition to my own, so I shouldn't really be spending time here. My toddler does like watching people type, though, so he has fun when I'm editing :) Bhimaji (talk) 06:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC).

Ahnalira: You previously wrote,
 * "by definition, a medical professional has to have a medical degree to practice medicine"

but now you say that an EMT-B is also a medical professional without a medical degree. So, you've accepted that your original belief about the definition of the term "medical professional" is incorrect. But you're still certain enough of your newly revised definition that you want a source removed. Have you done any more reading into the definition? Have you attempted to educate yourself further about the meaning of a term you seriously misunderstood as of 15 minutes ago?

Every time I come here to look at the article, I find so much blatantly false information on the talk page that, by the time I've read through and double checked stuff, I don't have enough time to do much more.

You believe that Dr. Ruggieri is a reliable source. I disagree, based not on opinion but on straightforward objective measures.

Looking at Dr. Ruggieri's article, some things pop out:
 * "Due to electro-magnetic force, vibrations move between two poles: a positive pole that sends out energy and a negative pole that attracts it. The Law of Attraction is really the Law of Polarity, which states that everything is dual, everything has opposite poles, and for movement to occur there must be a positive, neutral and negative pole."

Benjamin Franklin was a very bright man, but unfortunately he got us started in the wrong direction. Up until 1897, we thought that the positive pole sent out energy. JJ Thomson discovered the electron and demonstrated that conventional current flow was actually backwards.

The comment about the need to have three poles for movement is interesting. My RS485 interface converters are isolated. Two poles. No neutral. They manage to move energy around quite well.

Dr. Ruggieri's statements are explicitly about EMF, and they are demonstrably wrong. Bhimaji (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the policy wonk is driving me nuts. I introduced you to wikipedia policy so you could become familiar with it not so you beat me to death semantics. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is the only authority I have to reference a conversation with you on equal footing regarding this editing process. You introduced it to me by pointing out to me everytime you thought I was outside policy.  Since this is the way you use it, and you have more experience in this venue, I follow your lead.  I assume in good faith that you are showing me how to use the Wikipedia system. I would love to focus collaboratively on the edit.--Ahnalira (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actual work
I am waiting to see the definition in the article cleaned up and rewritten to accurately reflect one of the definitions in the cited reference. I'll go into the reference and find a definition to quote later today if no one else does.--Ahnalira (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not following, definition for what and what reference? Tmtoulouse (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is how the definition is stated in the article: "Like Attracts Like" and applies it to conscious desire. That is, a person's thoughts (conscious and subconscious), emotions, and beliefs cause a change in the physical world that attracts positive or negative experiences that correspond to the aforementioned thoughts, with or without action. This process has been described as "harmonious vibrations of the law of attraction". I have two issues with it: 1)I searched the reference article and - while I found several definitions throughout the article that were easy understandable - I did not find the definition as stated above in the article, therefore it is not a quote from the article, and 2)The definition as written is hard to follow and make sense of.  I propose using a quoted definition FROM the article referenced as is the standard for citations.--Ahnalira (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that as written this is far from optimal, if there are some good quotes in the source then please put can you quote them here? I would have no problem rewriting this lead/definition as long as it is sourced write and improves clarity. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are several quotes from the cited reference that describe a definition of Law of Attraction in much simpler terms: 1) "Every thought is attracted to other thoughts of the same vibration." 2)""If you really want something and believe it's possible, you'll probably get it. On the other hand, if you really don't want something and put a lot of attention on it, you'll probably get that, too." 3)""The point is to understand that (the Law of Attraction) is a real spiritual principle." These are all quotes from the Montreal Gazette article--Ahnalira (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this:

"The phrase Law of Attraction, although used widely by esoteric writers, has a variety of definitions. Turn of the century references conceptualized the law of attraction as relating to physical structure and to how matter develops. A more modern consensus among New Thought thinkers is that the Law of Attraction says people's thoughts (both conscious and unconscious) dictate the reality of their lives, whether or not they're aware of it. Essentially "if you really want something and believe it's possible, you'll probably get it" but that putting a lot of attention and thought onto something you don't want means you'll probably get that too. "

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmtoulouse (talk • contribs) 20:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is clearly written, and defines the concept well, I think. I agree with this edit.--Ahnalira (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

One paragraph down, on to the next
So we seem to have a rough consensus on the opening paragraph, let us move on to the next? This one needs some serious work sense it now restates stuff that was just said plus it bring up some unsourced tangents. Here it is:

"The phrase is closely associated with New Thought beliefs and practices, from which its most common definition arises, but it also has a long standing (and more complex development) in other esoteric fields such as Hermeticism and Theosophy. Recently, the New Thought version was popularized by the 2006 film The Secret. In 2006 as well, the book, Law of Attraction: The Basic Teachings of Abraham made the New York Times Best Sellers list, drawing more attention and interest to this topic. In 2007, Oprah Winfrey began a series of interviews during her talk show on this topic."

The first sentence is now pleonastic, and the second half of the sentence is unsourced. Is anyone particularly attached to it or can the whole sentence be removed? Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the first sentence is redundant and opaque in meaning. Let's remove it.  If the remainder of the paragraph requires sourcing - and I need to do a little research into Wiki policy because these are facts with no possibility of being original research - I will place references.--Ahnalira (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Switching History and Principles sections
Would anyone object to switching these sections around so principles come first? Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think switching these sections around makes good sense.--Ahnalira (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and did it, and then integrated some of the criticism sections into principles. At which point I realized we were very close to being able to dump the whole criticism section with a little more work. So I was wp:bold and pushed ahead. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Tags
How are we doing as far as the tags go? I have gone through just about every section of this and removed unsourced/poorly sourced material, tried to integrate the criticism in a coherent manner, and improve the structure/flow. It is tagged with NPOV dispute and "clean up." Have the improvements reached the point that we can talk about removing one or both the tags? Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"See Also" removal of Esther Hicks
Tmtoulouse, would it be acceptable to remove the link to Esther Hicks in the text for The Secret and restore it to the "See Also" section? I assume it is the duplication of link that is the problem, correct? Gordondavid (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, the purpose of the see also section is cover for "holes" in the article where relevant information is not talked about. A "perfect article" would not have a see also section since all the concepts would be in the main article and linked in the text. The goal is to move links from "See also" into the body of the text, not the reverse. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the McCain book from that list of "bestsellers". I checked and that book was anything but a best seller. I don't know how it got into this article. --Moriah (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but this isn't the Esther Hicks book club article, we need to include a broader sample of works. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But if we are going to call them "best sellers" we should be able to link them to a best seller list.--Moriah (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What really needs to happen is someone who is familiar with the history of relevant literature in the last 50 years needs to redo the last part of the history sections, at the moment we go from the early 1900s to 2008 with only passing mention of a few names. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As it happens you are in luck - I am familiar with said history, and the fact is that from around the turn of the 20th century until Abraham-Hicks in the 1980's, the term "Law of Attraction" was almost completely dormant. It's fascinating, but true. The Hickses did publish material starting in the 80's, most of it audio.--Moriah (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an error made from a change I did last night that duplicates a reference URL to the wrong place. It refers to the NY Times best seller list of 8/31/08. I will fix that now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordondavid (talk • contribs) 17:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

PsuedoScientifi
The term is nonsense there already is a word for what is described, called a 'hypothesis'. The difficulty in providing 'proof' affects when it it graduates into being an actual scientific theory. There already is proof that makes LoA an actual theory. I agree that some may see a lot of information that conflicts with LoA. For them LoA is simply a theory. For those who are able to see, instead that these 'conflicts' as supporting proof, it becomes a Law.

THAT is the scientific progression= Hypothesis => Theory => Law Notice there are very few laws; AND they always have exceptions, like Newton's laws fail when things get really big like a star systems, or really small like atoms. Claiming LoA is 'PseudoScientific' is either unintentionally, or intentionally, insulting. However, the insult is to the author who wrote the front page; THAT they fail to understand science and how the word works in science. So I suggest it gets changed... unless you want people to continue to laugh at you. --Spike (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia states that "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status". The scientific community does not accept the LoA as a scientific theory. There is no reliable evidence corroborating it. And the fact that it is being presented as an idea with scientific validation makes it automatically a pseudoscience. Calin99 (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)