Talk:The Secret (2006 film)

This article is a typical hit-job...
...by the usual left-wing mob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.162.240.241 (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on The Secret (2006 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070221030456/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/opinion/la-oe-klein13feb13,0,3953992.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail to http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-klein13feb13,0,3953992.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929170308/http://www.nypost.com/seven/03042007/news/regionalnews/a_secret_oprah_craze_hits_new_yorkers_regionalnews_jill_culora.htm?page=0 to http://www.nypost.com/seven/03042007/news/regionalnews/a_secret_oprah_craze_hits_new_yorkers_regionalnews_jill_culora.htm?page=0

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Secret (2006 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090705224817/http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21824989-5005941,00.html?from=public_rss to http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21824989-5005941,00.html?from=public_rss

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

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

What a heap of gibberish
If the Law of Attraction is supposed to attract good writing to this article, it's not working. Hopeless mess. EEng 01:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree your comment is hilarious. I tried to add some tidbits there and there. I do not think it was written by fans though.Filmman3000 (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)