Jump to content

Talk:Napoleon Hill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is an editorial

[edit]

Would like to see less of the opinionated entries such as the word "conman" Wiki is fact based not opinion based. All of the "opinion" based text should be stricken 2603:7080:E7F0:9210:FCC3:DF8:3110:F175 (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, but that would include almost everything he wrote. And, if you ask me, those arrest warrants were real. So, conman is a fact, it is not "opinion". tgeorgescu (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the warrants is that they do not show resolution. For example, the Shreve Brothers were tried and convicted for the lumber sales fraud. See Cincinnati Enquirer, 29 April 1910. Naps Grandson (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Shreve brothers were tried and convicted for the lumber sales con Novav accuses Napoleon Hill of performing. Novac stopped his research to soon. See Cincinatti Enquirer, 29 April 1910. 2603:6011:EF04:CC8A:BD3F:BA03:B6A2:D7B8 (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was Nap a con man because he advertised himself as an attorney in Chicago in the 1920s. Well, a quick Google search reveals that between 1879 and 1931 the only requirement to practice law in Illinois was a high school diploma. A license was not required until 1931. Naps Grandson (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Novac has tried and convicted Napoleon Hill with INNUENDO when authorities were unable to do it with EVIDENCE 100 years ago. Interesting, isn’t it? Of what con was Nap ever convicted? Naps Grandson (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The violation of this whole page is disgusting, and based on a largely baseless article. Only lowlifes would try to taint the man’s name after he has passed. 2A00:23EE:2730:3AF2:4431:CFCB:884B:B73F (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conman and Novak Ref

[edit]

I'm surprised it's in there given these past discussions. I'm going to dig through the article history.

Added to lede 09:08, 13 August 2019 by @Psiĥedelisto:

Added to first sentence 16:48, 22 August 2023 by @Horse Eye's Back:

I don't currently have time to dig into this further. The Novak ref needs revisiting given the past discussions. It was completely stripped from the article after the RfC, but is now used heavily. --Hipal (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Novak's post was used too much. But Lingeman and Farnham make similar points, and are way more reliable. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hill is one of the most famous American con men (a genera to be fair in which even the most famous are obscure, most can't name more than half a dozen)... No amount of sycophants and apologists can change that. None of the other reliable sources contradict Novak and he is widely published by RS. I second this comment from the RSN discussion "... I think the concerns over the Paleofuture "blog" are a bit overblown. Paleofuture may call itself a "blog" on Gizmodo, but it's not self-published livejournal or anything. From a structural point of view, it's just a normal part of Gizmodo, a news website." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's gather more evidence that the Novak ref is reliable, and look for new references as well. --Hipal (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TBH Novak is the most in-depth independent reliable source I know of when it comes to Hill, the only other fully in-depth source is the bio published by his foundation which is in-depth but neither truly reliable or independent. The key point is that nobody actually appears to contest any of the Novak ref, nobody can point out a single thing that Novak got wrong... All of the main points are corroborated by other sources, Novak just goes into greater detail. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To protest Novac there must be an appropriate forum. Is this an appropriate venue for doing so? Naps Grandson (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest Jason Youngbloods “The Gospel of Napoleon Hill; Scholar or Scammer” Naps Grandson (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem like a reliable source... It is self published and the author's three other books are unsuccessful self help books[1]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what Youngblood did was dig deeper than Novac with his Newspapers research. His book not only shows the articles announcing warrents for arresting Nap but ALSO the articles showing Nap was acquitted. The book makes it simple to check both sides of an argument. Jason’s credibility is moot when you can check the information directly. Naps Grandson (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has an over-reliance on Novak, but Lingeman and Farnham endorse many of his claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to pair down the reliance on Novak. The expert opinion of David Nasaw in Novak would also remain usable even if Novak in general was ruled undue. For me its actually the Nasaw interview which puts the Novak piece solidly into the serious journalism categorty, Nasaw is the expert on Carnegie so what he has to say carries weight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we trusting Youngblood as reliable? --Hipal (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nap Hill was an attorney

[edit]

1920 requirement to practice law in Illinois was just a high school diploma. A license to practice law was not required until 1931. 2603:6011:EF04:CC8A:BD3F:BA03:B6A2:D7B8 (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But even his official bio says he never practiced law... With or without a license. So what does this change? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does practicing law means you have to have a license? Interesting! There was a time in this country when you did not even need a license to practice medicine! Nap needs to be judged by his time and place and NO LICENSE or LAW degree was required to practice law in Chicago while Nap was there. Naps official biographer was no more knowledgeable than Novac. Naps Grandson (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and NAP worked as a legal clerk for Lumberport Shinnston Gas Company in 1911 which was owned by his brother-in-law, Hood Hornor. MY Dad had the same job for a time; he handled the leasing of mineral rights for the company. It is not the same as practicing law as we know it today but it was in the legal field. Anyway, the discussion by his “official” (whatever that means) biographer is moot. In the 1920s all that was required to practice law is a high school diploma. My grandfather had that, now prove my grand father didn’t practice law, and if he did, prove it was illegal at the time. The “practicing law” just accusation is used to support a false narrative. Naps Grandson (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read with comprehension the above: it does not matter if he had a license, he simply never practiced as a lawyer. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do read with comprehension…my reply to that comment is how do you KNOW with certainty that he did not practice as a lawyer. He was qualified under Illinois law. Lawyers, today, still deal with leases and titles which he certainly did for the gas company. Naps Grandson (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you know with certainty that he did? You would need a source which says that he practiced law, we don't currently have one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is true…still there is that letterhead on Novac’s blog that he is so proud off that reads, Napoleon Hill, Attorney at Law, #### Michigan Ave, Chicago, Illinois. This is certainly evidence that Nap MAY have practiced law, which he was legally entitled to do. Novac uses that letterhead to besmirch Nap for practicing law because there is no evidence that Nap went to law school. Incidentally, Nap was admired to Georgetown Law School but did not start as his first son Jimmy was born in June of 1910. Naps Grandson (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t get me wrong, I do not think he was successful if he tried his hand at law. He was far too busy with everything else he was doing while he was in Chicago. In just a few years he was involved with 1/2 dozen businesses. I have my own opinions about that, no doubt, biased by my father. Still, I possess most, is not all, of his letters to his wife Florence and some of his very important papers. Naps Grandson (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As HEB replied, I don't know with certainty. But till now no WP:RS was WP:CITED that he did. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did I do something wrong? It was a friendly discussion, I thought. Naps Grandson (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Naps Grandson: It is not an accusation. It is simply a statement that no WP:SOURCES to that extent have been produced. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic

[edit]

@Horse Eye's Back, everything can be attributed, does that mean articles should be filled with quoted passages, and so turn them into novels? Only crucial lines are usually, and I don't see how that is one... also, it is 'a', not 'an'... 92.18.124.187 (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems relevent and we don't limit what is due to what is "crucial" (thats usually the standard applied to the lead, not the body) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it crucial, though, as opposed to likely other passages about the same time? (Or none at all, as most early life sections have no quotes, this is the first I notice); having 'wild child' in an article is just not quite encyclopedic... 92.18.124.187 (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like it would be an unencyclopedic description of an adult, but not to describe someone's actual childhood. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nonsensical to describe an adult as a child, sure, the point is that the whole sentence is some strange anecdote... was it even made up by the author, or was he in contact with them? Either way, you need to explain why this, of all passages in a book, is relevant, because I really don't see it... and, as mentioned, most early lives have no quotes... 92.18.124.187 (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a defining biographical detail, at least thats how the source presents it. What makes you think that his step mother was not an important influence on him? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't all article subjects' families have some such sort? Yet, most early lives are in the form of "born to x, y, with careers x, y, of religion x", and barely anything else, usually, which is not to say that there shouldn't be more information when it's available, but I fail to see how an article subject being called a "wild child" by some random biographer is either encyclopedic, or at all informative... usually when there is more info in early lives it's when their influence extends to the subjects' careers, and I'm not sure that is the case, here... 92.18.124.187 (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out 'a' not 'an' though, you will notice that I restored that improvement when I attributed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Napoleon_Hill&oldid=1254923565"