Talk:Napoleon Hill/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Napoleon Hill. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

De-coding Think and Grow Rich

I bought my first copy of Think and Grow Rich when I was 14 years old. There has never been a day in my life I did not own a copy of this book. I have studied this book the way some people study their Bible. By the time I was eighteen, I still had not yet discovered what Hill called, "the biggest secret buried with-in the pages of the book". I decided my mission, on that day of my life, was to de-code the book. I took a pencil and the book and sat at the dining room table. My attitude and approach was, "I don't care how high your IQ is, I don't care how many college degrees you have hanging on the wall, I don't care how much money you have at your disposal and I don't care who you know in high place that will take your in-bound calls. None of those things represent any type of an advantage in your life until...you first...take some form of ACTION. So, I began to look, word for word, for the ACTION words. If it was an ACTION word, I circled it. If it wasn't, I ignored it. When I completed this process, I went back to see if there was some type of pattern to the circled words. There was. Over and over again. In the same order. I had only circled some form of three different words: KNOW, PLAN and ACT. My personal understanding of the book, Think and Grow Rich is, "If you desire (want) "good things" to happen to you, or for your benefit, you have to (1) KNOW exactly what it is you want. (2) PLAN precisely for it to happen. (3) ACT faithfully on your plans. (Summary) When you have made adequate preparation for a thing to happen, you can't stop it from happening. [Note] I have lived an incredibly satisfying life living by the principle taught by Napoleon Hill. The word, "Rich" in the book's title is a little misleading. It's not all about money. "Rich" is having literally anything you desire in life. Also, if I could re-edit his book, I'd call the first chapter, "The Power of an Idea". Realize, everything mankind ever created, started off as nothing more than an "idea" in one person's mind. I have seen the world through Napoleon Hill's eyes. I have lived a wonderful life. Outside of my own parents, no other individual has had such a profound positive effect on my life. Everything he writes about is totally duplicateable...by anyone, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, income, formal education, background or difficult circumstances...who takes the time to understand it. If you read his ideas, understand his ideas, apply them to your life, they will improve the quality of your life, for the rest of your life. Jim Vaughan, Venice, Florida

What nonsense. The majority of the Earth's population haven't read a single line by this author. Despite this terrible omission, millions of people manage to lead happy and fulfilled lives. I wonder what they're reading?--kscally 10:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Which "Earth" are you from? "Millions" ain't much on a planet with thousands of millions. You sound more as if you are just a bit jealous of the OP's positive nature. I don't wonder what you read. (Lotsa noosepapers, I'd guess.) <g>

^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 16:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And that sounds like someone's comment got under your skin... kscally 00:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Jim, just as a gentle reminder, the next time you open a section on a Talk page, you might consider using the New Section link. This places your new section at the bottom of the page and keeps everything in dated order. Also, it helps if you end your writings with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ This adds a signature and date. And also, before I forget... welcome to Wikipedia! ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 16:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Master Mind section needs updates

The phrase "MASTER MIND" was actually used by Wallace D. Wattles in "The Science of Getting Rich" (1910), a book freely available online. I do not know if Wattles coined it, but there is no attribution that proves that Hill did. If Hill did coin the expression, he would have had to do it between 1908, when he started writing articles, and 1910; I find this incredibly unlikely. The Master Mind section needs to be substantially rewritten to cite Wattles' (and Hill's) precise use of the term, or it needs to be removed.

"... to think riches when in the midst of appearances of poverty, requires power; but he who acquires this power becomes a MASTER MIND. He can conquer fate; he can have what he wants." (Wattles, "The Science of Getting Rich")

Hills definition of the master mind involves more than one mind to come to a realization of any objective.

"The coordination of effort between TWO OR MORE people in a spirit of perfect harmony in order to obtain a specific objective." (Hill, "The Science of Personal Achievement"

- - -
Wattles and Hill are assigning different meanings to the phrase Master Mind; both are conceptually distinct from each other. 216.232.241.206 14:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Tyler Walton

Commercial content

This article needs a LOT of work before it comes close to any sort scholarly standards. Listing "the secret" as a content section and then using it as a teaser promotion for a independent video movie called "the Secret" is blatantly disrespectful of Wikipedia's guidelines. Unfortunately for topics with relevence to mystics and masons, or charletans and marketeers, these problems seem a recuring problem. I have hope however, when I see strong articles adhering to guidelines in other contentious articles prone to misinformation campaigns (like scientology for example).
I encourage anyone who is able to sheppard this article toward respectability to do so. As I think many of the ideas Mr Hill put forth in his works are worthy of study and practice.68.164.63.102 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Hill section - The Success Formula
Is this article a joke? If it's for real then it is perhaps the silliest wikipedia short bio I've ever observed. The article is poorly written, especially "The Success Formula". It is worded as a sycophantic hagiography, a testimonial to the infallible wisdom of Napoleon Hill, with a magical fantasy become real, making all sorts of unsupportable allegations:

"Modern business schools do not teach the Carnegie/Hill formula"
leading CEO's and strategists in American Business today would find no knowledge of the "success formula"
What we do know about the formula is that it is a relativity equation,
combines some aspects of relativity with aspects of non-conforming mathematics, is belongs to a unique class of equations which have not been fully described yet
formula can equally be modeled not only mathematically but also psychologically, making it the first equation to describe the overall thought process of the human mind in a mathematical expression
A lack of knowledge of the success formula in formal education ... responsible for ... the relatively unsatisfactory performance of our major companies and institutions who do not believe the formula exists.
-discovery and re-application of the formula is considered to be one of the pressing issues facing United States business and government today

Update 4/17/2009
No one is laughing now, as the Carnegie formula was NOT discovered since the time the above paragraph was written, and the world economy lost an estimated $45 Trillion in assets over the past 2 years. There is strong doubt today whether this capital will ever be recovered.
The Carnegie formula is indeed an equation, and we now know that it comes in parts, and that general relativity is constrained by it. So some people HAVE been working hard at getting the Carnegie Formula, regardless of near-universal doubt that it exists, and the formula is now becoming understood again.
Possession of the formula is a high form of "education", just as Dr. Hill predicted. However, it cannot be gained solely by IQ, although intelligence is a factor in acquiring the formula. Sorry to talk in riddles, but most people are NOT ready for the formula...hence why Think and Grow Rich was written, to prepare ordinary people to go search for it.
The search for rediscovery of the Carnegie formula took several years, at a cost of several million dollars. The search was done precisely as the formula's rediscovery was considered to be one of the most pressing issues facing American business since the above entry was made.
Dr. Hill's original explanation of the formula having 2 parts was told to readers as "the first part is having an idea". How an idea grows and becomes real riches is explained by the second part of the Carnegie formula, the second part itself consisting of a number of "individual parts". Dr. Hill showed roughly 13 steps in Think and Grow Rich, which were themselves "approximations" to allow individuals to see HOW the formula worked...since actual explanation of the formula would exceed the mathematical understanding of most people in the 1930's.
Carnegie's formula is not "The Secret" as was recently sold as fantasy to millions of people just prior to the economic meltdown. The Carnegie Formula is a universal truth, and those who possess it can and should create positive change and wealth in society.
The formula cannot be had by anyone unless they are intentionally searching for it, and it cannot be had for just money alone...as money is also governed by the formula. This is just as Dr. Hill predicted.
Here are some questions to ask yourselves today: - where have all the customers gone? (Hint. A customer is a person, who is alive and breathing, regardless of which organization they belong to) - who owns most of the assets in the United States? (Hint. It is NOT "the rich". That is a lazy answer, with very little thought put into it)
The Carnegie Formula is available to all men (and women), if they are willing to look for it. Is it possible that Americans were so successful because of men like Andrew Carnegie, that they actually lost the formula amid all of their wealth pursuit? It does appear to be so, and yet this is almost "impossible" in its conception, that the Carnegie formula could be "lost". A reading of historical journals and books shows it was indeed WELL UNDERSTOOD even 100 years ago, by many, many people. It is NOT taught in schools, and Carnegie thought it would cut the time spent in school in half...perhaps this is "why" it is not taught.
"Impossible" is a good place to start looking for the formula, if you really want it, which is exactly what Dr. Hill suggested in 1938. Most people are very familiar with the world "Impossible", to their detriment.

No one should go hating on Napolean Hill. When I began reading Think and Grow Rich, I thought it was nonsense too, but you have to look at matters squarely. I have a deep respect for Hill and Carnegie and, they proved the formula worked. Please keep this section intact for those of us who do agree with the Carnegie formula.

Agreed with the above. This article is full of unsupported assertions and contains little of any academic value.

Current version (as of Jan.20.2006) is somewhat interesting, but 99% redundant crap. It could be reverted to this: [1] In short...

THE SUCCESS FORMULA IS:

"Whatever you give will come back to you."

It needs no mathematical formulation: your new invention will bring you "riches" nearly equal to the new riches it lets your market produce. (ie. If your market will increase their productivity from $1m to $1.5m /year by using your product, you will theoretically also gain a big chunk of that $.5m /year by selling it to them.)
It is about creating wealth by giving/selling knowledge/tools. No wonder Andrew Carnegie thought that the best way to use his money to benefit mankind was to leverage education and facilitate the production of knowledge. (He founded thousands of libraries, some universities and science institutes.) --Paperweight 06:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The Carnegie secret, as Napolean Hill put it, has nothing to do with a secret mathamatical formula, world economics or even money (if you read between the lines). It has everything to do with the individual raising his or her own standards to achieve what they themselves consider to be success. This success can be something as small and personal as losing weight or as large and overwhelming as feeding a nation, either way around the principles outlined in Think and Grow Rich will help you achieve success in any worth while endevoure. As far as those who dismiss the book because the economic times are not perfect, the author himself lived through 2 world wars, the Great Depression, the Korean war and evan part of the Vietnam conflict. To say the least, he knew and understood what hard times are better than anyone born in the last 40 years and if you were to actually look into the history of the writing of this book you will find that part of the reason for writing this book was to help people get through tough times just like these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.231.236 (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Success Formula

YOU HAVE TO TAKE THIS OUT! IF YOU HAVE READ THINK AND GROW RICH YOU WOULD KNOW VERY WELL THAT JUST GIVING AWAY THE SUCCESS FORMULA WOULD MAKE HILL ROLL OVER IN HIS GRAVE, YOU HAVE TO EARN THAT FORMULA.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.214.170 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2007‎ (UTC)

Request

What exactally did Napoleon Hill do for FDR.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.232.201.124 (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2006‎ (UTC)

What he did

According to Hill's official biographer (Michael J. Ritt, "A Lifetime of Riches"), Hill was introduced to Roosevelt at the White House by U. S. Senator Jennings Randolph of West Virginia. Randolph had been a huge fan and supporter of Hill since the day he heard Hill deliver an electrifying and inspirational commencement address his senior year at Salem College in Virginia. Hill, as he had done for a time with Woodrow Wilson, served as an unpaid, very behind-the-scenes public relations adviser to FDR. He developed plans to shape public opinion, offered ideas for Roosevelt’s fireside chats, and there is some suggestion he may have been responsible for Roosevelt’s use of the phrase “the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself” in his inaugural address. White House visitor logs in those days were not what they are today, and many people came and went rather freely. This was apparently the case with Hill, who met with Roosevelt on numerous occasions. Hill met or corresponded with several U. S. Presidents. [In "Think and Grow Rich:! The Original Version, Restored and Revised" (ISBN 1593302002), see pages 4, 284, 290, 315 (endnote 5), and 329 (endnote 7)]. Hill's relationship with Roosevelt was widely and publicly discussed by Hill and others through the years. Randolph died in 1998; Hill, in 1970. Randolph also served for several years as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Napoleon Hill Foundation. It is inconceivable that he would not have found some way to set the record straight had there been any doubt about the validity of Hill's relationship with FDR.

As an alumnus I just felt it should be noted that Salem College is actually in West Virginia, not Virginia. 加持 (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Authenticity of data

How accurate (or authentic) are the data available in the articles of my beloved WIKIPEDIA? For instance, today when I browsed this article about Napoleon Hill – the German version (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Hill) as well as the English version (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Hill). The German version stated that the number of copies of “Think and Grow Rich” sold between 1937 and 2004 was 7 million. However, the English version implied this as 30 million. I continued to make a small test further, by editing the latter web page. My editing of this figure to 31 million was accepted by the web page without any complaints. Again, when I reverted this to 30 million, the web page was equally happy.
Present arrangement of publishing the IP address of an editor is grossly insufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.163.21 (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me start by saying I am a great fan of Hill, Stone, Mandino and others and apply the directions mentioned in their works. However, one must keep in mind that Hill was effectively broke most of his adult life. Hill taught to Think and Grow Rich. He did not apply much of the knowledege properly. He had many failed business ventures, and was rescued in the later porton of his working life by W. Clement Stone, who gave him a position as a sales trainer for his Combined Insurance Company (now part of AON). Stone took what Hill did and created a system from it. Hill had thought, but no system of implementation. Don't get me wrong, Hill was brilliant, but it's easier to dispense advice than to use it. Without Stone, he would have in all probability, died broke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.84.100 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Think and Grow Rich

Shut the F@#K UP all you ignorant fools! If you can't see or understand the secret, then that's your stupid problem.

No, it's the fault of the book Think and Grow Rich, which talks at great length about what a great secret it holds, but never actually discusses what the secret is.

I could write a book about what a great secret I have, as long as I don't have to reveal it. Means nothing unless/until you actually show the goods.

Septegram 18:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, the book is there and there ain't nothing you can do. So piss off.
It is one of the best self-help book that I've read and it has changed my perspective and even my life for the better.

KSJ

I have read "Think And Grow Rich", all four volumes of "The Law Of Success", "A Year Of Growing Rich", and "Positive Action Plan". I have what I believe to be a keen sense of logic and have, thus far, been moderately succesful. I have no reason to doubt any word, concept or idea that Hill ever presented in his work. I hold his philosophy to be a sound one, worthy of my acceptance. I have read the biographies of Lance Armstrong and Chris Ledoux, both very succesful men in their own unique ways. I have found their lives to support Hill's message fully. I have found striking similarities in the books of Robert Kyosaki, author of "Rich Dad - Poor Dad", among several books about financial success. Zig Ziglar, author of "See You At The Top" shares very similar ideas about sales and success. To understand Napoleon Hill's secret is to experience emotional and spiritual growth to the point that you can comprehend it, you must have endured enough pain in your life, constructive pain. I have found parallels between the message of Hill and: The Buddha, Kiung Tsu (Confucius), Protagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Christ, Immanual Kant, Soren Kierkegaard, and Victor Frankl. Anthony Robbins, perhaps viewed as a "pseudo-psychologist" (but only by those who havent studied his program) nearly mirrors Hill's work, and it's credible. Would he not be so successful if it wasn't? In my studies, both theoretically, and empirically, I have come to trust Hill's "secret". However, it's not much of a secret at all, it's just what we call wisdom, something that is unfortunately progressively becoming quite scarce. The decisions to be pessimestic about the Napoleon Hill entry were in fact decisions, just as my decision to study his work and to become better prapared to have a VALID opinion of it. I just can't help but ask if any of them know anything more about Hill, or Carnegie than the short, entry that was posted here on Wilkipedia. I doubt that any of those who made negative entries have large banks accounts, because if they did, they would likely know a bit more about the "Secret". J.C.C.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to share the "secret" that Mr. Hill neglects to share in his book?

Septegram 18:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Here you go:
Neuro Associative Conditioning. Do you consciously monitor your thoughts? What Hill calls "Autosuggestion" is a very powerful thing, it's everything! First, consider your "Social Heredity" also a term coined by Hill that means the way you experience your reality, in other words, your biases, what you consider to be moral or immoral, or what is of value to you, or perhaps what you consider to be of personal gain. For example, an anorexic believes food will harm them, a bodybuilder doesnt want to go without food for more than three or four hours. Clearly they have opposing "autosuggestion" when food is the subject at hand. But what most people don't do is monitor the fact that they have these fleeting thoughts that control their emotions, their decisions, their happiness, and their SUCCESS. Every time you are confronted with a situation, there is a quick occurence in your mind, and you have trained your mind to act however it happens to act. The things you relate to pleasure and pain is what determines this mental outcome. The SECRET here is that although most people have ideal ideas, the thoughts that construct their existence are self destructive. On the simplest, and most fundamental level, one must learn to monitor thier thoughts to be sure they are directing their life where their ultimate goals want them to end up. A good book on the matter is called "Neural Path Therapy" by Matthew McKay and David Harp. Robert Kyosaki also talks about it in the first chapter of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" when he states the the reason poor people are poor is because their fear of losing when investing is greater than their desire to succeed. That fear of losing thought is usually what happens just before someone chooses not to make that phone call, or to initiate the investment process. What Hill does in "Think And Grow Rich" is "show" you the secret instead of "tell" you. Hill doesn't neglect to share his secret, in fact that's all the book is about. The first step toward understanding the secret is to begin to monitor your autosuggestion. Oh, and also actually read his books. J.C.C.
______________________________________________________________
Thanks wikpedia for a very good article on Napoleon Hill. I have been a fan of Napoleon Hill for many years, and own many books and tapes by him.
In reading the comments, it is interesting that so many people who know very little of Napoleon Hill have so many negative things to say.
Napoleon was born into poverty, and through his association with Andrew Carnegie managed to help thousands of others become successful. This was his calling, and it made him sucessful too. If you read and understand the story, Napoleon worked for twenty years for the richest man in the world without compensation. He also worked for FDR as an unpaid advisor. The Think and Grow Rich manuscript was written during the time that he served FDR in the White House.
If Napoleon Hill had wanted riches to the degree that Andrew Carnegie and others did, he would have achieved them. When Andrew Carnegie challenged Napoleon to go to work for him for twenty years, Andrew Carnegie did not live to see the results. Carnegie died in 1919, and Napoleon worked on, and finally published his work in 1928, called "The Law of Success."
Men of lesser integrity could have used this close association of great people and millionaires to better "ine their own nests." Hill did not, he kept on working interviewing 504 men and distilling their knowledge of success into a formula for the common man. This formula has helped to create this country. He did exactly as Carnegie wanted, and we are better for it.
There is no way to measure the full impact of Hill's work. Many read and achieve what they want, but it would never get reported to the author.
Napoleon Hill is one of the greatest Americans who yield a tremendous impact during his lifetime. And he will continue to have an impact on people who are "not yet born."
FJL

Napoleon Hill's work and the commentary about it are biography and social history, not science.
Andilinks 01:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism not Surprising

I suppose it is not surprising that a few (ahem) uninformed contributors to this discussion page would post criticism of not only the entry listing, but also of Napoleon Hill himself. (And as an aside: please, can we dispense of phrases like "...my beloved Wikipedia..."? If you want factual information that has the weight of a respected publication and an editorial review board, please consult the Encyclopedia Britannica.)
I had to chuckle after reading what the last poster to this discussion 'blog wrote: that this is not "science" but rather "social history." I don't think anyone is claiming that it is, in fact, "science" in the strictest sense of the definition. The "formula" is a phrase developed by Andrew Carnegie and retold by Napoleon Hill in his book Think and Grow Rich was a figure of speech. More precisely, it was a behavior pattern Carnegie not only practiced himself, but also one he observed to be practiced by some of the most successful men of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. If Hill chose to refer to it as a "formula," I'd say he was well within his literary rights (the shrill protesting of semantics by the gentleperson at the top of this page not withstanding).
I read Hill many years ago, and although I was skeptical at first, I have personally found that the "formula" -- when put into practice -- actually works. Hill and his writings has done more for me, personally, than any of the formal education I have received (and believe me, gentle reader, when I tell you said education is among the finest to be had).
The Hill entry itself -- while a bit awkward in places -- is factual; therefore, it should be kept intact with minor edits.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolph of R. (talk • contribs) 06:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The Secret

It is a popular tactic to suggest a "secret" and then never quite say what the "secret is. A new and popular online movie "The Secret" does the same thing. I have read Napoleon Hill's books and his biography and heard his tapes for over 20 years. As a lawyer, I am a skeptic first and a willing supporter only after being convinced of the message. I think the posters are accurate who call out Hill's failure to follow his own teachings and failure to realize the monstrous success that others have experienced who give credit to Hill. On the other hand, the "Secret" is so obvious:
1. Whatever you conceive and believe you can achieve.
2. There is a process to that achievement which requires an underlying desire, persistence and focus.
If you want to say that this is not a "secret," that is fine, but how many people actually apply these principles to their lives. I say it is obvious but one heck of a secret in the general public.
I am sorry that many of you need to flame posters who are trying their best to create a fantastic wiki. I have my flame retardant suit on as I write this. Good luck to all of you.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dscornell (talk • contribs) 03:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Validity and Credibility

Didn't Hill die in poverty?

To all who doubt or question the validity of Napoleon Hill's masterpiece or the research that led to it, I invite you to visit the following web page and read the testimonials you will find there:
http://tgr-restored-revised.com/testimonials.htm
You may be surprised to see some of the names that are listed, as well as the vast array of occupations and walks of life they represent. Incidentally, while it is true that Napoleon Hill failed at more business ventures than you can count, he died an extremely wealthy man thanks to worldwide sales of "Think and Grow Rich!" and the other "success" materials he wrote and produced. When he writes about determination and persistence in the face of defeat, he knew exactly what he was talking about. W. Clement Stone did not "rescue" Hill in the latter part of Hill's career. He worshipped Hill, credited the latter's ideas for Stone's great success, and he wished to collaborate with Hill in developing new "personal success" programs and learning materials -- "Success Magazine," to name only one. Stone and Hill met, if I recall correctly, when they both had speaking engagements at a luncheon in Chicago. Stone went up to Hill, was introduced to him, and said he wanted to shake Hill's hand and that he wanted to meet the man who wrote "Think and Grow Rich," which had affected his life and business tremendously. Their collaboration lasted for more than a decade prior to Hill's retirement, which he spent in the upstate town of Greenville, S. C. (His wife, Annie Lou, was a South Carolina native. They are buried in Frederick Memorial Gardens near Gaffney, S. C., a mile and a half off Interstate 85

Response: Who should we expect to see writing testimonials? The problem with this, and all such 'self help' books is that chance alone will guarantee a proportion of readers who are (financially) successful and are likely, therefore, to attribute their success to the book. They are disposed to have a very positive attitude to the work and its author. In addition, there will be a proportion of people who, while not financially successful, have comfortable and moderately happy lives, and who are prepared to attribute this level of 'success' to reading the book. Understandably, testimonials will tend to come from these happy few, whether the book really had anything to do with it or not. They must be set against the large numbers of people who read the book, applied the 'principles', and did not achieve the level of success that they might have expected. There number remains uncounted; their testimonials are absent. There is a further uncounted set of people who never read the book and yet achieved success. Considering that the book is referred to as a phenomenal bestseller, one might reasonably expect the apparent 'success' rate to be significantly higher than chance alone. Now, is it? --kscally 17:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hill's Secret

Neuro Associative Conditioning. Do you consciously monitor your thoughts? What Hill calls "Autosuggestion" is a very powerful thing, it's everything! First, consider your "Social Heredity" also a term coined by Hill that means the way you experience your reality, in other words, your biases, what you consider to be moral or immoral, or what is of value to you, or perhaps what you consider to be of personal gain. For example, an anorexic believes food will harm them, a bodybuilder doesnt want to go without food for more than three or four hours. Clearly they have opposing "autosuggestion" when food is the subject at hand. But what most people don't do is monitor the fact that they have these fleeting thoughts that control their emotions, their decisions, their happiness, and their SUCCESS. Every time you are confronted with a situation, there is a quick occurence in your mind, and you have trained your mind to act however it happens to act. The things you relate to pleasure and pain is what determines this mental outcome. The SECRET here is that although most people have ideal ideas, the thoughts that construct their existence are self destructive. On the simplest, and most fundamental level, one must learn to monitor thier thoughts to be sure they are directing their life where their ultimate goals want them to end up. A good book on the matter is called "Neural Path Therapy" by Matthew McKay and David Harp. Robert Kyosaki also talks about it in the first chapter of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" when he states the the reason poor people are poor is because their fear of losing when investing is greater than their desire to succeed. That fear of losing thought is usually what happens just before someone chooses not to make that phone call, or to initiate the investment process. What Hill does in "Think And Grow Rich" is "show" you the secret instead of "tell" you. Hill doesn't neglect to share his secret, in fact that's all the book is about. The first step toward understanding the secret is to begin to monitor your autosuggestion. Oh, and also actually read his books. J.C.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.84.207 (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Carnegie's Secret

Just Think and Grow Rich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.30.19 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Documentation of Hill's interview claims

With all respect to his product, has anyone ever verified Hill's claim that he interviewed 500 businessmen?

Many notable persons such as the late W. Clement Stone (founder of one of the nation's largest insurance conglomerates), Michael Ritt (Hill's official biographer and long-time business associate), and the late U. S. Sen. William Jennings Randolph (long-time Hill friend and associate) have all, in one fashion or another, verified Hill's claim. He interviewed many of these 500-plus successful people in person (Edison, Ford, for example) and many by formal, lengthy questionnaires which they obligingly filled out. Andrew Carnegie opened the door for Hill into many of these individuals' thoughts and lives by way of Carnegie's personal contacts and letters of introduction. Johnlocke2 (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Was Hill Rich?

I bet that bugger died a poor man. 209.29.89.185 05:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hill died quite wealthy -- wealthy enough, in fact, to lead a comfortable life of retirement and to leave a sizable fortune to found a not-for-profit foundation that bears his name. Johnlocke2 (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is editing this page

Changes that were made to this page have been reverted. This is a violation of Wikipedia's editorial policy, and will result in no more contributions being made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.97.18 (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is in flagrant violation of WP:V. Material that is not cited to a source is unverifiable, and may be challenged and deleted, per wikipedia policy. Please do not make contributions without citing them to reliable sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You want the "verified" secret of "how to" think and grow rich. Well, it is staring right in front of you,

which means as one of the "editors" surely now you can properly write this biography page. Otherwise, leave the page

alone. Best regards.

No, I want verifiable facts about Napoleon Hill's life, but this article doesn't provide any. As such, the article will most likely continue to shrink (per compliance with WP:V) until either (1) somebody bothers to come up with some WP:RSs on the subject; or (2) the article is reduced to a stub on which a verifiable article can later be built. If you want an article on "think and grow rich", then by all means find WP:RSs on that topic to pass WP:NOTE & WP:V & then create an article on it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to YouTube Video

The Youtube video that I linked to is not (I believe) copyrighted material as far as I can tell, therefore it is acceptable to link to, right? The video is of Dr. Hill (quite a few years ago) talking to a camera about a meeting with Andrew Carnegie that influenced his life teachings, with no watermark or logo telling who made the video. I received a message from a bot that my edits were undone, but I thought that the video was important enough to keep in the article, especially since this article kinda sucks in terms of length and quality :( Zubachi (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Blair Hill, the child born without ears

The article makes no mention about Napoleon's son, especially his second son, Blair Hill, who was born without ears but who later learned to speak and hear. Hill discusses his son a lot in his book http://www.sacred-texts.com/nth/tgr/tgr07.htm (second half of the chapter). I have not been able to find any information that could corroborate this story. Certainly, Blair Hill is worth a mention even pending further investigation to trace some third party evidence. AugustinMa (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Done (finally) — Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 09:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

MICROTIA / ANOTIA / ATRESIA I believe the condition (absence of ears) is known as Microtia, and in it's extreme manifestation Anotia. Blair Hill's complete lack of external ears would be classified as Bi-lateral Anotia. The absense of the ear canal is known as Atresia. The article should have links to the Wiki pages for these conditions.
I discovered this website through a Google search: http://www.microtia.net The condition principally effects the outer ear and ear canal and can be alleviated by reconstructive surgery. Fascinating. --APDEF (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall Hill ever mentioning the specific diagnosed name of Blair's condition. Unless a reliable source can be found that does this, that is, states specifically what Blair's diagnosis was, then it is WP:OR. Guesswork. Do you know if Blair ever published anything about himself?

— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 04:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Vermeeren

In this edit, I removed an (unsourced) chunk about some other person, one Douglas Vermeeren. If Vermeeren merits treatment in Wikipedia, you're free to create an article about him. -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Justified. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Motivation — Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 08:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Influence of Andrew Carnegie

I removed the part about Hill working for Carnegie on this project for "out-of-pocket" expenses only. Hill began the project on his own time and money. As for a third-party source for the material, we shall have to go with Hill's word as he wrote in his book. The deal was struck while Hill first interviewed Carnegie, and only the two of them were present. Carnegie never wrote about it, and any third-party source would only be quoting Hill.
— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 06:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon Hill Gold Medal for literary achievement (or excellence)?

Apparently Og Mandino and Earl Nightingale have both won this award, but I can't find any further information about it? Who awards it, was it initiated by Hill or by someone using his name after his death? (eg. a foundation?) Natebailey (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Outwitting the Devil

Sounds rather far-fetched. I just bought a copy, and I'll let you know. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 05:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Just finished the book and still absorbing its ideas. It's main text is pure Hill, so it's definitely a keeper and a welcome addition to this page! Yes, I would recommend it to anyone who is still grappling with how to get the most out of life. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 06:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Article or sales pitch?

This Wikipedia piece reads more like a Nightingale-Conant ad than an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.108.185 (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Attorney?

The sidebar says Hill was an attorney but the article does not mention it.
I have read that he entered law school but dropped out since he could not afford the fees.
The external link to a biography does not mention his ever passing the bar or practicing as a lawyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.108.185 (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon Hill was a spiritualist and occultist

and his ideas likely originated from the familiar spirits he dealt with. For example this article http://www.successcurrent.com/personal_success/was-napoleon-hill-crazy/ discusses his interaction with spirits (allegedly) of notable individuals and notes that a relevant chapter in Think and Grow Rich was in the past usually not printed, because then people would not have appreciated advice to deal with familiar spirits. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha! That doesn't say he spoke to spirits, it says he was familiar with certain historic figures enough that he thought he could imagine what they'd do in particular situation or what advice they'd give. It's the perfectly legitimate problem-solving technique of 'What would ____ do?' only it sounds like Hill asked more elaborate questions. There's nothing in their about occultism or spirits. In the very article you linked it even mentions one of the individuals he 'consulted' with was alive at the time. It's truly beyond idiotic that you read that article and came away from it saying 'Hill was a spiritualist and occultist.' The stupidity is just astounding. --123.3.164.67 (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Mind-reprogramming / subconsciousness belief changes cannot work without spiritual aiding. All the works out there that teach "cosmic orders", "law of attraction", "the secret", "the moses code" etc. are as a matter of fact the knowledge that man himself is no less capable of creation as the creator/god. These teachings are the base of what Jesus of Nazareth has *really* embedded in his parables. New Thought is a revival of ancient knowledge, to put mankind back in control. For instance the Master Key Syste, by Charles Francis Haanel is pure Hermetic/Masonic Teaching. It is a exact clone of the Kybalion but put into a scientific context. It also claims to give you the Key to change your personal world to whatever you wish it is.
Hypnotism and Brainwave Entrainment works also via this hermetic/masonic route ( "all is vibration, all is mind" ) .
Only to "fundamental" Christians that have fallen to the (twisted) teachings of the official church this all appears to be of "evil" nature. And because the mass is brainwashed enough to follow the mainstream beliefs, naturally then only a few go through the "secret" initiations ( these self-empowering study books are nothing less but initiation systems ) that empowers them to become influent again. That's why the so called "elite" is being looked on so sceptical and everybody wonders what "evil" stuff is preached in secret lodges - but with all these books from Haanel,Hill,Atkinson and others I can assure you that EVERYBODY can "belong to the elite". The keys are given and written, you only need to pick a book of your likening, find a silent place - then read,study and learn to reprogramm your own mind to unleash the true nature of thinking. It's word magic, but what are words if not spoken thoughts ? :-)
78.50.80.225 (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Alex Cohen

Died Broke?

An online magazine interviewee claims Napoleon Hill died broke. Anyone know if this is true, or have any info regarding his death, his wife, his son?65.128.12.12 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is abysmal in its biographical quality, and reads more like an advertisement for his books (like an earlier editor pointed out three years ago!). We know a little (very) about his early life, and nothing about the middle and later life other than about the books he wrote. This article is not even "B" class quality. Nodekeeper (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Added advertisement tag

I have added the advertisement tag as this article reads more like an advertisement for his books rather than as an objective biography. Other editors have noticed this going back three years. While this may seem drastic, it really is not. I have reviewed this article going back to 2007 and it has had continual problems. I can only assume that the article either has a brigade protecting its current state, or countless fans, or both. I would suggest (informally) that this article be separated into two parts to enhance the objectivity and be able to include more biographical data. An article just describing his life, and then a separate article for his books. Nodekeeper (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking from the perspective of someone who respects Hill and his accomplishments, his books are his claim to notability, so his bio would certainly have to be about him and his books just as any article about an actor contains his or her accomplishments that bring him or her notability in the form of a filmography. There are already separate articles for some of his writings just as there are separate articles for books of other authors. Over time some editors may add a bit of cruft here and there that make it read more like an advertisement, but rather than tagging it with a gaudy maintenance tag, just go ahead and do what the tag suggests: Help improve it by rewriting any existing promotional content from a neutral point of view and by removing any inappropriate external links. Kudos to you for doing more than most people do. At least you did open a dialog here on the talk page. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 10:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I respect Hill's work too. But the point of a biographical article is to present a complete set of facts (which this article is grossly lacking) not show 'respect'. The user needs to judge this for himself under the light of all the available circumstances and evidence. While there are other articles for his work as you mention, this article may make them (or parts of this article) redundant. It probably would be best to remove those parts that talk about his books, and instead deal only with biographical fact.

->"just go ahead and do what the tag suggests"

While the tags are 'gaudy' they serve a very definite purpose. I am a volunteer editor, and can only throw in edits as I have time to do so. Wikipedia is based on being a 'collaborative' effort that attempts to build 'consensus' with multiple editors. Not any single one editor. I presently do not have the time to accomplish all that is needed for this article in order to present an accurate biographical picture of the man. So the tag calls attention to the problems of the article so other editors can see it when they visit the article and help out if they can. Which is what is needed. Nodekeeper (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Well said and acknowledged! Forgive me if I came on a little strongly. While Hill's works should be mentioned and linked where appropriate, I agree that this article could use more information about Hill himself. Fact is, this has been on my "list" for more time than I'd care to admit. One thing, though – his books actually do give a great deal of meaning to Hill's life, especially when the many years of research, interviews and time "on the road" are considered. Non-writers usually never see the genuinely hard work behind each book. So we shouldn't discount Hill's books too much. His desire to help was his very life. Can't place that in the article, though, because it's POV. It only comes out after reading him. – Paine 15:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Distancing Napoleon Hill From New Age Movement

Respectfully, can we please distance Napoleon Hill from the New Age movement and Law of Attraction? He has much more in common with Quakerism than these schools of thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.184.140 (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

The statement at the beginning that he "cribbed freely" can hardly be considered NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.65.169 (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous IP removing sourced material unfavorable to Hill

There seems to be an anonymous IP (a fan of Hill, it seems?) who is constantly removing sourced material about Hill, specifically this investigative piece criticizing Hill from Gizmodo's Paleofuture blog.
I might request temporary semi-protection of this article if this IP vandalism persists. --OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Removing cite: Novak, Matt, "The Untold Story of Napoleon Hill, the Greatest Self-Help Scammer of All Time" as the link is to a personal blog article containing an editorialized depiction of the subject and is without adequate references cited. Perhaps a section "controversy" could be added in lieu of an ad hominem in the leading description. It is true Hill was known to be conflicted individual, who did not always practice what he preached, and making an argument at the head the article citing a blog editorial may not be making a strong case for the reader. It may seem to be a personal attack. --Tnb2643 (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2016 (CST)

I see what you're getting at here, but as far as I can tell, Matt Novak's piece is probably one of the more credible secondary sources that this article currently cites. This article on Napoleon Hill is already pretty light on secondary source citations-- currently, the reference section relies almost entirely upon Hill's own work (e.g. A Lifetime of Riches, some material from the Napoleon Hill Foundation, etc.). Novak's piece is the only modern secondary source available, aside from a sketchy 2006 book from "Gnosophia Publishers" and a few news articles that briefly mention Hill's name.

A secondary point: For most purposes, Gizmodo is a large and reasonably credible news source, despite its blogosphere origins. In addition, Matt Novak's Paleofuture blog isn't exactly a "personal blog"; it's a history blog (which actually originated on Smithsonian's official website before moving to Gizmodo!) that occasionally conducts its own primary historical research. Although it's not exactly the Journal of American History, by and large, it's more credible than most of the sources that this article currently relies upon.

As a result, I'd be disinclined to remove Novak as a source; while I think that adding a "controversy" section would be a workable idea, I believe that the contentions that Novak raises are probably credible enough to warrant a mention in the intro paragraph. In the meantime, if you find other useful secondary sources on Hill, feel free to add them- this article definitely still needs them. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems correct to say that Novak's piece may be one of the more credible secondary sources on Hill's life available online. I'd imagine Novak felt compelled to report on Hill in part due to the large amount of pages that do little else beyond repeating Hill's original claims. Novak however, also demonstrates a proclivity for being 'fast and loose' with the facts by drawing conclusions and casting aspersions in a tenor more at place as gossip over the kitchen table than with the Smithsonian. The article relies heavily on a book Hill wrote about himself late in his life, in which Hill confessed much of the information which Novak is presenting as his own discovery.

Perhaps there needs to be a qualifier in front of Novak's claims such as, "Some writers have said..." or "At least one source has found..." So that the doubts about the validity of Hill's claims are not stated as opinion. --Tnb2643 (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2016 (CST)

Novak's piece is certainly more stylized than your average history journal article, although from what I can see, this wiki article generally doesn't pull from any of his more-speculative claims. That said, I don't see any problem with adding additional qualifiers to the article-- I'll make a few edits accordingly.OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I would vote for removing Novak's work as a citation if for no other reason that Novak's work has no citations, or listed source material whatsoever. At the end of the day, he's a blogger, and his job is to get pageviews... those sorts of claims need documented proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.125.226 (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Gizmodo appears reliable for such info. Take it to WP:RSN maybe? --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

There is absolutely no historical evidence that Napoleon Hill was a suspected con man. If you search through the history of reputable periodicals, there is simply no evidence. Over 40 years after this man's death, a blogger "investigated" his theory that he was a con man and the only "evidence" he could find was that a historian who studies Andrew Carnegie now has no proof Carnegie met Hill, which is a claim Hill often made. Again, there is no evidence from Carnegie himself or his family or any writings of the time, simply that someone who studies him currently has no proof that they met and clearly doesn't believe it. For a dubious blog article that makes an outrageous claim and uses little to no actual evidence to back it to be used as the "source" behind calling a man who did good for so many a "con man" in the first line of his description in an encyclopedic article is more than incautious, it's despicable. Further, when I changed the article and removed "suspected con man" because there were no credible sources with actual evidence, and changed his description to "author, philosopher and lecturer," all of which are verifiable, indisputable facts, I was accused of vandalism and puffery.
Facts are puffery but removing unsubstantiated, slanderous accusations from a deceased man's description is vandalism? Whose ethics or legal understanding does this represent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:580:8203:EEDB:3D60:6F66:1938:7BD8 (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

The first citation for this article is to an internet blog, not a sufficiently reliable source when accusing a famous figure of being a 'conman.' This source claims that Napoleon Hill suggests that the mind can directly manipulate reality. Napoleon hill explicitly states in several of his books that this is not what he means. Likewise many of the other cited sources are of very low reliablity. Many of the phrases in this article are potentially slanderous, and either deviate from the cited sources or use potentially unreliable sources, eg. "Sales of Hill's books demonstrate the continuing appeal of the myth of a "secret" of success."
May I suggest that future editors of this article construct it from accurate representation of reliable sources, rather than from personal sentiments and internet blogs. On this talk page it's claimed that these sources are acceptable in absence of more credible ones, but Wikipedia is very clear that care should be taken to avoid including potentially slanderous or inflammatory statements on the pages of real people. The rules are not as conservative for biographies regarding the deceased but I believe this article still crosses the line. Content unfavorable to hill is fine but I believe unsufficient caution has been used in the writing of this article. XBiophagex (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! Just wanted to address a few of your concerns. Normally, I try to avoid quoting official Wikipedia guidelines for fear of sounding overly legalistic, but in this case, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is instructive: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."

As mentioned previously, Matt Novak's Paleofuture blog is a reasonably credible secondary source, despite its often-editorialized writing style. On top of that, I would argue that this article's use of Novak's article has been relatively cautious so far. While Novak argues quite forcefully (and not necessarily without merit) for Hill's misdeeds, this wiki article is actually quite muted in its language: "as some would argue, a suspected con man," "however, according to at least one modern source, there exists little evidence," "However, according to the historian David Nasaw, there is no evidence," etc.

How would you prefer this article be written instead? As noted earlier, Novak's piece is probably the most credible secondary source currently available for this wiki article, so it likely won't be removed. Yes, it's unfavorable to Hill, and caution is always due. At this point, however, I don't think there's much more caution we could add. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

To allow a specious source to remain because it is the "best of the bunch" in an article should not be the standard. The possibility that the blog is the most credible secondary source currently available in the article is not a testament to the blog's credibility or persuasiveness, but an indictment of the quality of the sources on the page. Also, observation of the potential for caution does not equate to exercising caution. There is no caution being exercised here. A man who lived for decades in the limelight is being described in the first sentence of an encyclopedic article in a way he was never publicly described during his life or many of the years following his life. This is not to say the Novak article wasn't compelling or well-written, but it is not enough for one person or a small group of people to contrive a theory for which there is no record and for that theory to all of the sudden change someone's historical description to include "suspected conman." There is no caution in that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.85.203.99 (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Lastly if Novak's point is that Hill made a lot of claims that due to the nature of the era are hard to verify, then he has mastered the strategy himself by also making claims about the same era that are unverifiable. Who's the huckster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.85.203.99 (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! Just to reiterate some prior points, Matt Novak's article may technically be called a "blog," but for our purposes, it qualifies as a credible secondary source. Gizmodo's blogs are a factually reliable news source for most things, Matt Novak is a reasonably well-known journalist who used to write for the Smithsonian, the article draws from a bunch of verifiable primary sources, etc. Though as Ronz notes, if you want to challenge the credibility of this particular article, you can bring it to WP:RSN. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)