Talk:Napoleon Hill/Archive 2

Factual challenge to Novak
Please document ONE, just one, time that Napoleon went to trial to support YOUR allegation that Nap was a Con Man. I know that your source Novak cites newspaper articles about Nap being charged but he neglected to mention WHEN those charges were publicly retracted in newspapers (doesn't fit the narrative.) Novak also doesn't bother to recount Napoleon's explanation for the charges when they are available. He attributes charges about the Automobile College of Washington DC to Napoleon Hill when Napoleon didn't own that college. Nap's college was incorporated as the NATIONAL Automobile College of Washington. After Nap's college failed and its assets were sold, his college was immediately replaced by the Automobile College of Washington at the same place. (Nap says that his banker opened the college.) This may have been the source of Novak's confusion but it begets incomplete/poor research done by Novak to support his opinions. Novak's agenda (my opinion after careful reading) is to attack the concept of individual personal achievement to secure the American dream. To me, poorly documented opinion reads like political blogging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.71.234.254 (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Now, this is actually very interesting (and in my opinion, much more pertinent than arguments over the overall reliability of Gizmodo...)! Based on what you're saying, I'd be curious to do a bit of my own research into the matter as well. A few questions:
 * 1. Can you source the newspaper retractions of charges against Hill? Through my academic institution, I have digitized access to most American newspapers from this era, so I'd be interested in reading them.
 * 2. Can you also source Hill's responses to these various charges? For instance, is Hill's explanation of his automobile college a part of his official biography? If so, I have a copy of that book, so I'd like to take a look (I've only read selections thus far).


 * It's worth noting that neither Novak nor this wiki article claim that Hill ever went to trial for any of these allegations, hence why the introduction says "suspected con man" instead of just "con man." That said, if those allegations turn out to be largely spurious and later retracted, I don't have a problem editing the article as such.


 * Of course, it's also worth noting that Wikipedia doesn't necessarily approve of original research, see WP:NOR. That said, I think these points may be valid and actionable, within constraints. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of "Wikipedia doesn't necessarily approve of original research." Wikipedia does not allow any original research. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat confused by your point here. I was just asking if the anonymous IP could provide sources challenging the credibility of Novak's article. If he/she can, then that would support the case for removing the Novak article. My point was that I don't intend to insert original research into the article, I was just trying to investigate the credibility of the Novak article. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

OK....below find an extract from my timeline for Napoleon Hill. Nap explains in his own words the Mobile, Alabama incident. The source of Naps words are from his 1922 speech at Salem College. Jennings Randolph (who later introduced Nap to FDR) sat in the audience.

Jan 1906: Napoleon (22) and Edith (27) moved to Andalusia, Al. Nap worked for Pearson Lumber Company as a book-keeper and as sales manager for next 18 months. (see EW folder) '' “The tides of fate blew me southward and I became sales manager for a large lumber manufacturing concern. I made a good record. My salary was increased twice during the year. And my bank account was growing bigger and bigger.” Ref: 1922 Speech to Salem College.''

Dot (wait for the book) Dot (wait for the book) Dot (wait for the book)

28 June 1907: Clearly estranged, Nap packs up his wife, daughter, and wedding presents and ships them all back to Tazewell. He then and moves to Mobile, Alabama. In Mobile, Nap (23) and J. O. Acree register a new company with $10,000 capital stock called Acree-Hill Lumber Company with J. O. Acree president and Napoleon Hill as Secretary-Treasurer.  “I did so well in managing the sales of my employer’s lumber that he organized a new lumber company and took me into partnership with him.” Ref:  1922 Speech to Salem College.

22 October 1907: The economic crisis of 1907-1908 began with a run the Knickerbocker Trust Company building in New York City. This led to a banking panic and economic crisis lasting through 1908 with flat economic growth and rising un-employment (>8%.)  It was not a good time to be in a business that provided lumber to builders.

Dot (wait for the book) Dot (wait for the book) Dot (wait for the book)

June 1908: After his divorce Nap’s business, suffering from residual effects of the economic panic of 1907, faced financial difficulty. Napoleon (24) found other investors to buy into the company but his partner J.O. Acree was (wisely) unwilling to partner with them. So, Nap bought out his partner and although not yet 25, he became sole owner of the Acree-Hill Lumber Company.  “The man with whom I was in business withdrew without loss and left me with the empty shell of a company that owned nothing except a good reputation.” Ref:  1922 Speech to Salem College.

Aug 1908: The Acree-Hill Lumber Company was a brokerage firm that bought and sold lumber. As such, its assets were little more than accounts receivable, accounts payable, an operations cash account, and a professional reputation that was more aligned with the reputable “Acree” name than Nap’s name. Still the name “Acree-Hill” had value. Nap sold the company with its name to a group of investors represented by an attorney.

''“A crooked lawyer saw the opportunity to cash in on that reputation. He and a group of men purchased the company and continued to operate it. Ref: 1922 Speech to Salem College.'' .  This proved to be huge mistake made out of Nap’s “ignorance and inexperience” when the buyer’s lawyer failed to file ownership transfer paperwork. The “investors” operated the company under “Acree-Hill” for a few months on a cash basis and then cashed out leaving creditors unpaid. Warrants were sworn out for Nap (as owner of record.)

''“I learned later that they (the new owners) bought every dollar worth of lumber that they could get, resold it, and pocketed the proceeds without paying for it.” Ref: 1922 Speech to Salem College.''

Charges against Nap were later dropped when he produced a copy of his sales contract. Still, the whole affair bothered Napoleon for decades.  “Thus, I had been the innocent means of helping the new owners defraud their creditors, who learned when it was too late that I was in no way connected with the company.” Ref: 1922 Speech to Salem College.

For years, Nap was bothered by the incident in Mobile. In a 1919 letter to his father, Nap moaned about the Mobile incident and what it had cost his reputation. He wrote,  ”Only one black spot exists to shadow the horizon of my past --- that mistake in Mobile, one little error in judgment which was predicated upon ignorance and lack of experience.” Ref Nap letter dtd 13 Nov 1919.

After the sale of Acree-Hill, Nap started working for Bob Taylor’s magazine as a free lance writer. His first article was published in 0ct. of 1908 under the name of Oliver N. Hill. (See Magazine Article in Bob-Taylor Folder)

After this publication, Nap started to use his middle name, just as his father had done. The Hill family always believed that he did this because “Napoleon” was a better writer’s name than “Oliver.” However, he could have been to avoid his x-wife as he told her that he was leaving the country and that she would never hear from him again. In any case, the best time to change names is during a move to a different city. Tiring of the name JB, I did the same thing myself when I moved to Jacksonville, NC and started to go by my middle name. For more than 10 years, I, too, went by my middle name, just as my grandfather, Napoleon Hill, and his father, Monroe Hill, before him. ***********

This extract from my timeline references charges made in a newspaper that were later retracted. Novak ignored it.JB Hill (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

6 Aug 1918: 	Napoleon Hill attacked by newspaper Rockford Republic in Rockford, Ill (see clipping 6 Aug 1918)

16 Aug 1918:	Rockford’s Morning Star retracts its accusation against Napoleon Hill (see clipping 16 Aug 1918)

Comments from Hill's grandson
I am not sure if this places me in the conversation. Hope someone advises. I AM Napoleon Hill's grandson. I have his papers. No one, including Novac (the blogger who is cited on the Napoleon Hill page) knows more about Napoleon Hill than I.)  Now, there are DOZENS of verifiable inaccuracies in the Napoleon Hill page and it is FULL of negative OPINIONS.  For example, Napoleon is accused of being a con man.  If Napoleon Hill were alive that comment would be libel as he was never tried or convicted of anything. The author uses the lack of proof of something (for example, meeting Carnegie) to disprove it.  However, lack of enough evidence to send Nap to trial is somehow construed as the proof that he was guilty.  The article paints a very false picture of Napoleon Hill.       — Preceding unsigned comment added by JB Hill (talk • contribs) 17:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are a new editor with a conflict of interest that claims No one... knows more about Napoleon Hill than I. I suggest you think about how that comes across to editors here. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with him. The blogger's claims are false. I've read two books now about Napoleon Hill and there's no where any mention of many of the claims made by Novak. If Hill were alive today, it would all be a BLP violation. I have no idea why editors here want to assassinate this man's character, but he was never a con man This article needs a complete rewrite. A blog on Gizmodo is not an acceptable WP:RS. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * While its arguments are obviously contentious, I honestly don't see why the Gizmodo article is such an uncredible source. As far as I can tell, Matt Novak wrote the article on Hill due to the shortcomings of existing secondary sources, which seem to largely draw upon the same body of sources (i.e. Hill's own autobiographic claims) without applying sufficient historical scrutiny. Novak's article seems to be legitimate historical research; nearly every claim from Novak in this article is backed by a readily verifiable primary source, i.e. publicly archived newspaper articles. Some of the Novak's points are even mentioned in Hill's own official biography, A Lifetime of Riches. For instance, I noticed that you removed a sentence earlier about Hill marrying at 15, but as far as I can tell, that episode of his life is explicitly mentioned in page 17 of A Lifetime of Riches. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at this article's history and note you are the one filling this article with what appears to be bordering on vandalism. Gizmodo is not a reliable source and I'm wondering what your motives are for turning this article into a hit piece. I note the complaints about POV on this talk page. Novak's piece in Gizmodo in no way qualifies as a reliable source as you claim in an earlier post on this talk page. See WP:RS. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Motives? Ok, that's a bit silly. I've been working on this article recently for the same reason that I've worked on other "projects," such as, say, my expansion of the article on War of Knives. It's because I'm a history grad student interested in compiling and synthesizing sources on a variety of historical topics. Are we really going to get into personal attacks here?
 * And speaking more broadly, I really think the concerns over the term "blog" in this talk page are a bit overblown. Gizmodo may call itself a "blog," but it's not self-published livejournal or anything. From a structural point of view, it's just a news website. Per http://gizmodo.com/about it has an editor-in-chief, several editors, etc., as one would expect from a news organization. And Matt Novak isn't just some random guy-- he's a reasonably well-known journalist with pretty well-established credentials. And frankly, when it comes down to it, I trust his work more than that of Hill's promoters. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe gizmodo is reliable here. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on what Wikipedia policy? How does a sophomoric, sarcastic styled, unsourced blog post satisfy WP? SW3 5DL (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:V and WP:RS. I'll look to see if gizmodo's been previously discussed at RSN. SW3 5DL, you may want to look at other noticeboards. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Where is your specific policy on RS that this type of source can be used on a biography? SW3 5DL (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any detailed discussions at RSN with agreements either way, though the assumptions tend toward it being reliable. I suggest taking it to RSN, or finding something that backs your viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the onus is not on me. It's on you. You are making the claim that this blog meets RS. I'm asking you to back your viewpoint that this blog meets RS. So far you've not shown any specific policy. Where, on the RS policy page, WP:RS, do you find justification for using this blog on this biography? SW3 5DL (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the comments that already do that, and think it's a reasonable assumption to think it's reliable given it's wide use across Wikipedia (over 3000 links, which I searched for noticeboard discussions). --Ronz (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm talking about this blog, not Gizmodo. Where in the RS do you find that this blog content meets RS? And you do not show diffs of the comments you say you agree with. Can you show them? SW3 5DL (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

IMO, the Novak article does not really meet the requirements which Wikipedia assigns for a reliable source for the claims made, and appears to assign improper motives to Hill in every way possible. It would be nice to find an indisputably reliable source for the claims, though. I grant that Hill might have been "interesting" but that is insufficient to label him a "con man". Collect (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "suspected con man" content from the lede.
 * paleofuture.gizmodo.com is used in some dozen articles, including other biographical articles like this. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But this particular blog entry does not belong here. And you keep going on about the blog and gizmodo being referenced on Wikipedia. We're not talking about WP:OSE. We're talking about this article and this particular blog entry. Matt Novak is not an expert on Napoleon Hill and you continue to fail to show where in the RS policy, justification for its inclusion here on this biography. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with . I'll take it to RSN. --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That does not reference policy. That's his opinion. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm going to work on the RSN request first.
 * I will not have time to get the RSN request done immediately. I'll be basing it on and  to start, but will look through the editing history for other uses. --Ronz (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

RSN discussion started
RSN discussion here. I couldn't find any other content beyond the two diffs I mention above. --Ronz (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In your edit summary you ask me to participate on this page. I already have, and find that edit summary a tad unhelpful. Collect (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I was busy reviewing your edit and didn't notice your subsequent comment here. --Ronz (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party
G'day all

I've a few observations and questions. I came here because this edit was problematical.

First observation: User:JB Hill is to be commended for his patience in dealing with what must be, to him, a very confronting issue. He's put a lot of time and effort into trying to do the right thing by us, and follow the right procedures here. His respect for Wikipedia is obvious, and should be in itself respected (and has been). He hasn't always done the right thing (the edit I linked to above for example, and some things I'll take up on his talk page) but as a newcomer he is doing very well indeed, in my opinion.

Second observation: We can help him and others (like me) by being specific in our comments. For example I didn't see a link to Reliable sources/Noticeboard above. Perhaps I missed it. It should be prominent. Just saying WP:RSN is OK for the old hands, but enigmatic to new ones, and even we old hands would appreciate having the link to the page and section rather than needing to type in "WP:RSN" ourselves and then do a text search on the page (which is still faster than scrolling down the long TOC in my experience). It's just courtesy.

First question: User:SW3 5DL says above I've read two books now about Napoleon Hill but doesn't seem to say anywhere what they were, and rather surprisingly nobody seems to have asked (perhaps again I missed it). This seems an obvious question when the whole issue is finding reliable sources, and again comes down to being specific in the comment in the first place. (Perhaps it's in the article reference section, but it should be here as well.) So I must ask, you remember what the books said and didn't say, but can you remember anything about the authors or titles etc of them?

Final observation for now: I'm very encouraged by the overall tone of this discussion. I've seen some very sad ones recently over far more minor issues. Andrewa (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , The editor who started the RSN failed to post a notice here with a link to the discussion at RSN. My understanding is that he should also have notified editors, especially when he has referenced their edits on the RSN. As for the Hill bios, it was a long time ago but they have to be out there in print somewhere. I will track them down. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Awesome. Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding and then reverting own edits
Why are you adding and then reverting the same content as you did here:


 * (cur | prev) 22:03, 15 February 2017‎ Ronz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,054 bytes) (+94)‎ . . (Undid revision 765693835 by Ronz (talk) restore) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]
 * (cur | prev) 22:03, 15 February 2017‎ Ronz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,960 bytes) (-94)‎ . . (→‎Think and Grow Rich: may be last one) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]
 * (cur | prev) 22:02, 15 February 2017‎ Ronz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,054 bytes) (+261)‎ . . (Undid revision 765693650 by Ronz (talk) restore) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]
 * cur | prev) 22:02, 15 February 2017‎ Ronz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,793 bytes) (-261)‎ . . (→‎The Law of Success: another) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]
 * (cur | prev) 22:01, 15 February 2017‎ Ronz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,054 bytes) (+306)‎ . . (Undid revision 765693504 by Ronz (talk) restore) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]
 * (cur | prev) 22:00, 15 February 2017‎ Ronz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,748 bytes) (-306)‎ . . (→‎Failed Business Ventures: another disputed section - will revert) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]
 * (cur | prev) 22:00, 15 February 2017‎ Ronz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,054 bytes) (+982)‎ . . (Undid revision 765693363 by Ronz (talk) restore) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]
 * (cur | prev) 21:59, 15 February 2017‎ Ronz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,072 bytes) (-982)‎ . . (→‎Failed Business Ventures: disputed content - for reference in RSN - will revert) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]

SW3 5DL (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my comment in the edit summary, "for reference in RSN" wasn't clear. If you look at the RSN diffs, you'll see them. I broke down the complete removal of all the Novak-sourced content into separate sections so they could be examined and discussed easily. --Ronz (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you just make normal diffs? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean. --Ronz (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you just show the diffs of the material being removed and the diffs of you and OMG reverting those edits? Doing it the way you've done, seems to hide the fact that you and OMG revert any attempt to improve the article. Then neither of you show where in RS policy the Novak source meets policy. You simply gave a diff of OMG's comment giving his opinion about it. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea at this point if you understand what I did, nor do I see any way to clarify it for you, nor do I see how this has anything to do with improving the article. Please contact me on my talk page if you have suggestions on how I could have better prepared and presented the RfC. his doesn't appear to be about improving the article in any way, so I'm not going to respond further here. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a simple question: Why didn't you show diffs of editors removing the content and diffs of you and OMG reverting their removals instead of going to the edits after you and OMG restored them, then reverting and restoring? I've never seen anyone on Wikipedia do this. Now maybe this is some new way of creating diffs but if so, it seems like all we have with these diffs you've created is your word that this content is in dispute. How do we know if you don't show where editors have removed it and you and OMG have restored it? SW3 5DL (talk)

Sources the blogger did not use
03:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)JB Hill (talk)== Debunking the Blogger as a Source for Napoleon Hill's biography ==

Note: The reason why I do no challenge the blogger more directly is that this kind of person appears all the time to make waves and attract some of the millions of Nap Hill google searches done every year. My comments would simply attract more people to his site to read his distortion. However, Wikipedia is different as leaving this blogger as the source for my grandfather's biography on Wikipedia runs the risk of turning lies, distortions, and a very false negative into "history."

Today…I am going to make the case that the Wikipedia biography of Napoleon Hill is inaccurate and biased as its author uses as his primary source a blog that is a false negative against Napoleon Hill. If I can prove this, then it is my hope the Wikipedia will consider the blog as an unreliable source of information for Napoleon Hill and replace Napoleon Hill’s Wikipedia biography with its former version.

To accomplish this, I am going to quote from the blog and then either provide (verbatim) the blogger’s newspaper reference or provide addition references that the blogger does not mention. Hopefully, this will show very clearly that at best the blog is slanted toward a negative narrative. At its worst, it was so poorly researched that vital information is omitted. Like a bikini…what that blog reveals is interesting but what it doesn’t reveal is vital! The reference for all newspaper articles can be found for free on a digital newspapers at Chronicling America; District of Columbia; 1910-1912

1 - Per Blogger…

“But something was amiss. A notice in the July 16, 1910 issue of the Washington Herald announces that one of Hill’s partners, Earnest Hunt, had dissolved their partnership in the Mount Vernon Inn.”

But the Washington Herald (0 July 1910)and the Evening Star (1, 28, July 1910 and 4 August 1910) all printed the following announcement: “SPECIAL NOTICES: Notice is hereby given that the partnership existing between Napoleon Hill and Earnest M. Hunt, has, by mutual consent of both parties, been dissolved and that the Mount Vernon Inn will henceforth be managed by Earnest M. Hunt, who has assumed the affairs of the institution.”

Comment: The reference states that the dissolution was “mutual.” IT certainly DOES NOT say that Ernest Hunt was the one who had the partnership dissolved.

2 – Per the blogger …

“The July 19, 1910 Washington Post announced that another partner on a different venture, Clarence J. Warnick was alleging that Hill had stolen a car (a crime for which he was arrested) and wanted the National Automobile College put into receivership."

But the blogger failed to cite the Evening Star article on 21 July 1910 which printed:

“Napoleon Hill asks damages for alleged false arrest: The controversy between Napoleon Hill and Clarence J. Warnick, partners running an uatomobile College, took a new turn today when Hill brought suit against Warnick to recover $10,000 damages for alleged malicious prosecution. Recently, Warnick sued for dissolution of the partnership and a receiver claiming that Hill had not performed his part of the partnership agreement. It was also claimed that Hill had made way with an automobile belonging to theWarnick. In his suit, for damages, Hill says Warnick had him arrested for the taking of the automobile, but yesterday, when the case was brought to police court, Judge Pugh declared him not guilty of the charge. Hill declared that this action of his partner has hindered him in his business affairs and has hindered his credit. Attorneys James S. Easeby-Smith and Garfield E. Streat are representing Mr. Hill."

The blogger also failed to cite the Evening Star article on 2 Aug 1910 which printed:

“Receivers ordered to sell property of the National Automobile College: Clarence J. Warnick and Napoleon Hill were the partners in the business, and when proceedings were begun Warnick sought to establish his title to personal ownership of a Parry automobile. … Justice Wright ordered that the Parry auto should be considered property of the partnership and sold.”

Comment: So, two judges did not believe that Warnick owned the Parry automobile that Warnick had Hill arrested for taking. The referenced blog does not mention either court action. Of course, neither of these court decisions were in accordance with the narrative of the blog. It is Ironic that the blogger is now using a charge proven false against Nap more than 110 years ago to once again attempt to destroy his reputation. Nap sued Warnick but Novak and the Wikipedia author are protected by time.

3. A little background is needed to explain by next debunking of the Automobile College stories referenced by the Wikipedia author.

There were 2 Automobile Colleges operating in Washington, DC between 1909 and 1910. One was a school for black students: The National Automobile College at 1509, 7th Street. Napoleon Hill’s school was legally named the National Automobile College of Washington, DC at 1323 and later 1905, 14th Street. However, in advertisements it often dropped “National” either to save printing costs or to avoid confusion with the other school. Many advertisements were printed for these two schools. See Washington Herald, printed 27 March 1910 to verify the schools and their address. Now, please note that on 2 August 1910, the court ordered the assets of Nap’s college to be sold. This was done quickly and the college’s assets were distributed according to law on 6 Aug 1910. Now, this is important … if Nap’s College went out of business in Aug of 1910, how is it that there is an Automobile College of Washington, DC operating at Nap’s old address within months.

This suggests that someone with financial resources may have seen an opportunity and taken advantage of it. Nap wrote that his banker saw how much money Nap was making and called in his note which forced him out of business. (See Nap Hill 1922 speech To Salem College.)

This certainly seems likely, as by the end of August of 1910, a new college with different management was operating at the same site, under the name of the Automobile College of Washington, DC. The word “National” had been officially dropped. It is hard for me to understand how the blogger did not know this as he displays a diploma awarded during May of 1912 on his blog site and the diploma is NOT signed by Napoleon Hill. He also displays a post card advertising the College at the old address in 1912. But Nap's school was out of business in early Aug of 1910.

Per the Blogger …

“In an article titled, “Pointing the Rout to “GettoRichQuiclsand. The April 12th, issue of Motor World laid out the ways in which Hill’s college was actually a scam.”

Comment: Please Google this article. While the 1912 article DOES mention the Automobile College of Washington in that light…the article does not explain which Automobile College it is referring to ===> was it Nap's college that went out of business two years earlier in 1910 or the one that was still operating in 1912 under the same name. Furthermore it does not mention Napoleon Hill, or Hill, or give any inference that this could be his college. Again, the blogger without any proof attributed negative information to Napoleon Hill. It fit his narrative so well, how could he possibly resist it.

Hopefully...I have been able to cast enough doubt about the blogger's information to make it unacceptable as a source for ANY serious biographer and that Wikipedia will undo the great injustice that he has done my grandfather. To understand Napoleon Hill you must understand everything about him, read all of his books, read his letters, read HIS sources, and you must understand the time when he was writing. Why did he dedicate his first book to Sheldon(Chicago rotory?) Why would Edward Barnes offer Napoleon Hill his estate for a honeymoon location. Why are Nap's later works so different from his earlier works? Why would Napoleon be in contact with FDR's reconstruction "Czar" if he wasn't part of FHR's new deal? And most of all, why do so many tens of thousands of people say that Napoleon Hill's work led them to success, saving them and their families from despair and poverty. If Napoleon Hill's work is all just a "con" why does it work? LOL! JB Hill, Napoleon Hill's grandson.03:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)JB Hill (talk

, the blogger crafted a narrative to suit his sarcastic tone and presentation. He clearly was not interested in presenting a principled, well sourced piece of serious journalism. I posted a link to the ReliableSources Noticeboard on your talk page. Feel free to comment there, and mention that there are sources that refute his comments. That would be helpful. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

POV edits
This edit, is POV as David Nasaw does not refute Hill's story that he interviewed Carnegie in his writings on Carnegie. Surely, he cannot have missed one of the best selling books of all times is claimed by it's author to have it's genesis in an interview with Andrew Carnegie. He's being asked off the cuff by Matt Novak. This is of course sourced to Matt Novak. Novak claims that Hill made the claim knowing Carnegie was dead, but he fails to mention that Carnegie's business associates, family, etc., who were still alive, spoke out against Hill. Apparently they did not. Nor does Novak take into account that Hill sent out questionnaires to hundreds of successful businessmen. He names several of them throughout Think and Grow Rich, while they were still alive. Remember this title was published in 1937. Roosevelt was till alive and was still the president. I don't see Novak coming up with a rebuke from Roosevelt, Edison's assistant, etc. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In 1937 FDR was president and had other things to worry about, but are you sure you have the right President Roosevelt? There were two, and Theodore is the one that Hill claimed to have met.


 * And when criticising a particular edit, it is good form to provide a diff. Andrewa (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Legacy
I was about to add Hill's works continue to sell well but can't offhand source it. Andrewa (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable sources template
The discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard appears to be going nowhere. There is no convincing argument there that the Matt Novak page fails WP:RS. Can we remove the reliable sources template from the article, or should we wait for closure of the RSN discussion? Andrewa (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The quality of the sources seem poor. I'd rather see a template on the need for independent sources, but what we need are sources that are independent and scholarly to help us cut through all the myth-making that surrounds him. --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd really like to hear from on that since he's the one who introduced the Novak blog into the article, the day after the blog appeared on Gizmodo. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Lede - undue weight
Claiming in the lede sentence that Hill was a 'suspected con man' violates due weight. This makes it seem that Hill spent his entire life attempting to swindle people. Any business issues he had can be sourced and placed in the body of the article, but Matt Novak's personal opinion that Hill was a 'con man,' does not make it so. Also, Hill was never a part of the New Thought movement. This is another of Novak's claims that is not substantiated by any other source. Both these claims need to be removed from the lede. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It does seem to be a bit undue without additional sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's removed from the lede. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hill is not known anywhere but the blog as a New Thought author. There are no reliable sources to show he had anything to do with that movement. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't the main issue of contention (right now I'm just waiting for RSN to sort out this mess), but the "New Thought" bit isn't sourced from Novak. It's been a part of this article since before 2014, and honestly, I don't know where it's sourced from. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see a posting to RSN regarding this matter. Are you planning on posting there? SW3 5DL (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the rewrite of the lede. Please discuss in the manner that was done for 'suspected con man'.
 * List of New Thought writers has multiple sources. Add some if needed here. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

, The condition of the article is the main issue here. That includes undue weight of the New Thought claims, as well as the rest of the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In my experience, the first step in fixing an article is to get agreement on what sources can be used at all - what sources are reliable for use. --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This source, gives only a passing mention and at that, it appears it is simply wrapping Hill into a 'riding the wave of the New Thought movement." Well, that doesn't mean that Hill was part of the New Thought movement. It seems that the authors are saying his writings and Dale Carnegie's writings appealed to a certain demographic. This should be removed as it is simply not credible. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems fine, but what do you think of the other sources, as we can always add more of them? --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see other sources making this claim. Do you have RS that does? SW3 5DL (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * List of New Thought writers has multiple sources. Add some if needed here.  --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If you and OMG want to make the claim that Hill was involved in the New Thought Movement, then it is up to the two of you to provide those sources. Not a link to the New Thought article and telling me to find the sources. That's your job since you are the one insisting other sources exist. To what sources are you referring? Show them, otherwise I will remove the claim as there are no sources to support the edit. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's very hard to see good faith and collaboration when someone won't simply look at the related articles at all, especially after their being brought up twice now. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I did look at the 'related articles.' I didn't find any sources that support your claims that Napoleon Hill was a huge figure in the New Thought movement. In fact, I found he had nothing to do with the New Thought movement. That's why I'm asking you to show your sources since you are the one who is insisting it remain in the article, especially after you earlier agreed that the source being used right now is not reliable. Yet you insisted that there are "other sources," to justify it. So I'm asking you again, please show those sources so we can all look at them. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you cannot find something so simple, it's very difficult to see your comments and behavior as good faith and collaborative efforts to improve this article.
 * "Hill is frequently referred to as influenced by, part of, and a founder of the New Thought movement. See Starker, S. (2002) Oracle at the Supermarket: The American Preoccupation With Self-Help Books. Transaction Publishers. p 25; Taylor, E. (1999) Shadow culture: psychology and spirituality in America. Counterpoint. p 216; Juhasz, A.J. (2009) The Logical Meaning of God. Attila's Creative Works LLC. p 59."
 * Should we use all four? --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hill is not frequently known as a New Thought author. You seem not to understand what this one title is referring to. This is a passing reference and note also that this book does not source it's clam of "frequently known as." As for the other sources, there are no mentions of Hill in those. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "Shadow Culture" – references New Age, nothing on Hill.


 * "The Logical Meaning of God" – about life after death and also nothing on Hill.


 * "Oracle at the Supermarket": mentions the book sales and their appeal to New Thought readers. You are mistaking passing mentions and using them to claim he was a New Thought author. He was not. That's a mischaracterization. His books contain the same popular messages that were popular in Seneca's time. He wasn't a New Thought author either. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So you have access to Shadow Culture and The Logical Meaning of God? --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and apparently you do not. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Online or hard copy? --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hard copy from the public library. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Given the references have page numbers, is there a chance you were looking at different editions? Maybe it would help to track down who added the references. I'll take a look, though it will have to be tomorrow at the earliest.
 * Meanwhile, I've asked for help at FTN given the difficulty we're having verifying information, the reliance on the Napoleon Hill Foundation's publications, and the lack of the scholarly sources that discuss Hill in a historical context. --Ronz (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

They are also on Google books and a search there on those two sources comes back with 0 references to Napoleon Hill. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I couldn't find searchable versions. Could you post links? I'm wondering if they might reference Hill's work rather than his name. Meanwhile, let me look for when the sources were added to the other article. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Added by Freechild in 2012, whom I've notified: User_talk:Freechild --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Cure Within: A History of Mind-body Medicine By Anne Harrington lists Think and Grow Rich alongside How to Win Friends and Influence People as "prosperity-oriented New Thought". --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That's another passing mention. Sources need to be indepth to make comparisons like this. Jesus told his followers they could do the same things he did, they need only believe. Was he a New Thought writer? The Romans, the Transcendentalists, all believed in a form of thought power. The New Thought movement was a small group of authors who simply refactored what was already in existence. You are trying to find any source that supports your edit and not one of them is an indepth biography of Napoleon Hill that supports this claim. A Lifetime of Riches by Ritt and Landers makes zero association with New Thought. It appears some author somewhere referred to Hill's books and associated what he was saying with New Thought, yet nowhere in Hills' writings or in Lifetime of Riches is there any mention of this. Passing mentions instead of indepth analysis is not credible. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you post links to the online versions, or are they behind a firewall or the like? --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you not know how to use Google books? SW3 5DL (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You found searchable version in Google books then? I'm unable to find searchable ones. Could you please link them? --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I found partially searchable versions. I'll copying all the sources here to the sources section below. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Attempting to find better sources
Starting a list of possible sources and works that may lead us to sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Recken, S. L. (1993), Fitting-In: The Redefinition of Success in the 1930s. The Journal of Popular Culture, 27: 205–222. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3840.1993.00205.x
 * Doesn't mention Hill, but does discuss How to Win Friends and Influence People in length. It's references might be worth looking over. --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Self-Help and Popular Religion in Early American Culture: An Interpretive Guide by Roy M. Anker
 * Not much about Hill, but places Hill's work in historical context and appears well referenced. --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that this source places Hill's work in the context of the New Thought movement. --Ronz (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A Lifetime of Riches by MIchael J. Ritt, Jr., and Kirk Landers has been suggested as a source.

https://www.amazon.com/Lifetime-Riches-Biography-Napoleon-Hill/dp/1932429190

https://books.google.com.au/books/about/A_lifetime_of_riches.html?id=N5-4AAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2578175-a-lifetime-of-riches

It seems positively reviewed above, and certainly puts a very different slant on events than the disputed source does. On the other hand, one of the authors is executive director of the Napoleon Hill Foundation, so presumably his salary is at least partly paid by ongoing sales of Hill's books.

See http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/13/books/how-to-lose-friends-and-alienate-people.html?pagewanted=all for a probably objective review... ''Given Mr. Ritt's ties to the Hill legacy (the Prophet died in 1970 at the age of 87), this is hardly an objective account, and, as befitting the quasi-religious overtones of the subject, the prose at times acquires the pious inflections of a Life of a Saint. But credit the authors with candidly demonstrating that Hill was no such thing. In his unpublished autobiography, on which the authors heavily rely, Hill accorded himself a classic Horatio Alger boyhood. He was born in 1883 in the uplands of Wise County, Va., to a family that represented, he said, three generations of "ignorance, illiteracy and poverty." But in fact Hill's grandfather was a printer; his father became a self-taught dentist and treated his neighbors until the state licensing authorities got wind of his activities. He then enrolled in dental school at the age of 40 and went on to practice legally.'' Much more there. Fascinating. Andrewa (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A Lifetime of Riches is already sourced to the article, they're just not using it. OmgItsTheSmartGuy calls it a book by "Hill promoters" a comment that does suggest he's working from a NPOV. The New York Times article is another opinion piece and an ad hominem attack like Novak. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a fair comment IMO, and echoed by the NYT review, but yes the phrasing does suggest a POV. I see that as well as executive director, Ritt is also secretary and treasurer of the Napoleon Hill Foundation, according to Amazon.
 * Disagree that there's any comparison between Novak and the NYT piece, except perhaps that they reach some of the same conclusions. Andrewa (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So you agree that A Lifetime of Riches is a reliable source then? SW3 5DL (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course. As is Matt Novak's page. They both pass the tests of WP:RS. That doesn't mean that everything they say is true and balanced. Either of them.
 * It could be argued that ALoR is a primary source owing to the COI of one of its authors. But it's still a reliable source, as we use the term. Andrewa (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It might help to know what thinks about it. It's been a source for the article for a long time. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we have a fair idea already. The term Hill promoters which you attribute to them above seems a good indication of their views, and a fair comment considering that one of the authors is (or was... this is not clear to me at present) executive director, secretary and treasurer of the Napoleon Hill Foundation. I would expect Ritt to have resigned these positions were he not prepared to consistently promote both Hill and his views. Wouldn't you? Andrewa (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Sham: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless by Steve Salerno
 * Brief mentions of Hill, mostly with Carnegie. "It's safe to say that the impetus for the academic self-esteem movement came straight from Napoleon Hill and the other SHAM impresarios who preached, Believe it, achieve it." --Ronz (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Self Help, Inc.: Makeover Culture in American Life By Micki McGee
 * Brief mentions of Hill in connection to New Thought Movement and Peale. Looks redundant. --Ronz (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/In-Tune-with-the-Infinite/Ralph-Waldo-Trine/9781625586209
 * A brief intro to In Tune with the Infinite says, "Ralph Waldo Trine was an important New Thought writer. In Tune With the Infinite is often cited as the inspiration for Napoleon Hill's Think and Grow Rich. As with all New Thought writers, Trine's work helped to shape the current crop of self-help books, such as The Secret, The Power of Positive Thinking, and The Law of Attraction." I've noticed Trine mentioned elsewhere, so may it may be worthwhile to look for these connections to Trine. --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Spirits in rebellion: the rise and development of new thought by Charles Samuel Braden
 * References "How to Sell Your Way Through Life" and "Success" magazine, for which Hill was an editor. --Ronz (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Our Preposterous Use of Literature: Emerson and the Nature of Reading by Tracy Scott McMillin
 * Compares Hill's work to Emerson's and shows influences. --Ronz (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Starker, S. (2002) Oracle at the Supermarket: The American Preoccupation With Self-Help Books. Transaction Publishers. p 25
 * "Similarly, Napoleon Hill's Think and Grow Rich (1937) explained the technique of atracting ealth and happiness through repeated repetition of positive thoughts to harmonize with the like vibrations of Infinite Intelligence. The audience for such New Thought self-help advice remained..."
 * "New Thought already had sold millions of self-help books in America, and a core audience for such works had been established. Hence the success of Claud Bristol's secular work The Magic of Believing (1948) and the unabated popularity of Napoleon Hill's Think and Grow Rich (1937). "
 * "More directly descended from the New Thought religious tradition are the works of Napolean Hill. In 1937, Hill published Think and Grow Rich, in which he revealed a "magic formula" for succes. Hill postulated a universal ether carrying "vibrations" of all kinds..."
 * There's more, mostly contextual. --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Taylor, E. (1999) Shadow culture: psychology and spirituality in America. Counterpoint. p 216
 * Discusses Hill with Trine. --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Juhasz, A.J. (2009) The Logical Meaning of God. Attila's Creative Works LLC. p 59."
 * Mentions Hill with Henry Thomas Hamblin, Wallace Wattles, and Charles F. Haanel as New Thought writers. --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Cure Within: A History of Mind-body Medicine By Anne Harrington
 * Lists Think and Grow Rich alongside How to Win Friends and Influence People as "prosperity-oriented New Thought". --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Inspired by New Thought Movement
There are many sources that mention the connection. However, we should be careful that the sources are independent from this Wikipedia article itself. While I disagree that passing mention itself should be ignored, passing mention without some context that demonstrates authors did more than just read this article is highly preferable. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The source given makes a very oblique claim - including people who are clearly not "New Thought" and who are not generally considered as such. Therefore, that discrepant source is weak. Collect (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's one of many sources. It's discussed above: Talk:Napoleon_Hill. --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that I restored the "inspired by" and left the out the literary movement mention. I think we need better sources for the latter. However, Hill's spiritualism seems rather blatantly New Thought from what I'm finding. --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Collect, it is a oblique. Synthetically oblique. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The better question is what inspired the "New Thought" movement?
They support the following


 * 1) God or Infinite Intelligence is "supreme, universal, and everlasting";
 * 2) divinity dwells within each person, that all people are spiritual beings;
 * 3) "the highest spiritual principle [is] loving one another unconditionally... and teaching and healing one another"; and
 * 4) "our mental states are carried forward into manifestation and become our experience in daily living".

The New Thought movement was founded by Phineas Quimby who possibly got it from the Bible quotes from Jesus in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, Buddha, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Transcendentalists in New England, the Puritans, the Mennonites, the Catholic Church, Martin Luther and the Reformation, Navajo shamans and the great spirit, the Universalists, or any number of thinking people who realized that loving your neighbor as yourself, using the brain, the mind, and visualization, etc., might well be helpful in setting goals and carrying them out. All this seems to have gone on well before Phineas Quimby decided to pen his opus and call it a movement.

What Napoleon Hill did was to interview Andrew Carnegie who gave him the secret to his own success and suggested that other highly successful business men and women had done the same. That's where Hill got it. Andrew Carnegie, not from Phineas and an obscure group of writers who got it from the Bible. You don't see anyone saying Henry Ford was a member of the New Thought movement and he's the one with the great quote, "Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right." Someone might come along and synthetically link the two, like is being done here, but there's no in-depth source that is just about Hill and his beliefs, and not a passing mention by a writer who does not know her subject. SW3 5DL (talk)
 * Do you have sources for this, if not, how does it apply to the article content? --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The claim is that Napoleon Hill was a new thought author, or now, that he was inspired by New Thought. I've listed the tenets of New Thought from a book on New Thought. These ideas are universal and available to anybody, anywhere, at any time. Not to mention, I've already mentioned HIll himself says he got the ideas from Andrew Carnegie. He says it in his books. I don't see any reason he would not be forthcoming about that. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've not specifically looked for his being influenced by Transcendentalists, but did stumble upon his influence by Emerson. And Emerson had great influence on New Thought as well, so it's difficult to categorize. There's also the concerns from "Sham: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless" that Hill was an opportunist who drew upon a great deal of the success-related literature of the time. The "infinite intelligence", the "vibrations", the positive thinking all appear to come primarily from New Thought ideas. I've added mention of Emerson to the article, but I'd like to find better sources other than "Our Preposterous Use of Literature: Emerson and the Nature of Reading". --Ronz (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight of New Thought edit
As I mentioned before, cherry picking sources for passing mentions of New Thought falls wide of the mark, especially when insisting that it be part of the lede. It's like trying to stuff 10 pounds of potatoes in a 5 pound bag. It's undue. In order to make the claim that Hill was either an actual New Thought author or inspired by it, there would need to be a book chapter or article entirely about him and include how New Thought affected him. Otherwise, it's just authors who don't know their subject. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

How was Hill 'inspired by the New Thought movement," as you claim here? I don't see any where that the source is claiming he was inspired by it. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear what you're asking, nor how it could be seen undue in any way. Are you asking me to summarize all the discussions on the topic as they stand? --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edit says Hill was inspired by the New Thought movement. Where's the source that says, "Napoleon Hill was inspired by the New Thought movement."? You have none. It's WP:OR. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You said, and you again cite the Horowitz book which is a passing mention about book sales  that says only, Hill and Dale Carnegie,  How do you get "Hill was inspired by the New Thought movement." What source says that? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)