Talk:Napoleon Hill/Archive 3

Link to Napoleon Hill Foundation
has reverted my adding an explicit external link to the Napoleon Hill Foundation, citing removed section per EL, NOTLINK once again - note that it is used as a source.

The cited guidelines provide no reason for this edit IMO, and I'd like the link in some form restored. It is helpful to readers and in no way contradicts guidelines. The format of the link, whether to a ref or an external link, does not concern me at all.

WP:NOTLINK reads ''There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines.'' That hardly seems justification for removing a link from a section that was three lines long, reducing it to Wikiquote and Commons entries only.

The nutshell of WP:EL ''External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. See § Links normally to be avoided. The section linked to there, WP:EL, starts out Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[5] where the footnote [5] reads This guideline does not restrict linking to websites that are being used as sources to provide content in articles.'' (my emphasis) Again, that doesn't seem to justify reducing the external links section to the two lines it now is.

The link was added when I created a redirect from Napoleon Hill Foundation, which links to the section Napoleon Hill, which then links to the anchor Napoleon Hill (which was not removed although it was rendered nonsensical). It should IMO be easily available to anyone following the redirect from Napoleon Hill Foundation. I'm happy with any solution that does that, but a ref tag didn't seem the correct way to me.

As part of this edit, the External links heading has also been deleted. Again, I think it should be restored. It's a standard section, helpful to readers, and there seems no reason for its removal. Andrewa (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I've no objection to your reverting that. I support it. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say remove per WP:SOAP, NOTDIR, and ELNO#1, possibly 2, 5, weakly 13, weakly 14, and 19.
 * It's not an official site for Hill, the presentation and information is highly promotional (WP:SOAP), and it's difficult to work through to find information directly about Hill (that's not already used as a reference).
 * If there's another section of the site specifically about Hill the person, that might be a good choice as an external link.
 * Having a redirect is not a reason for an external link.
 * So what encyclopedic information that cannot be included into the article does the site contain? Again, if it is in a specific section of the site, then linking to the section might be a good choice. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Andrewa: Sorry that I didn't notice what you were doing with the anchor. I have to say I've never seen that before, and I'd want to have some larger review before we consider restoring it with the external link. I've moved the anchor to the reference, which accomplishes much of you were trying to do. I can't say I've seen anything like that either. Has anyone seen eiher use of anchors in GA or similarly high-quality articles? --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, for a start, can we restore the External links section heading? Why was it removed?
 * WP:SOAP? Are you kidding? I'm not promoting anything. And WP:SOAP cuts both ways... any attempt to hinder Wikipedia in reporting and in validly linking to the views of Hill's followers is WP:SOAP, in that it promotes the views of his detractors. We don't filter such stuff, if it's notable we report it, regardless of what we might personally think of the views in question, or the wisdom of those who pay to get accredited by the organisation. I think you are on very thin ice, frankly.
 * WP:NOTDIR lists seven things not to include. I'm keen to see how you see any of them as relevant to one link to the official website of the organisation that exists to promote Hill's views.
 * Now for the other guidelines you quote. I thought I'd adequately addressed your appeal to WP:EL, but let's see the details you cite from WP:ELNO (a section shortcut to it)... ELNO#1, possibly 2, 5, weakly 13, weakly 14, and 19.
 * ELNO#1: '..In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already in the article. Do you really think the site says nothing not already in our article? Really?
 * ELNO#2 (possibly): Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. I'm very glad you said possibly. If you firmly believe the site's material to be factually inaccurate etc, you'd be confessing a serious POV. WP:SOAP again.
 * ELNO#5 Individual web pages[6] that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article should not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services. That looks possible until you read note [6]: Web pages, not websites. Evaluate the specific page that the link takes the reader to, regardless of other pages in the website. (emphasis as on the page)
 * ELNO#13 (weakly): Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked. Weakly? No, irrelevant. Not what the guideline is addressing at all.
 * ELNO#14 (weakly): Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers. I must be missing something here. It doesn't appear to be even remotely relevant.
 * ELNO#19 (not clear whether this is another weakly): Websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.[5][7] I admit this is a strange one, with many tangles and necessary qualifications. There are some Wikilinks there worth following, but again it's the footnotes that are most interesting: [5} This guideline does not restrict linking to websites that are being used as sources to provide content in articles we've seen before and seems to apply, so perhaps and just as well we don't need [7] Links to websites are permitted when the website has been used as a WP:Reliable source, but not to direct readers to the organization's website or merely to verify that the organization exists, or that it has a website. I confess I'm puzzled by this and think it needs rephrasing... isn't the purpose of any external link to direct readers to the linked website? I think it means direct in a strong sense of Wikispam. If so, not relevant. Unless you are accusing me of spamming?
 * Sorry this is so longwinded, but you cited many guidelines, so I have dealt with each in turn, and none seem to justify removal of the link. Some are very obviously irrelevant, none stack up on careful reading. Andrewa (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * Thanks for responding in such detail. I hope you don't mind if I just address what I think are the most important points.
 * can we restore the External links section heading? Since there are no links, the section heading doesn't belong. I'm not seeing any layout problems that need fixing after it was removed, and I found a solution for the anchor.
 * Re: SOAP and ELNO#5,14: You're not promoting anything, but they are. External links sections are not to be used to provide balancing perspective, beyond providing a way to see what the subject says about itself when appropriate.
 * I think it all comes down to, So what encyclopedic information that cannot be included into the article does the site contain? --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Disagree. It comes down to reader experience (our bottom line) and NPOV (one of our core policies).


 * It is highly likely that a reader of this article (regardless of their views on Hill and on his views) would like a link to this site for their own use... a clear external link, not just a footnote. That's the basic reason it should be there, and this is exactly what WP:EL is consistently saying.


 * The only reason I can see to leave it out is to avoid promoting Hill's views or the Foundation. But think about it... that avoidance itself amounts to promoting the opposite view.


 * So IMO, WP:NPOV pretty much demands that we link to this site. It is of top relevance to understanding Hill's ongoing influence. If there were to be a similar opposing website, say http://hillisbunkumsociety.com.au, with a significant following, we'd need to give them a mention too. That's exactly the sort of thing the External links section is for.


 * But if there were a dozen such societies we wouldn't list them all in the EL section, any more than if there were a dozen organisations promoting Hill we'd list all of them. That's what the (many) guidelines you've listed above are all talking about, not about a unique and relevant link.


 * And I wouldn't include Matt Novak's article. It is not of the same degree of relevance. Cite it by all means, but putting it in the External links section would be totally inappropriate, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the External links section is not to be used for addressing POV concerns.
 * You didn't answer my question directly, and if you were answering it indirectly it needs specifics.
 * I'm feeling like we're at an impasse at this point. WP:ELN? --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, "lacking consensus" appears to be the problem with such material. See WP:CONSENSUS.  If you wish to challenge what appears to be a clear consensus here, your only recourse is an RfC.  Good luck. Collect (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What "clear consensus here" are you referring to? --Ronz (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think he's referring to you being the only one, while three of us disagree with you. So you need an RfC if you want to go against consensus. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus about what though? --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Then saying there's any consensus at all seems premature. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Three editors here, out of four, do not agree to the addition of a source which does not explicitly back the claim asserted. That appears to be the current consensus. Collect (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you've still not said what this is about. Doesn't seem to be about anything discussed in this section of this talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources for claims of New Thought
Ronz is again edit-warring over this specious claim of an association with New Thought which is not mentioned at all by Napoleon Hill, nor do his works, or the reliable sources about him, make any such claim. Ronz is making this claim based on passing mentions in books that have nothing to do with Napoleon Hill. If we need to have another RfC, then we will, but the edit warring and the lack of collegial give and take here really needs to stop. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC.
 * All the sources support the information. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Do review Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_221. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * These are not reliable sources. I oppose the use of them. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not the consensus of the RSN discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In the case at hand, I suggest two steps back and a few cups of tea. So far, you do not appear to be on any majority view (WP:CONSENSUS) here, and a few cups of tea would likely improve your position. Collect (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC
There is a dispute over whether or not a blog post is a reliable source for this biography of Napoleon Hill. The question is only related to the blog post and its content, the question does not go to whether or not the website, Gizmodo, which is hosting the blog post, is reliable and/or has been used on Wikipedia before.

The question is only: "Do you support or oppose this blog post as a reliable source for this biography of Napoleon Hill? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose on the grounds that it is not a serious piece of journalism with reliable sourcing. Rather, this is a sarcastic, unsourced attack piece. The illustration alone seems to telegraph the author's true motives. The author, Matt Novak, is not a historian, nor a biographer, or an expert on Napoleon Hill, and that would be fine if this were a serious piece of journalism. But it is not. It relies instead on Novak's opinions based on poor sources, after he was apparently refused access to Hill's personal diaries, journals, manuscripts, and other papers by the Napoleon Hill Foundation, established after Hill's death.This reads like a questionable source and should not be used. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose use as the author of the blog post has not been shown to be an authority on the topic. As such, it is therefore likely deficient for the use here. Collect (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Follow consensus from past discussions and actual policies and guidelines --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I gave my thinking below in detail. Tl;dr is that I doubt the piece has been rigorously fact checked, and Matt Novak hasn't a big enough reputation that we can handwave on that, so I'm not sufficiently confident in his statements of fact. It would make a fine external link, though. Herostratus (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. From the article's photo, to the headline, to the article itself, it's a pure opinion piece, on the extreme far end from 'news' or 'neutral.' Whether it's an attack piece or a positive hype advertisement piece, it's all the same. It's just pure opinion and editorializing. If the author were especially notable, then there could be a sentence in the article that "Matt Novak claims/alleges that..." But that's also a 'no.'. First Light (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes it's on Gizmodo, but yes, it started life as a blog.  Yes the writer is a freelancer who's work has ended up in mainstream media, so he's not some individual that's trying to make a name for himself. Gizmodo has no oversight, nor does his blog, so it fails as a reliable source, so per BLP (and BDP which is more relevant than BLP in this case )  it can't be used.    К Ф  Ƽ Ħ   16:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per the arguments above. – The Bounder (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
This is a poorly formatted RfC that ignores all prior discussion on the topic. Please update it. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Best response is to answer, not to boycott an RfC.   And I note that, at this point, your position seems more lonely than his. Collect (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, let's see. It is a blog, but its not somebody's Wordpress blog. It's hosted at Gizmodo which at least is notable enough to have an article here. It says here that Matt Novak is not just some drunk on the subway. He does this for money. But none of that means very much, really. I assume nobody is fact-checking his work. All we really have as opposed to a Wordpress blog is the hope that if he regularly makes major errors of fact his host will eventually drop him. If it was a New York Times blog, fine; but I don't know if Gizmodo cares. (Incidentally, he says "The blog was formerly at Smithsonian.com" which in one sense sounds good (Smithsonian!) but on the other hand... why "formerly"? Did they drop him? If so, why? (OTOH maybe Gizmodo just pays better).

The tone of the piece is not reassuring. That doesn't prove anything, but it's something that I can't help but consider.

Let's take one of Novak's most direct statement of fact: "I contacted Andrew Carnegie biographer David Nasaw about the alleged meeting between Carnegie and Hill, and he told me he 'found no evidence of any sort that Carnegie and Hill ever met.' I pressed Nasaw about whether there was any chance at all that Hill’s book could be based on real events. Nasaw replied, 'Let me put it this way. I found no evidence that the book was authentic.'" The source for the other facts Novak presents are less clear, but this is bluntly stated: He called Nasaw, and Nasaw is directly quoted.

How confident can we be in this? Not confident enough, in my book. It is highly probable that he did call Nasaw (maybe not, you never know) but we don't know how good the quotes are. Did an independent Gizmodo fact-checker call Nasaw and verify the conversation? I doubt it. Did an independent Gizmodo fact-checker even go over Novak's notes to compare to the article, to at least ensure Novak didn't err at least at that point? I doubt it -- it's a blog. (If I'm wrong, I'm willing to stand corrected, if someone has more info about Gizmodo's procedures for their blogs). (For that matter, did someone from Gizmodo ever sit Novak down and say "We'll publish your blog, but you better check your facts well -- three strikes and you're out". I don't know. Maybe.)

And if we can't be confident in that, so much the less for assertions of fact that Novak makes without giving a source -- which he doesn't really give a source for a lot of his stuff.

I believe Novak, generally. He says he's spent a lot of time researching this, and I believe him. I think that the material is probably mostly accurate. "Probably mostly accurate" -- it's not good enough. If it was a New York Times blog, that would help. If Matt Novak was notable enough and reputationized enough to have an article here, that would help. If the piece itself gave internal evidence of a measured, careful, and well-modulated scholarly approach to the subject, that would help. But we don't have any of that.

It's fine for an external link and would make a good one. I'm confident enough in Novak's material to present it to the reader on the basis of "Here's something that add some depth to the subject; we're not endorsing this as a reliable source for any facts in our article, since it's kind of an opinion piece, but we think it brings a worthwhile voice to the conversation". Herostratus (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , yes, that's a fine analysis. I too noticed Novak said he did a lot of research, but that he also doesn't give a source for a lot of what he's written. And if this were a New York Times blog it would be helpful, because they do check what goes up under their name, but as you pointed out, why is the blog piece, 'formerly on Smithsonian?' I too wondered about that. Is it a question of better pay, or did someone complain and Novak came up short on facts so they had to let him go? In any event, it doesn't seem at all reliable for Wikipedia. I agree, the tone of the piece is not reassuring. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So then the question is does Novak qualify as "one commentator" in the sense of "but one commentator has said Hill is a charlatan...". Here, we're not verifying anything Novak said as factual, we're just relaying his opinion. The thing is, we don't report my Uncle Dwight's opinion. Is Novak notable enough? We want pretty notable people. My personal rough rule of thumb is to first look for a bluelink, and Novak doesn't have that, so... I'd want to see neutral reliable sources saying "Novak is an expert on Hill". Herostratus (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and he does not appear to be an expert. It seems to be a one-off article. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm utterly dismayed by the above discussion. It's symptomatic of the increasing lack of understanding Wikipedia has for the practices of contemporary journalism. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Edits to get all his marriages included, and quotes from a reviewer
Hello. I just did a series of edits beginning https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Napoleon_Hill&diff=772169962&oldid=772159642, that cleaned up reference formats, marked some dead links, used more of the material from the 1995 review of the biography in the New York Times, and included the year of divorce from wife Rosa Lee, and name of next wife and date of marriage, from an article in Success Magazine by Emmert. To include the last wife, mentioned but not named in the NYT review, I added a section called Starting again, in the part about his life. I hold no views on this man; I wanted to fill in the gaps of his marriages, and get the right count of his sons, which is three, not two. Plus someone linked his wife Rosa Lee Hill to a stub article that had no indication the person had been his wife. The article briefly described a music career, but with no dates cited for the musical career, just her birth and death dates. On the Rosa Lee Hill article's Talk page, I put the question as to whether there are two women under discussion with the name Rosa Lee Hill. I could not find enough looking on line to settle the matter. If there are two different women, then the wiki link on her name, Rosa Lee Beeland, needs to be removed in this article, and the other article needs what I added, removed. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to say, because one source in the lead was a dead link, and it supported the count of 20 million books sold, I removed that phrase from the lead. I left the dead link in case it can come back to life. Plus, the section on the book Think and Grow Rich does not have sales data; the lead should be taking information from the article, not be the only place it appears. From the NYT article, the amount of book sales seems to be controversial, so I quoted from that NYT review into this article. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the help! --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The review of the biography in the New York Times is an opinion piece and should not be relied on when other sources are available. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The source has been discussed and it seems to be reliable. Again, get some consensus. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Your view is unexpected! It is a book review by a reputable author in a reputable newspaper, and the book he is reviewing is referenced frequently in the article, and the article carries flags right now about needing to have a better perspective, less like a sales promotion. The book under review is a recent biography of Napoleon Hill, one author being associated with the Napoleon Hill group, which in itself might have been considered an unreliable source, until the reviewer in the New York Times said it was reliable -- that is how I see it. No one has ever told me that a New York Times book review is an unreliable source for Wikipedia. They are valued in articles on novels and articles about authors. Plus in another connection (that is, not Wikipedia), I was told that the New York Times does fact checking on the Op Ed pieces it prints, though those are written by people who are not reporters for the newspaper; thus they distinguish fact and opinion even in an Op Ed. I presume they do no less for their book reviews. I did find another source, which is also added to the article, from Success Magazine. Each article added different information. Did you dislike the NY Times reviewer challenging the claims for sales of the book, even with a source? Rather stunned. If the New York Times is not a reliable source, then please, what is? --Prairieplant (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Just because it's the New York Times, does not automatically make it a reliable source for all things on Wikipedia. Read WP:BLP carefully. It also applies to dead subjects. They have living relatives who are affected by what is written here. Richard Lingeman’s “review” is an attack piece, starting with the derisive title, “How to Lose Friends and Alienate People.” Lingeman begins and ends his piece with derisive comments about Napoleon Hill. This is not the work of an objective, thoughtful, writer. Napoleon Hill’s grandson has objected to some of the sources being used here. He has a right to do that. An opinion piece, even in the New York Times, cannot be used if it denigrates the subject of the article here on WP, and Lingeman's review does. Richard Lingeman is not a scholar, historian, or expert on either Hill, or motivational books. If the tone was neutral pov and objective, that would be different. But it clearly is not. No, we cannot use it. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * They have living relatives who are affected by what is written here... Sorry, but that's not what BLP is for, and the entire perspective seems to violate NOT. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since I wandered back onto this page, but I felt the need to address SW3 5DL's statement.


 * From BLP: Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.


 * Guidelines state that "the only exception would be for people who have recently died", which doesn't apply to Hill. By SW3 5DL's logic, BLP might as well extend to every person who has ever been alive, as virtually everyone has "living relatives who are affected."


 * In general, I have appreciated the tone of this discussion so far. While I'm disappointed in the consensus over the Novak piece, I respect everyone's opinions on the matter. Ronz, Andrewa, Collect, Herostratus, you've all been great. In fact, my only outstanding point of contention is how overly aggressive and unhelpful SW3 5DL has been this entire time; seriously man, chill out. It's a New York Times article by Richard Lingeman; if we can't use that as a reliable source, what can we use? OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter, That still doesn't allow an unreliable source, and the Lingeman article isn't reliable and btw, he's not been dead for all that long. And I question the newspaper you're using here. Why are you so interested in filling the article with such negativity, apparently without questioning the sources? You do know that newspapers, especially ones that old are not really preferred sources. And newspapers can't 'allege,' they can only report.  SW3 5DL (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed "alleged" to "reported".
 * Why are you so interested in filling the article with such negativity Such assumptions undermine the collaborative environment that is required here, and indicate a personal bias. Please review WP:FOC, WP:AGF, and WP:POV. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is the article needs neutrally written reliable sources, and the edits to the article need to be written from a neutral pov. Using words like "alleged" when clearly the source did not say that, insisting on sources that read like attack pages, is not collaborative editing. It's a New York Times opinion piece and it's not neutrally written. It condemns not only the genre, but also the man. That's not a reliable source. And neither was the Matt Novak piece. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a New York Times opinion piece and it's not neutrally written... I don't think you understand what RS and NPOV require if you think sources themselves need to be written neutrally from your personal viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you believe they need to be attack pieces? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, this seems to be all about your personal viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

My viewpoint is that we should follow RS policy. An opinion piece cannot be used as fact. There is also the question of due weight from an opinion piece. Is the writer an expert on the subject? Neither Lingeman, nor the New Times identifies him as an expert on Napoleon Hill. This is ostensibly a book review of A Lifetime of Riches, but Lingeman does not review the book, he reviews the man. As he's not an expert on Hill, his opinion about Hill is not reliable for any fact about Hill. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the writer an expert on the subject? Irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Napoleon Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727110858/http://www.naphill.org/about-napoleon-hill/ to http://www.naphill.org/about-napoleon-hill/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Article should be moved
Since this person was actually Oliver Napoleon Hill, and there was another famous person named Napoleon Hill (see: Napoleon Hill in The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture and Find-a-Grave: Napoleon Hill), this article should be moved to Oliver Napoleon Hill and there should be a disambiguation page. --Zeamays (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 19 August 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~   {talk}  22:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Napoleon Hill → Oliver Napoleon Hill – his person was actually Oliver Napoleon Hill, and there was another famous person named Napoleon Hill (see: Napoleon Hill in The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture and Find-a-Grave: Napoleon Hill), this article should be moved to Oliver Napoleon Hill and there should be a disambiguation page. Zeamays (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This person is overwhelmingly known as "Napoleon Hill", not "Oliver Napoleon Hill". He wrote several extremely popular books using the name "Napoleon Hill" (without including "Oliver"). He is not known as Oliver Napoleon Hill. In fact, the biographical summary of his life on the Napoleon Hill Foundation website does not even mention the name "Oliver". There is no need to disambiguate this article's title if there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which seems to be the case here. As mentioned in a hatnote of this article, there is also a hill in Lithuania called Napoleon's Hill, but the hatnote seems sufficient to deal with that. I also added a mention of the Tennessee businessman to the hatnote. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see your note, but the hatnote is misleading because there is need for an article about Napoleon Hill, Memphis businessman, who is notable for many things, of which the Scimitar Building is a minor one. Please refer to Tennessee Encyclopedia. Oliver Napoleon Hill was author of a 20th Century book, but that does not give him the right to deprive the earlier Hill of his name.  Do you have a better solution?  I am open, but we need a way for the Memphis millionaire to have an article in his own name. I suggest that we move the current Napoleon Hill article to "Napoleon Hill (self-help author)" and I create an article "Napoleon Hill (Memphis businessman)".  Would that suit you? --Zeamays (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest "Napoleon Hill (self-help author)". --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I also oppose moving this to Napoleon Hill (self-help author). This person was an extremely famous best-selling author, and therefore seems like a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. He is much more well known than the other guy. It may be true that the Scimitar Building is not the most important aspect of the Tennessee businessman's life, but it is the only place on Wikipedia where I found any mention of him. I don't really have an opinion about whether there should be an article about the Tennessee businessman or not. If suitable sources can be found to meet WP:PERSON, I don't object to creating an article about him. But that's not what this talk page discussion is about. This page is for discussing the article about the author. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's because there isn't (yet) an article. He needs an article under his own name, so the title of the existing one for the author must be changed. It's a reasonable compromise. You haven't suggested a way out. --Zeamays (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If the Tennessee businessman is sufficiently notable and enough reliable sources about him can be found to meet WP:PERSON, I don't object if you want to create an article about him. You can find some guidance at WP:AfC for help in creating a new article. There is no need for any other "way out". After there is an article about the Tennessee businessman, we can change the hatnote in this article to refer to it – but we don't need to change the title of this article, because the author appears to be a properly identified WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I will assume, BarrelProof, you haven't looked at the number of pages I've created, and those to which I've added substantial new material, so I'll just say that I wouldn't have made this proposal if I weren't familiar with those matters, such as notability. But you haven't provided any evidence that the self-help author is significantly more notable than the Tennessee businessman. If you had, I would bow to your position.  Please provide that evidence.  I will just point out that the businessman is the subject of an encyclopedia article, numerous search engine hits on his name, his mansion and other buildings, and other pertinent content, such as in the Wikipedia article Memphis Cotton Exchange.  Those facts demonstrate notability, not that he's more notable than the self-help author, but notable.  --Zeamays (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please make you own case. This article is about a best-selling author. The encyclopedia entry you've linked about the Tennessee businessman suggests his notability may be rather local in nature. Adding a WP:RS/P link suggests reliable sources may be hard to find. --Ronz (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even if a separate, stand-alone, general-notability-guideline-passing article on the Memphis businessman was created, most of the search engine hits I get for merely entering "Napoleon Hill" are related to the self-help author. I am barely getting anything for the Memphis businessman merely by entering in "Napoleon Hill". Therefore, the self-help author should still be the primary topic. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppode Trying to usurp long-standing primary title for (yet-to-be created article) is really not a good idea. Napolean is the primary topic for this title irrespective of the notability of the now- non existing article about the businessman. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * New Article: In the meantime since my original proposal is clearly opposed, I have created a new article, Napoleon Hill (Memphis businessman).  I will add a hatnote to the article about a self-help writer. --Zeamays (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

No evidence that it's one of the "best selling self-help books of all time"
The introduction says:


 * "He is known best for his book Think and Grow Rich (1937) which is among the 10 best selling self-help books of all time.[1][2]"

One of those references provided is broken, and the other just lists 10 self-help books that someone happens to like - and doesn't address "best-selling."

I googled around a while ago and as far as I can see the only evidence that it's one of the best-selling books of all time comes from the Hill Foundation, which after the gizmodo critique - https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/12/the-untold-story-of-napoleon-hill-the-greatest-self-help-scammer-of-all-time/ - isn't a completely reliable and unbiased source.

I think it's likely that TAGR IS in fact a high-seller. But I suggest that until reliable sales estimates can be sourced, references like this to being a "best-selling self-help books of all time" be removed.

At the time of writing, the Think and Grow Rich page has similar problems. It has broken links that do not support its claims for sales of the book, or any claims independent of the Hill Foundation.

Lauchlanmack (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing the first ref is the same for Think and Grow Rich. If so, it's an Associated Press article that should not be removed.
 * I agree that claims from the Foundation should probably not be included. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Гизмондо это что авторитетный блог? Экспертв есть там? Имли это просто люди котрые пишут что им нравится 195.72.142.20 (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Напалеон хил
Гизмондо почему нужно верить ? Там что эксперты работают? Историки? 195.72.142.20 (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Gizmodo is saying the same things as the New York Times and Fortune, oh yeah and all of the actual historians who don't work for the Hill foundation. 17:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk)

Lead section material
I would argue that due to the contentious and disputed nature of this material, that at the very least the following should be moved out of the lead section. I am not saying that it should be entirely deleted necessarily, but that it should be at the very least reworded and not given WP:UNDUE weight in the lead section. Relevant policy: WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. Please let us discuss the material here first for inclusion, or where the material should be on this page.

The content in question:

Hill is a controversial figure. Accused of fraud, modern historians also doubt many of his claims, such as that he met Andrew Carnegie and that he was an attorney. Gizmodo has called him "the most famous conman you've probably never heard of".

I believe that this would be best represented considering WP:DUE on the section titled, "Failed business ventures and charges of fraud."

A lead should adequately summarize the body of an article of course, but should also not give undue weight to some claims, especially if they are highly contentious, as this is. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC and refactor your comment accordingly. Otherwise, it appears you are not here to work cooperatively with others. --Hipal (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I made a change accordingly, though I am still waiting on your update to the main page given the substantial back and forth and the WP:ONUS is on you to justify inclusion of the content if you are dead set on it being in the lead. I am fine with it being in the body of the article for what it is worth.. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the refactoring --Hipal (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Given the past discussions, I've removed the disputed content. It's probably worth revisiting the Novak ref and it's use. --Hipal (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I appreciate your investigating the past as quickly and as thoroughly as you did as well. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)