Talk:Think and Grow Rich/Archives/2013

Public Domain
The link specified leads to a site where books are commercially for sale. (Please also see previous notes about this, below.) In addition, the text contained in the link contains numerous factual and other errors and also contains copyrighted material that has not only been lifted from another source, but is not credited in any way. Johnlocke2 (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)John Locke

1937 version is now in public domain. Therefore it is freely available. I believe this informaiton is worth putting in the page. Please provide reasons why not to put it. (Travis88000 11-22-06)

I can't figure out how to add my name here, but I have been using this wiki for months to locate a copy of this book for both myself and people I have mentioned the book to. It is completely within the Public Domain. Call the Napoleon Hill Foundation or just check the copy right laws.

Please put the link back. Dale Carnegie not Andrew....

The link referred to features a photograph of the cover of a version of "Think and Grow Rich" that is copyrighted and is NOT in the public domain. The link clearly implies that this book is the one which can be downloaded, when it is not. This is extremely misleading. There would be no objection to a photo of the actual cover of a 1937 edition of the book. There would also be no objection to a link to a site that does not offer or refer, directly or indirectly, to any commercial products or services. If a site does so, this would constitute using TGAR for the commercial purpose of attracting buyers of other goods or services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlocke2 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This link is to "zilliontech.com," a commercial enterprise. All of the links on the page to which this link takes one (including "Knowledge Repository") involve for-sale commercial products and services. Unintentionallly or not, zilliontech.com's placing this link on this Wikipedia web page has the effect of luring readers to other websites whose sole purpose is clearly to sell related products and services. There are numerous web sites where TAGR can be downloaded free of charge and which involve no commercial links. Any reader can easily find these with a Google or other search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlocke2 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why the book is not on Wikisource, when "the Science of Getting Rich" is. Clearly several people have stated that it is in the public domain. In fact I received a free copy via e-mail which also states that the book is in the public domain. Dessydes (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly POV?
I think this page needs to be looked over. I mean even the first line is a little too "Strong"?

Response
I believe the facts support the statement. The book has never been out of print since the first day it was published, in 1937. According to publishers' statements, it has sold more than 30 million copies worldwide in its many manifestations. On the front cover of the new "restored, revised" edition this article mentions, best-selling author Brian Tracy says, "This is the best single book on personal success ever written; it made me a millionaire -- starting from nothing," and author Harvey Mackay ("Swim with the Sharks") says, "It's the classic of all classics." On the back cover, Donald Keough, former president and CEO of Coca-Cola, says, "The cogent advice articulated by Napoleon Hill is as relevant and pertinent today as the day it was written. Hill has attained almost "guru status" in Japan and Malaysia. His devotees in the United States and the United Kingdom number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Johnlocke2 20:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No way. A few random people is not "Many". If this isn't fixed to everyone's satisfaction, it should be marked as a pov dispute.

This book is absolutely gigantic in the sales field. Many, many, many people in leadership positions in companies large and small will attest to the influence of this book on their careers. I find the current description to be appropriate and accurate.

Link to Ebook Download
The link to the ebook download page should not be removed. It will benefit all those who are looking for a soft copy to read.

1937 edition protected until 2035
According to the U.S. Copyright Office, it appears a 1937 work would have 95 years of copyright protection and thus not be in the public domain until after 2035:

"• Works originally copyrighted before 1950 and renewed before 1978:3 These works have automatically been given a longer copyright term. Copyrights that had already been renewed and were in their second term at any time between December 31, 1976, and December 31, 1977, inclusive, do not need to be renewed again. They have been automatically extended to last for a total term of 95 years (a first term of 28 years plus a renewal term of 67 years) from the end of the year in which they were originally secured. NOTE: This extension applies not only to copyrights less than 56 years old but also to older copyrights that had previously been extended in duration under a series of Congressional enactments beginning in 1962. As in the case of all other copyrights subsisting in their second term between December 31, 1976, and December 31, 1977, inclusive, these copyrights will expire at the end of the calendar year in which the 95th anniversary of the original date of copyright occurs." --http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.html#works —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.165.208 (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Think and Grow Rich Applies to All Walks in Life
Boxing Hall of Famer Ken Norton discussed in his autobiography, Going the Distance, that after his first defeat he was given Think & Grow Rich and that the book changed his life. Norton went on a fourteen fight winning streak that lasted over three years including a win over Muhammad Ali. --SD1991 21:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Variant editions
[Moved from User talk:Hrafn

I noticed the tags you added in Think and Grow Rich. I appreciate their proper use as well as the sidebar explanation/commentary.

I changed a few of the words to hopefully make it more suitable. Let me know what you think. I can't seem to find any specific source that actually speaks about the sheer number of times the book has been reprinted or revised in some way, but it doesn't take much to confirm such a statement about such a well known work. Not that it's anywhere near the same league, but I would liken it to making a similar statement about the Bible.

As for the WorldCat statement, the only reason I mentioned them as unique is because on the main page that is linked to in the citation there is a mention of "124 editions"...However by following that link one is taken to a database list of 185 individual listings. Perhaps I made the assumption incorrectly that the much smaller "editions" number on the main page was referring to that of ISBNs. Again, let me know what your take on it is. Either way, simply stating that WorldCat lists over 120 editions (along with a citation link that proves the statement is true) shouldn't be a problem. It may not meet wiki standards of source reliability to serve as evidence in the statement of the the number of reprints, but the statement about WorldCat itself is easily provable fact, so I don't think there is any problem with it.

As for the amazon.com reviews, yes I know they aren't considered reliable sources, but isn't that only in the case of a critical commentary or verification of stated fact? The reviews were not being cited to verify anything in the article other than the statement that they existed. So the actual content of the reviews is not being used as a source for anything. Let me know your interpretation of this.

Again I'd like to thank you for your tact and well-mannered edits. I'd like to see more editors show such qualities. I look forward to building a much better article than the one we currently have for such an important and well known work. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

All in all, this article has a preponderance of unreliable sources & OR -- and does not come even close to wikipedia standards. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "I can't seem to find any specific source that actually speaks about the sheer number of times the book has been reprinted or revised in some way, but it doesn't take much to confirm such a statement about such a well known work." Then the claim is WP:OR & should be eliminated.
 * 2) "Unique editions" implies that there was substantial rewriting in each of them -- whereas the chances are that although some are substantial rewrites, the majority are essentially identical to previous editions.
 * 3) Search results are generally not considered a WP:RS, they change as underlying information is changed, and in the case of WorldCat, also changes depending on what default location the catalogue is using.
 * 4) You should not be making any "assumption[s]" on what this primary source is saying -- per WP:SYNTH & WP:PSTS.
 * 5) The reviews don't meet the minimal standards of WP:SELFPUB, so should not be used at all.

They must be shown
Considering confusing nature of the several revisions, it would very helpful and outstanding to our fellow wikipedians if the cover of each revision was shown.(LonerXL (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ISBN numbers
As I am browsing the various online bookstores a number of different ISBNs for this title shows up, none of which being any of the ones mentioned in the article. It may be European editions, since that is my location, but there seem to be American editions as well. Language is all English.

ISBN:9781906465599 ISBN:9781604591873 ISBN:9789569569616 ISBN:9781593302009 ISBN:9780449214923 ISBN:9781585424337 ISBN:9781585426591 ISBN:9781608428991 ISBN:9781604502671 ISBN:9781599869919 ISBN:9781599869964 ISBN:9781932429350 ISBN:9781932429237

... and counting... there is just a staggering number of different versions of this book out there. And this is only this specific title "Think and grow rich" (with or without workbook) and not counting all the other titles by the same author such as "Think and Grow Focused and Richer", which as I understand cover the same topic.

A guide in this jungle would sure help... ;-) 83.177.143.118 (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTGUIDE HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The use of the words Scots verses Scottish and Scotch.
In the first sentence of this article "... by a suggestion from Scottish-American businessman Andrew ...", the word Scottish is used incorrectly. This is an issue that spans multiple entries in Wikipedia. The use of Scottish, Scotch, and Scots is inconsistent in Wikipedia with some articles using them in the proper context and most others not.

Strictly speaking, it is improper to call a person Scottish. People are not Scottish; they are Scots. Things are Scotch or Scottish.


 * Examples
 * * A volunteer group of Scots mow the grass in this Scottish cemetery.
 * * Who are the Scots-Irish?
 * * I am from Scotland so naturally I am a Scotsman.
 * * I like whisky and I only drink single malt scottish whisky.
 * * Scots know how to spell whisky correctly.
 * * North Americans say Scotch when they want a Scotch whisky.
 * * The Scots do not say American when they want an American whisky.
 * * You've heard the song where they are "drinking Whisky and Rye"?
 * .  North American whiskey is made with a rye mash and called rye.
 * .  Scottish whisky is made with a barley mash and it is called whisky; not barley.
 * * You come from Scotland? Wow, I'm Scots too!
 * * The U.S. people call Scots people Scottish. Don't they know that is wrong?

(FizzicksPhun (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC))

Note: This is an issue that spans multiple entries in Wikipedia. Since this is an issue that spans multiple entries should I discuss it here? Or is there a better place or way to discuss things effecting multiple entries? Also, this is the first time I have ever tried editing or starting a discussion so any guidance is appreciated.


 * (i) There seems to be no hard and fast rule for 'Scottish' only being used for inanimate objects (e.g. see Scottish Yeomanry). (ii) The issue is so remotely peripheral to this topic that it is utterly pointless to discuss it here. (iii) I would point out that 'Scottish-American' appears to be of an order of magnitude more common than 'Scots-American' -- so please take it up on the 200,000 websites that use the former term, before bringing it up here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"only with how to achieve monetary wealth"
How does a newspaper article that explicitly talks about how much larger Norton's purses grew, as the main impact, an example of results going beyond "only with how to achieve monetary wealth"? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)