Talk:Napoleon Hill

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

It seems relevent and we don't limit what is due to what is "crucial" (thats usually the standard applied to the lead, not the body) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is it crucial, though, as opposed to likely other passages about the same time? (Or none at all, as most early life sections have no quotes, this is the first I notice); having 'wild child' in an article is just not quite encyclopedic... 92.18.124.187 (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like it would be an unencyclopedic description of an adult, but not to describe someone's actual childhood. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be nonsensical to describe an adult as a child, sure, the point is that the whole sentence is some strange anecdote... was it even made up by the author, or was he in contact with them? Either way, you need to explain why this, of all passages in a book, is relevant, because I really don't see it... and, as mentioned, most early lives have no quotes... 92.18.124.187 (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a defining biographical detail, at least thats how the source presents it. What makes you think that his step mother was not an important influence on him? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't all article subjects' families have some such sort? Yet, most early lives are in the form of "born to x, y, with careers x, y, of religion x", and barely anything else, usually, which is not to say that there shouldn't be more information when it's available, but I fail to see how an article subject being called a "wild child" by some random biographer is either encyclopedic, or at all informative... usually when there is more info in early lives it's when their influence extends to the subjects' careers, and I'm not sure that is the case, here... 92.18.124.187 (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out 'a' not 'an' though, you will notice that I restored that improvement when I attributed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I am proposing an update to the lead sentence and infobox. The current classification of Napoleon Hill as solely a self-help author is inconsistent with his more than 25 years of research and Philosophical work.

A self-help author is an incomplete description that fails to account for how his work is defined in reliable, secondary sources. Supamodel Joelee (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

It would help if you provided examples of his work being defined in reliable, secondary sources as philosophy. I agree that there is a lot of overlap between self help and philosophy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Here are three links that defined his work in these capacity.

Supamodel Joelee (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

the first link seems entirely unrelated to Hill, the second is an unreliable business-starting site which repeats fallacious claims made by Hill (such as his supposed meetings with Andrew Carnegie), and the last source is a magazine Hill co-founded LGaps (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@RebelAt: I have reverted your addition because the category appears to be for "Writers in whose work Appalachia is a theme, topic or setting." and that doesn't seem to apply here. Am I missing a major work or something like that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Hipal, the article —as you said yourself— cites reliable sources, and i looked up the author and she seems reliable as well. irregardless, i tried to find enough sources for the "con man" claim since that seems to be controversial (despite the abundance of evidence). LGaps (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for responding.

I'm not sure, so I tagged it rather than removed it.

Can you find where it was published? --Hipal (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

i wasn't able to, but i'll add some more claims made by both Novak's piece and the authorized biography (A Lifetime of Riches) sometime in the future. the latter is obviously a dubious source, but if Novak doesn't dispute these claims, then i think they can be taken for granted. LGap (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the authorized biography reliability is dubious. What's the consensus on using it? --Hipal (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

well i figured that if there are statements that (i would say) reflect poorly on Hill, but still made it into the Hill Foundation-published (and quite biased in favor of Hill) biography, that they're true, presuming that the Foundation wouldn't write false, damaging statements about Hill—notably, they leave out a lot of information about his failed "businesses". here's some examples:

• "... he later recalled that when news was scarce and there weren't stories to tell, he simply made them up."
• "Napoleon had returned the student's favor by making the FBI and other government agencies aware of his adversary's "suspicious" activities and his thick German accent. In the anti-German hysteria that preceded America's entry into World War I, the student was first put under a blanket of close surveillance, and finally detained for the duration of the war."
• ... a classified ad he had placed in the Sunday edition of the Washington Times. It read: "Educated refined young businessman, who just moved to Washington, would like to meet refined young lady, preferably not over 18 years old, object mutual friendship with possibility of leading to matrimony; ..."

LGap (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd rather it not be used, or at least not treated as reliable journalism. --Hipal (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hipal well, Novak's piece is probably the most detailed reliable source then. it's just that there's so many shady (and criminal) activities Hill partook in that most "neutral" sources mostly overlook them, plus Hill's own extensive record of making unsubstantiated, braggadocious claims about his life (e.g. the suspiciously convenient Chicago storage fire that destroyed the evidence for him meeting all those famous people). LGap (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)