JB Hill
|
February 2017
edit
Hello, I'm NeilN. An edit that you recently made to Wikipedia talk:Signatures seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! NeilN talk to me 03:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Welcome, can I help
editG'day
as I said at Talk:Napoleon Hill#As an uninvolved party, you're doing very well in my opinion. I'd like to add my thanks for the way you're dealing with this.
A few suggestions.
You haven't set up a primary user page at User:JB Hill. You don't need to, but can I redirect it for the moment to your user talk page (ie this page)? This is not unusual, and is helpful to other editors, but I don't think it should be done without your permission. I'm happy to do it, which saves you needing to learn how.
Secondly, you say you have access to Napoleon Hill's papers. There must be a place that either some of these, or at least a scholarly survey of them, could be published. The papers themselves are invaluable primary sources. A survey, even by yourself, would be a valuable secondary source. Either would be invaluable in setting the record straight.
Your grandfather was a remarkable man. I'm sure all Wikipedians want our article to do him justice. Andrewa (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with @Andrewa:, your information about your grandfather would be very helpful and most welcome. Feel free to continue commenting on the Napoleon Hill talk page. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Please do create that page. Thank you. My grandmother saved every document ever sent to her so I have all of Nap's letters indexed and stored away safely. I Have also been putting together a timeline based narrative for Nap's life. The timeline has all of the blogger's informativon but is richer in detail and is woven into a narrative totally unlike the bloggers. The only way to get this Wikipedia author to rescind his article is to debunk the blogger. I will attempt to do by debunking the Automobile college narrative in my next post. Now, I do not want to publish my work on a new Nap Hill biography prematurely on Wikipedia. However, I think a true vision of Nap should be preserved. So, I will make the effort. One of the mistakes that these authors are making is to take Nap out of the context of time. They will never understand Nap without understanding the climate of business activity during the early 1900s.
JB Hill (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- OK, your main user page is now redirected to this page, so anyone clicking on a link to User:JB Hill will now end up here rather than being invited to create a new page. Far better IMO, and thank you for permission to do it. If you later want to create a page there, just overwrite what I have done.
- Yes, the best way to get this Wikipedia author to rescind his article is to debunk the blogger.
- But here is not the place to do it. I cannot stress that enough. Wikipedia does not publish original research, even on user talk pages such as this one. That's a fundamental principle here. I haven't seen the material obviously, but my guess is that it would fit our definition of original research. It would be legitimate only if it quoted the primary sources you have without any interpretation, which is going to be quite tricky to achieve.
- You may get away with it, but you may not. It is not a grey area, but frankly it's not very well policed or even understood. And I'm not going to object (well, no more strongly than this) or take action against you, but someone else may. Far better not to take the risk, IMO.
- So you need to find another place to publish this material. Andrewa (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Andrewa: but a researcher/historian or any author who is writing about Hill and using his papers can write about them in their book and that book then becomes reliable source. A Lifetime of Riches by MIchael J. Ritt, Jr., and Kirk Landers is such a book. It came out in 1995 and it is one of the two books I read about Hill. I just got a copy of it. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- JB, there is currently a discussion about the Matt Novak blog here. You can comment there if you like. Best to keep it brief, but mentioning you are the grandson and have information might be helpful. Also, can you tell me when Hill's second son, Blair was born? Who is your grandfather? SW3 5DL (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect information being recorded abouJB Hill (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)t Napoleon Hill
editJB Hill (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Today…I am going to make the case that the Wikipedia biography of Napoleon Hill is inaccurate and biased as its author refers to sources that are out of contest, slanted, or not applicable to Napoleon Hill. For example he is using as one source a blogger who has posted a negative narrative about Napoleon Hill.
1 - The author cites a blog reference:
“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 (03 July 1910)and the Evening Star (1, 28, July 1910 and 4 August 1910) all printed the following announcements:
“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 - The author provides a another blog references as a source.
“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 Author ignored Evening Star an article printed on 21 July 1910:
“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 Author also ignored an Evening Star article printed 2 Aug 1910:
“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 Author does not mention either court action. Of course, neither of these court decisions were in accordance with the narrative of the biography. It is Ironic that the Author 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 the Wikipedia author is protected by time and can use any erroneous source that he chooses.
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 Author's source, Novak:
“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 Wikipedia author attributed negative information to Napoleon Hill that cannot be proven to refer to him.
Hopefully...I have been able to cast enough doubt about the Wikipedia author's sources to make his biography unacceptable. AS it stands, it is a great injustice that is being done to my grandfather. To understand Napoleon Hill, a serious researcher must understand everything about him, read all of his books, read his letters, read HIS sources, and he/she must understand the history and time when Hill was writing. Why did Hill 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 were not 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.
- Interesting and relevant material, and I'll look at the details when I get the time. But I suggest you take a step back.
- I've previously suggested that this is not the best place for this material, and I stick by that. Wikipedai is not the place to debunk an article on another website with your own original research. And I may be wrong, but to me that does appear to be at least part of your agenda above.
- And you should also of course sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes. And it doesn't help that you refer to the author of our article. Wikipedia articles do not have authors.
- We're all volunteers here, trying to produce articles authored by the community that are accurate, sourced, balanced and all the rest. The article does need and is getting some attention, and it should be fixed in time. But it could be fixed far more rapidly if you were showing better awareness of the culture here at Wikipedia.
- There is even a risk of you being banned from Wikipedia if you persist in publishing original research here. That would be a terrible thing and I have no intention of seeking it as I have said. I but preach caution. Andrewa (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Andrewa:, he does not appear to understand how Wikipedia works. I can appreciate that he sees an article about his grandfather sourced by a blogger making statements he know are false and he is attempting to tell someone. Neil left him a welcome message with instructions, but I don't think he's here to edit Wikipedia, he simply wants to correct the record. He's not being disruptive, he's just asking for help. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Agree.
- This is a newish single purpose account with a disclosed conflict of interest and good intentions.
- What has happened so far is not IMO disruptive, but that's not the only reason that a block might be imposed, and bear in mind that unintentional disruption is still disruption.
- If this user wishes to contribute further, it is essential that they pull back a little in my opinion. They have set the wheels in motion to fix the article. If they wish to be a further part of this process here at Wikipedia, they have a lot of reading to do on contributing to Wikipedia.
- If they continue to discuss this without doing this research, they will be (and are) just delaying the repair of the article, in my opinion.
- In summary, there are three options:
- Leave it to us now
- Do a lot of homework on how Wikipedia works
- Find a way of publishing a correction to the disputed source
- and if they choose the third, it's fine to post a heads-up to this source, which will then (ideally) undergo the same scrutiny we (ideally) apply to any source.
- In summary, there are three options:
- But it's not fine to publish original research, however relevant, in Wikipedia, even in user talk pages. It's a fine line sometimes, but we are very close to it here. Andrewa (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Andrewa: He seems to be quoting a reliable source, and not creating his own original research. He's commenting on the source. Is he not? SW3 5DL (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, there's some good stuff there. That's the frustrating thing.
- There are sourced facts (arguably by wp:primary sources but acceptable ones) that may be relevant to the article, and belong on its talk page. Some of them suggest that the disputed source is inaccurate, and that observation is relevant and belongs on the relevant noticeboard and/or on the article talk page.
- None of it belongs here IMO, and the format is inappropriate anywhere in Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
arbitrary break
edit- @Andrewa: @SW3 5DL: It seem to me you are being dismissive of the facts stated that, because within a few minutes of searching online, I found the exact newspaper articles referred to, so stating this is original research is entirely untrue. I refer you to these three pages for starters that support what was stated above that you seem to think is WP:OR : The Washington herald., July 19, 1910, Evening star., July 21, 1910, Evening star., August 02, 1910, Page 15 and Evening star., August 04, 1910, Page 3. I'm sure there are more WP:RS if you look around. ww2censor (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ww2censor:, I'm not calling it original research. That's Andrewa. I totally support finding these sources and using them in the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- I also support using these primary sources appropriately, and finding others. Andrewa (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Please (re)read wp:string. This outdent is not the worst I've seen, but it would be so much easier if people would follow the guidelines! Andrewa (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- I very much hope I'm not being dismissive of facts.
- The question of WP:OR is not whether the conclusion is true or not, it's purely how it's supported. The question is, do we need to do any sort of analysis or other creative thinking in order to derive the conclusion from the sources cited? If we do, then that's WP:OR.
- Finding other sources doesn't change that in the least. We can then cite those sources in support of what they say, yes. If these new sources make the original research unnecessary, that's a good win/win outcome. But it was still original research, it's just that we no longer need to rely on it.
- My comments were not specifically aimed at both of you, I just wanted to let you know there was a post. BTW @Andrewa: newspapers are NOT primary sources. This not a topic I will revisit but as I found the reliable sources, mentioned by the original poster, it seemed only prudent you should be pointed to them. However, remember that blogs are not considered WP:RS, and are very likely WP:OR, so they should definitely not be used, but if they can, you should use those sources and not the blogs. If unsupported those statements should be removed and of course those sources need to support the statements and not make judgements or infer things that are not there. That's all I'll say. Good luck in figuring out a truthful but reliably cited article. ww2censor (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, newspapers can be primary sources, or they can be secondary... it depends on exactly what is published, and how it relates to the article for which the source is being used. Have you any basis for such a sweeping and IMO misleading statement?
- Raised at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Newspapers as primary or secondary sources. I'm painfully aware that this is the user talk page of a relative novice to Wikipedia. We need to be clear on this for their benefit. Andrewa (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- And yes, the original blogs were personal websites and are generally not RS, but note what WP:RS actually says on the topic: Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. This appears to describe the Matt Novak article exactly. The term blog is being used very loosely, and probably should be avoided. Andrewa (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Andrewa: Perhaps you have a different perspective on the generally accepted interpretation of primary and secondary sources than I do and maybe writing BTW @Andrewa: newspapers are NOT primary sources. so dogmatically was inappropriate. I had pointed you to online sources for newspapers but you then stated: There are sourced facts (arguably by wp:primary sources but acceptable ones) that may be relevant to the article, and belong on its talk page. All I can do is interpret your statement to mean the newspaper sources I provided are in fact primary sources and do not belong in the article at all even when we generally consider newspapers to be secondary sources and not primary ones. Then you wrote Some of them suggest that the disputed source is inaccurate, and that observation is relevant and belongs on the relevant noticeboard and/or on the article talk page. None of it belongs here IMO, and the format is inappropriate anywhere in Wikipedia. Well why not? If a source is reliable and secondary I do not see why you would suggest they cannot be used in an article as a cited source (as has been done thousands of times before) but only on a talk page. Yeah, blogs need to be treated with care as even some published on newspaper sites can be as dubious as personal ones.
- To me the essence of your opinion seems to be that newspapers are primary sources when we generally hold newspapers are NOT primary sources and as such are OR. Sorry but I disagree with that interpretation. So to terminate this storm-in-a-teacup I won't respond again because all I was trying to do was assist by providing you with links to reliable sources and if you choose to not use them, so be it. ww2censor (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- You have completely misinterpreted much of what I said, but I don't think this is the appropriate place to go into the details. The important thing here is to assure the user whose talk page this is that your sweeping statement does not even remotely reflect consensus or policy.
- I note that on the relevant talk page where I raised the issue, one editor has said to say that newspapers are sources is a bit sloppy in this context. Articles in newspapers are our sources, and as such, they may be either primary or secondary, heck even tertiary ones pop up sporadically. [1] That says it very well IMO. Andrewa (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Try this link
editHello Mr. Hill, I've contacted an administrator at the Wiki Foundation and she suggests that you use this link to get help with your concerns about your grandfather's biography: Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. I hope this helps and know that when I have time, I will research your sources to find where they can be useful on your grandfather's page. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
An extended welcome
editHi JB Hill. I've started to respond to your comments on my talk page, and will elaborate on them further. Until then I thought this might help.
Wikipedia is huge, and while Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there's certainly a great deal to learn when it comes to editing Wikipedia, much that's quite bureaucratic. The tutorial and guide (both linked in the welcome message as well) are well worth some of your time.
Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.
Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.
If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.
Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.
I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Matt Novak blog no longer being used/contact Wikipedia email
editHi JB, wanted you to know that the Matt Novak blog will no longer be used on your grandfather's article. A request for comment determined that it failed to meet the standards for reliable sources. See the RfC here. If you have any other concerns please let me know. You can respond here or on my talk page. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- Also, don't forget, you can email Wikipedia at this address: info-en-q@wikimedia.org and include the name of the article, Napoleon Hill, in your email. Also include a specific list of the problems you have seen with the article. Remember, the Matt Novak blog has been removed. It is no longer a problem. While the editors there will remove bad material, they will not add material. Look through the article first to identify the edits you want them to look at. Hope this helps. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)