User talk:Juan M. Gonzalez

Hello there Juan, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Thanks, maveric149. :-) Juan M. Gonzalez 20:04 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

Please forgive me if you do not speak Spanish, but:

¡El placer es mio! Hay también una enciclopedia libre española de Wiki en http://enciclopedia.us.es/ No hablo español muy bien todavía. Pero yo que contribuiré más allá después de que mejora Wikipedia:Software Phase III. --mav

Gracias de nuevo. Parece que habla español bastante bien. :-) Juan M. Gonzalez 14:19 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)

Thank you! --mav

Hiya, Juan! I like your additions to Feminism and creation of Ecofeminism. Because I didn't want to get into an emotional dispute with folks, I haven't quite dared to work on it, but I do think it still needs more work. Thus, I greatly appreciate your efforts. -- April

Thanks, April. Reading Petra Kelly's "Thinking Green", I've seen ecofeminism is an interesting and positive topic. I hope others will add about it. Juan M. Gonzalez 00:05 Sep 7, 2002 (UTC)

You want to corroborate Napoleon Hill's "interviews" by citing sycophantic biographies which merely claim what Hill and his publishers claim. You will lose this war my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.133.34 (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

That was simply the available data I could find about that topic, of course from Hill's biographers, publishers... For example, the 1928 book set "The Law of Success" sold well (Hill's author royalties were about $2500 of the time per month), so it was a well-known work then, not only now, and I was interested to see whether some of the many people in the acknowledgments section, many of them alive in 1928, had or had not objected the claims referring to them. But there was only the publishing company writing about endorsements received from a good number of those in Hill's list after being sent the manuscripts. Of course, when anyone finds additional sources and facts, that's naturally welcome. Juan M. Gonzalez (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that there is no credibility in relying on books that are published by the Napoleon Hill Foundation, similarly suspect publishers or, like the "Laws of Success," the Ralston University Press. Of course, Ralston University is a completely fictitious entity. I recommend the wiki page on Ralstonism and Webster Edgerly. It contains such clever gems of Ralstonism as the advocacy of "the castration of all "anti-racial" (non-Caucasian) males at birth" and that watermelon is poison to white people. All charming stuff. Point of fact: there are no primary source documents that corroborate any of Hill's so-called endorsements; neither are there any external sources that corroborate Hill's supposed interviews. Hill himself says he interviewed Lincoln, Socrates, the Devil, and Jesus and yet I am accused of making nonsensical jokes when I point it out? Nonsensical, yes; but frighteningly, it's no joke. People actually take this stuff seriously. Hill believed that through his "creative imagination" he could summon "invisible counselors" to "cabinet meetings" where they would divulge inner truths to him. Not only is it highly presumptive of Hill to put words in the mouths of dead men, it is also downright delusional. All of this casts a very suspect light on Hill's credibility and, in the very least, his "research methodology". I would not at all be surprised to discover that Hill never even set eyes on Andrew Carnegie. Surely someone can produce these "letters of introduction" and "letters of endorsement." The argument that there is no evidence of objections to the claims made by Hill and his publishers is much less telling than the fact that there is no evidence to support such claims. For example, everything I've stated previously is endorsed and supported by interviews I've had with Donald Trump. I cannot show you evidence of Trump's endorsement or those interviews but, you have no proof otherwise. Do you believe me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.203.70 (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply