Talk:How to Win Friends and Influence People/Archive 1

Archive 1

This may be a copy of a web page

http://www.westegg.com/unmaintained/carnegie/win-friends.html

"Content must not violate any copyright"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Supremedalek (talk • contribs)

Looks like it, yes. Removed. --Delirium 00:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

the web page is a copy of the book's section summaries, and the book's out of copyright? so the copyright can't be violated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.148.189.52 (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why was the "References in popular culture" section removed?

I thought that was cool trivia! 69.236.50.57 (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussing the book more

Shouldn't this article discuss the book more, rather than just give a list of sections and points? For instance its influence in society, whether modern psychologists agree with the book, controversy etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.145.49 (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The "main principles" give WP:Undue weight

--68.161.181.109 (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Date

It hardly seems possible that Toby Young's book was written in 1937 considering he wasn't born until the 60's. It is also incorrectly attributed. I am removing this section altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.103.90 (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Pun?

"The 2008 film How to Lose Friends and Alienate People is titled as a pun on the book's title"

It is not really a pun. Perhaps spoof or malapropism or some other word would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.29.23 (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Last section

That last section is not part of the book. I suggest we remove it, or at least mark it as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dearsina (talk • contribs) 09:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The last section of the book is from the 1936 edition and has been checked against the text. From NPV guidelines I think that noting the differences and calling out that nature of the material left out or changed in the 1981 edition in a straightforward manner suffices. If there are more examples they can be quoted directly within fair use limits. Markllo (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The newer editions have been sanitized for unPC ideas, according to [1]. Worth mentioning? --Nnp 19:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In principle, yes, but that's not a very in-depth citation, and there are no specifics there. --♥ «Charles A. L.» 12:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

deserves a note at best, it was the original that is famous and the original that is mainly in circilation (at least I find it hard to get in a new book store, but many second hand stores stock ((mainly)) the 80s one) JayKeaton 10:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

References in pop culture

The entry in the pop references list "The title of the Broadway musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying is reminiscent of How to Win Friends and Influence People" seems a little far fetched to me. The book on which the musical is based came out in 1952, I reckon the genre of "How to ..." books must have been pretty well established by then. I suggest we remove the entry. Thoughts on this? --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Since no one protested, I removed the entry. --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This page needs a reception and critical reception section

It needs a section detailing sales history, and a section containing critical assessment of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.235.105.2 (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Commas debate

I've decided to move the discussion opened at User_talk:Froid#Commas to this more public forum, so others can weigh in. Froid (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean at all by pointing me to that link. Re the comma changes: Comma#Before quotations says that not all writers habitually put commas before quotations (I don't and most Wikipedians don't seem to). Regarding the second change, Common Errors in English Usage says: read your sentence aloud. If it doesn’t seem natural to insert a slight pause or hesitation at the point marked by the comma, it should probably be omitted." A pause after "Charles Manson used what he learned from the book in prison ..."seems remarkably unnatural to me. Graham87 01:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"How to Shoot Friends and Interrogate People"

At the bottom of the page is "US President Barack Obama, at both the 2009 and 2011 White House Correspondents Dinners, joked that Cheney could write, "How to Shoot Friends and Interrogate People"". I don't see a citation and this sounds made up. Although, if it isn't, that's pretty awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.69.143 (talk) 76.126.69.143

That is not made up. I can't attest for the exact time and place he made that joke, but I did see him say it in a speech (that was more a stand-up comedy routine than an actual speech) on YouTube. The Republican audience was not amused, thus making it even funnier. However, what I'm concerned about is that there is no criticism of this book. It's complete rubbish, and none of its techniques work.68.42.32.128 (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Was this book banned in the USSR?

A Russian told me it was nigh on impossible even today for him to get a copy of the book. Kdammers (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sales

I have changed the sales numbers form an unattested 30 million to a referenced 15 million. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC).

Did Napoleon Hill precede Dale Carnegie? (no)

The Origins section starts with:

"Before How to Win Friends and Influence People was released, the genre of self-help books had an ample heritage. Authors such as Napoleon Hill, Orison Swett Marden, and Samuel Smiles had enormous success with their self-help books in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."

Napoleon Hill's Think and Grow Rich was published in 1937, a year after How to Win Friends and Influence People. He had some other books published prior to that, but so did Dale Carnegie. Carnegie started publishing earlier than Hill.

If anything I think it's better to say they were contemporaneous, publishing in the same era.

And there are better predecessors to point to than Hill - people like Russell Conwell (Acres of Diamonds) and the Chautauqua movement. Or Carnegie's influences listed in https://www.amazon.com/Self-help-Messiah-Carnegie-Success-America-ebook/dp/B009MYB80Q . As a Man Thinketh, and so on.

Lauchlanmack (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The current origin story is a bit misleading ...

The origin story in the Origin section describes a period between 1912, when Carnegie started teaching public speaking, up to 1936 when the book was published and then the two years after.

That's a period of 26 years - a quarter of a century.

It's a period that included WW1 and the Great Depression.

What happened isn't really as simple as the current Origin section makes it seem.

Carnegie started his speaking training business as a sideline, but still kept working in a day job as a salesman ... then a couple of years later quit the sales job and focused on the speaking training business full time.

He did a bit of writing for magazines.

Then WWI came along and he stopped his business and served in the army for a couple of years.

When that finished he went on an international speaking tour for someone else for another couple of years, then he got married and lived in Europe for a few years and did some writing on other book projects, then he came back to New York and restarted his speaking training business, then he wrote magazine articles and hosted a national radio show to grow his profile, and then after all of that he published his How to Win Friends book.

It's not quite as simple as 'he started a speaking training business at the Y and it boomed from there.'

This section could be a little more realistic in my opinion. e.g. google for the various Dale Carnegie bio articles, or read https://www.amazon.com/Self-help-Messiah-Carnegie-Success-America-ebook/dp/B009MYB80Q

Lauchlanmack (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Tidy up this talk page

This is ordered reverse chronologically, which means irrelevant stuff that's more than a decade old and has been resolved anyway is at the top.

I think that's a bad way to organise the content.

I suggest

1. either delete or action everything that's a decade or more old and
2. order the page reverse-chronologically instead of chronologically so the newer and more relevant points are at the top

Even better would be to organisae the talk page by topic.

I tried to make a couple of sensible changes but someone reversed it on me, so I'll leave it to someone else to try.

Update: I think all sections of this page should be deleted, except for the last three (about sales volumes of the book and this one about tidying this page).

If no one else has either actioned this already or made a comment why they want to keep a section, I'll delete the sections I think should be deleted (as marked above in comments) when I next visit the page.

Lauchlanmack (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

No, all Wikipedia talk page sections are ordered in ascending chronological order and comments aren't deleted, per the talk page guidelines. At your insistance, I've set up automated archiving on this page ... I've removed your useless comments that hinder that process. Graham87 14:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not "insist" on automated archiving. I suggested we clean up the page so it's relevant. Please don't misrepresent me.

I disagree with your assessment of the talk page rules. It says:

"The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject."

Some of the content I suggested deleting was not that. For example the question "Was this book banned in the USSR?" which you elected to keep is just a random question. It's not relevant to the article IMO.

The guidelines say: "The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission."

I was referring to comments posted, in many cases, more than a decade ago and that were either never relevant or no longer relevant. The posters of those comments were not going to turn up a decade later and give their permission, and equally nor would they care if their old comments were deleted. I don't see the guideline as impeding deletions of irrelevant content.

The guidelines also say: "No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person."

I personally experienced your communication style, such as "I've removed your useless comments," as bordering on that. It certainly does not fill me with greater enthusiasm to further contribute to Wikipedia, although I certainly do not take your conduct as representative of everyone else.

And it sort of negated your central point of: don't delete other people's content - since you just did it.

But I'll put that aside since the outcome has been a better and more relevant talk page, which is what I was suggesting. I'm glad we got to that. Lauchlanmack (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair point about misrepresenting you; I'm sorry about that. The question "Was this book banned in the USSR?" is entirely relevant to the article, because if somebody found a reliably sourced answer, it would be fair game to add it to the article as well. Re: deletion of talk page comments: the talk page guildelines also say this: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.". Also re editing your own comments, see this section of the talk page guidelines; I have reverted your recent editing and refactoring as it breaks those guidelines. If you wish to say something about how you've updated the article, start a new comment and don't edit ones that are several days old. Honestly, your talk page tweaking is extremely tiresome ... I shouldn't have to find a diff containing over ten edits in my watchlist every time you post to this talk page. Just stick to adding comments, not trying to tweak them. Graham87 14:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that if the book were banned in the USSR it would be a relevant point to add to the article, but I can see that point of view. I was really referring to a wider class of irrelevant comments I've seen, like "I'm working on a class assignment, does anybody know X?"

Re diffs, since we've been conversing as far as I can recall all my edits have been to my own comments / content. I feel absolutely entitled to edit my own content. I'm not going to start a new comment to say a slightly tweaked version of what I already said. I feel that would be silly, but I guess you're going to disagree on that. I update my comments / content as either I find new information to add or I correct minor mistakes or formatting issues, and that results in a "tweak." So I just flat out disagree with you on that one. I think it's absolutely a good activity, it adds to better content / conversation on a talk page. Lauchlanmack (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

If you find new information, just start a new comment. That's standard practice ... and so is not modifying your comments days after the fact. Attribution of comments (i.e. who made them and when) is vitally important on Wikipedia. Graham87 04:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: starting a new comment ... I've done that for you, kinda like this. Graham87 15:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)