Jump to content

Talk:Robert Kiyosaki/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Education vs Financial success

People seem to be taking issue with the article's points regarding financial success and level of education achieved. Insider - I don't see why you would consider the references given as original research, rather than just plain research. I also dispute your claim that money earned is not directly indicative of financial success. Exactly what criteria would you like to quantify financial success with? Whatever you choose, I think it's highly likely that if sufficient data has been collected on that metric, it will say the same thing as the income statistics - people with more education are statistically more successful financially. I see no reason this shouldn't be pointed out in the criticism section. TastyCakes (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's original research and a violation of policy WP:OR - If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research. There is a "conclusion" being reached, ie that Kiyosaki's opinion is wrong because of some other cited statistics. Making the conclusions also requires a POV interpretation of what "finacial success" is. The sentences in question assumes it's income. I can think of numerous different definitions. In fact, if I recall correctly (been a while since I've read his stuff) Kiyosaki explicitly states "financial success" is not equal to "income". If you feel this area deserves coverage then what is needed is a WP:RS source saying Kiyosaki is wrong claiming financial success is not linked to education. A source for the Kiyosaki claim is also needed. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Just to clear this up... You are suggesting that census data showing citizens with bachelors degrees making an average of $2.1 million over their lifetimes versus those with only high school degrees making an average of $1 million over their lifetimes does not provide direct evidence that greater education leads to greater financial success? I am willing to accept there is some leeway in the definition - costs of living, financial independence etc - but how can you say the first group is not more financially successful when they're making over twice the other? How is the well documented relationship of earnings to education not relevant to Kiyosaki's claim that formal education has no bearing on financial success? TastyCakes (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This is actually completely irrelevant to the reason why the text is not acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines, but since I like a good discussion ... :) Income is only one component of "financial success" - what if my income is 3 times higher than yours, but my expenses are higher than my income and yours are not? I'd suggest you were was more "financially successful" than me. What if your income covered all of your expenses, but you didn't have to work to earn it and could do what you wanted when you wanted and if you died your children got it - but I earned a lot more but had to work 60+ hour weeks to get it, and if I had to stop working or died it would disappear? Again, I'd suggest you were more "financially successful" than I.
But, as I said it's irrelevant anyway. This is OR (and POV) going on and against Wikipedia guidelines. It's especially problematic when it's being done in response to an unsourced (and thus potentially unreliable) claim about what Kioysaki's position is. What is needed is (a) a WP:RS compatible source for the claim about Kiyosaki's postion and (b) a WP:RS reliable source giving an analysis of that position. At the moment we have neither, so it clearly doesn't belong in the article. To be honest there's probably similar problems throughout the article, I haven't looked, I just happened to see this edit. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You have a point about Kiyosaki's position not being clear. I believe he has said in the past he only named his book "don't send your kid to university" or whatever it was to get attention and sell more books, or to make a point through hyperbole. He makes weasel comments like not wanting to put down traditional education but to elevate "financial education", which he also happens to peddle (at near exorbitant prices, some would say.)
Although I agree it's clear income alone does not equate to financial success, I think it is clearly an important (probably the most important) factor in any reasonable estimate of someone's financial success. So while indication of lower income for less educated people may not completely invalidate Kiyosaki's position, it is clearly evidence in that direction, without any massaging of numbers that would constitute original research. It seems to me the sentence as it reads now makes it clear the links are talking about income. Can the reader not decide for themselves whether they feel a 2:1 income disparity based on a college education reflects on the accuracy of Kiyosaki's statement that it has little effect on his somewhat nebulously defined idea of financial success? TastyCakes (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
With respect, it doesn't matter. It's OR and POV, it shouldn't be in the article. I qute WP:OR again - If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research The sources cited are clearly not directly related to the article subject (Kiyosaki) and do not make any conclusion. This is weakened even further by the fact that no source is given for the Kiyosaki claim. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
In my view, income clearly is related to the article's subject (financial success, at this point). It is evidence that directly contradicts Kiyosaki's stance (perhaps not "nail in the coffin" evidence, but evidence nonetheless.) And I fail to see how census data can be viewed as POV. I agree that Kiyokai's stance should have a reference, but I do not believe this should be too difficult to find. Could we get an admin or something to come and give their opinion on this? I do think I'm right, but I also don't really care and I think I've laid out my case as well as I ever will. TastyCakes (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The subject of the article is Robert Kiyosaki, not "financial success". It may cover Kiyosaki's views on financial success, in which case an WP:RS alternative view of Kiyosakis's views would be acceptable. Anything else is a violation of WP:RS. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is a page that, I think, sums up Kiyosaki's stance on higher education. I think he talks about it himself in "Rich Dad Poor Dad", but I don't know the exact details, not having a copy of the book... The domain above is apparently black listed by wikipedia for spamming, so I added a "remove this" to let me post it. I guess I'll need to find another since this one is physically not going to work in the actual article ;) TastyCakes (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Even without the google spam problem the site clearly isn't WP:RS. I suggest you review the policy. Speed reviewing RDPD now and searching for references to "education" and "school", Kiyosaki regularly talks about a good education leading to a good income. It would appear this whole debate is thus a straw man. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I read the book several years ago and if I recall, Kiyosaki's line on education is approximately what is said in the article above - people get secondary education for the "wrong reasons", and get the wrong sort of education and end up in debt with nothing of any use to show for it. That is distinctly the impression I remember when reading the book back then - that secondary education is not particularly useful and often not worth it. I'm sorry, I don't mean to start an argument over a guy that I really don't think is worth arguing over. Has anyone here read the book recently? Do they have any insight on whether Kiyosaki belittles traditional secondary education? It seems to me the obvious primary source for this information is Kiyosaki's own published materials or interviews, and I'm not familiar enough with them to make a judgment. TastyCakes (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
What he says is that people don't tend to get taught about money in schools - "a financial education". He nowhere I'm aware of claims that an education doesn't lead towards higher incomes, which is the claim you seem to be trying to debate. Indeed, searching through the PDF version of RDPD for "education" I find the following - "an education is important", "I am concerned that too many people are focused on too much money and not their greatest wealth, which is their education". "What is missing from their basic education is not how to make money, but how to spend money - what to do after you make it", "lack of early financial education is what creates the risk faced by average middle class people". Also - "The obnoxious title If you want to be rich and happy - don't go to school? was chosen because we knew it would get tons of publicity" (Note too it's a question, not a statement"). Continuing ... "I am pro-education", "The rich can afford better education", "Education is more valuable than money, in the long run", "Invest first in Education" etc etc etc. He's clearly not anti-education, and nowhere can I find a claim even remotely close to the one you cite would dispute -> that an education doesn't lead to a higher income.
So, we're still back where we started - an unsourced claim about Kiyosaki, and a WP:OR violating response to that unsourced claim. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I seem to have hit a nerve!  :-) TastyCakes, I'm quite familiar with Kiyosaki's work and I can tell you that his definition of "wealthy" is when your passive income exceeds your expenses. It's not when you make partner in a law firm. Like Insider said, you could be earning $250,000 per year, but have a huge mortgage, two car loans and a handful of credit cards, thus requiring you to work long hours to pay the bills. In his game, Cashflow 101, he has actually designed it to be (slightly) EASIER to win if you start on a lower income. A person's income is not remotely relevant to HIS definition of financial success. It's how they spend it.
Kiyosaki does love education, but he hates the current educational system. His position is that it doesn't teach certain necessary subjects, particularly the subject of money. Like Insider quoted, Kiyosaki really wants people to get educated, he just doesn't want people to go to high school and university and then think they have, by definition, obtained a good education. His advice is to find other sources of education, and educate yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward-F (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Insider: alright, I give up. Do what you will...
Edward-F: Thanks for that. I am aware of Kiyosaki's definition of financial success, but, in my opinion, one of the biggest misdirections he is guilty of is to make his readers think generating enough capital to live off of passive income alone is easier than it is. Assuming a return of 10% (which is, I think, quite generous at the moment) on any capital investment, to live a $20000 a year lifestyle (hardly glamorous in North America) would require at least $200,000 in assets. That number is simply too high a hill to climb for many of his readers, who often do not fully recognize the often low probabilities of them becoming "financially independent". It is certainly possible, but it often takes decades of thrifty living and relatively "lucky" investing, not the get rich easily and relatively quickly scenario I think many of his readers envision. Worse, to try and leverage their way into more than 10% returns on their money (and hence speed up the process), some readers who have sent letters now displayed at the Reed site appear to have exposed large amounts of their savings to significant risk, and in some cases lost a lot of it. But we are very far off topic here and this is of course largely just my opinion ;) TastyCakes (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And I know that this is an old debate, but if I can make a rebuttal to TastyCakes for a moment. My argument also disregards what is POV or if this is wiki policy or not, but mine goes back to your argument that the census states that people with higher educations make more money. Coming from my POV (the POV of somebody that has worked in risk management and statistics) you must understand that any statistic "alone" can be twisted to fit ANY argument. That is why if you would like to look at an issue from a statistical standpoint you first need to ensure you have two variables. In this case you are looking basically at income alone. As your opponents have stated, the census didn't take into account debts, credit cars, mortgages and etc. of a higher educated or richer incomed individual. So from a statistician's standpoint your argument is moot. For example, this is how easy I can skew a statistic. Say I ask a coworker if they are pro-abortion or anti-abortion and he says he's anti. I could then say, 100% of people polled today are anti-abortion and you would believe it, why? Because I didn't tell you the way in which I gathered my information. Statistics, polls and etc. can be easily skewed (especially in media outlets). Just something to consider as well. JC 9/25/2011

John T. Reed

Please note that we cannot use John T. Reed's website as a source, because it is self-published. Self-published sources can only be used for information about their author/publisher. They can never be used as sources of criticism on biographies of living people, which have much higher standards for reliability of sources. Of course, if any of Reed's criticism of Kiyosaki has been published by reliable third-party publishers, esp. in mainstream magazines and books, then that criticism can be used and cited here. The website is out though... Yworo (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My concern here is that Kiyosaki will escape the criticism he deserves because the "mainstream" media doesn't care enough to really report on him. Reed has something of a following, and probably doesn't fall under the BLP rules as you stated them because he is reviewing Kiyosaki's book, rather than commenting on the man himself (although his criticism is harsh enough to spill over as a statement on Kiyosaki's character). I would hope that Reed's commentary on the book would fall under the following exception:
"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."
It's a shame main stream criticism of Kiyosaki isn't more forthcoming, because I really do agree with Reed that he's a shyster. But maybe you're right, maybe Reed's criticism should be moved to the Rich Dad, Poor Dad page. In fact, maybe most of the stuff regarding the book should be moved there... TastyCakes (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, Reed's opinions have been brought up by regular published sources , such as here. TastyCakes (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Reed's opinions as reported by others are perfectly acceptable and should be used. However, please note that it is not Wikipedia's mission to "expose" anyone or "protect" anyone. The usual exceptions to self-published material are not acceptable in BLP articles. This would really apply to the criticism of a living author's books as well. Only criticism "vetted" by third-parties should be used. This protects Wikipedia from legal claims of defamation. Repeating what is essentially unvetted hearsay or opinion could expose Wikipedia legally. Yworo (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand and agree with that, and that's why I haven't undone any of the revisions. But, because of my own (biased) opinions of his teachings, I'd like to avoid the article coming out as a ringing endorsement. TastyCakes (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Crysis

I am now reading the "Who took my money" book, where Kiyosaki talks about the crysis of early 2000's. It is interesting to compare the content of the book with the actual performance of Mr. Kiyosaki's strategy and his personal record during the crysis.

Any clues, anyone?

David. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.33.245 (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's an obvious question, but what's a crysis?Wotnot (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

CBC Marketplace criticism

Per the referenced article, the classes in question are not taught by Kiyosaki or even a business owned or run by Kiyosaki, but rather by a licensee of the "Rich Dad Poor Dad" trademark. Therefore this criticism should not be in this biographical article, but rather in the Rich Dad Poor Dad article, where I've improved the quality of the reference links. Yworo (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that article is about the book, and the criticism is about the franchise. It should probably go in Rich Dad, which is the article about the trademark, book series, education, etc. I put it there back in January, but have not added any expansions. Yworo (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure, that seems reasonable, although I think it made it very clear that it wasn't Kiyosaki doing the courses and it was the fact that Kiyosaki was licensing his name and brand out to a bunch of shysters that was the issue as far as he was concerned, which is itself "criticism and controversy", I think. There is direct criticism of Kiyosaki himself in the program, something along the lines of "why would he want to change this, he's making a bunch of money off of screwing these people". Anyway, the summary at Rich Dad now did not seem accurate, I cut and paste what was in here into there. TastyCakes (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Kiyosaki wasn't licensing "his" trademark, his corporation, Cashflow Technologies would do so. As I am sure you know, a corporation is a legal "person", Kiyosaki may not have made the decision himself, etc., etc. So leveling this criticism here is legally shaky. Per WP:BLP, we need to only include criticism/controversy strictly about Kiyosaki here and not blur the line between him and his business entities. Now, if he was running a sole proprietorship, matters might be different... Seriously, if Oracle Corporation licensed some other company to do something and the licensee screwed up, I guarantee you it would not show up on the Larry Ellison article. Yworo (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If you watch the Marketplace episode, you will see that Kiyosaki says he licensed his trademark to the other corporations. For a big company, you may have a point, but for one completely controlled by one person it really seems like semantics saying "he didn't do it, his company did". TastyCakes (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, see Bill Gates#Antitrust litigation for an example of criticism in a BLP coming from actions taken by the subject's company. TastyCakes (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
There was legal action and Gates testified. Completely different. Yworo (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and you are making assumptions about control. And you seem to be assuming his company is too small to have employees. I don't believe either assumption is true. Even privately-held corporation typically have investors and a board of directors. Kiyosaki will have a controlling interest, yes, but a corporation is a separate legal entity. Wikipedia has very strict policies about biographies of living persons. If you doubt my understanding, please go ahead and make a query about it on the BLP noticeboard. Yworo (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Not really - all I'm saying that Kiyosaki says he licensed his trademark (and his name) to a company that he himself says give dubious advice and follow sketchy practices. Kiyosaki himself is implying he has control over these things (at least at the beginning of the interview, at the end he mutters something about his partner being the one who made the deal). Anyway, I'm fine with this being under the brand article rather than here, as long as it is properly included somewhere. TastyCakes (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with properly referenced criticism being included in the most appropriate place. You might consider whether Tigrent Learning is notable enough because of this to start an article on it. If they are the only licensee of "Rich Dad Education", that brand could be redirected there. Yworo (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where Tigrent Learning came from. The Marketplace program says the license is owned by "Whitney Information Network", and when mentioned to Kiyosaki he seems to agree. TastyCakes (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Whitney recently changed their name to Tigrent. It's in the text article referenced, second paragraph. Yworo (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry I missed that before. TastyCakes (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem, just putting it here for other interested parties. :-) Yworo (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What does he own?

Kiyosaki always talks about all the businesses he owns. Can we not find out what those businesses are? I would love to know. Is this available in any way? 74.216.117.50 (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

"When asked about a someone who would carry on the RichDad legacy. He muttered one name "Jason Michael Gelbart".

Uh, what the hell is the above supposed to mean?118.92.28.166 (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well this is slanted

Given Robert Kiyosaki sells "success", the fact that we have the following one line in the article is very interesting:

On August 20, 2012, Kiyosaki's company, Rich Global LLC, filed for bankruptcy in Wyoming Bankruptcy Court.

Slanted much? - Letsbefiends (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Rich Global LLC

Currently the writeup on the Rich Global LLC is a stand alone child-section under "Business ventures and investments". The rest of the subsections are categories rather than specific companies. To keep the structure consistent, should a subsection/category be created and nestle Rich Global LLC under it? (I'm not sure which category it should go under though). Or would it be better to just split it off into its own stand-alone section? Zhanzhao (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Kiyosaki was part of Amway?

I believe this is worth adding to the article. Take a look at the info this guy is posting. Might be a blog, but his info makes sense.

http://amlmskeptic.blogspot.mx/2013/12/is-robert-rich-dad-kiyosaki-in-faustian.html http://amlmskeptic.blogspot.mx/2013/12/robert-t-kiyosakis-sins-according-to.html http://amlmskeptic.blogspot.mx/2013/12/robert-kiyosakis-faustian-bargain-with.html

Any way to back this up and add it to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.148.25.96 (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, check out what I found http://ethanvanderbuilt.com/2014/01/20/robert-kiyosaki-scam-artist-yes-opinion/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.165.39.7 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

The controversy and criticism section does not seem to be written from a neutral point of view. A lot of it isn't that well sourced either. I don't know anything about this guy, but the section reads like it was written by someone who doesn't like him very much. I took out some of the non-neutral language and original research in the Casey Serin bankruptcy sub-section, like this gem: "The truth is, college students are too naive and overconfident on how easy it is to make money in the real estate business." The whole section still needs work though. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Checked your edits and agrees with it.Jasonhanjk (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC
Great, now it's slanted like a fan wrote it. There are more criticisms of this guy then what is left here. --Stubborn Myth (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I find the tone of the whole article highly biased. It all reads, in its entirety, as if it was a very worshipful press release written by the subject himself. Or his publicist. Somebody could probably take out more than 90% of the material and come up with something useful as a legitimate article. Laguna greg

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Robert Kiyosaki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

John T Reed Criticism

A review of Reed on Amazon reveals that all of his "published" books are actually all self-published. This would seem to indicate a lack of notability and reliability.--Insider201283 (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We've had very similar arguments about this before... I'd suggest you read his page on Kiyosaki before making any judgments. He may not be notable as an author, but he is probably the most outspoken and oft-quoted critic of Kiyosaki. TastyCakes (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Quoted by who? is probably the important question. Only 5 mentions on news.google.com out of 1160 for Kiyosaki. Not sure if 5 mentions in the traditional press quite makes the grade as notable. Does lots of non-wiki valid source websites citing a non-wiki valid source website suddenly make it a wiki notable and valid source? Alas, my experience on wikipedia is that it does. :-/ --Insider201283 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
If you find any negative articles on Kiyosaki, more often than not they quote Reed's site. His "research" is the source of a lot of the criticism against Kiyosaki. But I repeat, please read the Reed page before alleging that it is non-notable on this subject. TastyCakes (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said, there were only 5 of 1160 news reports on Kioysaki that even mentioned Reed. That's less than half of one percent. --Insider201283 (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
A search for "Kiyosaki" on google produces Reed's page as the third result. "Kiyosaki + Reed" produces pages and pages of results with the two. "google news" is hardly the be all and end all of sources for wikipedia, and just because a person is not mentioned in a lot of periodicals does not mean they are not a valid source, particularly of criticism. Why are you so hell bent on removing Reed as a source? I will tell you right now there are no more thorough and well researched critiques of Kiyosaki on the internet (or anywhere), acerbic though it is at times. TastyCakes (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not so hell-bent on removing him as a source. I was just rather surprised when I discovered Reed was entirely self-published, which is normally a sign someone isn't taken too seriously by the "real" world, and also normally a warning sign for using someone as a wikipedia source. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well Kiyosaki himself was self published until, some say, Amway started pushing his wares on its members, allowing him to take sales figures from that and convince a real publisher ;) Of course I should apologize, that is a bit of a low blow since there's no indication that Kiyosaki would be found to be a reliable source back in his self publishing days. Or now for that matter. Zing! TastyCakes (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The "some say" is close to true. It wasn't Amway per se though. An Amway Diamond came across Kiyosaki's book being sold at a friend of Kiyosaki's shop. He tracked down Kiyosaki and bought his entire stock for his organization. It then expanded out to the "rest of the world" from there. I wouldn't consider Kiyosaki a reliable source on particular financial issues either. He is a reliable source in his ideas however. Kiyosaki has also criticised Reed, but I don't think that's particularly notable for the Reed article either, since Kiyosaki isn't by any stretch a notable authority on real estate investment either. (oh, and btw, the "historical" rich dad did exist, before he become primarily a literary device. One of his sons continues to run their operations in Hawaii)--Insider201283 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I'd love to see a solid source on that bit about "Rich Dad" existing, since to my knowledge Kiyosaki has never come out and named him. But I think Rich Dad's existence is an often overblown part of criticism against Kiyosaki. There are far better reasons to question his advice. TastyCakes (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
A personal communication with someone who knows the family involved, so not a source you would consider solid, I'm sure :-). As for "questioning his advice", that seems a strange topic to me, since by my reading a legitimate criticism of Kiyosaki might be that he gives very litte actual advice! I read him as primarily (and overly-repetitively) promoting abstract concepts and attitudes rather than specific advice. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
True enough, excuse my inexact phrasing. I'd put the overabundance of fluff at the top of my reasons Kiyosaki is not a good "guru", along with his apparent lack of success in making much money from real estate, or anything, before he made his millions as a motivational/self help speaker. TastyCakes (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

John Reed is a competing financial pundit. His criticisms of Kiyosaki, valid or not, are driven by the motivation that he would like people to buy *his* material and not Kiyosaki's. Also, Reed is a self-published blogger, shall we include sections for all of Kiyosaki's competitors? If so, how about someone with a few more bona fides.Proxy User (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to express your personal opinions about someone's motivations. Please stop trying to push your POV just because you dislike this particular author. I reverted your POV edits. Feel free to bring up specific issues here on the talk page before re-adding them.Rray (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention Reed is not negative on all "competitors". Grouchy old man? Pretty much. Negative on everyone else to sell his own books better? Evidently not. TastyCakes (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Back on to Reed ... after a year's further experience editing Wiki, it's clear his website should not be used as a source for this article. Self-published websites are only allowable if the person is considered an expert on the topic of the article. I don't think by any stretch he could be considered an "expert" on Robert Kiyosaki. This is particularly important given WP:BLP. Some of the news articles that quote Reed may still be viable, but his site directly is certainly not. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Reed's comments on Kiyosaki are well founded and pertinent. His self published books are outstanding. You clearly havent read his critiques; if you had you would recognize common sense and professionalism. Dr K. Long — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.201.110.250 (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

My redirect was reverted without explanation

I redirected this article to Rich Dad Poor Dad with a fairly elaborate explanatory edit summary: "Even after Drmies has removed the worst and most trivial puffery, the only notable part of this overblown CV is the authorship of Rich Dad Poor Dad. Redirecting to that article". This was reverted after one minute with no explanation at all, just the automatic edit summary generated when one rolls back vandalism (!). User:BedrockPerson, could you please come to this talkpage and explain your revert? Bishonen | talk 16:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Your redirect blanked an entire page for no good reason. The page you blanked for the redirect is full of accurate information, and regardless of how much of said info is a result of Rich Dad, that is no excuse to completely destroy the page on the grounds that there was no point in having it. BedrockPerson (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
No good reason? I think being an overblown CV is a pretty good reason. The article is full of excessively trivial information and promotion of the person. Not all accurate information has a place in Wikipedia. That's why I redirected it, not because a lot of the information was already in Rich Dad Poor Dad — it wasn't. But I can understand one minute didn't give you any time to go look at that article, or even any time for the courtesy of writing an edit summary. Let's see what other editors think. Bishonen | talk 16:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC).
Oh dear. That was a rude revert and I left the editor a warning saying so. Perhaps the editor should have taken a bit more time; I see that the revert was practically instantaneous. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Drmies, I'm afraid I don't understand if you agree with my redirect to Rich Dad Poor Dad or not. Bishonen | talk 16:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC).
Don't be afraid. I do. I don't agree with the unexplained revert on the part of BedrockPerson. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Kept after Articles for deletion and Deletion review

This article was recently subject to an Articles for deletion discussion. The result was "Speedy Keep", discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kiyosaki.

It had a Deletion review afterwards, the result was "Endorsed", discussion page at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 13. Sagecandor (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears plausible that Kiyosaki's main successful money making venture has been giving financial advice via courses and books

This is probably better sourced than the John T Reed article: http://preneurmarketing.com/essays/updated-inside-world-robert-kiyosaki-full-rich-dad-poor-dad-story/

Courses were exposed in as scams in Australia http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2003/20030421_tall_stories/ryder.htm and in Candada http://www.cbc.ca/news/rich-dad-seminars-deceptive-marketplace-1.877709 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv6feHB0AE4


It seems credible that the books are fabrication, not just the existence of rich dad but more importantly his business history. I think the article needs to be rewritten to reflect this as a possibility. The power of the books seems to be founded on the assumption that Kiyosaki was a successful business man outside the get rich quick business... something that seems to be quite disputable. http://web.archive.org/web/20130725080613/http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/2003/01/01/334706/index.htm

Another similar article http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/number_1/2002/06/if_i_were_a_rich_dad.html

I partially take the point on John T Reed - but I also feel the current article is likely to mislead. Could we add an NPOV tag?

There is also this published book by Helaine Olen http://www.afcpe.org/assets/pdf/v24_2_86-90.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.78.9.2 (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Kiyosaki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Kiyosaki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Robert Kiyosaki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect references to Kiyosaki "Illegal Schemes"

There are two references to alleged illegal Kiyosaki schemes regarding an Ohio lawsuit. The so-called "scheme" is by Bill Gatten, not Robert Kiyosaki, that relies on the Federal law, "Garn St. Germain Federal Depository Institutions Act of 1982; Title 12 United States Code 1701-j" to place property title within an Illinois-type revocable land trust without enabling the lender to invoke the "due on sale clause" by retaining the owner as a beneficial interest member of the land trust. The land trust is recognized more commonly as a "Revocable Grantor Trust". The legal issue has nothing to do with Robert Kiyosaki; only with Bill Gatten's complex legal structure involving his selling of shares of the land trust. The link to the John T Reed (who is an admitted failed real estate investor) article is a "guilt by association" hit piece against Kiyosaki regarding that Ohio case that has no legal connection to Kiyosaki. 161.97.246.51 (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Kiyosaki/Archive_2&oldid=1214988910"