Jump to content

Talk:T. Harv Eker

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

advertisement?

[edit]

I wasn't able to find negative criticism about Eker on the web, so I put up what I new to see if it could be expanded upon and made more neutral, so I hope it's not speedy-deleted. --Scottandrewhutchins 05:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone revised the apge after me and I tagged it as an advertisement. I am going to revert it, even though my version was minimal, to prevent it from getting speedy deleted. --Scottandrewhutchins 11:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict Of Interest

[edit]

I am adding some things to this article with the disclosure of a conflict of interest. I do not represent this subject and will make sure I follow the guidelines of the COI in Wikipedia. Each edit I make I will put into this talk page so you will know its from me. If there is an issue with any of my edits please notify me so we can discuss and modify if necessary Jessman88 10:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I added a info box plus a wikipedia commons photo onto the article Jessman88 10:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC) - i added a New Category for Lawsuit because this is separate from his career Jessman88 10:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-I would like to remove this photo from the Article

Eker in May 2009

- My reasoning is this photo is a harming photo showing skin inflammation on his head the subject is known to have a mild case of Psoriasis and this picture is flaunting that. I welcome opinions and dicussion Jessman88 10:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Negative tone

[edit]

The final paragraph has a very negative tone to it. It needs to be rewritten with more objective voice.--Janus657 15:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Are you sure?[reply]

This is supposed to be educational... not one big bash against motivational speakers or the self help industry.

That paragraph has been removed previously on WP:NPOV grounds, but it has now returned. --Scottandrewhutchins 18:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is it's true. It doesn't bash over the head with negativity so much as subtly and in a detached manner call it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.37.141 (talk) 07:34, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

It is still an opinion and a violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not for users' [original opinion?]

. --Scottandrewhutchins 14:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've been to his weekend intensive, and to the Warrior Camp, and while I'm a big believer in what Harv Eker is teaching, and in how they do it, I have to agree that there is truth in the bashing. The bashing could be toned down, definitely, but the weekend is about 50% very valuable education, and about 50% sales. Still, being expensive as it was, and being 3 months out of the course now, I have to say that the Warrior Training was the best personal development money I've ever spent, including College. Hey, Education is expensive, no matter how you get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.251.160.254 (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have participated in 2 of Eker's courses. I find the selling unpretentious and light-hearted. I have yet to receive any "Mexican Police Torture", I had enormous fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robiemurdoch (talk • contribs) 04:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#1 NY Times Bestseller?!?!?

[edit]
Resolved
 – Trollish thread starter.

I only looked up this clown because I came to Wiki to find out what criticisms exist of his book The Secret of the Millionaire Mind, and there is no article on this book.

I am being bombarded by radio advertisements from this huckster selling his local seminars (Where seating is limited! Hurry!) which are the same ads as the John Commuta, rich Dad, and all the crap that came before it.

His radio ads state that his book The Secret of the Millionaire Mind is a #1 New York Times bestseller. Is there a source for that? I find it somewhat hard to believe that New York Times #1 bestsellers don't have so much as a stub of a Wiki page. Is there a source for this? This article only calls it a "bestselling book", but that is a pretty vague and modest statement if it is in fact a New York Times #1 bestseller.

When a guy has a pitch identical to that of Tom Vu and Don Lapre, I have to check it out before I'll believe that he is anything more than another Tom Vu or Don Lapre.--208.127.100.19 (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear anonymous IP editor, thank you for your precious feedback but the tone of it strike us as being inflammatory and brusque, while your harsh remarks of another person as a "clown" is hardly a civil statement, which is frowned upon by Wikipedia and it's associate members. FWIW, if you have a problem with his book being listed as a #1 NYT Bestseller, I would suggest that you take it up to them for clarification. Note that this #1 thingie is not reflected anywhere in the article page. Another thing to note, please do not post trollish remarks on Wikipedia, its a very sure way of getting yourself BANNED if you do not respect our rules and guidelines. Thank you and regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 04:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I should identify myself with my posts. Please note that I wrote this "#1 NY Times Bestseller?!?!?" paragraph two days ago, I don't have an account, but it is showing me as 208.127.100.19, which evidently my home DSL ISP has had me on since 4/12/2010, and I've posted only on this and the This TV article from this IP (the other few posts are on articles I'd never even seen), but I've made countless comments and corrections over the past few years on 208.127.100.147, 208.127.100.174, and 208.127.228.128.

Back on point here, I didn't realize that you were going to be policing a talk page for "tone", especially when I 1) am not making any attacks against another editor and 2) was commenting on an article that is not only a complete joke, but the subject himself is a joke, and the very existence of this Wiki article is a joke.

Forget my comments on the talk page, this article violates every Wiki rule I can think of. If you made it your life's work, you could not find an article that is more blatant advertising than this.

I never saw it before 4/12/2010, so I can't speak to the history of it, but just look at it now on 4/14/2010:

1) It is a stub. A useless stub, and not any kind of proper article.

2) It is obviously written by the subject to promote the subject. Refer to the rules about autobiographies. This stub consists of five sentences, two of which promote his products and services and tell you where to buy them. The other three sentences are a lot of nonsense that tell us that "he is unique" and that he is "the one and only Harv Eker important" to himself. That is just pathetic Wiki stuffing that would make most people barf.

3) This entire article is unsourced garbage. Refer to the rules about sourcing.

4) For a pointless stub, it sure has a lot of links added at the bottom! To review, the first four out of the six links ARE LINKS TO HIS OWN COMMERCIAL WEBSITES!!! The fifth is a dead link that is presently telling me "500 - Internal Server Error". The sixth and final link is a link to another commercial website where you can buy his book or a book like his. Now, seriously, what unconcerned party would go to Wikipedia and create a stub of an article for a topic they had no vested interest in, yet somehow manage to promote the products and services of the subject with six links to six commercial websites?

5) Look at the photo, then see the link below it to "Wikimedia Commons has media related to: T. Harv Eker" where you can get a whole lot of similar useless photos of this guy pitching his products and services. Yet, you still don't think that the Harv Eker article was written by Harv Eker? Or by an agent of Harv Eker, trying to promote his products and services and/or do damage control against the preponderance of negative information about him on Google, Youtube, etc.?

6) This article is hardly representative of what is out in the universe about Harv Eker. A Google search of the term '"harv eker" scam' will give you 5,520 returns. It is an easy search to do because you don't even have to type it out, as "harv eker scam" is one of the Google suggestions. It is not only one of them, it is the #2 top Google suggestion! You don't even need to know how to spell his last name, either, as merely typing out "harv" and then hitting the space bar will bring up the Google suggestion of "harv eker scam". It takes a long time to get to being a Google suggestion, requiring thousands and thousands of people to make that exact same search.

More importantly, I have to ask you user Dave1185, who are you to talk?

You pounce on my post (barely three hours after it is written) to chastise me on my "tone", then open with a zinger yourself, sarcastically referring to my post as "precious", when the whole point of your post was that it was not.

Is this how you set an example for other users? Is this really called for when this article itself violates every Wiki rule I can think of and should be deleted just for that?--208.127.100.19 (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the discussion above.

[edit]

While I think it's okay to note that calling him a clown is inflammatory, I think the mod/admin threats come off as anti-free speech and equally immature. This is the discussion page and maybe he has reason to question T Harv Eker's motives. I'm not on either side. I am just very anti-censorship and every time one of you admins or mods tries to win an argument by banning or deleting, it reinvigorates my anger toward the tech-administration structure of this site. There is plenty of validity to having a large amount of controversy surrounding T Harv Eker's writings. His messages are mixed between being good with money and spending it all, making for some serious confusion. If you don't like controversy, you shouldn't be a mod or admin. Covering it up with authoritarian gimmicks including threatening contributors and promoting political correctness to the point it dulls the senses isn't conducive to a better Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.107.170 (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate him

[edit]

I just wanted to share with the world how much I hate this clown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.22.237.165 (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:T._Harv_Eker&oldid=1198713743"