From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

--- In several of his books he makes claims about his accomplishments which appear to be exaggerations, fabrications or misdirection.Some have questioned Kiyosaki's status as a successful investor and businessman prior to the formation of his present venture, CASHFLOW Technologies, Inc...."Some of these items do not agree with records and may have been stated for "dramatic effect". In several of his books he makes claims about his accomplishments which appear to be exaggerations, fabrications or misdirection."

Any accomplishment in particular that appears to be false?

"Some have questioned Kiyosaki's status as a successful investor and businessman prior to the formation of his present venture, CASHFLOW Technologies, Inc. They claim that his wealth has come only as a result of selling books and audio presentations about topics he has not personally succeeded in and that he is probably worth far less than the $50 to $100 million USD he once claimed in an interview. They note he has claimed to be bankrupt as recently as 1985, a high school dropout and a deserter from the military."

Perhaps we can fix this up, as while it is important to show these things, I really think this bit is a put up job.

1. He has admitted he went Bankrupt, almost in every book he has written. 2. He is not a high school dropout (although he has called himself that), he failed two semester of English, which then he passed and then went to a Military College. Passed up a job that could of earned him over $80,000 a year and went and fought with the US marines in Vietnam as a helicopter gunship pilot. 3. As for a deserter can we back this up please?? - I doubt this to be true. As he seemed to be in the military when he came back to Hawaii from Vietnam according to my information. 4. As for not being worth the amount he is worth - He closed on US$10M worth of real estate investments in 2002 within one month.

This note has been up for a while, so here is the deal. If no one is going to fix it I will edit some postings, but I will still try and keep it objective.

Evidence that he has ever been a real estate investor?

---

There's a lot of interesting information about Robert Kiyosaki [1]. I'm trying to add some of it, while still keeping things NPOV and factual.

• Wow, I can't believe we have such a diminutive page on this guy. Much expansion is possible. Paul 05:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

There are a bunch of books (4-5) that have come out since the ones listed in the article. I added blurbs on a couple of them. Can someone critique and/or expand my entries, and add the rest of the books? I found out the new titles by searching on Amazon. Syd Barrett 21:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

From the article:

Ironically, it is probably his radically different viewpoint, going against the time-honored grain of "go to school, work hard, and invest in a safe, diversified portfolio of mutual funds", that has made him the target of the mainstream financial base.

I fail to see how this is ironic in any way. I've removed "ironic" from the sentence although I think the whole thing could go. TastyCakes 16:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Lordmac, I see you have removed the link to John T Reed's criticism of Kiyosaki and his book again. I don't want to make this a revert war so I'm not going to put it back in right now. But I believe the Reed page gives some valid and well thought out criticism of Kiyosaki that people aiming to learn about him should read (although Reed can be somewhat acerbic at times). Reed does promote his works (in limited fashion) elsewhere on the site, but it is very limited in the Kiyosaki article (have you read the entire article?). Please flesh out your reason for not wanting the page as an external link here. For reference, Reed's article is here TastyCakes 18:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Acknowledged, to be fair I'll re-research today (both Reed and Kiyosaki). I admit I haven't reread Reed's site in a couple years, since I realized that he trashes all popular RE infosellers, in order to get free web traffic to sell his own wares. But since you vouch for it, I'll reread the whole thing.
• I'll even leave all those IMO questionable changes you just made to this article until I do. =] I don't mind a link to criticism per se, but I feel Reed's motives and methods are suspect, since he denigrates so many authors (who should be his peers). I'd rather hear from someone more reputable... whether it's someone without a profit motive, or a site that is just anti-Kiyosaki, not anti-competitors. I'll even search for some as part of my research, along with seeing what I can dig up on Rich Dad's identity.. I don't think he really exists either, I just don't think that's a bad thing because it makes a great literary device.
• Have you read RDPD? If I have to read Reed's crappy writing, it's only fair you read some good writing in return. Oh wait, that's not fair. Nuts. LordMac 19:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Although Reed is critical of the majority of Real Estate guys mentioned on his site, he endorses a handful. Included are Robert Abalos, Bob Bruss, George Coats, Jay DeCima, Joe Dominquez, Gary DiGrazia, Jane Garvey, Bill Mencarow, Kevin Meyers, Bill Nickerson, Jon Richards, Leigh Robinson.. I'm sick of cutting and pasting these names, you can see the rest here in green. Somewhere on the site he says he believes there are only a handful of truly useful books for real estate investing, which perhaps I'm being slightly naiive in thinking. If you're going to read his page, I suggest you start here to get an idea of his criteria for judging real estate gurus.

I would feel more comfortable hearing criticism about Kiyosaki from more than one source as well, so I'll look into it further too.

I read about half of Rich Dad Poor Dad before becoming skeptical of Kiyosaki and lost interest in continuing. I admit that I have been put under the impression that he's more confidence man than succesful real estate investor. TastyCakes 19:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been looking round and although I've found a lot of "This book is merely motivational crap" pages, Reed's page is certainly the longest and most thorough of the reviews (positive or negative). There are all sorts of sites that link to John T Reed as a sort of warning about Rich Dad Poor Dad in particular and Kiyosaki in general. Here are a few of them. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6],[7]. No mention of slander as you suggested before that I've seen. I looked through the review again and still believe that it is not there to simply try and sell the reader anything. Unless you can give some concrete reasons that the page shouldn't be linked to, I'm going to add it again. TastyCakes 18:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Beat you to the revert. I haven't had time to do my research, so you win (at least till I get more time, heh). Two points offhand... first, the green listings are people that I've never heard of, despite the tons of REI info I've consumed. I'll research their notability later and post results here (hey, maybe I'll find some new authors to read). Second, I can vouch that the book worked in at least one case... mine. Long story short, I retired at 29, thanks to reading it when I was 27. I mean money didn't fall out of the book or anything, but I was on the track to working for others till I was 65-75 till his insights woke me up. I made some slight shifts in my attitude, and soon I was making myself rich instead of my ex-employers. I don't want our happy community to miss out on the same benefits because of some crank like JTR. =]

Speaking of slander, insider trading? No sir... if you want to say that, post the relevant passage from Kiyosaki's writing. I'll stipulate the "it's too simplistic" arguments, because he's more a teacher and philosopher, he certainly does not give step-by-step instructions (because people's situations are different). More later, keep it on your watchlist! LordMac 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

re posting the passage, I meant as part of the article, not necessarily here. Hell if you're right I'll even expand on it.

Hi Lordmac. I'm happy Kiyosaki's advice worked out for you and I wish you continued success with it. Please note, however, some of the emails on Reed's site have letters from people who dropped their jobs and tried to do what Kiyosaki recommends and wasted years of their life getting back on track.

Thanks for being open minded about leaving the link in. I'm happy toning down what I inserted to an extent, but I think there are some things in there that don't make sense and I'm going to change them. If you don't like the changes, revert them and we can discuss further here. Also, why did you remove your Yahoo link? I mean I didn't like it.. But I was fine with it being in there. I hope you check out some of the books Reed recommends, you may find them a little dry but they are very informative. TastyCakes 21:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and when I was talking about slander I meant your accusations against Reed. I have no reason to believe Kiyosaki is guilty of it. Well except this of course ;).

Oh, and when I said he suggests pursuing insider trading I was referring to this line in RDPD: "Frequently, my broker will call me and tell me [to buy] a company that he feels is just about to make a move that will add value to the stock, like announce a new product." TastyCakes 23:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Heh, I'm guessing you don't have a stockbroker (or at least not a full-service one), because that's exactly what they do... practically their job description. It's only insider trading if someone acts on information that is not publicly announced yet.

For example, the original accusations against Martha Stewart were because she and her broker were friends of ImClone CEO Waskal, who (improperly) gave them information on Erbitux's FDA problem before ImClone released this info to the public.

Full-service brokers are supposed to research publicly available info for hints of such activity, and advise their clients of their recommendations based on this research. Else, they'd be useless compared to discount brokers (who don't research or provide such advice, they merely fulfill transactions at far lower commissions than full-service brokers). LordMac

I'll take your word for it ;) TastyCakes 19:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Regarding why I removed the Yahoo Business link, there's an easy explanation... I fucked up. I'll readd it later. LordMac
• I don't see what you're referring to in the bizjournals article you linked to, the Kiyosaki family's statements on JTR are correct IMO (more so, and nicer, than JTR is in reverse). LordMac

I find they're like Reed's comments without any backing. Reed doesn't criticize everybody, Reed has been a succesful real estate investor (and provides addresses and details for all the places he has owned) and Reed is apparently succesful financially and has been for some time. The fact that he was a broker for a time in my mind gives his views more credibility, although Kiyosaki's wife uses it as a slight. But again, Reed made some pretty hard hitting complaints about them so I understand that they were on edge.. TastyCakes 22:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Regarding people who quit their jobs after reading RK's books... c'mon. First, RK never says such a thing, in fact he extols the virtues of working jobs just to learn skills.

But even if he did say so, you would fault him instead of the idiot reader who screwed their own family by quitting with no financial backup? That's like blaming Marilyn Manson for Columbine... I know you know better than that. (quick judgment based off you watching Futurama, my POV is that only smart people like that show) =]

I'm not saying some people aren't idiots, because of course they are. I just don't think it's RK's fault that they're that way. At least he addresses it in his latest book, which makes him better than me, because I'd just write a book titled Don't Quit Your Job, Stupid. I figured I'd be nicer by 30, but I'm not... maybe when I'm 40. LordMac

I never said people aren't idiots for throwing themselves into Kiyosaki's teachings whole heartedly.  ;) I do think Kiyosaki appeals to a lot of low achievers that want a way to succeed that doesn't involve working hard, however. Whether that reflects his actual message, I haven't read enough of him to know ;) TastyCakes 22:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I've reread JTR's site, and I believe it has gotten more legal since he got sued (he at least presents his unfounded accusations as opinion instead of fact now). I won't remove it again, I don't think the type of personality who would buy into his rants is the type who could succeed in business long-term anyway, so it's prolly best if JTR convinces them not to even try. Those people can keep working for the RK/RD fans, and make us richer. =] I got sick of the "Attitude is everything" cliche when I was a kid, I didn't realize until much later how true it is. LordMac

The list of errors in the book and the list of things that are highly unlikely seems more fact than opinion to me, but I agree Reed makes certain personal attacks which are uncalled for and not backed up all that well. TastyCakes 22:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• I will update the article (later, I spent my wiki time today reading JTR and writing this) to add accomplishments to the opening rather than messing with the criticisms. Well ok, I'll mess with the criticisms sometime, but first there's quite a few RK achievements and awards missing that I'll add (community, please add yours too... I know he's done a lot of work in Australia and Asia that we in the US don't hear about). LordMac 15:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Just removed references to Richard Kimi, an unsupported anonymous comment on a message board is not a proper source. Added his quote about rich dad being a myth from the Feb 2003 issue of SmartMoney --TK (not logged in)

Contents 1 Controversies Section 2 MergeRich Dad, Poor Dad and Cashflow Quadrant to Robert Kiyosaki 3 Kiyosaki helping people? 4 Heresay 5 What the hell? 6 I AM YOUR NEW LORD AND MASTER 7 Teaching section 8 ESBI 9 The Teachings of Robert Kiyosaki article DELETED 10 His math is correct 11 "Why We Want You to be Rich"

[edit] Controversies Section

I'm taking the last paragraph out of the Controversies section and will incorporate it into the intro. TastyCakes 21:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• I like it very much. The repeated (practically verbatim) criticism on both the RK and RD pages, I like less. Could you split and put just specific RD criticism on the RD page, and general RK stuff on the RK page? LordMac 15:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I'll give that a try when I've got a bit of time TastyCakes 21:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

His association with multi-level-marketing organizations should be pointed out. It is up to each individual reader to make up his/her own mind about Robert Kiyosaki, but important and notable facts should be pointed out so that the reader can better judge Robert Kiyosaki.

[edit] MergeRich Dad, Poor Dad and Cashflow Quadrant to Robert Kiyosaki

There isn't enough substance in these two related articles to justify separate entries and this topic would make more sense in the context of Robert Kiyosaki's work generally. Wikipedia is not a place for book reports or advertisements and this will only be of interest a hundred years from now as it relates to Kiyosaki. Trim it down and merge it in. Rorybowman 19:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Rich Dad, Poor Dad is a ground breaking book and merits its own article. Over time the article will increase in size. --nirvana2013 20:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kiyosaki helping people?

There was a claim in the article that he had helped "many" people go from worker to entrepreneur. I don't see any real evidence backing that up, and his critics point out that some of his advice is unsound. Since it's arguable whether he actually made money in real estate in the first place, I removed this claim. --Mr. Vernon 05:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heresay

I removed the following comically obscure piece of heresay "An anonymous person on a message board once alleged that "Rich Dad" was actually Richard Kimi, of the Sand & Seaside Hotels in Hawaii."

[edit] What the hell?

I can't believe this article is so incrediblly one-sided. Whoever wrote this obviously didn't like Robert Kiyosaki very much. There's a big section for criticism, but in almost EVERY section you can find negativity. This entire article is ridiculous.

I happen to have listened to a great deal of Robert Kiyosaki's teachings myself. Can you say the same? I find his advice to be very wise and useful. I have a lot of respect for the man. He's probably changed my life. I especially agree with everything he has to say regarding the cashflow quadrant and the importance of passive income as a means of obtaining financial freedom. If you step back for a moment and analyze what exactly he's saying, it makes perfect sense. If all you do is search the Internet looking for criticizm, you'll be getting a very one-sided narrow view. An opinion, in fact. Which I would disagree with.

Again, Robert Kiyosaki is a great man. Try listening to his actual advice, instead of what someone says about him.

I have re-written some of the article. I have not gone over all of it.

With the exception of the criticism section I can't see anything that's "incredibly one sided". Slightly biased, perhaps, but it seems fair to me. Kiyosaki has a lot of supporters, and some even claim to have found success with his teachings, but there are a lot of people who think he's more or less a con man. Balancing these two views is not a trivial matter. I have read rich dad poor dad and John Reed's criticism of the book. Can you say the same?

Some of your changes to the criticism section seemed ok. But other changes, like deleting the part about not having made his money in business, seems important and should remain, and in others you inject positive things which if are to be included shouldn't be put in the criticism section. Therefore I have reverted. TastyCakes 21:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I AM YOUR NEW LORD AND MASTER

MWUHAHAHAA!!! I have wasted hours of my life which I shall never regain! For I HAVE NOW CREATED THE MOST AMAZING, MOST COMPLETE GUIDE TO ROBERT KIYOSAKI THAT HAS EVER BEEN!! GAZE UPON IT WITH SEMI-EROTIC WONDER!!! RAHHHH!! BOW BEFORE ME, MORTAL INSECTS!

If you look at the new version of the Wiki bio on the saki himself, you will see the undeniable truth. You all owe your lives to me now. For I have brought forth giant garbage loads of information. Specially crafted by my masterful hands for special viewing by Wiki eyes.

....If you change it to screw it up I may or may not hunt you down and murder you slowly. And then I shall return the article to it's proper state.

Of course that is not to say that people shouldn't contribute further, I'm simply warning you not to defile it's beauty with lies and slander or arbitrary deletion and such.

Okay well.. enjoy!

the sloth_monkey 6:00 AM (Central Time) Wednesday, April 26, 2006

A lot of this reads like a puff piece... I also suspect 2 or 3 of the pictures you added are copyrighted and can't be put here... TastyCakes 18:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I think that's a jackass thing to say. You obviously dislike Kiyosaki, considering how very negative this article was before I got here. So apparently you hate to see anything good written about him.

Anyway, if you care about this article at all, which you seem to since you've spent so much time on it spreading your negativity, then really you should be thanking me for providing such an enormous amount of information here. I put a lot of work into it and everything I've written is factual. Obviously I've also cited many sources along the way.

the sloth_monkey 11:46 PM (Central Time) Wednesday, April 26, 2006

I think you've got a lot to learn about Wikipedia.. The article as you have written it is not even close to neutral. It will have to be changed. You added some good information, and it'll probably remain, but the article can't look like it was ripped out of Kiyosaki is awesome magazine. I honestly don't see why you thought it was so negative "before you got here", I thought it was pretty balanced. Do you have any examples of what you mean? As far as the images, you can't just take a picture off the internet and put it into wikipedia. It has to fall into free use criteria, which I doubt some of those do. And for the record, I don't hate to see anything good written about Kiyosaki. I just don't like reading irrelevent fluff and NPOV opinion about him. TastyCakes 08:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed your so called "hard work" involved cutting and pasting material you found from various internet sources. You can't do that.. That is copyrighted material. Not to mention cutting and pasting from the "Rich Dad Poor Dad" web site is obviously going to be slanted.. TastyCakes 19:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teaching section

I think the teaching section is too long and rambling. I think it should be heavily condensed into one or two paragraphs and then a more fleshed out version be put in a seperate article. What do you all think? TastyCakes 04:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

...What do you suggest would be the subject of such an article? Where could there be a more appropriate place to put the teachings of Robert Kiyosaki than in an article talking about Robert Kiyosaki? It is directly related to knowing about the man. Talking about the things he preaches to his students is arguably more important than other things having to do with him.

Think a second about what you're complaining about. That there's too much information. Too much information? This is an encyclopedia!

sloth_monkey 05:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. Would you really think it appropriate for us to take each section of this article and replace it with a link to a different article focused entirely on that one topic? i.e. Kiyosaki's Teachings or Kiyosaki's Books. ...If it would get you to lay off me and stop deleting things, I'd consider it. But I do think of the idea as being a bit ridiculous.

sloth_monkey 05:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This "ridiculous idea" is done in Wikipedia articles all the time. Why do you think a long article is a good article? It is suggested Wikipedia articles remain under a certain length (31 kb or something), to make them readable. Before I deleted your "timeline" it was over that, and for no good reason. You could sum up most of Kiyosaki's teachings in one paragraph. If people want more information they should have access to it, but if they just want to learn about Kiyosaki they shouldn't be overloaded with all this stuff.

I wouldn't have to delete your stuff if you weren't filling the article with non-public material, cut and paste text from kiyosaki's own website and fawning articles about him, and your own hastily written, unconcise material. I'm sorry, but I honestly think you are degrading the quality of this article rather than improving it. As I said before, you have added some good information. But you haven't boiled it down very well and you aren't writing it like an encyclopedia entry. I know you're trying to improve on these things, and I appreciate that. But that is my rational for reverting some of your stuff. TastyCakes 06:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ESBI

Why is the ESBI cashflow quadrant mentioned twice in the article? Is the redundancy necessary?

[edit] The Teachings of Robert Kiyosaki article DELETED

Well I have just about lost my faith in Wikipedia and sites with user-generated content. To me this inherently means the content of a site will be controlled by people who often have too much power and not enough sense to use it wisely.

I can't believe that I could pour such a ridiculous amount of time (over the course of a few months) into writing such a thorough, elaborate article explaining things about Robert Kiyosaki and what he teaches, only to have it amazingly underappreciated and ultimately destroyed. All my work has been deleted.

Why? Because people have their own biased opinions on things and think that they should impose their opinions on others, rather than leaving it up to the reader to decide things for themselves. Meaning, someone may look at an article and think it’s bad advice coming from a manipulative S.O.B. who just wants to rob people of their money; whereas someone else could look at the article and be ecstatic that they are being exposed to what they view as useful information. Which person has the right idea here? Is it a useful article with helpful information, or is it a load of crap that no one should listen to?

Well here’s the thing. It doesn’t matter if the article is good advice or not. It doesn’t matter if people like it or not. It’s just information being presented to those who wish to read it. It’s up to the reader to decide how they feel about it and to think for themselves.

The point is that information should not be censored like it has been here. Some people come along who dislike the article and think no one should read it? Well too bad it isn’t for them to decide. …Oh gee wait yes it is. Because Wikipedia is run by morons. That’s user-generated content, folks. --sloth_monkey 18:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a site with user-generated content. Try everything2.com if that's what you want. 203.218.141.70 03:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His math is correct

Kiyosaki's claim that you lose 80% of your money over the long term in a mutual fund with a 2.5% maintainance fee is not, in fact false. I have removed the wording to this effect. FYI, the blog (are blogs really valid sources to cite?) which was linked to in support of this was only pointing out that his 2.5% number is high (no comment there, as I haven't researched it), not that his math was faulty, and redid the calculation with a fee of 0.87%.

This is a simple calculation to do. The returns from $1000 invested for 65 years at 8% are given by (assuming yearly compounding): R = 1000*(1.08^65) = $148,779. If you reduce that to 5.5% after fees, you get R = 1000*(1.055^65) = $32,464, which is a difference of around $116k, or 78% of your money. This is why index funds are good, and most actively managed funds are bad. Duketg 23:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Why We Want You to be Rich"

Robert Toru Kiyosaki & Donald John Trump have coauthored a book. I have nothing else to add to that.

hopiakuta 19:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)