Talk:Steve Pavlina

Removed POV notice

It seems that everything, pretty much, is cited from third party references. I didn't see a need of having the POV notice anymore. Jwh335 (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No Third Party References

I deleted a lot of the claims that were backed up by his blog. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement. Jwh335 (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Huffington Post is a notable source or not, but they had an article on Steve's Polyamory. For the moment to be safe, I moved the polyamory ref into the main body of the article, and haven't claimed it as having mainstream recognition. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 10:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is still pretty hard to find third party references on this guy. There is a lot on blogs, but these do not really count as reliable sources. Does the lack of sources perhaps indicate that he is not notable enough for a full length article? 91.125.15.67 (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:V for what constitutes a source. Much of what was on this article is not properly sourced and given the length of time it has been in this state I have decided to remove it. Please only restore this material if you can find appropriate third party sources. 78.149.146.115 (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

There's a lot of persistent vandalism happening to this article lately. I recommend temporarily locking it to stop this. Python (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The reversion of the current article into a biased, POV dito is the real vandalism, as such an unbalanced article is in direct violation of Wikipedia's guidelines and statutes. It is not vandalism to claim something for which there exists adequate sources, nor is it not biased to inform unsuspecting victims of the criminal intent of a malicious scammer. 83.233.183.74 (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Let us try and talk things through, itemized.

1. The article affirms Steve Pavlina is an adherent of pseudo-science. Given the statements on his own website as to the nature of reality, this claim seems factual.

To be guilty of pseudo-science, you have to claim that the thing you are doing is science, he doesn't. Most things that people say on a day to day basis would be pseudo-science, if those people without scientific creditials would call them scientific. Brutha (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The controlling factor is not whether the word "science" is mentioned, but whether explanation for events or situations are given that have other, unrelated, scientific explanations. Otherwise, anyone can avoid the label of "pseudoscience" by simply using a different word. While Steve does not use the word "science" per se, he does in fact claim to be describing reality. 78.96.82.26 (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare was also describing reality. There are still people who think that his description of the human condition is one of the best, but that doesn't make Shakespeare a pseudoscientist, because Shakespeare doesn't claim that his description have truth in an objective sense. Shakespeare is valued for providing a certain perspective to view reality. A lot of Steves writing is about using different perspectives to analyse reality. He doesn't claim that any of those perspectives are true in an objective way. Brutha 18:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Article claims Pavlina is most well known for million dollar experiment. This is very difficult to establish, it could maybe read "well known for". The rest of the statements on the subject seem more or less direct quotes, and as such factual.

If I type "polyphasic sleep" "steve pavlina" into google I get 24,200 results, "million dollar experiment" "steve pavlina" gets only 899 hits, therefore more people know him for the polyphasic sleep stuff. Brutha (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Google doesn't seem to be a valid reference point according to the person protecting this article. I suppose if we don't use it one way we shouldn't use it the other eiter.78.96.82.26 (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim, not the other way around. Google isn't a good argument when you have to consider offline sources as well, but I think no reliable offline source mentions Steves million dollar experiment. Brutha 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Article states that respondent bias is in favour of perceived success, and this stands to benefit Pavlina. This is factual.

4.Smear campaign, including spamming, is well documented. [1],[2],[3],[4] and [5] among other places.

In the internet everyone can register under any name on any website. Since writing PM's is allowed in some forums without verifying the Email Address, it is also possible to sent PMs from that forum account under Erin Pavlina's name. A attempt to attack a single low traffic website that is critical of him would hurt him a lot more than the website itself. I someone wants to attack a website there are far more effective methods than spamming from in ones own name. Someone who wanted to deminish Steves reputation would on the other hand have an interest to start a spam campain like that. Brutha (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The attacked website seems to have comparable traffic, best I can tell. I never heard of forums allowing posting or using other features without confirming email address. And you'd sound a lot more respectable if you signed under your own name, Steve. 78.96.82.26 (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The other site has an Alexa ranking of 205,113 while Steves website has one of 8,079. Quite a difference. According to compete.com Steve has had 133,883 visitors last month while the other site didn't have enough vistitors to have a ranking. While I'm not completely neutral I also someone different than Steve. Brutha 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Felony grand theft is supported by Steve Pavlina's website, as well as public record.

The materials on Steve's website indicate that he was charged with a felony, but not convicted and that the day or two in jail caused him to start rethinking his life. The page cited says he was charged with a felony and spent time in jail but is silent on the matter of conviction. I don't know what public record says, but a reference to that was not provided as a source. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 09:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing these factual issues per se would constitute vandalism. Rewording may be more appropriate. Fluffygrrl (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong about the removal of these points and others constituting vandalism. Please read the policies on verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, original research, and biographies of living persons. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Steve Pavlina
Born	(1971-04-14) April 14, 1971
Occupation(s)	Blogger, Public Speaker, Author
Spouse	Erin Pavlina

Here's the Person infobox template. Fill it and move it to the article. CannibalSmith (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Steve Pavlina would do himself a favor by providing some proof for his claims. Is that too much to ask? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHaney (talk • contribs) 06:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Who cares about this person? Is every blogger on the internet with a self help book really that notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.222.216 (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of published references as to his notability.

As head of Dexterity Software:

• Fast, cheap and everywhere - MSNBC, July 31, 2003[6].

As President of the ASP:

• SOFTWARE; They Give It Away, Get Plenty Back - New York Times, June 13, 2001[7].

As a blogger and speaker on Personal Development:

• Steve Pavlina, creator of the world's most popular personal development website, to join Las Vegas Convention Speakers Bureau - Yearbook of Experts (R) News Release Wire, November 15, 2006[8].
• BLOGGING FOR DOLLARS SOME MAKE ENOUGH MONEY OFF SITES TO QUIT DAY JOB. - Daily News (Los Angeles, CA), October 29, 2006[9].
• Rise and shine - The Guardian (UK) February 3, 2007[10]. (refers to his blog article on becoming an early riser).

Other - as an advocate of Polyphasic Sleep:

• When sleep is just a dream : Overstimulated Americans struggle to get quality rest - USA Today, February 27, 2006[11].
• Weekend: Mind: THIS COLUMN WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE" - The Guardian (London) - Final Edition, GUARDIAN WEEKEND PAGES; Pg. 70 September 30, 2006[12].

All these notability references were sourced through Google News, which I understand to be good evidence of reputable sources. (Though I'm sure most are familiar with the New York Times, MSNBC and The Guardian).

While I think Steve Pavlina was questionably notable even in 2008 to 2010 when this was published, it should be fairly clear today that he does not meet notability standards as an author or speaker, or even blogger. Danihan (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate content on locked article

{{editprotected}}

The following statement is inaccurate and should be removed or revised: Pavlina believes that objective reality does not exist, and that there is only one consciousness (the concept of subjective reality).

Mr. Pavlina has consistently positioned "subjective reality" as "one of many different lenses through which we can filter our perceptions." Mr. Pavlina has not denied the existence of objective reality. 69.242.85.126 (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed completely as no source was provided. --- RockMFR 01:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

He has ignored repeated requests to provide proof for this claim.

Who requested when the proof through which way of communication? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutha (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

People have demanded proof on both his blog and on his forum. These people are always banned and the requests censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHaney (talk • contribs) 06:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

After http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP you have to source a claim like this. I don't think that people got banned on the forum for asking for proofs. Which users are you talking about? Do you have an archive.org link to a post from a user like this?

We have relevant sources for the polyphasic sleep (The Guardian). With no evidence to the contrary having a neutral POV means reporting what the sources say about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.44.253 (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was banned from the Steve Pavlina forum, simply because I commented on an Obscene Post on Steve's Wife, Erin Pavlina's blog. The comment posted was:

I am a believer in psychic abilities, the afterlife and spirits. But when I read this article, why do I hear 'b.s' ringing through my head?

As a result of this I was banned straight away and my comment was deleted. I was polite about my question and simply stating my opinion [Reference]. This is proof that Steve Pavlina Forums are clearly biased, and this 'fact' should be added to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.182.134 (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum nor does your comments help to improve the article and you're also invading your block. Bidgee (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is proof of the claim that Steve's forums are baised and this should be added to the article. I will not do any further editing as long as these comments stay here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.160.95 (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not there was a valid reason in Steve Pavlina's forum to ban you isn't something that Wikipedia decides (Wikipedia only decided that there a valid reason to ban your IP on Wikipedia ;) ).

Wikipedia articles need reliable sources instead of a personal value judgement from a person that feels that he got banned without good reason and therefore wants to revenge his banning on Wikipedia. 84.191.220.218 (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I got banned from the forum but that was because I mocked Americans for their ignorance. I found it amusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.3.219 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Erin Pavlina - notable or not?

I notice that the redlink to Erin Pavlina was removed. I don't know whether she's notable or not - she has published two books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Erin%20Pavlina) --Irrevenant [ talk ] 10:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

She would need to be the subject of multiple secondary sources, a quick google indicates that this is not the case. Notability would probably require her to have published a best-selling book - which hasn't happened yet. If you really feel she deserves a place on Wikipedia then she should be added to Steve's page and not given a separate page. 91.125.15.67 (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of notability template September 2009

There are already several notability references in the article and above. There is significant, reliable coverage from multiple established secondary sources. His notability isn't temporary since he's been known for a variety of things over time. In short, I can't see why the template was ever added, but please feel free to discuss. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 01:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Subject

Is Steve Pavlina really notable enough to have his own wikipedia page? The vast majority of links on this page are not up to the standards required for wikipedia citations. That suggests to me that perhaps he is not notable enough, or the page should be scaled back dramatically. Any opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.53.24 (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the page should be scaled back. The current article only has one small paragraph for each point of notability - any smaller would be a stub. If anything, I think the article could stand to have a paragraph or two of info added describing the book. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 04:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

New Cites.

I've added 3 new cites. They might also (instead?) be sources - I'm not real clear on the difference between the two, and I'd appreciate if someone could check this for me. http://bjyouth.ynet.com/3.1/1111/18/6503695.html also looks like it could be a valid reference, but I don't speak Chinese and I don't trust Google Translate. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 04:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

transition between identities

I figured I would talk about the transition between the two careers. I'd like to use the following citation, but don't know enough wikicode.

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2004/12/environmental-reinforcement-of-your-goals/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.0.2 (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution! You can use {{cite web}}. I filled out the template for this source; would you care to put it in? (If you edit this page you can see the wikimarkup to use. Just wrap it inside a ref tag like the others you see in the article.)

Pavlina, Steve (2004-12-15). "Environmental Reinforcement of Your Goals". Personal Development for Smart People. Retrieved 2011-12-29.

– Pnm (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

When adding new information please check that your sources are reliable. Generally self-published blog posts are not considered a reliable source. Ideally you need something third party for it to be worthy of wikipedia.78.147.142.14 (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the factual information is about his own experience I think it's an allowable use of a self-published source, according to WP:ABOUTSELF. – Pnm (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steve Pavlina. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stevepavlina.com/forums/steve-pavlina/7941-steve-wikipedia-2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)