Talk:Tony Robbins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Contents

Anyone have more information on his infomercials?[edit]

I think this article should have a section on his infomercial campaign, seeing as that is one of the most famous things about him.

  • He says in interviews that one of his infomercials aired in North America every five minutes for ten years or something like that. What's the exact figure?
  • What product was being promoted?
  • How many were sold?
  • What years did the infomercials run? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.158.142 (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair? Balanced?[edit]

The FAQ on "Pseudoscience," above, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience (adding link to explain after archiving Merkinsmum 00:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)) talks about majority views and minority views, and to describe disputes "fairly."

What is clear is that Tony SHALBS is a very polarizing force here at Wikipedia. People are trying to glorify him, and people are trying to vilify him. The more people push to glorify, the more other people want to "debunk" him, though that is clearly not the purpose of the article. When people write things that are decidedly NOT fair, intended to "debunk," it leads others to write more that is glorifying Robbins -- or at least removing the schlock that does not belong.

Look at the comment from "Balancing the Article," Above:

Not being a fan of Robbins, I trust my comments here will be taken as one of YOUR READERS, having used Wikipedia for years. This truely is one of the poorest articles I've seen on Wikipedia when read closely and completely; unbalanced in the negative, poorly written, and choppy. Perhaps it has been excessively edited causing said perceived disjoint, perhaps just poorly written. Therefore, and again I am not crit·i·cizing without providing resolve, the resolve could be argued to be a complete rewrite of the article from a professional, neutral standpoint, i.e., start over.

Imagraphicx was right, and is right. This is the only article I ever had the desire to edit. I have used Wiki for years, but when I looked Robbins up for the first time, I was appalled at the article. Sandwiched between a section on his "Personal Life" on top and "Celebrity Meetings" and "Acting" on the bottom, were three sections:

1. Seminars and Claims (a weasel word) 2. Lawsuits 3. Criticism

In those three sections, there were 366 words in "Seminars and Claims," including the weasel word in the title. There were 359 words in the other two sections combined. There were just about as many words in the negative as their were in the positive, and the positive was horribly outdated and focused primarily on irrelevant material (when you discuss the Mona Lisa, you do not spend half of the discussion on the frame).

I had never, in all of my years of reading Wiki, been compelled to edit an article. But this one was so misleading, and so slanted, that I had to register, log in, and do something. My inexperience showed, and I'm sure it still does. I read widely, and could critique the articles on Hegel, Einstein, or Baseball if I felt compelled to do so. But no article had ever driven me to get off of my butt and correct it before I read this one.

Today, the "meat" of the article is longer, as more relevant material was added, and the ratio has slightly improved: 872 positive words, and 755 negative. But still, that's an awful ratio.

The problem seems to lie in the fact that some people feel the need to "debunk," rather than fairly depict the majority and the minority views as what they are. Perhaps someone needs to take it upon him or herself to throw out this article, as imigraphicx suggested, and just start from scratch. It is better -- though Rray disagrees -- but it is still awful. The word that best described the criticism when I first read it was "petty." I'm sorry to say that the word still applies.72.225.222.55 (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in. MasterPrac (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't appear to have too much criticism, just a section at the end. Robbins' "fans" are in the minority, most members of the public think anything like this is just a bit silly, or dabbe in it occasionally. You think the criticisms are petty because you are looking at it from a believer in Robbins' theories' perspective. To sceptics etc, they're probably not petty at all. Merkinsmum 23:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


Human Needs Psychology[edit]

I revamped this section. I expanded on Robbins' theories and beliefs. There is no cheerleading here. I only state what Robbins states, and leave the reader to determine if it is true or not.

My sources are manuals from seminars I have taken with Mr. Robbins. They are, unfortunately, not for general distribution, but thousands of other people, who have taken the same seminars, have the same manuals.

As I am still relatively new at this, I was unable to get the footnotes to reflect the reference that shows that Robbins and Cloe Madanes co-wrote the Advanced Leadership manual. I also could not get the footnote to show the page numbers in the reference. If someone can help with this, it would be appreciated.

With this section, people coming to this article to see what Robbins believes and teaches can now see that. They can also see whatever criticism people have of him, and his work.MasterPrac (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There are problems with having such an extensive section about what Robbins teaches. For one thing, it's almost entirely a summary of information obtained from primary sources. For this information to be notable, reliable secondary sources should be included. If reliable secondary sources don't exist, then a good case can be made that the information isn't notable enough to include in an encyclopedia article. It's like writing an encyclopedia article entirely sourced from a self-published book.
The other problem is that the article is about Tony Robbins, not the material he covers in his books, tapes, and recordings. A certain amount of coverage would be expected; coverage this extensive would not. The article about Stephen King doesn't include lengthy summaries of all of the books he's written. His books are noted there, and many of them are notable enough to have their own articles. The article about George Lucas doesn't include a lengthy summary of his Star Wars movies either. Those get their own articles too. Then the articles link to the other articles about the books and movies.
My suggestion would be to take the same approach here and move much of the content regarding what Robbins teaches to individual articles if the subjects are notable enough. Then provide a brief overview of his work with links to specific articles. I think Unleash the Power Within is probably notable enough for its own article, and maybe even Mastery University. (I haven't searched for references for it, but I'm sure they're out there.) And the Personal Power tape series probably warrants its own article, and so do both books (Unlimited Power and Awaken the Giant Within.) The trick is going to be finding reliable secondary sources instead of primary sources.
Anyway, I have no plans to edit this particular article any more for a while (too busy), but maybe some of these ideas will be useful to the other editors who are interested in this subject. But the article needs extensive and major improvements and adding more and more details about what Robbins teaches isn't what's needed in this particular article to make it better. Rray (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think I touched on this before, but manuals from Anthony Robbins' own seminars are not good sources to use as references in an encyclopedia article. Reviewing WP:RS might be helpful. (There's a link in that guideline article about self-published sources that's particularly pertinent.) Rray (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

I don't recall the lead of this article being so short prior to all the changes that have been made recently. I added a template indicating that the lead should be lengthened. That template includes guidelines for the introductory paragraphs of articles. Rray (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tinkered.:) Merkinsmum 23:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

pic[edit]

The other pic was of his forthcoming book cover, and said it was his forthcoming book. It could be construed as advertising, also may not even come out as it's not scheduled for release until 2010. It was not a realistic pic. So I changed it for another one that was on Wikimedia commons. Merkinsmum 23:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

the 'human needs psychology' section[edit]

I've removed this long section recently added by one editor, because of WP:RS, WP:NOTE and WP:OR, and also copyright concerns, as you may need permission from robbins to use your notes or handouts from one of his seminars on Wikipedia. Also stylistically it was in note form, not an encyclopaedic style. But please keep contributing! Your contributions are appreciated, but in order for them to last, you might like to have a read of some of the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Merkinsmum 23:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair? Balanced? Redux[edit]

Okay, as a result of your edit, there are now 620 words describing Robbins and why he warrants an article -- in other words the two remaining sections, "Career and Ideas," and "Seminars. There are now 752 words in the sections, "Lawsuits" and "Criticisms." Of the 1372 words that are the crux of the article, 45% are favorable, and 55% are unfavorable.

Merkinsmum, you wrote above: "You think the criticisms are petty because you are looking at it from a believer in Robbins' theories' perspective. To sceptics etc, they're probably not petty at all."

The day I discovered this article, this was the first line in the criticism (you can look it up -- I just did):

"Skeptic James Randi is a notable critic of Tony Robbins, calling Robbins' "applied kinesiology" a "scam". Problems with that:

  1. Robbins did not use AK; one of his associates did.
  2. Many chiropractors and dentists DO use it, making it "Questionable Science" see above. Calling it a "scam" is inappropriate, as
  3. It is not the purpose of the criticisms section to "debunk" (see above).
  4. It has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING that Robbins teaches or espouses. It has to do with a product that an outside vendor was selling during a time at the seminar when ROBBINS WAS NOT EVEN PRESENT. HE WAS NOT EVEN IN THE BUILDING! (Robbins taught Friday-Sunday, and an associate teaches the Monday "Health" section). To list this under Robbins' article, today, as a criticism of ROBBINS, is EXTREMELY petty! If it was a product sold by Robbins, MAYBE it would be relevant. But it WASN'T. And still isn't. THAT'S what makes it petty!

The criticism section has grown longer since October, when I discovered the article. There were 359 words in the "Criticism" section in October; there are 660 words in that section today.

Yet, if it does NOT appear "to have too much criticism," it's probably because I recently removed all of the "debunking" and "weasel words" from the section.

Finally, this has nothing to do with being a "believer" or not. This has to do with fairness, which is a BIG part of the "Pseudoscience" FAQ (see above). For example, you have not read a word from me about the "lawsuit" section; the criticism of NLP, even though I am a Master Practitioner of NLP; or anything about his divorce. These are valid, verifiable, and accurate, and even though you may call me a "believer," those sections are both "Fair" and "Balanced" (to borrow from Al Franken's book title). There were, however, some very picyune and petty statements, including the Randi nonsense listed above.MasterPrac (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said- it seems petty to you- not to others, such as Randi. No the article compromised (or had to keep quiet) over robbins' divorce... but that's another story lol and you can read about it at the top of this talkpage.

I don't see how I can have removed any existing content prior to your long edit, because I don't think I removed anything much other than that. I've made some suggestioons about stuff we could cover, below. Merkinsmum 12:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Counting words is not how you determine NPOV issues. That's just silly. If more verifiable information from secondary sources exists about lawsuits and criticisms, then the article should reflect that. That's not point of view pushing; it's just a reflection of the information that's available. And I think your interpretations of "weasel words" and "debunking" are bizarre. They certainly don't reflect a consensus. Rray (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested articles on Robbins' books and seminars[edit]

Rray and Merkinsmum both suggest that I attempt to write articles on the individual seminars and books. In light of how they pounce anytime anything remotely resembles something that has the appearance of commercialism, I cannnot imagine writing an article about a product.

Also: Rray compares this article to the one on Stephen King. Stephen King is an author. He writes books for a living. Robbins does not. Robbins has ideas which he teaches, and he works with people who pay money to have Robbins help them. You may agree with his ideas, or disagree with them, or believe he actually helps people, or believe that he steals their money. But this is what he does. I would never compare the significance of his ideas to those of Einstein, or Hegel, or Freud, or even Milton H. Erickson. The reason any of these people warrant an article here is because of their ideas, theories, and work. Robbins' ideas, theories and work may or may not be to the standards or significance of the other people mentioned -- that's for the reader to decide -- but they are the only thing that warrants an article.

Think about it: why is there an article on Tony Robbins? Is it because he wrote a few books? Is it because he is famous? Is it because he met Nelson Mandela or Lady Di? No, no, and no. It is because of what he 'does', and the ideas he teaches, and because millions of people now have paid millions and millions of dollars -- either being helped or scammed -- to learn what he teaches.

After all, what is it that the "criticism" section criticizes? It criticizes his ideas, theories, and work. In the articles of ANYONE analogous, it the ideas, theories and work are expounded upon, before being criticized. As important, they are expounded upon by people who have studied the ideas and theories at length, and understand them a lot better than most other people.

Yet, anytime I, or anyone, has attempted to expound on his ideas, theories and work, it is censored by people who believe it to be too much like a "commercial."

Well, I made quite a few edits in October, and left the article a lot better than it was when I started. You have now removed everything that I did back in October, and everything I added this past week. You say "But please keep contributing!" I don't have the time, nor apparently the expertise, to do so. I am going to attempt to remove the Randi nonsense once and for all, and then I'm going to take a break from this for at least a little while.MasterPrac (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

MP, I actually changed one of the subheadings to 'career and ideas'. If you want to write (briefly!) about Robbins' ideas, please go for it, I agree, we need it in there. But use sources such as the books, unlimited power etc, some people seem to have used his youtube and stuff. Use WP:MOS, try not to write in list form or be repetitive- although I appreciate that's how Robbins gets his points across (I don't mean that in a bad way- it's a rhetorical technique) and how you may have noted it down. Also it looks even better to use reliable, secondary sources- WP:RS. Such as the Guardian, Telegraph etc rather than just writing what you think and know- though you may be right, it's unfortunately Original Research.(which wierdly isn't allowed.)

I have actually read 'notes to a friend' 'awaken the giant within' 'unlimited power' and listened to the 'personal power' tapes years ago! So I can't be a complete sceptic lol:) Then again....I'm still on 'welfare' lol:)

I say write 'briefly' about Robbin's ideas, because I think there should be a section on Robbins'...

Merkinsmum in particular has been patient and helpful with you. I sent you several helpful links and tried to explain to you things that would be helpful to you as an editor here. You've taken some of our help to heart and ignored a lot of the rest. That's all fine. But to characterize us as "pouncing" on every change you make to this article is unfair and untrue. A large number of your edits and changes have remained in the article. Wikipedia works on consensus. You don't get to have the article exactly the way you want it. Merkinsmum and I have just as much of a right to edit this article as you have. And so does anyone else who wants to edit the article. You've often reverted our changes of your edits immediately without discussing them on the talk page. When you've done so, one of us has usually come to the talk page to discuss our reasoning instead of edit warring with you.
Using loaded words by saying that we're "censoring" you doesn't help your argument either. No one is censoring anything. Some content is appropriate for an encyclopedia; some is not. You seem to have trouble understanding that the difference boils down to coverage in secondary reliable sources and relevance.
This is not the forum to explain Tony Robbins' teachings or principles in detail. A single sentence about each notable book, single sentence about each notable seminar, and a single sentence about each notable recording should be plenty. If those subjects demand greater coverage, then it should be done in that book's article, or that seminar's article, or that recording's article. And the articles (all of them) should consist of information that's verifiable from reliable secondary sources. Notes from your attendance at seminars and self-published materials distributed at seminars are not reliable sources for an encyclopedia article. The focus of the article should be narrow. It should be about Tony Robbins.
Your reasoning for why there is a Tony Robbins article is here is completely backwards. Tony Robbins has an article here, not because of what he teaches, but because he's received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources.
And I'm not a "skeptic" either. I've read all of Robbins' publsihed books, been to Unleash the Power Within, and own and have listened to all of his recordings except for his health CD's. Much of what Robbins teaches has value. But this isn't the appropriate venue in which to teach it. Rray (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


–:A 2004 article giving an account of an Anthony Robbins seminar in Sydney can be found in the University of New South Wales student magazine Tharunka via the Trove website - a digitized newspaper resource: http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/230223088?searchTerm=anthony%20robbins&searchLimits= Iggyc61 (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


Books and Tapes[edit]

I'm very busy this week as I'm moving house and have to smarten up the old one to get my deposit back :) Also my router has died so I can only use internets at my partner's, and he expects me to talk to him sometimes.:) So my apologies if I'm not often at my PC (well, quite as often as usual.) or if it seems I'm not pulling my weight finding sources etc, for the week.

Our section on 'seminars' explains briefly what he says he teaches at each seminar, and I think it's quite good. We could do a similar thing for the books/tapes (covering only the most noteable ones.)

We could do it as 'his first book (insert title here) taught x, his second book said success could be achieved by Y. I know they're mainly about the same subject, but we could say how he says they're different. Merkinsmum 12:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Applied kinesiology etc- masterprac[edit]

Sorry, I missed that comment of yours before.

  1. Please do not shout (write in caps)
  2. If AK is taught at a seminar of robbins', even if he's not there that day, you yourself say it's done by one of his colleagues- it's his seminar- means he must endorse it for it to happen.
  3. have you thought that it just might have been taught differently at the numerous holdings of the same seminar, to which you haven't personally been?
  4. you don't like the word 'debunk'- just change it for a word you're happy with. It's just a word.
  5. Robbins endorses/there are sold or encouraged at his seminars numerous tangential ideas such as unconventional dietary theories, and the Q-Link pendant. Which is sold there I think, if so of course he knows that. He'll know what's sold at his own seminars. Probably he has stopped having that there now people have been mentioning that it's sold there and there's no evidence it works.Merkinsmum 21:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
MP, I am just curious and maybe you could ask yourself- why don't you want the fact that AK and the Q-link pendant have been taught and advertised respectively at seminars organised by Robbins, not anyone else? As they are part of his seminars, of course the fact that they are there is relevant to criticism of him and them. Merkinsmum 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, Robbins has not had the Q-Link sold at his seminars since he got re-married. We who crew his seminars can tell how long someone has been with Robbins by whether or not they have a Q-Link. And I'll say again: criticism of AK belongs on a page about chiropractics, not Robbins.
As for the Q-Link, I am actually wearing one as I write this. When I had physical therapy for my herniated disc, my therapist saw it around my neck and had me remove it every session because she knew from prior clients that it skewed the results and made me seem stronger than I am. Of course, that is anectdotal evidence. If you go to the Q-Link website, however, you will find single-blind and double-blind studies on its effectiveness. Feel free to go to the website, look at the studies, and criticize them if you would like, but they do exist.
That said, it could be that I simply purchased a placebo a long time ago. I have no idea how it works, or if it works. That's not relevant. I have no emotional attachment to it. What is relevant is that this falls under the category of "questionable science." According to the FAQ that Rray sent me to a while back (see above), according to the rules of Wikipedia, You must treat this as a minority viewpoint, with a corresponding majority viewpoint.
According to the rules of Wikipedia, even if this is not "questionable science, but instead qualifies as "pseudoscience," Wiki states:
"Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly [italics their's]"
That means, as I understand it, that no one can use this article as a means to "debunk" (Rray's word) any ideas. A dispute must be described fairly. That means that it must be described as a dispute, with two sides, neither one right or wrong, but one in the majority and one in the minority. That means, as I see it, that the word "scam" has no place anywhere in this article, even if it is a direct quote.MasterPrac (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Your interpretation of NPOV is completely incorrrect. Of course we can use the word "scam" in an article, especially if it's a direct quote. Nowhere does any guideline suggest that we can't directly quote someone in a dispute, and nowhere is the word "scam" forbidden.
Also, since you work with the crew for Anthony Robbins' seminars, you have a clear conflict of interest regarding the subject. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. This explains a lot about your edits to the article. I'm sure you mean well, but people with clear conflicts of interest really shouldn't be making major changes to articles, although they're encouraged to suggest changes on the article's talk page. You're also encouraged to make non-controversial edits to articles. Many of your edits here have obviously been major and controversial edits. I hope now that you're aware of the guidelines you'll edit something where you don't have a conflict of interest. Rray (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rray, one who "crews" at a Robbins event is a volunteer, and pays for the privelege. One also does so 4-10 days a year, at best. I have never received a dime from the Robbins Organization. I have no conflict of interest.MasterPrac (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

On a related subject, Rray wrote:
".... I think your interpretations of "weasel words" and "debunking" are bizarre. They certainly don't reflect a consensus. Rray (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Rray, the only interpretation of "weasel words" came from you: see section on "Weasel Words," above. Rray stated that "claims" was a "weasel word," amd would not let me use it regarding Randi, yet the word "claim" or "claims" was in the article 13 times relating to Robbins. You can call my interpretation of "weasel words" bizarre, but Rray's was certainly highly selective.
Rray also wrote:
"Having a neutral point of view doesn't mean you can't debunk pseudoscience."
Rray, can you explain, based on the FAQ you sent me to (see above), how it is bizarre? Can you explain, based on the FAQ you sent me, how anyone can use any article in Wikipedia to "debunk" pseudoscience? That would be greatly appreciated. But when you do, please refer to the paragraph above that I quoted from that FAQ, so that we are both talking about the same thing. How, based on that paragraph, can you say that my interpretation is bizarre, or that you can debunk pseudoscience?
That's not a rhetorical question. I really want to know.MasterPrac (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Calling something pseudoscience is in effect debunking it. NPOV does not mean that you cannot describe pseudoscience as pseudoscience. Representing the majority scientific view almost always debunks pseudoscience. Rray (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Rray, in that NPOV FAQ that you sent me to, it characterizes Questionable science and pseudoscience. It says:

"Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."

Rray, several million people have been to his seminars over the past 25+ years. By any standard, that has to qualify as a "substantial following." He has not only met, but had as clients, President Clinton (while in office), Andre Aggassi (sp?), Mike Tyson, Anthony Hopkins, and thousands of celebrities and non-celebrities who spent lots of money for his advice (references upon request). There is no way, by the definition of the FAQ, that anyone -- well, besides you -- can possibly call this pseudoscience, based on the definitions on the FAQ page you sent me to and which I have quoted extensively aboveMasterPrac (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I didn't revert or object to any of your changes regarding the word "claims" anywhere in the article, and I didn't add the 13 instances that were in the article. Everyone makes selective edits. Nothing nefarious about that. Rray (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Rray, you objected furiously when I inserted the word "claims" to the quote on Randi, but did not say a word about the other 13 uses of the word "claims" which were used in reference to Robbins -- including a section called "Seminars and Claims." True, you didn't add the other 13 instances, but you didn't add the one I added either. You just chose to swoop down on mine, while leaving the other 13 intact until I acted. I consider that to be, at best, very select editing. Others may call it worse.MasterPrac (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Purpose of the Article[edit]

Rray has stated, above:

This is not the forum to explain Tony Robbins' teachings or principles in detail. A single sentence about each notable book, single sentence about each notable seminar, and a single sentence about each notable recording should be plenty. If those subjects demand greater coverage, then it should be done in that book's article, or that seminar's article, or that recording's article. And the articles (all of them) should consist of information that's verifiable from reliable secondary sources. Notes from your attendance at seminars and self-published materials distributed at seminars are not reliable sources for an encyclopedia article. The focus of the article should be narrow. It should be about Tony Robbins.
Your reasoning for why there is a Tony Robbins article is here is completely backwards. Tony Robbins has an article here, not because of what he teaches, but because he's received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources.

Is it just me, or has Rray stated the purpose of the article on its head?

Having used Wikipedia for quite a while, as a reader, not an editor, it seems to me that the purpose of Wikipedia, as with any encyclopedia, is that people want to know about particular subject matter.

We turn to the Wright Brothers, for example, if we want to learn about flight, about their lives, about how they did what they did, as well as the scientific principles that support what they did. If you read an article about Andy Warhol, you will find out about his life, and his work. It talks extensively about his paintings and his films, without any of the stringent requirements that Rray institutes here in his fiefdom. There are no references anywhere in the "paintings" or "film" sections at all.


But that's what the articles are about, because that's what people want to know.

What is this article about? Rray writes that "Tony Robbins has an article here, not because of what he teaches, but because he's received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources."

I completely disagree. Tony Robbins has an article in Wikipedia because people who read Wikipedia want to know something about Tony Robbins.

And the reason "he's received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources," as Rray states, is precisely because of what he teaches, and the celebrity of his following.

He received his first significant coverage 30 some years ago, when, in front of an audience in a Vancouver hotel ballroom, he took a patient of a local psychiatrist, whom he had been treating for a snake phobia for years, and cured the phobia in about 30 minutes. That gained some notoriety for him. I could fly to Vancouver and look in microfiche for the reference, but I don't have the time, and I don't have access to Lexus/Nexus. Perhaps someone who does can look that up, somewhere in the early 80's.

He gained more notoriety when he started doing firewalks. He gained more when he started getting unpaid celebrity endorsements in his infomercials. He gained more notoriety in psychiatric circles when Dianne Sawyer and 20/20 filmed him working with a woman with over 100 multiple personalites, integrating her in less than an hour (using the concept of the Six Human Needs). 20/20 did not run the piece until they determined that the woman remained integrated over a year later. I have seen the segment, once when it first aired, and then later from a friend who videotaped it. I can't seem to find a web reference to it, but I saw it, and her doctor's reaction that there was no scientific explanation for it that he was aware of.

But that's why "he's received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources."

More important, that's why people come to Wikipedia, or any encyclopedic sources -- to find out about the subject. Those who come to read this article -- as it stands -- do not succeed. MasterPrac (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to focus on some other articles for a while. I don't feel like you and I are going to be able to work collaboratively on this article, and I'm not interested in edit warring or long debates that no one wins. I (or someone else) will probably at some point do a request for comment about your edits here, as I think they're pushing a specific point of view. Then a wider variety of community members can weigh in regarding the neutrality of your edits. Good luck with your efforts to improve the article. Rray (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the thing is that an encyclopedia is about concision for a start. And to provide an introduction to the subject. We're not here to explain why people loove Robbins (or why they should love him- we shouldn't have a promotional agenda), and who has raved about him, but to explain what he's done, written and said that people have found important enough to write about in the Guardian (rather than a personal fan site) etc, for instance. Merkinsmum 02:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Merkinsmum, I agree with you completely. It was never my intention to turn this article into promotional material for Robbins. It was only to explain, as you state, "what he's done, writtten and said that people have found important enough to write about" in places other than fan sites. When I first discovered this article, the section Seminars and Claims (the weasel word in the Section title) had information about Robbins that was 15 years old and horribly outdated. It had information from his first book, written in 1985, listed as if this is what he was espousing today. Half of the section on his work information about Robbins that was 15 years old and really irrelevant. You can go to the History page of this article and see it as it was before my first (admittedly) clumsy attempts to rectify this.
Believe it or not, I have no interest in explaining why people should love him. I do believe that an accurate description of what he teaches, and how his work has evolved over time, is what people want to find out when they come to this article.
I've looked at a handful of biographies recently. They tend to tell about the life of the subject, and also about the work and works of the subject. You were correct in removing some of what I entered for concern about Copyright issues, when I was quoting from seminar manuals. I am still convinced, however, of two things:
  1. people come to this article to find out not only when Robbins was born, what his name was at birth, and the other biographical particulars that biographies contain;
  2. to also to find out what it is that he espouses: what are his beliefs, what influenced his work, how has his work evolved over time, and such.
Certainly, criticism has a place in this article. Also, in my opinion, a very valuable section would be on Robbins' use of infomercials to sell his products. A section could be done without endorsing the products, but rather on the way he mastered the use of the medium, and of unpaid celebrity endorsements, to sell them.MasterPrac (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Things robbins did in the past aren't wrong to include, though obviously not saying that is what he does nowadays, if it isn't. Merkinsmum 02:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

books and tapes[edit]

We could mention infomercials in this coming section, as that's a method he's used to sell them.

This is all the ideas I have so far lol, not much as you can tell, I'm still uncharacteristically busy.


(list of notable works based on amazon ranking, though we could list chronologically- I know amazon's figures are not all that encyclopaedic lol we need too get hold of more objective bestseller statistics)

unlimited power 1997 –The new science of personal achievement (about NLP)
awaken the giant within 2001 How to Take Immediate Control of Your Mental, Emotional, Physical and Financial Destiny!
8 minutes in the morning 2002 a simple way to shed up to 2lbs a week guaranteed
live with passion audio CD 2002 strategies for creating a compelling future
notes from a friend 1995 A Quick and Simple Guide to Taking Control of Your Life
energy tapping for trauma 2007 by fred gallo, foreword by Tony R. -Rapid Relief from Post-Traumatic Stress Using Energy Psychology (this is interesting as it shows by doing so he endorses the Emotional Freedom Technique, which is a controversial therapy in itself, so he hasn't eased off on endorsing highly unscientific ideas such as he did with the Q-link.)
lessons in mastery 2002
giant steps 1994 365 daily lessons in self mastery
contact 2006 yoga of relationship, I think with Deepak Chopra, another controversial figure
get the edge 2000 a 7 day program too transform your life (major infomercial that's been on for years, I can't remember his earlier ones offhand but then I'm in the UK)
personal power 1993 30 day program


If anyone can find brief quotes from WP:RS reviews of any of these books, or add any other info here so we can write this section, that'd be great. Merkinsmum 02:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I personally believe that the original dates of publication are important, as it corresponds to his personal chronology and the chronology of his ideas.
His first book Unlimited Power, first came out in 1985. Awaken the Giant Within was his second book, and it came out in 1993.
Regarding the Q-Link: I start with the disclaimer that I am wearing one as I write this. That said, I make no claims about it's efficacy, other than that Physical Therapists and Chiropractors have insisted that I take it off before they worked on me, because they themselves volunteered to me that it would skew the results. I make no claim that it is either scientific or unscientific. I will say that on the website of Q-Link there are single-blind and double-blind studies. Feel free to analyze the studies and tell me if you think that they are faulty or poorly designed or otherwise slanted. Maybe they are. Maybe they are actual, academic, single- and double-blind studies on the efficacy of the Q-Link. I don't know. But I do know that research has been done on the Q-Link to determine the effectiveness of the instrument, and the research has included single-blind and double-blind studies. So I would be careful throwing around the word "unscientific," let along "highly unscientific."
Among the studies is a double-blind study published in April, 2000, conducted by Dr. Norman Shealy, the neurosurgeon who invented the "TENS Unit," and William A. Tiller, Ph.D., professor emeritus of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford University. This study, from April, 2000, "suggests that the QLink® pendant helps to mitigate the disruptive effects of EMF on the electrical activity (EEG patterns) of the brain. This published study demonstrates beneficial effects of the QLink in stabilizing the EEG responses in the presence of transient EMF stressors." [2]
Again, even though I wear one, I am not married to it, I am not endorsing it, and any testimonial I could give on it would be purely anecdotal anyway. I'm not selling or endorsing or recommending the Q-Link here in any way, shape or manner. I have not analyzed the methodology of any of the ten studies listed on their website. I am suggesting, however, that the term "highly unscientific" is not supported in this case, based on the number of studies conducted on the product. That's my take, anyway.MasterPrac (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The other issue is this: just because the jury is out on something, does that make it "unscientific?" I mean, I also have no idea if "energy tapping for trauma" works or doesn't. But if the jury is out, and it has not been proven to be either effective or a crock, does that make it "unscientific?" I'm not attempting to be argumentative. I'm just wondering what the Wiki standards are if something has been proven neither fish nor fowl, so to speak.MasterPrac (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I just read the article on Emotional Freedom Technique and it answered my question. What a short, terrific article! If we could use that template here, that would be great.
What I mean is that the first paragraph of the article says what it is, mentions that there are two studies that show that it works, but that another study suggests the placebo effect. It says that critics criticize it for the reasons critics do that sort of thing.
It then has sections on "Background," "Theory," "Effectiveness," and "Criticism," as well as a "Reference" section.
The section on "Criticism," most importantly, rather than a hodgepodge of this one calling something tangental a "scam," and that one complaining about something else, it is a coherent section, ending with the founder responding to some of the criticism with research.
If this article on Robbins was as coherent, well-structured and balanced as this one is, I would never have bothered to attempt to edit it.MasterPrac (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The jury isn't out about any of these therapies. All scientists except those who are believers already (a very rare few) know there's no reputable evidence whatsoever for them. Merkinsmum 22:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, Merkinsmum. The jury isn't out on which therapies? If you are referring to the Emotional Freedom Technique, there are studies that support it, and others that say that it's placebo. It sounds like you have come to a conclusion and have your opinion, and you certainly are entitled to do so, of course. How is the jury not out, though, if two reputable studies support it, and one does not? Your statement, "All scientists except those who are believers already (a very rare few) know there's no reputable evidence whatsoever for them" refers to what, specifically? There are reputable studies of the EFT, and there are reputable studies on Q-Link. Are you suggesting that all of the studies that support Q-Link -- some double-blind -- and all of the studies that support EFT, are methodologically flawed? Are you suggesting that they are flawed because they were conducted by "believers" who are slanting the results in an effort to prove a point? Or, are you saying that because they got results that support the "questionable science," therefore they must be believers, or else they would not have obtained that result? Or, are you saying that because you don't believe this stuff works, therefore any studies that support must have been conducted by "believers?" I'm just not sure what you are saying here. Please help me out. MasterPrac (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to "reputable evidence," few people are better at examining empirical evidence than Bill James, who writes about baseball. As it says in his article, "James' sabermetrics rejects much of the conventional wisdom that has been passed down by players, executives, and writers over decades." Two recent books have been written about him: The Mind of Bill James, and How Bill James Changed Our View of the Game of Baseball. He has become very well respected, both in and outside of baseball. He looks at the empirical evidence for statistical significance.

I mention this because there has been much debate over the years in the baseball world over the existence of clutch performance. Are there players who do better than others when the game is on the line? Several decades of studies have failed to prove "clutch" ability with any statistical significance, and James has rejected this as well.

But then, a couple of years ago, he wrote a provacative article in the Journal of American Baseball Research turning this on its head. He wrote that he is reevaluating his complete rejection of cluth performance in spite of the lack of statistically significant empirical evidence, and here's why: he argues that it is possible that we simply do not have the proper tools to provide us with the proper information to decide one way or another. His analogy is a foggy campsite, where you hear something in the distance, and turn on your flashlight only to see the fog reflected back at you. The fact that you can't see what is in the distance does not mean that nothing is there; it just means that you lack the proper instrumentation to record, measure, or see definitively what may or may not exist.

Some of -- not all, but some of -- the "New Agey stuff" that people reject as "pseudo-science," particularly regarding this article on Robbins, may possibly fall into this category. For example, there was radioactivity for eons before the geiger counter was invented, but we had no way of measuring it. The speed of light has been constant since the beginning of time (as far as we know), but nobody knew what it was until someone noticed that the moons of Jupiter appeared to slow down as the earth moved away from Jupiter, and sped up as we moved closer. Hypnosis was dismissed by the "Randi's" of the time as a "scam" until Dr. Milton H. Erickson and others rescued it from tent shows and brought it into the medical establishment. Freud dismissed hypnosis, for example, and it is speculated that he did so because he was bad at it. ;-)

So the point I'm attempting to make, in an admittedly long-winded way, is that just because we do not yet have the proper tools to measure something does not mean that the thing we attempt to measure does not exist. It also does not mean that it does exist, either. It means that the jury is properly "out," and that the science in question is questionable, but not necessarily pseudo. MasterPrac (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

I moved the sentence: "Robbins' techniques, theories and business practices have been the subject of some criticism and legal actions," to lead the Criticism section. Having this sentence in the opening paragraph is driven by an agenda. Firmitas (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

review of NAC[edit]

  • Grant, A., (2001) "Grounded in science or based on hype? an analysis of neuro-associative conditioningtm" Australian Psychologist, Vol.36 (3), p.232-238. doi:10.1080/00050060108259660

In a review of NAC, Grant essentially says that some of Robbins claims are unjustified and of the some techniques (e.g. future pacing) are not based on empirical research. Interestingly, he does say that some of the techniques draw from existing methods do have empirical support. ----Action potential t c 11:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal life section, first paragraph[edit]

The first paragraph of this section has no transition from a description of Robbins childhood to his career. This seems jarring and possibly needs to be rewritten, but I don't have the time for it tonight. Rray (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's been handled.--Screwball23 talk 21:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't Tony Robbins have a biological son (Jairek Robbins) , born May 26, 1984? Should this be mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.201.167 (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources[edit]

Much of the sourcing in the article is from primary sources. For example, in the section about celebrity endorsements, the references used are from Robbins' own products. In the absence of reliable secondary sources, those types of assertions shouldn't be included in the article. (Especially the part about the celebrities agreeing to endorse the products without compensations. That's a sales pitch, which is not an encyclopedic source.) If someone has reliable secondary sources to add, I'd be grateful if they added them. Otherwise that section will likely need extensive editing.

Other sections of the article have the same problem, but that's the one that stands out. Rray (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The article should have a positive tone.fair tone. However, it reads like a news release in places. Quoting or paraphrasing some of Robbins' work might be ok in places. I'd prefer to see reliable third party sources. The previously source I cited about NAC has some background on Robbins and claims, it might be a good place to start. ----Action potential t c 04:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it should have a neutral tone that reflects what's been written in reliable secondary sources. That's what an encyclopedia article does. See WP:NPOV and WP:V. Rray (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I meant a NPOV with a NPOV#Fairness of tone. What do you consider the most reliable/authoritative source(s) for information about Robbins? ----Action potential t c 03:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, but I know that his own publications shouldn't considered reliable sources. Rray (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There are hundreds of books which mention Anthony Robbins. Would this be acceptable? For any of the celebrity meetings it would be easy to find a secondary source to confirm/deny it. For example: according to Greg Moran, Tennis Beyond Big Shots Robbins, has coached Andre Agassi and Greg Norman for success. In sport Robbins trains people to split the game up into distinct periods and make the most of each period. references: Greg Moran, (2006) "Tennis Beyond Big Shots". See also p.84 of SHAM. ----Action potential t c 13:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course those would be acceptable. Secondary sources are sources that aren't written and/or published by Tony Robbins or someone he's in business with. I don't doubt that reliable secondary sources exist. They just need to be added to the article. Rray (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
An aside: don't confuse "secondary sources" with "3rd-party sources". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

More information on the books/CDs please![edit]

I see that there has been an exhaustive discussion above about all sorts of pros and cons of Tony Robbins and what empirical research underpins his philosophies. I have a more practical interest (as, I suspect, do most readers). I have been offered some Tony Robbins CDs on Trademe (like ebay). But I don't know the difference between "personal power" and "personal power II" and "Get the edge" etc etc. Does one build on the other? Or supplant it? Wikipedia seemed to me the perfect place to find out that sort of information. I am disappointed to not be able to learn anything along these lines. I see there is a page on Personal Power, which is all of 4 sentences long.

I (and, I am sure, many other readers) would be REALLY grateful if those who knew would be willing to post either separate articles on Tony's books and CD's, or else include them in the bio. I really don't care which. I would just like the information. And I'd be really grateful -- if someone did post that information -- to not have someone else delete it because it was deemed to be commercial or biased.

I have no politics or agenda. I am not a tony fan; I am not a tony critic. I just want to learn more. Almost always Wikipedia is the place I can go to to do that learning. For now, however, it is not.

Help, please??? :) 125.238.45.167 (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was logged in for the above posting. I am: Boxter1977 (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why change his surname?[edit]

Why did Anthony change his surname?

According to the A&E biography of him, Robbins was the surname of one of several stepfathers he had growing up. Of all his stepfathers, Robbins Sr. was Tony's favorite, so he took his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.197.108.180 (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC) [1]
What is the "J." in "Anthony J. Mahavorick"? MaynardClark (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

I removed this para as being an anonymous commentator from a personal website, it fails Reliable Source & Notability. Ashmoo (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Another participant who attended an "Unleash the Power Within" seminar and describes himself as "a former journalist" who is "greatly aware of being skeptical in all situations," writes: "To the critics who jumped on the bandwagon and then regretted it, where was your skepticism then? If all it takes is a weekend to get you excited enough to part with $10,000, then I'd have to say (a) some part of you got something out of it, and (b) you're looking for someone else to place the responsibility on."

He concludes: "....I found value in the program, and ... I'm a natural skeptic. Some people are going to go, and hate it. Some people left by the 2nd day, and some on the 3rd. But everyone who stayed all the way through, I found, had a pretty rewarding experience. And I find it beyond insulting to think that everyone there was misled, stupid and/or ignorant enough to be mindlessly swayed as is being suggested."[2]

References

  1. ^ http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/tony-robbins-744.php
  2. ^ [1]Reviews of Tony Robbins. Retrieved July 4th, 2008.

Agree. This commentary absolutely fails the reliable secondary source test. FinFangFoom (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight:
Michael Mattox has a blog, and he writes of his own experiences at a Robbins event. He, somehow, is an "anonymous commentator from a personal website." The "Amazing (Hack! Hack! Cough! Cough!) Randi" publishes in a blog, SOMEONE ELSE'S "anonymous commentary," but somehow Randi is a secondary source for it?????
And what does this person say, other than that he experienced "buyer's remorse," and that this is somehow Robbins' fault??? And that's worthy of inclusion???
NO.
What you are doing is cherry-picking. What I find here is that the least credible criticism is included, and that material favorable to Robbins is held to a far more rigorous and unfair standard. Your bias is clearly showing.
If Randi can report what is, in fact "hearsay." Does Randi KNOW that Michael Roes actually attended this seminar? No. He just knows what Mr. Roes told him, and he published it. Who IS Michael Roes? What credibility does he have that Michael Mattux does not, other than that he wrote to Randi instead of publishing it in his own blog?
NO.

Your bias is clearly showing. I am "undoing" your change until you can explain, in an unbiased, rational way, how Michael Roes passes the "Reliable Source and Notability" test but Michael Mattux does not.MasterPrac (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me attempt to explain my position to you once again. James Randi is a professional skeptic, he has a wikipedia article and is widely known as a debunker and critic of various new-age philosophies, of which NLP is one. As such, quoted commentary from Randi is entirely appropriate for this article.
On the other hand, you attempt to balance this criticism with a quote from a non-notable photographer who just happened to attend a Robbins seminar and blogged about it. This, at a minimum, fails the Wikipedia Undue Weight provision WP:UNDUE which I suggest you familiarize yourself with. If you continue to disagree with my interpretation, I suggest we open a Request for Comment. I don't dispute that there might be favorable commentary regarding Robbins seminars in existence, your source simply fails the notablity test. FinFangFoom (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. You write, though, that Randi is a "Professional Skeptic." I don't know that anyone actually pays him to be skeptical, but we'll leave that be for now. The issue I have is that Randi did not attend that seminar: Michael Roes did. Who is this Michael Roes, whom Randi gives space to in his blog? Is Michael Roes any less "non-notable" than Michael Mattux? What makes Michael Roes' account of attending the seminar any more or less credible than Michael Mattux's account?
Remember, Randi's blog is only the vehicle that Michael Roes used to publish his account. If Michael Mattux sent in something for Randi to publish on Randi's blog, would that make Michael Mattux any more or less "notable?"
You see, that's what I don't get. Randi publishes "hearsay" on his blog -- he doesn't know that Roes actually went to the seminar, he just publishes what Roes sent to him because it serves Randi's purposes. Mr. Mattux also purports to have gone to the seminar, and this is his account. You have stated why you believe that Mr. Mattux's account is not admissable. You have NOT shown me how Mr. Roes account has any more weight.
So, if Mattux is a "Non-notable," with "Undue Weight," then so is Roes. If one is unacceptable, you really need to show me how the other is not.
I am truly open minded here -- really -- so these are not rhetorical statements. If you can convince me of this, I will stand aside.MasterPrac (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I would have to agree with MasterPrac on this issue. Randi doesn't appear to be taking editorial control over the "article" by Michael Roes. And so I don't see why it should be given more weight than a self-published blog. And if we're going to include the negative things that Roes writes we should probably also include some part of the positive comment that he starts off with:

"We regard the UPW as a great value and would recommend it to anyone who wants to make the most of their one-and-only precious life! Hell, we went for it: We've got some of Tony's nutritional formula, we're working through his CD sets, we're off the meat and dairy, and we've even signed up for the big $10,000 Mastery University program — complete with AR-Logo baseball caps — and we are looking forward to our trip to Fiji in November!

I actually think including his overall positve impression of the workshop would give his critism more weight. And it would be the more accurate thing to do. Hoping To Help (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

POV and not referenced : Not having meat is guaranteed good for you.[edit]

I'm removing this:

"On this ground, there is no doubt whatsoever that a "Robbins" diet that is heavily filled with healthy foods, particularly organic in nature and lacking in meat will produce vibrant human bodies."

Because it's POV and lacks any reference. Hoping To Help (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

POV[edit]

Tony took on the surname of Jim Robbins, his first stepfather who was also a con artist.

The following section implies that Tony Robbins is a con artist.

Richardkselby (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Interviews[edit]

I just cleaned the links in this article up per WP:EL and there were some interview links which could be used to add content to the article, since they would be reliable sources. I've listed them below if anybody wants to use them to work on the article.

ThemFromSpace 17:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

AIDS denialism?[edit]

I found a few references on him denying HIV is connected to AIDS (AIDS denialism). The most relevant source is his support for Christine Maggiore's book, though I haven't been able to confirm this by Tony's sources. Ref: http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/top_bar_pages/whatif_eng.html. I've read a customer review that he makes this claim on one of his audio tapes (http://www.amazon.ca/Powertalk-Power-Paradox-Anthony-Robbins/dp/1559272678). Can anyone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.166.15.229 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Robbins quotes some ideas by Peter Duesberg and gets backed up by Deepak Chopra in the interview section. Basically, the idea is that HIV may relate to AIDS, it can destroy less of the human immune system than the body can repair immediately, AIDS itself is not deadly (well...true, but misleading), AIDS serves as a catalag for multiple (500? not fully sure) symptoms and the fear of it (which is enhanced by media and doctors) is the true reasons for most deaths, because the subconscious believe of death weakens the immune system. But - the tapes are pretty old, it may be useful to check if Robbins is still into this new age Pseudoscience. CyborgJesus (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Activist (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The relevant materials where he denies that HIV causes AIDS are:
  • The 'Living Health' tape series
  • The interview with Deepak Chopra
  • The 'Live With Passion' tape series, Disc 2, tracks 7 & 8

He also denies germ theory in general, for all diseases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.197.108.180 (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Text Removed[edit]

The text below has been removed because the alleged sources consist of links to a misc video page. If reliable sources can be found the text can go back in the article.

References

Category people with acromegaly[edit]

Is there any source for this? Granted he is big and tall, but does he have this specific disease? I'm removing the category unless a WP:RS can be found. Needless to say this is a possible BLP vios issue.--Wlmg (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should be removed unless it has a reliable source.--KeithbobTalk 17:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Needs an Overhaul[edit]

With all due respect to the editors who have worked on this article, it is poorly written and needs a complete re-write in my opinion. It is disjointed, and lacks integration. One problem is that the info is arranged by random topics instead of chronologically. There is no indication of how this person's live and career developed. Instead we have fragmented sections and sentences. Any suggestions or comments?--KeithbobTalk 15:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Biographies are almost always improved by making their outlines more chronological, IMO.   Will Beback  talk  19:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Examples include the following source sites.[52][53][54][55][56][57][58][55][59][56][60][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] [68][69][70][71][72][73][74][edit]

This is bizarre. You only need one footnote and then you list your sources there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree, trimming it down. Besides, this article is about the person, not the organization. --Muhandes (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal life[edit]

I edited this page as there are some glaring omissions with regards to Tony Robbins and his marriages. His marriage to Becky Robbins was not finalized until June 21, 20001. He married Sage Robbins soon thereafter [nee Bonnie Humphries]. His daughter Jolie did not invite him to her wedding in the wake of the divorce from her mother and no longer speaks to him. She uses her mother's maiden name Jolie Jenkins in her acting career. This is all easily verifiable information [the Vancouver Sun defamation lawsuit filed by Tony Robbins] and you can go to Jolie Jenkins Wiki page to see that she is no longer known as Jolie Robbins.

I am sure that some Robbins friend/employee/fan will come along and edit this page to make Tony look like a dedicated husband and father. But there is nothing defamatory in my edits. The original page was inaccurate in terms of when Tony and Becky actually divorced and his relationship with his children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa kristin1 (talkcontribs) 04:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

To say I am a Robbins friend/employee/fan is ridiculous. I never heard of him until today. The fact is, you are adding personal information, with potential defamatory content, to a biography of a living person, without reliable sources. We can't have that. Wiki pages and other self published sources cannot be used. If you are saying this is "easily verifiable information", easily verify it. Just link the sources and I'll even do that for you.--Muhandes (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure you have never heard of Tony Robbins or his estrangement from his daughter Jolie Jenkinns "until today." That's why his Wiki profile is so dumbed down. People like you who will do anything to protect his image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa kristin1 (talkcontribs) 04:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Read my user page, have a look at my contribution history, see how ridiculous is what you claim, and then, when you are done apologizing for the groundless accusations you are throwing around, you can bring some reliable sources, and we can work on improving the article together. Or don't, in which case it will probably stay as it is. Your choice. --Muhandes (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"That's why his Wiki profile is so dumbed down. People like you who will do anything to protect his image." Wikipedia isn't about image, positive or negative. It is a collection of factual information (verified), hence the "Pedia" as in encyclopedia, without bias or opinion. While some of the information you listed may be true and factual, it is not verifiable, not relevent in an encyclepedia style reporting and is phrased to point toward a certain opinion or bias, as in to make a personal point. The fact that he is divorced (the date etc.) is relevent to an encyclediac listing. The personal and emotional stuff is not. 24.255.234.72 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Vegetarian; Vegan; Rawfooder

At some point in the past of Tony Robbins it was claimed that Tony Robbins was a rawfood vegan. Can this claim be validated? MaynardClark (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Seat in Life[edit]

The height claimed by/for Tony Robbins is 6'7" or 2 meters 1 cm. He talks about using 'mostly psychology' in his well-packed seminars, but has any psychologist analyzed the popularity among others and worldly (financial) success of Tony Robbins and claims in terms of his considerable height? MaynardClark (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Undeleted Wikipedia Article Useful?[edit]

I found both the deleted and undeleted positions of the Wikipedia article useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.201.80 (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Fire-walking spin-doctoring[edit]

A single-purpose account has sprung up, repeatedly offering a OR-based edit to minimize the event. For example, "'Out of more than 6000 seminar participants, fire services in San Jose had to treat 21 people who suffered burns while firewalking at a Tony Robbins motivational event on July 19, 2012.'"[3]

I'm assuming we will be updating the articles on the movie theater shooting to explain that the 12 deaths were out of thousands of people who went that night? Or, perhaps, we'll state the number of Americans who were not killed on September 11, 2001?

So far, the editor in question has ignored all requests for discussion on their talk page and in edit summaries. Additionally, they have made no talk page comments and have refused to use edit summaries.

Next steps include blocking the editor and/or semi-protecting the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two accounts, CPESQS and RRIESQ, that appear to have been created specifically to present biased information regarding the alleged firewalking injuries. Would it be OK to remove some of these changes to make the section readable again? Destro (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Without making any comment about the editors you name, it is always valid to be bold and remove POV edits and OR edits, provided it can be demonstrated that this is what is being done. It is always best to replace such items with items that are cited, or to prune back POV to a level where it is something that is backed with a citation. If it is simply a difference of opinion, and I have not examined the article to see, then you are wiser to step back and let neutral heads prevail. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Describing course content vs. writing an encyclopedic entry[edit]

A summary of one of Robbins' topics sourced to Robbins is not unbiased encyclopedic content about Robbins. Please find independent reliable sources for the material you wish to add. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Net worth[edit]

Shall we mention his net worth?--88.111.129.157 (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Height[edit]

6' 7" - What is the height of Tony Robbins?[http://www.celebheights.com/s/Tony-Robbins-3030.html Celebrity heights: Tony Robbins MaynardClark (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page isn't great, but I'm quite sure CSD G11 doesn't apply. In the worst case scenario, you could just stub it. Robbins is a best-selling writer and easily satisfies the GNG. --Zagalejo^^^ 15:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Career - vague uncited statement about training[edit]

This section says that he taught classes in this/that ...after training with NLP co-founder.... This could mean (especially in this domain) that he merely took a class given by the person mentioned. If, as the text implies, he was personally trained by said person there should be a citation. If not, the sentence should be rewritten. Arbalest Mike (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Tolly Burken[edit]

Steve Consalvez boldly added a promotional bit about Tolly Burken teaching Robbins the basic physics of fire walking. We have been through this before, somewhere. I'm not sure whether it was in this article or one of several others. After a small edit war and a one-sided discussion, we had left the material out (the COI editor, IIRC, was blocked) and life went on.

So, I reverted the addition.

Following an un-revert of the material, I am starting discussion here. Comments? - SummerPhDv2.0 18:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

We have been over this multiple times this year; apparently this Burkan person and his acolytes have a need to use multiple pages for promotion. Burkan barely survived and AfD on his page this year. Every now and again a few of the followers get together to edit war over this and other articles, and insert him into pages they feel need to mention him. The most recent consensus was to let him have his page, but to leave him out of other articles. ScrpIronIV 19:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe I was involved in a dicussion over this exact issue some time ago, but i don't recall where. Any links for prior ... um ... flare-ups? - SummerPhDv2.0 19:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Largely on the Firewalking page, I recall a significant edit war in April (which I was not involved in) and the time I was involved was in October of this year. It had been stable since then. Now the IP who claims to be Burkan is referring to the status quo as vandalism, even now. ScrpIronIV 19:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

So far, this is a one-sided discussion. The editor(s) in favor of adding the content are insisting that their bold change must remain. He (they?) is insisting reverts (pending discussion, per WP:BRD) are vandalism (WP:VANDALISM disagrees) and disruption. (It's remarkable that editors with very few edits know Wikipedia's terminology so well.)

Those opposed to the addition are here on the talk page. Incidentally, we've been through this before. For the moment, I've requested page protection. (We've done this before for this same issue.) Next up will be blocks. (Again.)

In a nutshell, contrary to the conflicted editor's claims, Burken is not a significant piece of Robbins' life. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Steve Consalvez and 73.12.138.134 have been blocked for one week and one month, respectively. The IP self-identifies as Burken. Steve Consalvez is likely a sock puppet or meat puppet. Barring additional puppets, we should have a bit of a break before there is either discussion or additional COI edit warring. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tony Robbins. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 07:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I, Jenna Uszenski (Juszenski), am making request edits for my client, Tony Robbins, on behalf of my agency, JConnelly. Juszenski (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Additions/Changes[edit]


I, Jenna Uszenski (Juszenski), am making request edits for my client, Tony Robbins, on behalf of my agency, JConnelly.

Please see additions and deletions below with rewritten content and supporting citations as footnotes.

Rather than trying to deconstruct all of that, I'd like to suggest you partialize this. Your efforts seem to be aimed at essentially rewriting the entire article. As a conflicted editor, that is likely to be problematic. (For example, the opening "Through his personal development audio, video and life training programs, Robbins has impacted more than 50 million people from 100 countries. Approximately 4 million people have attended his live seminars." is clearly written on behalf of Robbins, while Wikipedia aims to be more objective.
I would suggest that breaking it down into smaller bites that we can address one by one: Pick something you feel should be added, removed or reworded, explain why and provide a source. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Edit request

INTRODUCTION COPY[edit]

Please add the below copy to Tony Robbins introduction, supporting evidence is provided in footnote.

"Tony Robbins (born Anthony J. Maharovich, February 29, 1960) is an American life coach, author, entrepreneur and philanthropist.

Through his personal development audio, video and life training programs, Robbins has impacted more than 50 million people from 100 countries. Approximately 4 million people have attended his live seminars.

Robbins has advised and counseled Fortune 500 CEOs, elite coaches and athletes, actors, musicians and international leaders, including three U.S. Presidents. Notable individuals Robbins has worked with include Bill Clinton[1], Wayne Gretzky, Serena Williams[2], Hugh Jackman and Pitbull.[3]

He has also counseled American businessmen Peter Guber, Steve Wynn and Marc Benioff[4] and was named one of the “Top 50 Business Intellectuals” by Accenture[5] and one of the “Top 200 Business Gurus” by the Harvard Business Press[6].

Robbins became well known through his infomercials and personal-development books Unlimited Power and Awaken the Giant Within. In 2014, inspired by the financial crisis that cost many Americans their retirement savings[7], he published Money: Master the Game, which reached #1 on the New York Times best-selling list in December[8].

Robbins has founded companies in the areas of life strategy, media production, hospitality, health & wellness products and financial services, the total of which earns approximately $6 billion in annual sales. In 2015 he was listed #49 on the Worth Magazine Power 100 list[9]. His net worth is estimated at $480 million.[10]

In 2014, Robbins partnered with Feeding America to match donations and provide 100 million meals to Americans in need by the end of 2015[11]. He has pledged to do the same in 2016 and has pledged to feed 1 billion in the next five years."


CONTENTS[edit]

Change the order of content sections to reflect below (1 through 10) Please add a section for "Teaching," supporting content and citations below Change "Celebrity Status" to "Television & Film" Remove "Associated People", and change "Controversies" to "Legal" and titles, supporting documents within

1. Early life 2. Career 3. Authorship 4. Teachings 5. Philanthropy 6. Television & film 7. Legal 8. Personal life 9. References 10. External links


Teachings[edit]

Please add the additional content section for Tony Robbins teaching efforts.

“Throughout his writings, seminars and speeches Robbins espouses viewpoints, techniques and other practices he asserts can help adherents improve their lives. Among these are methods he calls the “controlling state” and “neuro-associative conditioning.” He speaks a great deal about various “human needs, influences that affect people, the power of making decisions” and the need to achieve “emotional mastery.” He has said that to live an extraordinary life, you must master two things: “the science of achievement” and “the art of fulfillment.”[27]

In addition to his teachings on personal performance, Robbins holds multiple seminars annually. These seminars include Unleash the Power Within, Date with Destiny, Life and Wealth Mastery, Business Mastery and Leadership Academy[28]. He has identified seven “keys to business mastery”: create raving fan customers and culture; know where you really are and create an effective business map; strategic innovation; world-class marketing; sales mastery systems; financial and legal analysis; and optimization and maximization of people and processes[29].

Energy: The Fuel of Excellence, a chapter in Unlimited Power, is dedicated to a discussion of health and energy. It endorses the Fit For Life program of Harvey and Marilyn Diamond, food combining, and deep breathing. Robbins refers to Harvey and Marilyn Diamond as his “former partners.”[21]

Later in his career, in his audio product Living Health, Robbins changed his teachings on health slightly. He attributes this change to the influence of Robert O. Young. In Living Health, he endorses natural hygiene, the alkaline diet, live blood analysis, and the works of Peter Duesberg and Antoine Béchamp.


Philanthropy[edit]

Please add a clause after the first sentence, “to make a significant difference in the quality of life for the youth, homeless and hungry, prisoners, elderly and disabled.[30]” Add a statement about the organization, “One of the foundation’s programs is the International Basket Brigade, in which groups of volunteers across the world assemble and deliver baskets of food and household items to needy families.[30]” Add copy about Feeding America and Robbins efforts through book profits, “The combined donation fed 100 million needy people in 2014-15 according to the charity[11]. Robbins is partnering with the charity again in 2016 to provide 100 million more meals.”

“In 1991 Robbins founded the Anthony Robbins Foundation, a charity dedicated to empowering individuals and organizations to make a significant difference in the quality of life for the youth, homeless and hungry, prisoners, elderly and disabled.[30] According to the Foundation, it has products and programs in more than 2,000 schools, 700 prisons, and 100,000 health and human service organizations.[31] One of the foundation’s programs is the International Basket Brigade, in which groups of volunteers across the world assemble and deliver baskets of food and household items to needy families.[30] Independent charity watchdog Charity Navigator gives the Anthony Robbins Foundation a rating of four out of four stars.[31]

In 2014, Robbins donated the profits of his book Money: Master the Game along with an additional personal donation to Feeding America. The combined donation fed 100 million needy people in 2014-15 according to the charity[11]. Robbins is partnering with the charity again in 2016 to provide 100 million more meals. “


Television and Film[edit]

Please change the section title to “Television and Film” from “Celebrity Status” Rewrite the first sentence to encompass all of Robbins appearances rather than just Shallow Hal Add a section about Robbins documentary on Netflix, Date with Destiny

“Robbins has played cameo roles in the movies Reality Bites, The Cable Guy, and Shallow Hal. He also appeared in three episodes of The Roseanne Show and an episode of The Sopranos.[32] He plays himself in the 2010 film The Singularity Is Near: A True Story about The Future.

He was lampooned in episode 22 of season 3 of Family Guy.[33] In a scene in Men In Black, Robbins can be seen on an array of screens which monitor aliens masquerading as humans.

In July 2010 NBC debuted Breakthrough with Tony Robbins, a reality show that followed Robbins as he helped the show’s participants face their personal challenges.[34][35] NBC canceled the show, after airing two of the planned six episodes, due to low viewership of 2.8 million.[36] In March 2012 the OWN Network picked the show up for another season beginning with the original first season set to re-run and thereafter leading directly into the new 2012 season.[37]

In April 2012 Robbins began co-hosting Oprah's Lifeclass on the OWN Network.[38]

In 2015, acclaimed documentarian Joe Berlinger directed and produced a documentary film about the Tony Robbins’ event Date with Destiny after filming it in Boca Raton, Florida in December 2014. It premiered at the South by Southwest film festival in 2016 and won the Audience Favorite award at AmDocs in Palm Springs. The documentary was translated into languages for 190 countries and released by Netflix on July 15, 2016.”


Legal[edit]

Please change the “Controversies” title to “Legal” Updated and rewritten copy with supporting evidence below,

“In May 1995, Robbins Research International (RRI) settled with the Federal Trade Commission over alleged violations of the agency’s Franchise Rule.[23] Under the settlement, RRI was not found to have violated any law and agreed to pay $221,260 in consumer redress.[39]

Wade Cook sued Robbins for allegedly using copyrighted terms from Cook’s book Wall Street Money Machine in Robbin’s seminars. A jury awarded Cook a $665,900 judgment, which was appealed[40]. Cook and Robbins later settled for an undisclosed amount.[41] *

In 2001, the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that The Vancouver Sun had defamed Robbins when it called him an "adulterous, wife-stealing hypocrite" and the court awarded Robbins $20,000 in damages and his legal costs.[42][43]

In July 2012, the San Jose Mercury News published a story reporting that multiple people had been burned and hospitalized during one of Robbins' firewalking events on July 19, 2012. This story was picked up by other media outlets, including Fox News. These reports were later retracted as inaccurate.[33] A similar corrective article was published by The Huffington Post.[34][35]

On June 24, 2016 thousands of people attending Unleash the Power Within in Dallas, Texas accomplished the firewalk, and it was reported that “dozens were burned and required medical attention.”.[36] Several attendees were transported to medical facilities to treat burns, and a bus was used as a staging-area for between 30 and 40 people who were less seriously hurt.

Similar to the 2012 incident, several media outlets ran the same story. Soon after, other facts where reported: “Someone unfamiliar with the process of the firewalk called 911 reporting the need for emergency services vehicles […] there was no need for emergency personnel […only 5 of 7,000 participants requested an examination beyond what was readily available on site.[CITE THIS SOURCE: http://www.inc.com/bill-carmody/false-alarm-at-tony-robbins-dallas-seminar.html]

CNN also reported that more than 1.5 million people have firewalked over the past 35 years, and less than one-half of one percent have had some blisters or hotspots afterward, and they quickly recover. Several other participants shared their positive experiences on the Huffington Post and Inc. Magazine, also observing that many of those with burns had stopped on the hot coals to take selfies.

According to Robbins' website, the "fire walk" is intended to help people conquer their fears by walking across hot coals. It takes place during the "Turn Fear Into Power" portion of the event, and is entirely optional.”

REFERENCES 1. Yakowicz, Will. “Why Bill Clinton has Tony Robbins on Speed Dial” Inc.com. Retrieved 16 Feb 2016. 2. Youngmisuk, Ohm. “Hot coals is a walk in the park for Tuck” ESPN. 3. Ryan Seacrest interview: Pitbull Motivated For Success By Tony Robbins, Addicted2SuccessTV. 4. O'Keefe, Brian (30 October 2014). "Tony Robbins, The CEO Whisperer". FORTUNE. Retrieved 20 April 2015. 5. “Accenture Study Yields Top 50 ‘Business Intellectuals’ Ranking of Top Thinkers and Writer on Management Topics,” Accenture newsroom, May 2002. 6. Harvard Business Press, “Top 200 Business Gurus” Retrieved from Forbes, Dec 2013. 7. Hellmich, Nanci (10 December 2014). "Tony Robbins' 7 steps to financial freedom in retirement". USA Today. Retrieved 15 July 2015. 8. "Best Sellers: December 14, 2014". The New York Times. Retrieved 15 July 2015. 9. Worth Power 100, Worth Magazine, December 2015. 10. Kirkham, Elyssa. “Money Secrets from Tony Robbins” November 7, 2015. CNN Money. 11. “Tony Robbins Provides Millions More Meals to Feeding America to Help Families in Need” Feeding America. 12 November 2015. 12. “Who Inspires Tony Robbins?” SUCCESS Magazine, 4 December 2014. 13. Robbins, A., Awaken the Giant Within: How to Take Immediate Control of Your Mental, Emotional, Physical and Financial Destiny, 1992. ISBN 0-671-79154-0 14. Jason Fell (21 January 2014). "Tony Robbins on the Importance of Being Fearless". Entrepreneur.com. Retrieved 11 August 2015. 15. "Guthy-Renker Corporation,” International Directory of Company Histories. Ed. Karen Hill. Vol. 119. Detroit: St. James Press, 2011. Shawna Brynildssen and Dawn M. Smith. 16. Granberry, Michael. (1 October 1991). "A True Believer: Tony Robbins Has Attracted Converts – and Critics – to His Positive-Thinking Empire". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 11 August 2015. 17. Robbins, Anthony (2005). Leadership Academy Manual. San Diego, California: Robbins Research International, Inc. p. 3. 18. "The 20 most-watched TED Talks as of August 2012 | TED Blog". Blog.ted.com. Retrieved 2013-09-28. 19. "Robbins-Madanes Center for Strategic Intervention Products". Robbins-Madanes Center. Retrieved October 10, 2011. 20. O’Keefe, Brian. “Dream team? Magic Johnson, Mia Hamm, Tony Robbins, among deep-pocketed investors betting on soccer in L.A.” FORTUNE. 30 October 2014. 21. Robbins, A (1987) Unlimited Power. Publisher: Fawcett Columbine (Ballantine Books) ISBN 0-449-90280-3 22. Moryl, John (1986). "Unlimited Power" Library Journal 111, no. 13: 158. 23. "Unlimited Power: The New Science Of Personal Advancement". Magill Book Reviews. January 1990. 24. "Book Review Desk; 7". The New York Times. 8 December 1991. 25. "Self-help guru Tony Robbins tackles financial advice". Chicago Tribune. 27 November 2014. Retrieved 15 July 2015. 26. Forbes, Steve. “Here's That Rarity – Money-Making, Money-Saving Investment Advice That's Worth Paying For,” Forbes.com. 1 December 2014. 27. Robbins, Tony. “12 Keys to an Extraordinary Quality of Life” LinkedIn Influencer. 26 January 2016. 28. Heller, Karen. “Tony Robbins, self-help guru, is larger than life” The Washington Post, 1 December 2014. 29. Fell, Jason. “Tony Robbins on the 7 ‘Forces’ of Business Mastery” Entrepreneur.com. 23 December 2013. Retrieved 16 February 2016. 30. "Our Mission". Anthony Robbins Foundation. Retrieved 15 July 2015. 31. Charity Navigator (2013). "Anthony Robbins Foundation". Charity Navigator Ratings. Retrieved January 4, 2014. 32. Tony Robbins, Internet Movie Database, Retrieved February 2016. 33. "Tony Robbins Hungry". YouTube. 2012-06-13. Retrieved 2013-09-28. 34. Schneider, Michael (February 9, 2009). "Variety: "NBC Picks Up Breakthrough with Tony Robbins"". Variety.com. Retrieved October 17, 2011. 35. "Breakthrough with Tony Robbins to Debut July 27". TVGuide.com. 36. "Tony Robbins' series pulled from NBC schedule". 37. "Tony Robbins, Parts 1 and 2". Oprah.com. 2012-02-19. 38. Gallo, Carmine (February 24, 2012). "How Tony Robbins Gets in Peak State for Presentations" Forbes.com. 39. Federal Trade Commission (1995). "Anthony Robbins Agrees to Pay More than $220,000 in Consumer Redress to Settle Alleged Franchise Rule Violations". Federal Trade Commission. Retrieved September 20, 2007. 40. "Wade Cook Jury Award vs. Tony Robbins Upheld by 9th Circuit Court.".thefreelibrary.com. 41. St. Louis Post-Dispatch Morning Briefing. From Bloomberg News, Associated Press and Business News Reports. 23 January 2001. 42. "2005 BCSC 1634 Robbins v. Pacific Newspaper Group Inc. et al". Courts.gov.bc.ca. Retrieved October 17, 2011. 43. Mickleburgh, Rod – with a report from Oliver Moore. “Robbins defamed by Sun, court rules” The Globe and Mail, 29 November 2005. 44. Kurhi, Eric; Gomez, Mark (July 21, 2012). "San Jose: 21 people treated for burns after firewalk at Tony Robbins appearance". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved July 22, 2012. 45. Doocy, Steve (August 8, 2012). "Fox News". 46. Schnall, Marianne (July 31, 2012). "Tony Robbins Sets the Record Straight About Fire Walk 'Controversy'". Huffington Post. Retrieved August 7, 2012. 47. "Tony Robbins: An Awakened Giant Within… Life & Lessons". One Life Success. 1 May 2014. Retrieved 11 August 2015. 48. Robbins, Anthony J. (2002). "Business Leader Profiles for Students". pp. 390–394. 49. Tony Robbins’ True Love, OWN, Oprah.com video. Retrieved 16 February 2016. 50. “Tony Robbins larger than life” The Miami Herald, 15 December 2014. Juszenski (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

==Some Propsed Changes== Infobox Update[edit]


I, Jenna Uszenski (Juszenski), am making request edits for my client, Tony Robbins, on behalf of my agency, JConnelly.

This entry’s infobox was out of date, indicating that Tony Robbins is still primarily a self-help author, motivational speaker and actor, none of which are his main occupations, particularly not the latter.

The title “Life and Business Strategist” is the one most commonly used by mainstream news outlets when they introduce him for interviews. See CBS, ABC (exact quote below), FOX and Huffington Post Live.

He's one of the most respected life and business strategists in the world. But it wasn't always that way. The bestselling self-help author launched his career as the infomercial pitchman.

He is admittedly very well-known as an Author, with decades-worth of personal development books as well as the recent personal finance book, so that is preserved.

Listed third is Entrepreneur, as he “owns or is a partner in several companies” and has built an estimated net worth of $480M (via TIME Money) through these holdings.

Philanthropist is warranted (see updated Philanthropy section for full proof points and citations.)

Finally, Robbins’ birth name is spelled Maharovich, with an “h” at the end. Juszenski (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox seems updated when looking at it now. Providing some sources for the birth name would be great. Regards, VB00 (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Some Proposed Changes[edit]


I, Jenna Uszenski (Juszenski), am making request edits for my client, Tony Robbins, on behalf of my agency, JConnelly.

Please see additions and deletions below as rewritten content with supporting citations as footnotes.

Edit request

Early life[edit]

Please remove the first two sentences of the second paragraph, there is no evidence of Tony's parents well-being in regards to financial support and abuse of alcohol and drugs. Add that Robbins worked as a handyman to help provide for his siblings at the end of the second paragraph. Add during high school to the start of the third paragraph. Remove that Tony's mother chased him out of the house with a knife due to no supporting evidence.

"Robbins was born Anthony J. Mahavorich in North Hollywood, California, on February 29, 1960. His surname was originally spelled 'Mohorović' and is of Croatian origin. Robbins is the eldest of three children and his parents divorced when he was 7. His mother then had a series of husbands, including Jim Robbins, a former semi-professional baseball player who legally adopted Anthony when he was 12.

Robbins was raised in Azusa and Glendora, California, and attended Glendora High School. He was elected student body president in his senior year. While growing up, Robbins worked as a handyman to help provide for his siblings.

During high school, Robbins grew 10 inches, a growth spurt later attributed to a pituitary tumor. Robbins has said his home life was “chaotic” and “abusive,” and when he was 17 years old, he left home and never returned. Robbins later worked as a janitor, and did not attend college[4]."


Personal life[edit]

Rewrite the section in chronological and correct order: 1984 he had a son with former girlfriend, then in 1985 he married Becky Update the sentence on his current wife to remover her occupation

“Robbins and former girlfriend Liz Acosta had a son, Jairek Robbins, who is a personal empowerment trainer, in 1984.[47]

Later the following year, in 1985, he married Rebecca “Becky” Jenkins, after meeting her at a seminar. Jenkins had three previous children and the couple later divorced.[48]

He married Bonnie Humphrey, now known as Sage Robbins, in October 2001.[49] They reside in Palm Beach, Florida.[50]


REFERENCES 1. Yakowicz, Will. “Why Bill Clinton has Tony Robbins on Speed Dial” Inc.com. Retrieved 16 Feb 2016. 2. Youngmisuk, Ohm. “Hot coals is a walk in the park for Tuck” ESPN. 3. Ryan Seacrest interview: Pitbull Motivated For Success By Tony Robbins, Addicted2SuccessTV. 4. O'Keefe, Brian (30 October 2014). "Tony Robbins, The CEO Whisperer". FORTUNE. Retrieved 20 April 2015. 5. “Accenture Study Yields Top 50 ‘Business Intellectuals’ Ranking of Top Thinkers and Writer on Management Topics,” Accenture newsroom, May 2002. 6. Harvard Business Press, “Top 200 Business Gurus” Retrieved from Forbes, Dec 2013. 7. Hellmich, Nanci (10 December 2014). "Tony Robbins' 7 steps to financial freedom in retirement". USA Today. Retrieved 15 July 2015. 8. "Best Sellers: December 14, 2014". The New York Times. Retrieved 15 July 2015. 9. Worth Power 100, Worth Magazine, December 2015. 10. Kirkham, Elyssa. “Money Secrets from Tony Robbins” November 7, 2015. CNN Money. 11. “Tony Robbins Provides Millions More Meals to Feeding America to Help Families in Need” Feeding America. 12 November 2015. 12. “Who Inspires Tony Robbins?” SUCCESS Magazine, 4 December 2014. 13. Robbins, A., Awaken the Giant Within: How to Take Immediate Control of Your Mental, Emotional, Physical and Financial Destiny, 1992. ISBN 0-671-79154-0 14. Jason Fell (21 January 2014). "Tony Robbins on the Importance of Being Fearless". Entrepreneur.com. Retrieved 11 August 2015. 15. "Guthy-Renker Corporation,” International Directory of Company Histories. Ed. Karen Hill. Vol. 119. Detroit: St. James Press, 2011. Shawna Brynildssen and Dawn M. Smith. 16. Granberry, Michael. (1 October 1991). "A True Believer: Tony Robbins Has Attracted Converts – and Critics – to His Positive-Thinking Empire". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 11 August 2015. 17. Robbins, Anthony (2005). Leadership Academy Manual. San Diego, California: Robbins Research International, Inc. p. 3. 18. "The 20 most-watched TED Talks as of August 2012 | TED Blog". Blog.ted.com. Retrieved 2013-09-28. 19. "Robbins-Madanes Center for Strategic Intervention Products". Robbins-Madanes Center. Retrieved October 10, 2011. 20. O’Keefe, Brian. “Dream team? Magic Johnson, Mia Hamm, Tony Robbins, among deep-pocketed investors betting on soccer in L.A.” FORTUNE. 30 October 2014. 21. Robbins, A (1987) Unlimited Power. Publisher: Fawcett Columbine (Ballantine Books) ISBN 0-449-90280-3 22. Moryl, John (1986). "Unlimited Power" Library Journal 111, no. 13: 158. 23. "Unlimited Power: The New Science Of Personal Advancement". Magill Book Reviews. January 1990. 24. "Book Review Desk; 7". The New York Times. 8 December 1991. 25. "Self-help guru Tony Robbins tackles financial advice". Chicago Tribune. 27 November 2014. Retrieved 15 July 2015. 26. Forbes, Steve. “Here's That Rarity – Money-Making, Money-Saving Investment Advice That's Worth Paying For,” Forbes.com. 1 December 2014. 27. Robbins, Tony. “12 Keys to an Extraordinary Quality of Life” LinkedIn Influencer. 26 January 2016. 28. Heller, Karen. “Tony Robbins, self-help guru, is larger than life” The Washington Post, 1 December 2014. 29. Fell, Jason. “Tony Robbins on the 7 ‘Forces’ of Business Mastery” Entrepreneur.com. 23 December 2013. Retrieved 16 February 2016. 30. "Our Mission". Anthony Robbins Foundation. Retrieved 15 July 2015. 31. Charity Navigator (2013). "Anthony Robbins Foundation". Charity Navigator Ratings. Retrieved January 4, 2014. 32. Tony Robbins, Internet Movie Database, Retrieved February 2016. 33. "Tony Robbins Hungry". YouTube. 2012-06-13. Retrieved 2013-09-28. 34. Schneider, Michael (February 9, 2009). "Variety: "NBC Picks Up Breakthrough with Tony Robbins"". Variety.com. Retrieved October 17, 2011. 35. "Breakthrough with Tony Robbins to Debut July 27". TVGuide.com. 36. "Tony Robbins' series pulled from NBC schedule". 37. "Tony Robbins, Parts 1 and 2". Oprah.com. 2012-02-19. 38. Gallo, Carmine (February 24, 2012). "How Tony Robbins Gets in Peak State for Presentations" Forbes.com. 39. Federal Trade Commission (1995). "Anthony Robbins Agrees to Pay More than $220,000 in Consumer Redress to Settle Alleged Franchise Rule Violations". Federal Trade Commission. Retrieved September 20, 2007. 40. "Wade Cook Jury Award vs. Tony Robbins Upheld by 9th Circuit Court.".thefreelibrary.com. 41. St. Louis Post-Dispatch Morning Briefing. From Bloomberg News, Associated Press and Business News Reports. 23 January 2001. 42. "2005 BCSC 1634 Robbins v. Pacific Newspaper Group Inc. et al". Courts.gov.bc.ca. Retrieved October 17, 2011. 43. Mickleburgh, Rod – with a report from Oliver Moore. “Robbins defamed by Sun, court rules” The Globe and Mail, 29 November 2005. 44. Kurhi, Eric; Gomez, Mark (July 21, 2012). "San Jose: 21 people treated for burns after firewalk at Tony Robbins appearance". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved July 22, 2012. 45. Doocy, Steve (August 8, 2012). "Fox News". 46. Schnall, Marianne (July 31, 2012). "Tony Robbins Sets the Record Straight About Fire Walk 'Controversy'". Huffington Post. Retrieved August 7, 2012. 47. "Tony Robbins: An Awakened Giant Within… Life & Lessons". One Life Success. 1 May 2014. Retrieved 11 August 2015. 48. Robbins, Anthony J. (2002). "Business Leader Profiles for Students". pp. 390–394. 49. Tony Robbins’ True Love, OWN, Oprah.com video. Retrieved 16 February 2016. 50. “Tony Robbins larger than life” The Miami Herald, 15 December 2014. Juszenski (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Some Proposed Changes[edit]


I, Jenna Uszenski (Juszenski), am making request edits for my client, Tony Robbins, on behalf of my agency, JConnelly.

Please see additions and deletions below as rewritten content with supporting citations as footnotes.

Edit request

Career[edit]

Add information about Jim Rohn, “According to Robbins, Rohn taught him that “happiness and success in life are not the result of what we have, but rather of how we live. What we do with the things we have makes the biggest difference in the quality of life.”[12].” Remove statement on “without any educational background in psychology” In third paragraph add statement about on “gaining strong public recognition and lucrative sales” after TV infomercials. In third paragraph add sentence about the infomercials about on “The infomercial helped Robbins gain wide exposure and sell his Personal Power series of self-help audiotapes.” Update TED talk from 2006 to 2007 Update TED talk viewership from “As of May 2016, his talk was the seventh-most viewed TED talk” to “As of August 2012, his talk was the sixth most popular TED talk in history.” Add background information to the franchise, “currently referred to as the Los Angeles Football ClubLos Angeles FC.” Update the competition launch to 2018 from 2017

“Robbins began his career promoting seminars for Jim Rohn. According to Robbins, Rohn taught him that “happiness and success in life are not the result of what we have, but rather of how we live. What we do with the things we have makes the biggest difference in the quality of life.”[12]

Later, Robbins began his own work as a self-help coach. He taught neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) and Ericksonian Hypnosis after training with NLP co-founder John Grinder[12]. In 1983, Robbins learned to firewalk and began to incorporate it into his seminars[13]. Robbins’ usage of firewalking in his seminars is intended to help participants learn to push past their fears[14].

Robbins promoted his services as a "peak performance coach" through his books and TV infomercials, gaining strong public recognition and lucrative sales. His first infomercial, Personal Power, was released in 1988 and produced by Guthy Renker[15]. The infomercial helped Robbins gain wide exposure and sell his Personal Power series of self-help audiotapes. Early infomercials featured celebrities such as Pro Football Hall of Fame quarterback Fran Trakenton and actor Martin Sheen[16]. By 1991, an estimated 100 million Americans in 200 media markets had viewed his informercials[16].

In 1997, Robbins began the Leadership Academy seminar, in which he said participants learn to "create an identity for them self as someone who can help 'anyone', no matter what his/her challenge may be."[17] Robbins is a featured speaker on the seminar circuit sponsored by Learning Annex. Robbins appeared as a featured speaker at the 2007 Technology, Entertainment and Design (TED) conference. As of August 2012, his talk was the sixth most popular TED talk in history.[18]

Robbins is involved with the Robbins-Madanes Center for Strategic Intervention, which focuses on personal, family and organizational psychology, and claims to help people "find breakthrough strategies and solutions for overcoming the problems that confront us all."[19]

In 2014, Robbins along with a group of investors including Magic Johnson, Mia Hamm, and Peter Guber acquired rights to launch a Major League Soccer franchise in Los Angeles, California, currently referred to as the Los Angeles Football ClubLos Angeles FC. The soccer team is scheduled to begin competition in 2018.[20]”


Authorship[edit]

Add statement on Awaken the Giant Within after publish date of 1991, “was an expansion of his personal development techniques and strategies taught through a motivational self-help type approach” Make his third best seller a new paragraph and reads, “Robbins’ third best-seller, Money: Master the Game, was published in 2014 and reached number one on The New York Times’ Bestseller list in December of that year.[8] The book contains information stemming from interviews conducted by Robbins with over 50 financial experts including Charles R. Schwab, Carl Icahn, Warren Buffett, Steve Forbes, Ray Dalio, and John Bogle over the course of four years.[25] The book contains what Robbins considers the seven steps to financial freedom. According to Steve Forbes in an article in Forbes Magazine, the book’s target audience is both beginning and experienced investors.[26]”

“Robbins has written three best-selling books: Unlimited Power, Awaken the Giant Within, and Money: Master the Game.

Unlimited Power, published in 1986, discusses the topics of health and energy, overcoming fears, persuasive communication, and enhancing relationships.[21] In the book, Robbins argues that by using neuro-linguistic programming “anyone can become successful at almost anything.”[22] According to Magill Book Reviews, in the book Robbins develops “a systematic framework for directing our own brain.”[23]

Awaken the Giant Within, published in 1991, was an expansion of his personal development techniques and strategies taught through a motivational self-help type approach. According to The New York Times, the book contains “ways to take control of your emotional, physical and financial destiny.”[24] In 1994, Robbins published Giant Steps, a daily instructional book, in a small pocket size.

Robbins’ third best-seller, Money: Master the Game, was published in 2014 and reached number one on The New York Times’ Bestseller list in December of that year.[8] The book contains information stemming from interviews conducted by Robbins with over 50 financial experts including Charles R. Schwab, Carl Icahn, Warren Buffett, Steve Forbes, Ray Dalio, and John Bogle over the course of four years.[25] The book contains what Robbins considers the seven steps to financial freedom. According to Steve Forbes in an article in Forbes Magazine, the book’s target audience is both beginning and experienced investors.[26]”


See also[edit]

  • Esoteric healing
  • Group Dynamics
  • Life Coaching
  • Optimism
  • Personal Development
  • Self-help


REFERENCES 1. Yakowicz, Will. “Why Bill Clinton has Tony Robbins on Speed Dial” Inc.com. Retrieved 16 Feb 2016. 2. Youngmisuk, Ohm. “Hot coals is a walk in the park for Tuck” ESPN. 3. Ryan Seacrest interview: Pitbull Motivated For Success By Tony Robbins, Addicted2SuccessTV. 4. O'Keefe, Brian (30 October 2014). "Tony Robbins, The CEO Whisperer". FORTUNE. Retrieved 20 April 2015. 5. “Accenture Study Yields Top 50 ‘Business Intellectuals’ Ranking of Top Thinkers and Writer on Management Topics,” Accenture newsroom, May 2002. 6. Harvard Business Press, “Top 200 Business Gurus” Retrieved from Forbes, Dec 2013. 7. Hellmich, Nanci (10 December 2014). "Tony Robbins' 7 steps to financial freedom in retirement". USA Today. Retrieved 15 July 2015. 8. "Best Sellers: December 14, 2014". The New York Times. Retrieved 15 July 2015. 9. Worth Power 100, Worth Magazine, December 2015. 10. Kirkham, Elyssa. “Money Secrets from Tony Robbins” November 7, 2015. CNN Money. 11. “Tony Robbins Provides Millions More Meals to Feeding America to Help Families in Need” Feeding America. 12 November 2015. 12. “Who Inspires Tony Robbins?” SUCCESS Magazine, 4 December 2014. 13. Robbins, A., Awaken the Giant Within: How to Take Immediate Control of Your Mental, Emotional, Physical and Financial Destiny, 1992. ISBN 0-671-79154-0 14. Jason Fell (21 January 2014). "Tony Robbins on the Importance of Being Fearless". Entrepreneur.com. Retrieved 11 August 2015. 15. "Guthy-Renker Corporation,” International Directory of Company Histories. Ed. Karen Hill. Vol. 119. Detroit: St. James Press, 2011. Shawna Brynildssen and Dawn M. Smith. 16. Granberry, Michael. (1 October 1991). "A True Believer: Tony Robbins Has Attracted Converts – and Critics – to His Positive-Thinking Empire". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 11 August 2015. 17. Robbins, Anthony (2005). Leadership Academy Manual. San Diego, California: Robbins Research International, Inc. p. 3. 18. "The 20 most-watched TED Talks as of August 2012 | TED Blog". Blog.ted.com. Retrieved 2013-09-28. 19. "Robbins-Madanes Center for Strategic Intervention Products". Robbins-Madanes Center. Retrieved October 10, 2011. 20. O’Keefe, Brian. “Dream team? Magic Johnson, Mia Hamm, Tony Robbins, among deep-pocketed investors betting on soccer in L.A.” FORTUNE. 30 October 2014. 21. Robbins, A (1987) Unlimited Power. Publisher: Fawcett Columbine (Ballantine Books) ISBN 0-449-90280-3 22. Moryl, John (1986). "Unlimited Power" Library Journal 111, no. 13: 158. 23. "Unlimited Power: The New Science Of Personal Advancement". Magill Book Reviews. January 1990. 24. "Book Review Desk; 7". The New York Times. 8 December 1991. 25. "Self-help guru Tony Robbins tackles financial advice". Chicago Tribune. 27 November 2014. Retrieved 15 July 2015. 26. Forbes, Steve. “Here's That Rarity – Money-Making, Money-Saving Investment Advice That's Worth Paying For,” Forbes.com. 1 December 2014. 27. Robbins, Tony. “12 Keys to an Extraordinary Quality of Life” LinkedIn Influencer. 26 January 2016. 28. Heller, Karen. “Tony Robbins, self-help guru, is larger than life” The Washington Post, 1 December 2014. 29. Fell, Jason. “Tony Robbins on the 7 ‘Forces’ of Business Mastery” Entrepreneur.com. 23 December 2013. Retrieved 16 February 2016. 30. "Our Mission". Anthony Robbins Foundation. Retrieved 15 July 2015. 31. Charity Navigator (2013). "Anthony Robbins Foundation". Charity Navigator Ratings. Retrieved January 4, 2014. 32. Tony Robbins, Internet Movie Database, Retrieved February 2016. 33. "Tony Robbins Hungry". YouTube. 2012-06-13. Retrieved 2013-09-28. 34. Schneider, Michael (February 9, 2009). "Variety: "NBC Picks Up Breakthrough with Tony Robbins"". Variety.com. Retrieved October 17, 2011. 35. "Breakthrough with Tony Robbins to Debut July 27". TVGuide.com. 36. "Tony Robbins' series pulled from NBC schedule". 37. "Tony Robbins, Parts 1 and 2". Oprah.com. 2012-02-19. 38. Gallo, Carmine (February 24, 2012). "How Tony Robbins Gets in Peak State for Presentations" Forbes.com. 39. Federal Trade Commission (1995). "Anthony Robbins Agrees to Pay More than $220,000 in Consumer Redress to Settle Alleged Franchise Rule Violations". Federal Trade Commission. Retrieved September 20, 2007. 40. "Wade Cook Jury Award vs. Tony Robbins Upheld by 9th Circuit Court.".thefreelibrary.com. 41. St. Louis Post-Dispatch Morning Briefing. From Bloomberg News, Associated Press and Business News Reports. 23 January 2001. 42. "2005 BCSC 1634 Robbins v. Pacific Newspaper Group Inc. et al". Courts.gov.bc.ca. Retrieved October 17, 2011. 43. Mickleburgh, Rod – with a report from Oliver Moore. “Robbins defamed by Sun, court rules” The Globe and Mail, 29 November 2005. 44. Kurhi, Eric; Gomez, Mark (July 21, 2012). "San Jose: 21 people treated for burns after firewalk at Tony Robbins appearance". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved July 22, 2012. 45. Doocy, Steve (August 8, 2012). "Fox News". 46. Schnall, Marianne (July 31, 2012). "Tony Robbins Sets the Record Straight About Fire Walk 'Controversy'". Huffington Post. Retrieved August 7, 2012. 47. "Tony Robbins: An Awakened Giant Within… Life & Lessons". One Life Success. 1 May 2014. Retrieved 11 August 2015. 48. Robbins, Anthony J. (2002). "Business Leader Profiles for Students". pp. 390–394. 49. Tony Robbins’ True Love, OWN, Oprah.com video. Retrieved 16 February 2016. 50. “Tony Robbins larger than life” The Miami Herald, 15 December 2014.

Juszenski: I had previously asked that you try a more piecemeal approach as your current request is rather overwhelming. You did not respond. Your request seems to amount to: "Please change the entire article to this one, written by a conflicted editor."
I would strongly suggest you start a bit more slowly. Pick one thing that you feel should be added/reworded/removed. Explain why. Provide a source if necessary.
Wikipedia is a volunteer project. The overwhelming majority of editors are unable/unwilling to pick apart your new version and the existing version, figure out what has been added/changed/removed, determine if the explanation (where one is given) is valid and neutral and make the huge list of changes. Individual items are far more likely to receive a constructive response in a reasonable amount of time. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0:[edit]

@SummerPhDv2.0: I appreciate your help and advice. This whole process is extremely overwhelming and I am just trying to make factual updates and act ethically and honestly. I will certainly break down the edits more clearly by section. Appreciate the help! Juszenski (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think breaking the requested changes down by section is going to be helpful. Again you would be requesting a wholesale change of the article at one time. Some sections might get some attention, most would sit idle. If all of the sections are worked on at one time, it would be by an assortment of different editors creating a fairly complicated mess. Please consider starting with one smallish request at a time. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. As pointed out above, the requests are far too massive for reviewers to be able to implement them. I have tried to decline each of them based on what seems the most obvious issue. Note that ghostwriting may be a relevant essay. If you wish to correct the accuracy of the article, small changes should be proposed instead. To maximize the chances of those changes being implemented, you may want to review the edit request instructions. Regards, VB00 (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Recently added sections on Teachings and Philanthropy[edit]

Adding these moves the article from something about him to something overtly promotional. This sort of stuff belongs on his website or elsewhere but not in an encyclopedia. His actions, beliefs, thoughts, deeds etc are not encyclopedic information - even if true and cited. I am posting this here to invite comment and without serious support from non-affiliated WP contributors I will delete this content. Arbalest Mike (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I (and the rest of us) have noticed that user:SweetPotatoes is a relatively new account and has added about 10,000 bytes to THIS article in the last month. This pattern and the type of content is a hallmark of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest editing. Arbalest Mike (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I admit I have a vested interest, in the sense that I did a lot of research, and dedicated quite a bit of time to what I believe was improving the article.
As far as Philanthropy is concerned, the very first sentence in the article states that Robbins is an “American author, entrepreneur, philanthropist and life coach.” It seems reasonable to show how he is a philanthropist and we all know it’s a common practice for Wiki biographies of living people to have “Philanthropy” sections. Here are some examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Blakely#Philanthropy; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban#Philanthropy; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Hoffman#Philanthropy
For the “Teachings,” I follow examples of some well-known public speakers and teachers like Deepak Chopra, Eli Jaxon-Bear and Eckhart Tolle.
The last thing I thought needed work was the deletion of the following sentence: “Through his personal development tapes and programs, Robbins has impacted more than 50 million people across 100 countries.” This is an obviously promotional statement, with no way to prove as fact, and should be removed.
If you disagree with my above points, please explain why, and hopefully we can come to a decision that better reflects community sentiment. Ultimately, I think the page looks much better than it did a few weeks ago and I hope we can work together to continue to improve it. SweetPotatoes (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you about the sentence deletion in the lede section. I find it a little bit difficult to use purely objective statements to justify my comments above, and the ones to follow -- but I will try. This is the reality of the problem of dealing with the entire realm of self-help, success, achievement, health/alternative medicine fields. The article is already tagged as reading like an advertisement and this is a common problem with WP articles of this type.
The MOST objective way to describe Robbins is as a business-person or entrepreneur who is very successful at the indirect selling a certain set of ideas, beliefs and hopes. I say "indirect" as rather than sell this nebulous set of things, he sells books, media and admission to seminars through which the implied promise is that through these proxies you can have those other things he possesses. In order to sell these things he needs to portray himself as already having these things. And that is where the extra content in this article becomes a problem.
Also, it has become quite common for articles of these types to be edited by people with some connection to the subject and that is a violation of the WP conflict-of-interest policy. Then you come along as a relatively new contributor and add exactly the type of content that is problematic and very little else to the WP in general. However, I do believe you edits are in good faith.
I make no claim here as to whether or not his products will confer the benefits they promise their consumer (i.e., an extraordinary life via “the science of achievement” and “the art of fulfillment”). The content of the Health and Energy section could be be picked apart all day. Yet, the content of his seminars and books are taken as a given to be wisdom that will work for others (but only if you believe it enough and follow it completely). But all we know of Robbins is that his success and his philanthropy work follow directly from his ability to sell his product.
In the end, yes, there does deserve to be an article here about Robbins, but the article ought not be another vehicle he can use to sell his product.Arbalest Mike (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Arbalest Mike: I hear what you are saying, and to a large extent I agree with you, but as Wiki editors we need to separate our personal opinions about the “product” someone is selling, and the neutrality of the Wikipedia article describing the person and/or product being sold. Even if we don’t quite believe in the “products” that a person is selling, we still need to write about it in a neutral way.
I think that we need to be careful of our own biases as editors. We, as editors, need to say, “Does this article present the facts without promoting or disparaging the subject.” I spent the past few weeks trying to do this. I checked a lot of the sources. I clarified things that were not clear. I took out things that I thought were promotional. I added things to get the article to look like other articles about similar people. After you challenged me here I even had some friends look over my final product and tell me if they thought it was NPOV. Except for that one sentence in the lead, which got past me but my friends caught, they told me it was neutral. As Tony Robbins continues to do his thing, the article will grow, and more editors will add things and look it over, and keep improving it, hopefully. (Did you notice there was some minor vandalism to the article yesterday? Someone, Hayman30, already fixed the changes.)
My suggestion for moving forward is to leave the article as-is, except for the removal of that sentence in the lead, which I will do now, and let some other editors come and review it, and see where they believe improvements can be made. Thanks for your input, it helped me think more clearly about the role of wiki editors, and how we need to always improve our skills, and especially to be aware of our own implicit biases. SweetPotatoes (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
My "bias" has nothing to do with Robbins, per se. Imagine a hypothetical artist - where you don't actually see his art, but everywhere you look you hear how great it is. And a lot of those sources of information turn out to be connected to him, his comments, his writings. Then this artist becomes really successful at selling books, training classes, paint and paint brushes. Suppose he uses that money to take on some charitable work and then writes a book about, of all things, health. The artist then updates his marketing materials to imply that his books, charity work and paint brushes add to the reasons you should take his classes. Here is the question: Do you think that the WP page for that artist should summarize his books, charity work and his paint brushes? Does it make for completeness and a better encyclopedia? And what about the health claims that are widely considered nonsense -- report them here anyway because they can be properly cited? Arbalest Mike (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I will need to think about your analogy. It is certainly interesting. My immediate reaction is that even someone who's success is nothing but smoke and mirrors, if millions of people buy his stuff, even if it was all self-promoted, he would still be worthy of a Wiki article. All the more so if legitimate media outlets discuss his success, however undeserved and self-promoted it may be. As for your specific questions, I do think his books should be listed, but without a summary, as it is here (which I created from a section that DID have short descriptions.) Yes, if one of his characteristics is "philanthropist," then I think the Wiki should show how he is that. As briefly as possible. without tooting his horn. Just the facts, ma'am. I'm not sure what his "paint brushes" would be, but if he sells a lot of them, and the public thinks they are really great paint brushes, then yes, I think the WP article should say something like: "And he sold 100 million paint brushes last year, according to the Wall Street Journal" or whatever. A well-written Wiki will allow the reader to make up his own mind about the subject of the article, but I do think the basics of what makes the subject "tick," what makes him "notable" should be included in the article. Also, did you notice how much vandalism has been going on? I will not be online for the next few days to further discuss. Have a nice weekend. SweetPotatoes (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
He is definitely notable enough to warrant an article. If I felt strongly enough about the specific content I would be removing myself (the section on Health and Energy is right at/past the limit though). My concern is about the WP, not so much about him. I can live with the article as is -- it is not really my call anyway. This is a problem with that field/genre itself and I have edited other pages (including Robbins' son) to remove stuff which more clearly violates WP guidelines such as content that has been contributed by the subject themselves, is not cited or is cited indirectly by themselves (e.g., their own website, etc) and has been written to promote the one thing that they do.Arbalest Mike (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tony Robbins. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 05:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)