Talk:Tony Robbins

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tony Robbins article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Veganism and Vegetarianism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism 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.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Career section is whacky

Career section is whacky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CDA0:1060:CC57:71BA:493A:FCC (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I couldn't agree more. Has it been redacted? There's nothing about what he actually does or has done. It's like a description of a ghost. – AndyFielding (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The documentary was translated into languages for 190 countries" Did he write that himself? What is "languages for 190 countries" supposed to mean? 173.177.140.48 (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations

Is the weight given to this section Tony_Robbins#2019_sexual_harassment_and_abuse_allegations WP:DUE. Seems to be based largely on allegations made in one publication, buzzfeed (seems ok on RSP, but not really the standard I would expect). I did remove some poorly sourced content that failed WP:RSP. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems due to me, there’s plenty of coverage. Freoh (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of the coverage is from a single source BuzzFeed, or other sources covering his lawsuit against buzzfeed. Wondering out loud if this makes it due or not. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

47.158.164.11 (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Why are these allegations on Robbins Wiki? Anyone can make allegations. Why would a reader want to know about allegations someone made? This article is about Robbins, not allegations someone made toward him. The logic here is deeply flawed.[reply]

Buzzfeed sexual abuse allegations

Is this section Tony Robbins#2019 sexual harassment and abuse allegations considered WP:DUE and WP:NPOV? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

My concern is this section seems to be solely sourced on the Buzzfeed News accusations WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS (says generally reliable prior to 2019 and this is dated Posted on May 17, 2019. My concern is that the article subject has denied it, sued for defamation (dont they all) and that no other WP:RS seems to have corroborated. The only other news all cites buzzfeednews and seems to follow the lawsuit. I am concerned this could be a WP:BLP violation in its current form, but was on the fence about it, hence started this discussion. Feel free to snow close it if I am being stupid here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Section is fine. Wording is kept to a minimum. True that WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS lost personnel in 2019, but the organization is ultimately the same. Among the reporting on BFN reporting is USA Today which is surely a reliable source. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USAtoday doesnt separately report on it, they only re-iterate the buzzfeed allegations. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Reporting for USA Today, Bryan Alexander repeats the Buzzfeed News allegations, analogous to what this article does. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely the question I was asking, if one medium quality source is sufficient for this type of claim/weight. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Given it's a single source perhaps this could be summarized better, but the reporting deserves inclusion. Nemov (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, unless you can find articles supporting the accussations from other reliable parties.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As SusanLesch pointed out, there are articles supporting the accusations from other reliable parties. [1] Freoh (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the weight is comparable to similar amounts of text in the article devoted to other subsections in that section and to the "philanthropy" section (which, looking at it, has extremely weak sourcing overall and probably needs to be trimmed.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per above. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it passes WP:DUE & WP:NPOV. However, I would like to see different sources as there a lot of Buzzfeed News sources and WP:MEDIUM is generally not considered a reliable source. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grahaml35: there isn't much coverage other than BuzzFeed and there isnt any coverage that doesnt cite buzzfeed (this all being the reason I created this RFC). However, it appears snow is starting to fall here in the mountains ;-) The Medium source is really WP:PRIMARY and is the article subject's official response, which is probably DUE. I am a bit confused how one low quality publication with no other publication verifying it is DUE, but that seems to be wikipedia today. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point. Additionally, it does seem odd that Buzzfeed News is doing multiple pieces on him. However, it would not be a case of WP:V as these are just allegations. After a Google search, I found other sources such as NBC News, Chicago Sun-Times, and Vogue all reporting on it. Grahaml35 (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they are simply allegations and there is single source, then should be the section be re-named to focus the as "Buzzfeed allegations." Did the sources you mentiond state that they had spoken to the people alleging? For example in Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases (I think before the article was called allegations) I believe most of the victims had interviews in many different publications, so in that case we could put the allegations in wikivoice. If we are only regurgitating the allegations of Buzzfeed, we probably should state that here in the article section name. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the weight is comparable to similar amounts of text in the article devoted to other subsections per Aquillion. Pincrete (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per myself elsewhere on this page. Polygnotus (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can he help me

Can he help me chase Mira 166.181.82.190 (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, but my cows probably can. – AndyFielding (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Method

is there any criticism against his method? like is is scientific? is it effective? is it enduring? Bentzion T. (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed, what method? There's nothing about it here. How does someone turn up without any sort of training or certification, proclaim oneself a mass improver of lives, make a zillion bucks, then disappear without a trace? Being tall is probably a plus. – AndyFielding (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5 children

Article says he adopted 3, fathered 1 with a girlfriend & also lists him as a father of 5. Isn’t there a gap of 1? Frenchmalawi (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

I've never seen such a blatant hatchet job. Wow. 12.171.249.130 (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's often the case on this site, but what specifically are you talking about in this case? --FMSky (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its a bummer that these 'allegations' end up on all these WP:BLPs, some with little foudation other than one press piece. This one is just a buzzfeed expose that got picked up by other sources and regurgitated. Then the article subject sued to try to quash the allegations (probably adding additional WP:WEIGHT to the matter on this article. Sad, but it is how wikipedia works today. However, many editors do support the inclusion of this type of content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OF the worst wiki articles ever

Can we get a label added to the top of this page?

His career section is just odd. What does he even do? What was his career? Am I the only one who is confused?

It just lists a bunch of random items that don't seem to describe what this man does. I come away from reading this knowing less than when I started... Something is odd here... Creditsam (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? He gets paid for speaking to people and doing stunts like firewalks, and he writes books, that's it. What else do you expect from the article?

The picture at the top could be improved - his expression is like that of a minor sneering anime ruffian who gets beat up a few seconds later. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is what he currently does, yes.

But what was his history / career to get there?

How did he build an audience and influence? How did he start?

I never heard of him until yesterday when I saw him on the PBD pod...

This weirdly written sentence is all I know of his career before today. "Robbins began promoting seminars for motivational speaker and author Jim Rohn when he was 17 years old. He subsequently learned to firewalk and incorporated it into his seminars."

And then it just lists an odd shopping list of things that don't seem to describe his CAREER at all.

Maybe it's just me, but I could not figure out how he became successful in this article Creditsam (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We would need sources for that. I suspect that you do not need to actually know anything to become him, he can just invent stuff that sounds good. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the article is a bit sparce, please find some stuff you want to add. More is often better. Generally for a WP:BLP we want to see mainstream WP:RS, but even WP:PRIMARY sourced stuff is ok with me as long as it doesnt sound WP:PROMO. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Reliable sources are far more negative than this article is. Therefore it is not NPOV.

There is of course much more, if you google "Tony Robbin sexual assault" you'll find plenty. Polygnotus (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff. The issue with the Buzzfeed allegations is that we cannot find any confirmation of it, thus we are just parroting buzzfeed in a manner that is grossly UNDUE weight. I have previously argued for its exclusion entirely, as I dont like to see these single unverified claims amplified on wikipedia. Here we have no witnesses, no courts, no second journalists. Even NBC says "NBC News has not been able to speak to BuzzFeed’s unidentified sources. It was not clear how many women BuzzFeed spoke to for its report." However, WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS is green on RSP meaning it is deemed reliable, but reliable enough by itself? Certainly not reliable for us to put their allegations into wikivoice. This Buzzfeed news piece is dated May 17, 2019 and our RSP summary states "In light of the staff layoffs at BuzzFeed in January 2019, some editors recommend exercising more caution for BuzzFeed News articles published after this date.". Therefore, its iffy content at best here, even it is parroted by other news sources. That people have been burned walking on coals isn't very surprising to me ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf To me it is. We know how to do these firewalks safely and they have been done for decades. I don't recommend doing it of course, it is very stupid, but it is surprising that they haven't followed the proper technique to do it safely. According to [2] he learned it in 1983 so it is weird[3] that people get injured in 2016[4]. It was a Buzzfeed investigation and victims of such things usually don't go on a mediatour to every outlet. I also don't like BuzzFeed, but it was at some point a big company and this was a serious investigation, even if not all of their output was serious. They had some high-profile scoops and won a Pulitzer. Note that we also have stuff that is not related to BuzzFeed for example https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tony-robbins-asks-for-forgiveness-about-metoo-comments/ and https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/business/tony-robbins-me-too-apology.html Polygnotus (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He spoke out against MeToo and got spanked. He directly contradicted the MeToo movement saying he didnt support the victim mentality. Then the founder of MeToo tweeted she doesnt like him and then Robbins was smart enough to get out of the way of that issue. Its kinda like celebrity triva. The stuff I am talking about is sexual abuse allegations (which are generally the most salacious of all claims) that are not well sourced, are single sourced, and have zero other verification (court or otherwise). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf We got one reliable source for the sexual abuse allegations, and because they are sexual abuse allegations that is likely all we are going to get. So I'd say that the fact that there are allegations is well-sourced. What we don't have is evidence if the allegations are true, which would require a judge to make a decision (or perhaps video tape). People who sexually abuse people generally don't do that in front of many witnesses. So for now we can say that allegations exist, and if and when Robbins gets convicted then we can update the article. Polygnotus (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed in an RFC above. My position is that it is not an RS and thus justification to exclude. Other editors didnt agree with me, although quite a few didnt like that it was a single source. Is what it is. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]