Talk:Tony Robbins/Archive 1

Comment

Is there any information about what Tony did in his twenties? He often talks about his own success, but is his only success that of being a successful motivational speaker?

Tony was born in 1960, so his "twenties" were from 1980-1990. "Unlimited Power" was first published in 1986, when he was 26. If you read the book, you will find a lot of what happened in the immediate years before the book was published. At the time, he was transitioning from working with people one-on-one to working with groups.MasterPrac 00:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Kicking this legal threat upstairs

copied from the Pump:

---

In the article Tony Robbins, there is/was the following text:

"Controversial issues regarding Tony Robbins:

• In 2001 Robbins was divorced from his wife Becky. This disturbed some who had read his books (one of which is dedicated to her) and listened to his cassette programs, since both liberally dispense advice on how to have a happy marriage relationship. Robbins has, however, advocated that if one is truly unable to be happy in a marriage, one ought to improve it - possibly by leaving.

• Dreamlife.com, a company founded by Tony Robbins failed and went bankrupt. This obviously shocked some who depended on Robbins for business and investment advice."

I am not the author of this text; it is part of the earliest version given on the article's history page, dated May 29, 2003 with author Jpb1968; I do not know if that was its creation date, or if it goes back further still. The last sentence of the marriage topic was added more recently, again not by me.

This text was block-deleted by an anon on Sept. 22 and I reverted it back in. It was anon-block-deleted again this morning, Sept. 27, and I reverted it again. It was then immediately deleted again, this time by a new user, User:RRIESQ, who called it false and defamatory, and put this on my talk page:

"Mr. Gary D:

You are requested to contact the Law Office of Lavely & Singer PC (310-556-3051 x247) with regard to defamatory content on wikipedia that you repeatedly have restored, and therefore posted, after deletion by our office on behalf of our clients. If you do not respond, formal action shall be required. Thank you. Lavely & Singer P.C."

I suspect this may be part of the the new-found attention WP has gained from the AP article about it that was posted on Yahoo. I have verified that Lavely & Singer is really a law firm in Century City, a toney section of Los Angeles, with about seventeeen lawyers. I know WP is very sensitive about legal threats, so I'm kicking this upstairs for whatever you want to do with it. --Gary D 22:15, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

cc:Jimbo Wales' user page

Jimbo is aware of this. He's just been talking to the lawyer on the phone. Angela. 22:52, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Fact checking

So while the damn lawyers talk about the things that damn lawyers talk about, can we do some fact checking here?

• Hard Facts:
  1. Did/does Robbins have a wife named Becky?
  2. Did Robbins divorce a wife in 2001?
  3. Does Robbins have a book dedicated to a wife/woman named Becky?
  4. Did Robbins found a company called Dreamlife.com?
  5. Did a company called Dreamlife.com enter bankrupcy?
• Relatively Simple Assertions:
  1. Do Robbins' books/cassette programs liberally dispense advice on how to have a happy marriage relationship?
  2. Has Robbins advocated that if one is truly unable to be happy in a marriage, one ought to improve it - possibly by leaving.
• Possibly Problematic Assertions:
  1. This disturbed some who had read his books....
  2. This obviously shocked some who depended on Robbins for business and investment advice.

Are there any other points I've missed?

func(talk) 04:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is based on an IRC report of a phone call, so all the details might not be 100% accurate here. According to the lawyer, dreamlife.com did not go bankrupt and Tony Robbins was associated with the company but was not president, an executive, or a director of it. He was divorced from Becky but his books relating to marriage guidance came after the divorce, not before. I think it might be best to put in just the facts unless there are any reliable sources for those opinions about what readers supposedly thought about this. I've moved Mikkalai's comment to his talk page. Angela. 06:39, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

He wasn't president, an executive, but lawyers-be-damned, he was on the board of directors. To quote the section of their last S-1 filing on January 15, 2004:

ANTHONY J. ROBBINS

Anthony J. Robbins, 43, founded our company in November 1999 and has served as a member of our Board of Directors since such time. Mr. Robbins has served as the Vice Chairman of our Board of Directors since August 2001, and had served as Chairman of our Board of Directors from November 1999 until such time. Mr. Robbins has served as Chairman of the Board of Robbins Research International, Inc., also known as the Anthony Robbins Companies, since 1983. Mr. Robbins is a best-selling author of five books. His audio program, “Personal Power” is the best-selling personal improvement program of all time with more than 35 million tapes distributed worldwide.

Maybe the lawyers are operating on some strange legal definition of "director" that doesn't include "member of [the] Board of Directors". -- Cyrius|✎ 06:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I decided to tackle the "hard facts" section.

• Hard Facts:
  1. Did/does Robbins have a wife named Becky?

     Yes, he did. Robbins talks about his first marriage and its end briefly in a 2001 CNN interview. [1]

  2. Did Robbins divorce a wife in 2001?

     The divorce appears to have taken place in 2000 [2].

  3. Does Robbins have a book dedicated to a wife/woman named Becky?

     Yes, sort of. Courtesy of Amazon.com's full text search. Unlimited Power: The New Science of Personal Achievement contains the dedication

     "Dedicated to the greatest power within you, your power to love, and to all those who help you share its magic

     Most of all for me, to Jairek, Joshua, Jolie, Tyler, Becky, and my Mom"

     It's a bit of a liberal interpretation of "dedicated to Becky", but not false. I haven't performed an exhaustive search, and Amazon does not have text search for all of Robbins's books, so there may be a more clear-cut dedication to her in another work.

  4. Did Robbins found a company called Dreamlife.com?

     Yes, although the exact name appears to be "dreamlife, inc." [3] [4] [5]

     And from an SEC S-1 filing from earlier this year:

     "Anthony J. Robbins, 43, founded our company in November 1999 and has served as a member of our Board of Directors since such time." "Mr. Robbins is a best-selling author of five books. His audio program, “Personal Power” is the best-selling personal improvement program of all time with more than 35 million tapes distributed worldwide."

  5. Did a company called Dreamlife.com enter bankrupcy?

     Unknown. On April 19, 2004, "EOS International" (name changed from Dreamlife, Inc. in December 2001) issued a 15-12G "Certification and notice of termination of registration". I'm not skilled enough at sifting through SEC filings to determine if they had actually filed for bankruptcy, or what a 15-12G actually means (although it sounds reeeeally bad). They have made no filings since that I can find (but I don't know my way around).

-- Cyrius|✎ 06:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More on 5: http://businessweek.com/1999/99_37/b3646116.htm, it appears that he did NOT go bankrupt, and did a manuver called "reverse merger" into this GHS inc. More reasearch is being done on what happened to GHS inc. -Vina 00:57, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

GHS turned into DLIF at the end end of 1999. As part of the reverse merger mentioned above, the "old" dreamlife filed the 15-12G. at the end of 1999, GHS filed an 8k (I think) that changed their symbol to DLIF and their name to dreamlife. But by the middle of 2001, they weren't doing so well. Tony then acquired Discovery Toys after DLIF started suffering from losses. (see http://www.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2001/07/30/story2.html). After the acquisition, the company name changed again to EOS International (symbol EOSI) in early Jan 2002 and is now a "holding company". As of 9/13/04, they declare their book value as ~$6million or so, with most of that valuation in stock (I assume, of Discovery Toys.) Since they bought Discovery for ~$30mil in stock, it's safe to say that the buy didn't work out. -Vina 01:31, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why all the fuss?

(Remarks restored and turned into civilized text) Is it really necessary to go to depths with the sole apparent goal to defame a person? Mikkalai 05:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

;-) But I'd like to see a neutral-POV article on the guy. func(talk) 05:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV does't mean dirt digging. What's encyclopedic in trying to prove that the guy allegedly didn't do what he advised for others or that his bancrupcy made other lose money? Mikkalai 15:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you suggested I was interested in dirt digging? The article had a criticism section, which is entirely appropriate when a person, group, or institution has received notable criticism, such as this individual has. I took the contested criticism part of the article, and I broke it out into a list, so that we could work towards NPOV. Defamation is not the sole apparent goal of any criticism section in any Wikipedia article. The existence of known and widespread criticism is factual, and is always covered in articles, such as for George W. Bush, John Kerry, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc. All of the fuss is over the attempts of an outside legal agency to subvert the Wikipedia editing processes. func(talk) 15:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

there is merit to the above comment, i havent seen a single more slanderious article in all of wikipedia until this point. There is a huge bias towards the negitive. It would be reasonable to see a larger positive section as this article seems poorly written and seems to push somebody's personal bias or agenda, opposed to offering a balanced argument and then allowing the reader to make his own judgement at the end.

I think the negitive parts are fine, but the article needs to be balanced.

Going forward?

Have we heard back from the lawyers? It appears most of the "facts" are true, to a degree, other than the fact that he went bankrupt. Filing a termination of a business is not the same thing as bankruptcy. Can we unprotect this and insert the ones that are true and provable? -Vina 00:41, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Angela would probably be the best person to ask, or Jimbo Wales himself. func(talk) 13:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[05:21] <Angela> jwales: did you hear anything more about the Tony Robbins case? It's still protected
[05:25] <jwales> Angela, no...

So I unprotected it. Angela. 04:27, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

removed non-criticism from the criticism section.

If someone wants to reintegrate it somewhere else, fine. But this is hardly criticism:

Robbins is involved in a number of charitable works, including his "basket brigade" which helps feed the homeless and poverty-stricken. He also appeared as himself in the Farrelly brothers movie Shallow Hal.

Themindset 02:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

An anon user added some rebuttals in the criticism section. Please, if you are going to do this, at least create a response section. The criticism section is for criticism. Themindset 19:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Brain-washing?

I attended one of his seminars,[6] and he employs some techniques used by cults. Telling the crowd the only way they'll be good business people/healthy is by listening to him - that they can't do it on their own. That sort of "you are nothing without me" talk is very common among cults. Also, the fact that he tells people to repeatedly come back to his seminars demonstrates that his seminars aren't what they purport to be, and indeed look more like a scam intended to get people to attend every seminar they can, thereby depriving needy people of their money in return for "guaranteed" happiness. Then there's the strobe-lighting, the incessant high-fives, the blaring early-1990s cheesy music, and endless "facts" without any sources cited, and the ridiculous "role-play" (where you have to pretend strangers are your best friends, running around and hugging them). For a person offering "scientifically-proven" information, his dislike of actually telling anyone who proved his assertions is disturbing beyond belief, especially as many people adopt his advice in many facets of their lives. This even extends to the use of "RPM" (Rapid Planning Method), which he extols as a perfect solution for company organisation, even though it's comprised entirely of Microsoft Word and Excel templates, or if you shell out a lot of money, some hastily-constructed, bug-ridden software complete with pictures of tropical islands and other such targets.

The reason I'm posting this, is that I've seen how many Tony Robbins followers actually live their lives, and it seems his teaching methods affect people in ways not generally accepted to be beneficial to the people. Couple that with the aforementioned lack of supporting evidence, and things suddenly start to look somewhat dubious, to say the least.

It is more accurate to say that cults use some of the same techniques as Tony robbins as do cocacola and all advertising systems. its how you use a technique thats important not the technique itself. you can do many useful things with these techniques and you can also do great harm. I have attended UPW three times and at no point does tony ever say that he is the force that directs personal change. there, as in all the CD and book material he always makes clear that change is an internal process and that he is only a guide providing techniques and strategies.Tony does not guarentee happiness he offers the oportunity to achieve happiness from internal resources. no one has to pretend that strangers are friends role play is not involved. if you hug someone its as real as any hug you have had in your life and all voluntary. the writer of this biased drivel has no clue about what actually goes on. no one forced me to spend money. I have chosen which things I do and dont do. no one is forced to go without breaks in the seminars no doors are locked. only during one session are people specifically requested not to leave but no-one is physically forced to remain only if a participant is physically or verbally abusive to another person will they be removed. food and water are freely available for purchase immediately outside the room at all times.rest rooms are also freely available at there are queues all day. not great but thats a criticism of the venue not Tony Robbins. Excel centre is new but still made no account of the needs of women when constructing the toilet facilities. yes he heavily promotes other seminars. and offers huge financial incentives to seminar participants. but he also makes clear that everyone can attend these seminars listen to half the programme and then get a full refund if not happy. All the techniques including the loud music, strobe lights and physical activity are explained in detail. no one is under any illusion about whats going on. every one is a volunteer to be there and hardly anyone chooses to leave. I have no issue with criticsm but these are lies.

It's not a lie. He *does* ask people to hug others, pretend to be their age-old friends, and other role-plays, etc. He *does* tell us why we're unhappy/unsuccessful, then turn around and tell us how to fix it. He doesn't back up his facts, he references studies that never even took place. I've been to UPW - I've seen it with my own eyes. I guess if you take his word for everything, then yes, it's not cult-like. If you look at it objectively, it sure as hell looks like one. The fact people aren't forced to pay for goods/services doesn't mean nothing untoward has taken place. People get defrauded alarmingly often. Surely if it works, you only have to go once :) Dave420 01:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I attended Unleash the Power Within recently. What I found really impressive was the fact that a man was virtually shouting (almost constantly), bounding around stage and clapping for over six hours for three days in a row. Moreover, he makes similar demands on his audience - I suspect that few people at the Glastonbury festival which was taking place in the same weekend had busier times. It could be mentioned just how physically demanding his seminars are in the article.

A few interesting observations I made:

• Many people I met, including the personal representative from the sales team, had attended multiple AR seminars, deeply believed in his methods and liked Robbins very much. One man claimed that AR had changed (and virtually saved) his life five years ago.

• Some personnel were unpaid volunteers, some not. One has to question why unpaid volunteers were employed at a commercial event. One job the volunteers appeared to have was motivating people to return to the seminar room after the infrequent refreshment breaks by clapping, cheering.

• A motivation for some of the volunteers was commercial - I was approached by one volunteer who was promoting a 'new and upcoming' product (she worked for the company that made it) who gave me samples and engaged me in an interesting conversation on the positive aspects of globalisation. I imagine this gambit was worthwhile because there probably were wealthy investors in AR's audience, not to mention ambitious students, etc.

• The firewalking event was meant to be experienced with a constant chanting of 'yes', accompanied by clapping (the use of clapping and the word 'yes' had, according to AR, been set as an 'anchor' during the previous seminar which, when used, induces a feeling of 'energy and motivation'. This was the basis of the whole seminar series, essentially. The firewalking event was quite hypnotic and emotionally charged. The 'tribal' aspect of it was deliberately played up by the use of drum music.

• Robbins engaged several audience members in his performance. A notable and emotionally-charged happening of this sort concerned a middle-aged woman who was raped and was felt unable to have intimate relationships. Robbins used a technique whereby he invited the woman to visualize the 'pain' in her life that caused this in one hand and 'all the love' in the other hand. He then invited her to sprinkle the 'love' over the 'pain' until it was covered, and presumably obliterated. He also got the whole audience to do this and even invited everyone to learn how to do this to others.

• Robbins was not without critics. One audience member objected to his use of the term 'laid', saying it was 'gender-biased' and claiming authority on the subject of linguistics. AR did not apologise for causing offense and pointed out that 'the use of provocative language' is a part of the seminar - this was very clearly documented, btw. He did not particularly address her concerns but did use her as an example of the 'needs that drive everyone'. Supposedly, the basis of this woman's objection was soley a desire for recognition, be it aggressive or confrontational. Essentially, he rejected the woman's academic standpoint as merely an emotional need. Presumably, he could do this for anyone that questions or criticises his methods.

• I cannot comment on the precise basis of the psychology of neuroassociative conditioning. Its like Pavlovian conditioning but using internal stimuli I suppose.

• I can say that the diet and health seminar (called 'vital life') and its documentation was seriously flawed and contained several serious omissions and errors. A particularly irresponsible claim (unreferenced of course) is that positive mental attitude (and diet and exercise) can cure a serious illness such as cancer. The few references were for very fringing science authors, including Dr. Fereydoon Batmanghelidj on his water cure studies.

• It takes no dietician to note that AR's suggestions for a healthy lifestyle/lose weight are exactly those that would be provided by doctors and government information sources. However, the more strict aspects of the diet are based on much less proven principles.

Hope that someone finds this act of investigative journalism useful. --82.6.86.217 13:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page here is really meant to be used for discussion of the article, not to relate your personal experience at a Tony Robbins' seminar. Rray 14:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that. However, it may be useful for someone who would want to edit the article - I have provided information that is unlikely to be available unless one has attended one of these seminars. A good example of this which is not mentioned in the article is the physical demands of his seminars. Another is the quality of information supplied regarding a healthy lifetyle, which is based on very dubious information. --ChrisJMoor 21:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be good to add some other information about the seminars, but if the only place that information is available is in a post on the discussion page here, it would be original research. Cheers. Rray 23:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot disagree with you on that - I was unsure whether to write the post on that issue. You were right to correct me - I shouldn't have posted it here but I find it very frustrating that critical information of this sort is not available from reputable sources - thats how Robbins is able to carry on telling people to make important decisions based on flaky evidence that is touted as science. --ChrisJMoor 22:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being a good sport. I wasn't really trying to "correct" you, just sharing information. I liked certain aspects of UPW myself, and certain aspects of it were pretty disturbing too. Would be a good project for a sociology graduate student somewhere. :) Rray 00:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Its okay, you did the right thing - this page should be filled with information on how to improve the article, not unverifiable claims. However, it deeply annoys me that a man can present biased/incorrect information which people are supposed to eat, live and sleep by while people like you and me (who work without reward to inform people) must keep our lips buttoned down for fear of misinforming because we are potentially unreliable sources. I also enjoyed UPW and I can honestly say it has helped me, but that does not justify that fact that AR is misinforming people.--ChrisJMoor 02:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Should this not be titled "Anthony Robbins" rather be "Tony Robbins" as he signs his books and per wikipedia common practice (i.e. full names)? --nirvana2013 12:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

To quote WP:Naming:

Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem.

7. In general, use the most commonly recognized English-language form of the name. Create redirections or disambiguations for other plausible links.

My impression is that Tony Robbins is the more commonly recognized form of the name. Themindset 17:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Get the Edge

anybody actually got this on dvd or video?

i wanna know what its about, that is how i know this fool, anthony:D

>x<ino 02:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"New Age Vanguard"

I'm not sure how somebody simply being "in the vanguard of the New Age movement," necessarily constitutes a criticism, although if it does, to me that is a POV generalisation, as it applies a disparaging tone not just to Robbins himself but to a very large number of other individuals as well. Petrus4 08:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources for Republican

I am new and unsure how this fits as a Wikipedia policy, but it is poor journalistic practice. In the 2008 Presidential Considerations section, there is the sentance "Many say that if he ran, it would be for the Republican nomination.". Who says this? Is there a valid source available or is this speculation of the author?

Brainwashing - only Tony's way?

I have not attended any of Tony's seminars, so I can't comment on what happens there. I have listened to two of his tape programs. In those programs he stresses that we should think for ourselves, and make sure what he is saying makes sense. He does this a few times throughout the program.

He says that, yes, but that shouldn't be up to the listener - he's making the claims, he should cite sources. Like that ONE source he does cite - the study at Yale (where the 3% of people who wrote down their goals had more wealth than the other 97% after 20 years), which never took place. Dave420 01:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Robbins' use of "cult-like" techniques

I was an avid Robbins fan for close to a decade. I have Personal Power 2, Get the Edge, Time of your Life, RPM, Awaken the Giant Within, Unlimited Power and have attended an Unleash the Power Within 3 day seminar. This is what is says on my user page re Robbins and cults:

"Cults have always interested me for years simply based on their mystery/ability to draw unwavering devotion to ridiculous premises even from otherwise intelligent people, and I have always read books on unconscious influence, LGAT (large group awareness training) and "brain washing"; At the same time I would also read self improvement material. However, that changed and my interest in cults really peaked because I was a Tony Robbins advocate, and when attending an "unleash the power within" weekend seminar I saw to my horror it had some striking makings of a LGAT/"Landmark Forum/Werner Erhard" type event, with cultish rituals (15-18 hour days with almost no breaks for food, repetitive chants, unconscious influence techniques, charismatic leader, strict guidelines even to the point of totalitarianism).

From there I researched Robbins, Landmark Education and Church of Scientology extensively (although I do not believe Robbins is at all a destructive cult, I do believe he uses unconscious persuasion (or mind control), and cult like LGATs to sell more of his products). "

So yes I believe Robbins in some ways does lead a cult. - you may find this link interesting reading. It's on rickross.com - one of the world's foremost cult experts.

If you feel this info warrants being added to the mainpage I'd be happy to. Glen Stollery 01:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if it were all true, Tony is using these methods to suggest ways of how to be more successful and happy on what your own interpretation of success and happiness should be without having to give your total self (or anything at all if you don't choose to) back to the "cult". It is very different than a cult in that way. Without giving anything back to the organization itself, you can still be just as successful and happy as you want to be. He does suggest that you should at least contribute to a charitable organization. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.239.1.122 (talk • contribs) .

Whether or not his 'followers' believe it is helping them become more successful or not has ABSOLUTELY NO relevance on whether or not the organization or group falls under the definition of a cult or not. In fact the vast majority of cults are LGATs (which means the utilize Large Group Awareness Training) so if anything this only adds to the argument. If you ask a Scientologist or someone partipating in Landmark Educationif they believe it makes them more successful they will definitely tell you yes. Look up the definition of what a cult is before commenting please. Glen Stollery 13:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Glen is making very broad statements and seems to have little actual knowledge of Tony Robbins' seminars, tapes, etc. People who seek/have sought Tony Robbins' work ("followers" is a very loaded term in this article, you're assuming facts not in evidence) are largely professionals who do so to make marked improvements in their business, their personal relationships, their finances and their health. In order to make significant or dramatic changes in your life it often involves changing the way you think, believe, and behave. While cults encourage change in the same areas, it does not follow that anyone who attempts to change and improve their life is a "cult" member. Also the changes offered can be independently measured by, it's not a matter of "are you happier".

Unlike a cult, the changes sought by people who attend a Tony Robbins seminar, or do a tape program, are not just in mood. The successful results (or lack of results) can be measured as to their success. If your finances increase, your relationships improve, your business becomes more successful, or your health improves as a result of Tony Robbins' teachings (depending on what you seek to improve)then these are measurable results of whether his advice and methods work. Improving individual lives in quantifiable ways is not the goal of a cult. Cults don't enhance a persons present life, but offers to give them a new life with their membership in the organization.

This article is one of the most biased I have ever seen on Wikipedia and clearly written not from a NPOV.

Since all of the measurable stuff you mention is so quantifiable, you shouldn't have any problem finding published sources which verify these claims, should you? Then you can edit the article and present the other side that you think isn't well-represented here.

If you think the article is biased, then do something appropriate about it instead of posting an anonymous rant on the talk page. Rray 18:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Addition of allegations of "cult like" techniques should be added?

Please read above and comment if addition is warranted. Please also follow the external link above to the rickross.com site. I would like your thoughts Glen Stollery 16:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Concern of similarities of Robbins' techniques to those employed by cults

Has been added with references to attendees observations noted at http://forum.rickross.com/viewtopic.php?t=236 as well as Margaret Singers citing New age self-improvement courses using cult techniques in her book "Cults in our Midst" Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 00:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For 202.7.166.164 could you discuss before deleting please Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 04:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved the section referring to the New Age Movement and other authors (Wayne Dyer) etc. to the NPOV section. It's not inherently a criticism to be related to the New Age Movement or to other very popular authors even if someone somewhere has written a book suggesting the whole lot of them uses cult-like behavior. Personally, I think the New Age movement has a lot of whacky characters and a lot of good stuff but there's no way that being "New Age" proponent is inherently good or bad, just like there's no way that being a Christian, Muslim, Republican, Democrat, Capitalist, Socialist, etc. can infer criticism other than being an editorial comment that has no place in an Encyclopedia. Also, relationship with other people itself is not a valid criticism unless perhaps there is a general knowledge of those people. In other words, it's one thing to note that a person has close ties to Hitler or Stalin. Or to the Moonie organization or to Scientology. However, it's an incredibly weak argument to say it's a criticism to be associated with the likes of other authors and speakers like Wayne Dyer, Louise Hay, and Deepak Chopra. - Lou 7 March 2006

I removed this section entirely as it is not verifiable, it is simply a session in negative spinning with no substantiation or real documentation. Hardly appropriate for a NPOV article. --FreedominThought 02:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No substantiation? There's over 240 posts discussing the subject here. The article states "critics note" and references a source where dozens of critics are discussing the subject... what further reference do you needs? Besides this is exactly appropriate for an NPOV article. I notice you added (uncited) references to Robbins' numerous "charitable works" (although your statement doesn't even make sense), so it is entirely NPOV to also show the flip side of the coin and reference criticism of Robbins. With your attempt to discredit Wade Cook in the article it reads like it's been written by Robbins' PR agent. Please discuss and wait for feedback before removing this material in the future. _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 20:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous rants are not substantiation. First of all, these statements are tantamount to libel which is not allowed under Wiki policy. None of this is verfiable by any independent source, only your little anti-Robbins brigade. No discussion is needed for its removal and besides you don't own the article. 2nd, you are placing copyrighted material into the article which is also against Wiki policy. I have no problem with rational criticism, but your biased hyperbole is not that. --FreedominThought 04:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There are dozens of articles on TR using LGAT techniques if you would like them referenced I will, though it will do little but make it seem more like a heavy attack (which it is not) rather than another section. I laughed when I read your "anti=Robbins" comment. You obviously know little about me so please keep your uninformed opinions to yourself. Finally, regarding your "copyright" comment, please read Fair use and again, do not comment on subjects in which you are uneducated. _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 00:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between TR and some other cults. I am an accountant, and have a client who is a new Scientology member. The Scientology people insisted on seeing her income tax return, and forcing her to eliminate any exaggerations. When they found out that she was a self-proclaimed healer, Scientolology almost kicked her out (she said) because she would be competing with them!

TR, on the other hand, teaches people to do what he does, and encourages people to help other people in the ways that he helps them. And he does. Say what you want, but there are a lot of people who used to be suicidal until they met him, and I've seen him transform people in person.---- User:MasterPrac 22:55, 26 October 2007

Quotes section

Shouldn't this be on wikiquote rather than here? --Terminal157 18:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible copy vio material

I have removed two paragraphs of material which clearly originate here. Unless we have clear permission to use this material in a manner compatible with Wikipedia, it cannot be included.

It also has the problem of being inherently POV, given its source.

Fourohfour 11:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

More potential copyvios removed; example sentence search on Google shows non-Wikipedia sources. Fourohfour 11:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Tougher prison?

"Robbins says in his book, Awaken the Giant Within, that he supports tougher sentences for criminals."

I was surprised to read that sentence... because I just finished Awaken the Giant Within, and he doesn't say anything like that. This is what he says in the book:

"We must provide our prisoners with an environment in which they don't have to constantly worry about being beaten or attacked by cellmates, yet at the same time we cannot make prison the home they never had. I'm suggesting that prison terms should be undesirable - uncomfortable - and that during a prison term, people should be shown ways to make the outside world an experience that they can be in control of, one of pleasure and posibility..."

I think the claim in the article is very biased, and is twisting Tony's words.

Bleedstupid 06:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I must say that statement goes against his handling of the "Tookie" trial... it sounds as though you are certain in which case I would make the edits. Where else do you feel it is bias _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Who is this guy?

This article is terrible. It reads like a freaking comercial. I want facts about where he grew up, how did he get all this wisdom, what are his credentials? Wikipedia is not a place for promoting a guy and his products. Plus I can't believe that no one has piked up yet that he lifted all his concepts straight out of the Carlos Castaneda books. Personal power? Come on give me a brake. Cleargreen should sue him for plagerism. Who the hell is this guy? I don't want a comercial. I want facts.

Since this is a Wikipedia, if you think an article is "terrible" and "reads like a freaking commercial", then you have the option of rewriting the article. Instead of posting ranting criticisms on the "Talk" page, you should contribute to the article by editing and rewriting it. Rray 15:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this guy, so I don't feel comfortable altering the article. That's why I came here to learn about him, but instead I was surprised how biased and one sided this article is. I'm used to reading Wikipedia every day and most articles are factual and to the point, but this one stood out severely. So I'm asking people who are more knowlegeble of this man, and who have more than a passig interest in him to be more factual in their profiling.

Books don't exist

Apparently Tony Robbins has some books listed at Amazon and elsewhere that have not yet been published:-

• "The Driving Force"
• "Inner Strength"

Even though they have not been published designs for the book covers seem to exist. I am going to qualify the footnote for the bookcover shown in the article. Terjepetersen 14:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge of Human Behavior

For all who question how legitimate Tony's methods are, it would be wise to first and foremost question ones own methods of communication.

It is in the subconcious nature of all human beings to use subtle, suggesting, hypnotic type language to influence the thoughts of another, to side with, and believe the one delivering the message, whatever it may be.

If a child wants candy the precious one will, by all the tact of emotional responce it can muster, persuade the parent or elder to give what the child is asking. Children do this, as a part of their subconcious nature, on a regular basis. But no more than their counterparts, the parents. As a matter of fact, it is an inherited behavior. Such is not only pre-existant, by more acurately developed and even honed as a skill, with each and every passing day spent with their parents and surroundings.

But what about the the adults? Don't they use even more sofisticated tactical skills of manipulation on their own children to get them to do what they wish. Do not parents and teachers alike, coerce children by a much more forceful means of communication, using fear and control tact. The pleasure/pain motivating factor is inherant in all human nature.

"Good" and "Bad" emotions stimulate every descision and action we do/don't make. Tony Robbins teaches a person to discover what those maximum pleasure motivations are, and how to use them as an unlimited energy force to achieve all goals. Don't we all want our children and youth to grow up as incredible achievers? Don't we want all of our nation to be happy, fulfilled, and at peace? Only then will violence and poverty be vanquished.

If it is ok for "the law" to motivate us to do right and protect us from wrong doing (which is of it's own interpretation by the way), though the controlling coercive means of punishment(NLP trick to associate fear of PAIN), then shouldn't it be ok for a person to motivate another to motivate us to choosed what we wish for our lives by revealing to us possible rewards? Epecially with no threat of punishment?

Our founding fathers used such tact and s;ubtle suggestions to stimulate our emotions to move us to live for individual freedom. The "Birthright" to choose that which makes us fulfilled , and promotes world peace.

Maybe a person should deeply, and honestly study any and all things, before ever speaking upon such issues. "Opinion" has never had great influence for good, unless backed by diligent science.

Thank you loving us enough to study us TONY. Only through such passionate understanding as your's, will our species progress and fulfill purpose.

• Not sure what your point is here, but I edited the spaces from the beginnings of your lines to keep the paragraphs from running off the sides of the window. Manys 05:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The NLP moron clearly has no point. Robbins is a cult leader who should be shut down, but America is one big barbecue for these lizards. --81.103.144.60 03:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the "Seminars and Claims" section to make it more comprehensive. "Unlimited Power" is a very outdated source for information about TR or about what he teaches. His work has evolved considerably since that time, and includes collaboration with Dr. Cloe Madanes. He primarily teaches "Human Needs Psychology" today, and his concept of "Six Human Needs" needed to be described.

I have tried to be fair, and not a "cheerleader" in elaborating on his claims and better describing his seminars. MasterPrac 04:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your edits did read as if they were written by a fan of Tony Robbin and not by someone who's writing an encyclopedia article. Some of the information you deleted should continue to be included. Adding more information might make sense, but it has to be written from a neutral perspective. I'm not a TR-basher btw; I like some of his stuff too. But the article needs to be NPOV and encyclopedic. Rray 04:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. While I am clearly a fan of Mr. Robbins, I also know a heckuva lot more about his "claims and seminars" than most people. Basing information on a book he published 20+ years ago and ignoring what he has done since is just ridiculous. And the "Seminars and Claims section was about the shortest in the article, when IMHO it should be the longest, because without his seminars and claims there would be nothing to write about! MasterPrac 04:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

While I respect that you have a different opinion, an encyclopedia is a place to share what *other people* know and have written about a subject. See Wikipedia: No original research.

One of the sentences you wrote was: 'To understand Robbins' work, one must understand the concept of CANI, an acronym Robbins created for Constant And Never-ending Improvement.'

It's hard to understand how anyone could not see that as "fan-like" language, or how anyone could consider that encyclopedic. It might be appropriate for a website that is selling Robbins' content or seminars, but it just isn't written in a style appropriate for an encyclopedia. It's also not referenced. It's not enough to just make a statement that the only way you can understand his work is to understand "CANI", you have to include a reference to a reliable source which says that. Otherwise it's just an opinion dropped in at random. Rray 04:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ray, to understand Robbins' work, one must understand the concept of CANI. This is a true statement. He mentions this in his Personal Power study course, and I will create a citation for that. I have to mention this because his work is not static. To have people think that his first book -- as I wrote previously -- is what he professes today is a disservice to the reader. MasterPrac 04:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at what I wrote, I can see some things that can be construed as cheerleading, and removed them. There was no reason to remove the whole edit. MasterPrac 04:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, there is far more opinion in the criticism section than there is in what I just edited. MasterPrac 04:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Truth" isn't the criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia; verifiability is. Indicating that Tony Robbins *says* that you have to understand "CANI" might be verifiable, but I'm pretty sure that we don't have multiple reliable sources who agree that this is actually the case. Also, while it might well be a disservice to only include what he claimed in his early work, it's also a disservice to exclude what he claimed there also.

I'm sorry if reverting your whole edit hurt your feelings, but there was no edit summary, and the additions were uncited. The previous version was better than the new version, so the easiest way to make the article better was to just revert your edit. You might want to review Wikipedia: Ownership of articles. People will edit your changes here mercilessly. If you don't like that, then you will be unhappy here. :)

Regarding the amount of opinion in the criticism section, I see none other than the opinions of other people. References have been included, and the references are to reliable sources. Feel free to add more praise to the article if you can find a reliable source to site when you add it. Rray 04:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment about verifiability has merit. I removed the CANI reference, even though TR talks about CANI on his Personal Power 30 day home study course. I have cited every paragraph I added. Most come from the "horses mouth;" You can watch him talk about the Six Human Needs on that Youtube video if you have 22 minutes. MasterPrac 05:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed your edits to the article. Here are examples of cheerleader and advertising talk:

• "In his popular Personal Power program," - Calling this program "popular" is unnecessary. It's just sales-talk, and it's not at all encyclopedic.
• "Dr. Cloe Madanes, internationally reknowned innovator in both family and brief therapy" - Again, total sales-speak, written like an advertisement for a book or website.
• You included multiple link drops to external sites. These belong in the external links section of the article, if at all, but given their content, they really don't look appropriate for inclusion here at all.

Your edits also include multiple spelling errors, inappropriate uses of italics, incorrect header formatting, and awkwardly-written sentences. While your intentions might be good, reverting your "whole edit" makes complete sense. If the previous version of the article is better than the version of the article you edited, then reverting it back is clearly appropriate. Rray 05:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have listened to all of Tony's audio programs, and I've read all of his books, and I have been to UPW, so I don't need to watch the YouTube video. I'm familiar with his "six human needs". The problem is that most additions to articles need reliable secondary sources to be included. "From the horse's mouth" is a primary source, which is appropriate sometimes but not always. (Like in the case of someone who makes claims of helping other people for a living.) Rray 05:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, please show the other editors here the courtesy of including edit summaries when you make changes to the article. It helps everyone understand what you've changed and why. Rray 05:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ray, I was surprised to find this morning that the page had been reverted back to my edit complete with changes suggested by you. That was not done by me. Someone apparently reverted it and edited it as "minor changes" per your critique. For example, "popular" was removed from describing "Personal Power." The description of Dr. Madanes was removed. The italics were removed and the heading was corrected. Then I find that you reverted it anyway. If you want to find consensus, as you state, that is fine by me. You can start by taking what I wrote and editing it, rather than reverting back to status quo. At least I -- and whomever did the revert this morning -- are attempting to use your criticism to create some consensus. You, on the other hand, are the one creating the "edit war," as you call it.MasterPrac 17:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Unless I missed something, no one else has made any edits to this article since you started editing it besides you and me. You can review the changes to the article using the "history" tab. Had your edits been made with more care, then I wouldn't have felt the need to revert them to the status quo, but there were so many mistakes in so many ways that reverting it to the previous version was the appropriate thing to do. You'll note that I've included reasons for any edits I've made to the article in the edit summaries here, and I also came to the talk page to discuss these edits. By immediately reverting those edits with no edit summary and without discussing it on the talk page, you're the one who's edit warring. I'm not being contentious here; I'm trying to explain edit warring to you because you appear to misunderstand what the phrase means. Rray 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the description of Cloe Madanes came not from "sales-speak," but rather paraphrased from her biography page from the American Psychology Association (http://www.americanpsychotherapy.com/bios/chloe_madanes.htm). The first line states, "Cloe Madanes is recognized internationally as an innovator in both family and brief therapy." I don't see the APA as a sales oriented organization. I included it because she has no Wikipedia page and someone who is looking at the article might want to know who she is.MasterPrac 17:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Had you included a reference when you added that to the article, I might have known that, but even then it would have still been sales-speak. That's the kind of thing that's written on book jackets to make them sell more books. You might consider creating a Wikipedia article about Cloe Madanes if you're concerned that a reader doesn't know who she is. Rray 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is many things to many people. Some people might actually want to know what his theories actually are, and what is behind the changes that people claim he is able to create for people.

• You might review what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia is not for more information about what the Wikipedia actually is. Rray 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I recommend the Youtube video highly. There is a terrific interaction at about the 5 minute mark between TR and Al Gore.MasterPrac 17:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You write earlier: "Regarding the amount of opinion in the criticism section, I see none other than the opinions of other people. References have been included, and the references are to reliable sources." So, does that mean that the entry on the Rutgers Women's basketball team, if there was one, should have Don Imus's criticism that they are "Nappy headed Ho's"? Just because someone said something, and it is verifiable, doesn't mean that it merits inclusion. Sometimes you have to consider the source.MasterPrac 17:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Surely there's a difference between a racial slur from a shock jock and a criticism from a noted authority who debunks charlatans on a regular basis, don't you think? Besides, I don't think that mentioning his slur on that page is inappropriate either, if it's explained in context. It's certainly a notable occurrence with plenty of references to cite. But that's a lousy analogy, since it's an entirely different situation. Rray 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am going to revert it back -- with the changes you suggested. I am going to make further changes as needed, based on your critique. Feel free to edit as needed. But if you want consensus, as you suggest you do, stop being an "imperial censor" and start practicing what you preach. Edit. Work at the consensus you desire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterPrac (talk • contribs) 17:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please review the guidelines on being civil to other editors. Namecalling ("imperial censor") and making snide comments about me isn't an effective way of getting your point across. Implying that I don't edit or work at consensus is just silly and wrong, also. I've edited 100's of articles and participated in 100's of discussions here about all kinds of articles. At any rate, I'd appreciate it if you'd limit your discussion here to the article and the edits to the article. Rray 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to whomever made that change before I got a chance to do so. with any luck, it will meet Ray's discerning tastes. MasterPrac 18:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• See my earlier comment about civility above. The sarcasm about my "discerning tastes" isn't necessary or helpful. Rray 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my apparent lack of civility. I was responding to the "either/or" method of constantly undoing my changes in spite of my best efforts to respond to your criticisms. It did not seem that you wanted anything to do with consensus until you said so.MasterPrac 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't confused about what you were responding to. You weren't making efforts to respond to my criticisms in my edit summaries; you were just reverting them back to your preferred version. Now you're discussing it on the talk page, which is a giant leap forward. Thanks for the apology. Rray 00:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The first time I reverted as you had. But if you had looked carefully before you pulled it a second (and third) time, you would have noticed copyedit changes that attempted to answer your criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.222.55 (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that you're correct. I don't remember the exact details and don't want to wade through the history, so I'll just apologize and try to be better in the future. :) Rray 05:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

External links section

I cut it down from 6 to 2. We do not want links in there that are just links to promotional material for Tony. It violates the guidelines on external links. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a joke right? Like seriously this stuff above must be satire of some kind, like surely noone thinks this big toothed goon is out to do anything but enrich himself.

Possible link to add

The methods in his seminars were discussed on Penn and Teller: Bullshit! They can be found on Google Video 12.226.178.27 01:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

^Link is broken? Shaybear♥

criticism section gone

From this talk page it looks like there was once a criticism section. Well even the title has gone! Could it be reinstated in some way? I.e. out of a previous version? It looks like a robbins fan has come along and deleted it wholesale. I don't know enough to do it myself but could someone remake it?Merkinsmum 17:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Checking the history, I see that the criticism section was renamed "Legal affairs" and some unsourced criticism was removed. [7]. -Will Beback 18:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed not to find the same content in this section as there used to be. There was once some critical information given from a psychological point of view in how his methods can be harmful, including arguments (perhaps references also) to back it up. This no longer exists. {Strange: In the last two minutes two small paragraphs have been added! However, it's not the content I'm describing.]

All previous versions of the article are archived in the "history" of the article. Maybe you can find the content you were disappointed to see gone and re-add it, making sure that it includes appropriate citations? Would be a great way to participate here at the Wikipedia. Rray 03:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

balancing external site

I have added a link to a site critiquing robbins, for balance. Please do not remove, some balance is needed.Merkinsmum 15:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because an article is critical of Robbins doesn't make it notable or a good addition to the external links section. This particular site you added is only 2 pages long and doesn't have any authorship information or look like it has any authority - it's just a personal critique. I'm removing it for being non-notable, and if you can find a more notable or trustworthy page critiquing Tony Robbins' methods, I'd support its inclusion here. Rray 19:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've found a better one. James Randi article do? At least until something else is found. Some link critical of Robbins IS necessary hereMerkinsmum 22:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think James Randi is a notable source, yes. Rray 06:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

There is now a criticism section, as there should be to balance the article. Its the best I can do for the moment. At present it's based on the work of the James Randi Educational Foundation, though there are other critics of Robbins. Nothing here is at all libellous. Please edit to improve if you are unhappy with it, rather than deleting wholesale.Merkinsmum 23:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I did some copyediting on this section you added. You might give it a second look to see if I've missed anything. This section could probably be expanded; I think an episode of Penn and Teller's show might have also criticized some of Robbins' methodology. Do you think this section is enough to warrant removal of the "other viewpoints" tag in the article? Rray 06:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what sources there are for this Penn and Teller show, as well as other references besides just the one James Randi. Smeelgova 06:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

Heh. Guess I need to break out the boxed set and find the episode so we can cite it huh? Rray 01:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We need another source alongside this, because people who are into New Age etc dismiss comments from Randi as he is critical of these therapies as a whole, not just any particular purveyor of themMerkinsmum 11:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The article from Randi is from 2002 so we should be able to find some articles or something that are more recent. There's stuff on forums but I don't think that can be used here. I don't know what copyediting is, have to look it up, but thanks, you've made it stronger. I was trying not to be libelous to Robbins, for reasons of wanting some criticism to stay up here, and not bring his legal mates in as happened earlier in this talk page.Merkinsmum 11:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting just means editing the actual written copy for things like grammar, style, etc. Usually that's used in the "Edit summary" when you've made a lot of those kinds of changes, and it wouldn't make much sense to record all of them in the summary.

I took the liberty of taking out the Randi criticism of the "applied kinesiology scam." Applied kinesiology is used by chiropractors and other health professionals. Whether you believe that chiropractics is real or a scam I will leave to the reader. But AK is so tangental to ANYTHING that TR does that I have to remove that. Sorry.

In addition, I Googled "Q-link." They DO have research -- including THREE double-blind studies at that -- on their website [8]. MasterPrac 04:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterPrac (talk • contribs) 04:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edits here. The criticism from Randi is notable and should be included. If you can find a reliable source to cite refuting Randi's remarks, then it would be appropriate to include them there.

Regarding Q-link, when you're talking about a company that's selling a product, you really need to cite a reliable source *other* than that company to provide evidence of the research. (Since Q-link has a vested interest in selling its products, it's probably not the best source to cite. Rray 04:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)\

The criticism from Randi, again, is so tangental to TR's work that it has no place here. If you don't understand that, then you should not be attempting to edit this subject matter.

And Ray, did you take a look at the link above???? You will see links to 3 double-blind studies including one conducted by Dr Norman Shealy, MD, and William Tiller, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University. They link to the conclusions of the studies themselves, which can be researched further. MasterPrac 04:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 72.225.222.55 04:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Michael Roes' criticism is legitimate. But Randi's criticism is 4 times removed:

1. According to Roes, it was Joseph McClendon who did the applied kinesiology, not Tony Robbins.
2. The applied kinesiology was to demonstrate a Q-Line product that has nothing to do with what TR calls his "technologies." AK has nothing to do with NLP or NAC or Human Needs Psychology. AK was simply used as a test of the Q-Links effectiveness. It has NOTHING to do with anything TR espouses.
3. Mr. Roes asks a Q-Link rep for a copy of the double-blind studies done on the Q-Link's effacacy. He is told that the research is "on the website." Well, it actually is. If you go to (http://www.q-linkproducts.com/h_science_research.shtml) you will find 10 studies, including one single-blind study, and 3 double-blind studies, including "A double-blind study conducted by Dr Norman Shealy, MD, and William Tiller, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University, 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." The site links to the conclusions of each study, and the full studies can be found with a little effort. The point is that Mr. Roes implies that rep's answer suggests that the research does not exist. It does. It is up to the reader to determine the validity of the research, but it has been done.
4. Randi comments that "this is the old "applied kinesiology" scam we're already familiar with. It's used by chiropractors, dentists, all sorts of "new age" systems, and it just doesn't work. But, it's very convincing to the naive, so the Robbins folks have dragged it in to sell the unicorn they're offering....."MasterPrac 18:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This Randi line is like Don Imus calling the Rutgers team "Nappy headed Ho's." Yes, he said it. It was verifiably said, but the opinion is not worth the ether it was written on. The jury is decidedly out on AK. Randi is convinced that it is a "scam." He might as well be writing that he is convinced that people over 6'5" are idiots. It is a statement, but has no merit. If anything, the criticism belongs on the Wikipedia page on Chiropractics. It does not belong here.

You could say "Randi is convinced that the AK TR's associate used in testing a product being sold at one of TR's seminars is a scam." In fact, I will change it to say so. But to say Randi calls "Robbins' "applied kinesiology" a scam is just inaccurate.MasterPrac 18:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Balancing this article

I believe many will agree with this comment. True, in 1996 approx. 315 entries in Webster's Dict. were misspelled, and Britanica and Wikipedia had the same rate of factual errors in a sampling reported by CBS News. That being said, if the objective is to write facts and do so with neutrality notwithstanding, I must admit I found the entire article to be a low-grade negative over-all, (9th grade readability-no offense, it's been edited numerous times by many), very disjointed, and predominately negative to an obvious degree (hence unbalanced), and added to that-without benefit of skilled writing and research to present fluid objectivity.

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.

The predominant theme I get from just reading it is the concern of this comment: if you cannot support by heavy reference a large movement stating, i.e, Robbins' cult-like methods, etc., it is probably best not to open the can of worms until it can be suitably addressed. Stub those sections, without playing up superlatives in the positive. I believe I would also check Wikipedia's liability for slander suits, which I am sure is held harmless based on the nature of this project; however, that is what this article leads me to thinking. One wonders to keep a good reputation, shouldn't persons have to take some kind of test before they edit? The DMOZ Project directory editors have stricter criteria for selection.

To be specific in closing: There is a Section on Criticisms, but no Praises Documentation. There are many that provide supporting view of his methods, not just celebrities, and yet that section is glaring missing - none are mentioned. If you mention negatives, you should balance with authorities on both sides. It is entirely one-sided. Research is necessary! This is a major unbalance given that Wikipedia cryptically describes his personal life, narrow and very negative sounding without benefit of true writing ability - have several negatives in numerous sections, and I've yet to find a postive or truly neutral statement in the choppy collection.

I'm afraid I cannot offer any assistance of than this, I would feel compelled to rewrite every part; as it is I have another project I'm diligently drafting for Wikipedia.

Good Luck to all of you on this, KUDOS for your efforts. I've used Wikipedia for years, and would like it to remain a great archive of knowledge and information. DVH-24 October 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imagraphicx (talk • contribs) .

• You should consider rewriting the article, since you obviously care about the subject matter, the Wikipedia project, and the quality of the article. That's the great thing about the Wikipedia; you can fix what's wrong with it. Rray 01:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If you do not like it, don't moan, you can rewrite it:) The unbalanced header is there because before the criticism section was added back in it was basically a rave about him. There is no praises section as the entire article lists Robbins' many achievements. A praises section would be too much like advertising, but I suppose you could add a 'noteable fans of Robbins are ...' type of section.Merkinsmum 02:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Removed the criticism section. It was a blank copy from the mentioned website - and was first-hand opinion only. I have left the link to the critical website though, as it is relevant to the published opinions on Robbins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.168.28.59 (talk • contribs) .

I've restored it. In what way is it a "blank copy"? It does quote the source, but the other text appears to not be copied. -Will Beback 19:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi anonymous person:) There was nothing copied about it whatsoever apart from naming the source and summarising. I wonder why you want no criticism of Robbins here.Merkinsmum 21:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

While you're dealing in obtuse ad hominem, maybe there's more to the tale than classics, dressmaking, feline husbandry, curiously fashionable caffeine addictions, and cake. That's just super, thanks for asking. Wondering about fictitious ideas like me not wanting criticism of Robbins is both a shamefully incorrect approach to the nature of mindful reality and an abberation of the very moderation your message seems to presuppose. All the best with your edit, despite being initially confused by your presuppositions. I am convinced that this entry continues to offer a criticism of Robbins which, despite my personal preference, unfairly frames him as, at worst, a charlatain. Notable criticism is clearly helpful. My mind maintiains that the opinions offered on the 'critical' website this article references aren't noteworthy and, incidentally, unduly harsh. Why risk the veracity of your wikipedia reputation on speculation that you "wonder why I want no criticism of Robbins here?" Please offer our community more than a thinly-veiled personal shot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.168.28.59 (talk • contribs) .

• Just a tip for the above user- You might come across better if you were to have a username and sign your posts. I would add this to your talk page but am not sure if you check it. This is not meant as a 'dig' at you in any way.

Are you refering to the article on James Randi's site as unduly harsh? As to whether he is a good source, it was decided earlier in the talk page that he was. There are others with far more vehement views on Robbins, such as http://www.tony-robbins.org/ You say that the article you are commenting on "frames him as, at worst, a charlatain"(sic). At http://www.tony-robbins.org/ Robbins comes across as, at best, a charlatan. But I suppose you're right, we don't have enough information to use these links and this criticsm. Merkinsmum 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I added in the additional critical site of http://www.tony-robbins.org/ yesterday as a guest (can't remember my login, been too long). Saw that it had disappeared and thus checked this discussion page. Not too sure of my IP address, but I'm not a sock puppet for Imagraphicx. Hope you guys see fit to have the additional reference added back. - Andrew 22 Dec 2006

I removed the link because the site is not notable, not authoritative in any way, and its content was written anonymously. Rray 00:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

At least leave one critical link

When you edit, Robbins fans.

Robbins' "Awards"

If Robbins' awards are not genuine in some way, that's a valid point of cricism. We just need to find some reputable sources saying it.Merkinsmum 12:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Salerno

I've inserted a summary of Salerno from the NLP article. It is mainly about Robbins. It has been verified. Is this author and opinion notable? --Comaze 23:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice one Comaze. SHAM is a brilliant work. Salerno's expose hits inhumane practices within the SHAM enterprises pretty hard. I reckon your paragraphs were directed and appropriate. I'm concerned however at the relevance of the phrase: "He [Salerno] also claims that when working for SHAM publishers,"failure and stagnation, thus, were central to our ongoing business model"." It's about Salerno and his work with SHAM publishers, rather than a point of notability and direct reference to Robbins himself. I'll leave this here for a week and then change it if there is no comment on it. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

That sounds reasonable. I believe that statement was an attempt at context. I think you should go ahead and make the edit. --Comaze 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Comaze - just one last thing. I think the SHAM section is better suited for the Criticism section. I know that the SHAM section is in the NLP section because it's all about NLP, but the nature of the NLP section is simply to introduce TR's NAC as a version of NLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.24.18 (talk • contribs)

Yes it is a good'un, I read the SHAMblog. Thanks for putting more criticism in here.Merkinsmum 00:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Praise

While I agree that some of TR's use of things like NLP or Alkaline diets, etc., are scientifically tosh, his other areas of focus have meant that there are literally thousands of people out there who have been helped (or signficantly, think they have been helped) by him. Given that he's "had the unique opportunity to meet, interview and model a huge variety of people... from Norman Cousins to Michael Jackson" (from his book Awaken the Giant Within, pg 29), surely there has to be some notable support andpraise for him out there, as mentioned above. I think this would balance the article more, and so I'm going to do some research and add this section in a bit. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 10:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's enough that we list all his events, work for charity etc. The NPOV was put there because originally it was basically an advert for tony and his supporters were deleting all criticism. Maybe just a list with 'noteable people who praise tony include oprah, etc, etc just mention some famous people who like him. Or a short sentence or two saying how muuch his books have sold (don't know if anything like that is in there yet.) But look at how long this article is about tony, all his events, charity work etc, the criticism section is only one short paragraph, so I don't think it makes the article unbalanced.Merkinsmum 11:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely with Merkinsmum here. This article is not at all unbalanced now. Rray 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Brill. Thanks for removing the tag, Rray. Let's try and make sure it stays that way:)Merkinsmum 17:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ad Hominem

Hey, I added the note about Steve Salerno's comments being Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, simply because they are. I love Salerno's work, but I feel it's very important that our opinions don't get offered up on a resource like Wikipedia as fact. Salerno's charges against the self-help industry are serious and his research and anecdotal evidence is, in my opinion, reasonable. But for us fans of Salerno, there's just no getting around that many of his claims are ad hominem based arguments (possibly designed to ironically point to the shameless use of these logical fallacies by self help punidits?). I feel it's essential to the credibilty of our wikipedia, and to Salerno himself, that in criticsing Robbins, we frame it the way it is, not the way we'd like to see it... otherwise we're guilty of doing the same thing that the criticism of these NLPers seeks to expose. For more discussion on how this is Ad Hominem see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem -

Until you can find a published source saying it's ad hominem (you probably could find that somewhere) it is Original Research, which can't be used. I know what ad hominem is:) Salerno's work may well be considered ad hominem by some people but others would consider his comments fair in relation to helping someone choose a teacher or course. It could be considered helpful to know whether or not they have achieved what they are supposed to be teaching (such as longevity of a marriage) themselves. As such adding ad hominem is not a neutral tone, is POV in a way as it prejudices the reader against Salerno's comments and tells them what to think. Let them make their own minds up. That's why you need a reputable source saying it, so you can write 'however, fred bloggs says that this is an ad hominem attack.' Otherwise, calling it ad hom. is editorialising and not neutral- do you see what I mean? It should be easy to find an acceptable source saying this though.Merkinsmum 11:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced to the negative - looking to understand depth of negative concern

I have been a fan of Tony's for many years and have listened to a wide variety of his tapes and read more than one of his books. While I don't agree with everything he espouses, I believe that this article is significantly unbalanced to the negative. There are 100's (probably 1000's or 10's of thousands) of individuals around the world who believe that Tony's techniques have helped them tremendously. Tony has impacted many, many people's lives (including mine) in a very positive way and this is not reflected in the article.

I am not in a position to evaluate claims made by people who have attetnded his seminars. I also am not scientifically able to refute/support issues associated with his use and promotion of NLP. However, I believe I could edit the article to help balance it to the positive. How strong would the objections of others here be to adding positive balance to the article?

kbedell(talk) 16:11, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Adding positive claims to the article *could* be okay provided they were appropriately cited and were from reputable and objective sources. The problem in the past with users who have tried to "rebalance" the article to make it more positive is that they haven't included citations, or they just turned the article into a big "rah-rah" Tony praise session. Rray 21:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking a couple options -- 1) a series of quotations of others regarding his work. Tony has many reputable and well-known fans who I've heard discuss his work. The quotes could be cited. Also, 2) I'd like to include some discussion of his philosophies as taken from his work. These would short summaries of particular ideas and include direct, cited quotes from his works. kbedell(talk) 17:43, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd be careful about citing Tony's own works, since he is by far his own biggest cheerleader, and I doubt he's objective. If you include a series of quotes from fans, there should be a section of quotes from critics as well. (I don't think lists of quotes is encyclopedic content though) I personally don't think the article is unbalanced toward the negative, but be bold and we'll see what the consensus opinion is. Rray 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe in some way this needs to be balanced. It is totally non-reflective of the positive impacts that he's made on the lives of 1000's of people. By far he has many, many more supports than detractors and this article doesn't that reality. I'll put something together over the next week or so. kbedell(talk) 12:19 PM, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

But really you have no way of knowing how many detractors he has. Most people's attitute, at least in the U.K, is probably a healthy scepticism and apathetic mocking of Tony. They don't care enough to write stuff online about their views, but they will laugh and turn over if they happen to see the start of what they would view as a cheesy 'infomercial'.Merkinsmum 16:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To add to that point, I think it's hard to point to "thousands" of people whose lives Tony's work has impacted. Legitimate sources would need to be included before you could say that thousands of people have benefitted from Tony's programs. Rray 16:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

They would ideally be relatively impartial sources, not just from Tony's website or advertising as his figures would be there to encourage others to take the course.Merkinsmum 11:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

By 'impartial', are you looking for reviews neutral as to TR's techniques? The link included in the article to a first-hand account is clearly negative, and isn't balanced by an equal account from a positive attendee. Having said that, the article does mention many positive points - though it doesn't match up very well with my own experience of attending, which didn't include most of the pseudo-science that was mentioned here. What fraction of attendees come away with a negative impression, and what fraction come away with a positive impression? Are they being fairly represented here, in accurate proportion? It's always easy to find highly intelligent, vocal critics. I worked in academia for long enough to realise that it was a good idea to learn how to identify and ignore them ;) ColinFrayn 15:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I've worked in academia I would never completely ignore critics, but include and engage with their arguments. Anyway that is not what happens in an encyclopedia entry, which is not a personal essay.We have no way of knowing such numbers as happy vs unhappy attendees, hence it would just be speculation/original research, which is not included in Wikipedia. Some reasonably well-known critics or critical publications are useful to mention, for balance.Merkinsmum 12:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Height?

"He is almost 2 meters in height, or 6 feet 7 inches"

2 meters = 6 feet 6.7 inches. Thus, "almost 2 meters" is less than 6 feet 7. Which is right? Widmerpool 11:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a grammatical error, looks like they meant to say 'about' or something. I presume what is meant is the same as you explained, 'he is 6ft 7 inches in height- or just over 2 metres.'Merkinsmum 22:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

I read the article on Randi's site about the Roes' experience at the Tony Robbins seminar, but the story I read there does not match the story in this article. Would someone else also read the reference to see if this section is an actual reflection of the content on Randi's site?

It seems as if I remember a different criticism from someone anonymous on the Internet describing some of these criticisms, but I didn't see these specifics on Randi's site. Rray 22:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Seminars and claims section

With the new additions, this section is becoming increasingly disorganized and needs to be cleaned up. It might make sense to have an entire section about "Claims" and another section about "Seminars", but if not, these should at least be the 2 major subsections of this section of the article. Right now the section jumps from topic to topic almost randomly:

• The distinction between being a motivational speaker and a peak performance coach.
• Promoting seminars for Jim Rohn.
• Distinction between NAC and NLP.
• Brief mention of both his books and how they relate to his seminars.
• 6 human needs.
• Which seminars Tony conducts.
• 20/20 claims that Tony reintegrated someone with multiple personality disorder. (This section is particularly far-fetched and definitely needs a citation, btw.)
• Unleash the Power Within and other seminars are briefly described.
• Learning Annex and TED conferences.
• Dietary claims.

It would improve the article to organize this information better and add context to how it fits in with the other information, but I don't have time to rearrange the info into logical sections tonight. Might be something good for User:MasterPrac to work on, if User:MasterPrac feels up to it. :) Rray 00:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be cleaned up. The prior section was too short in relation to the article as a whole. The only reason anyone pays any attention to Mr. Robbins is because of his "Claims and Seminars." Without either one, there would not be any discussion here at all. I will post possible ways to clean it up here, first, before I change the section yet again.

BTW, I saw the 20/20 profile first-run, back in 1994, and friend of mine videotaped it, so I saw it again recently. Actor Neil Patrick Harris and a bunch of high-powered CEO's were at that Date With Destiny seminar. Dianne Sawyer and the 20/20 crew were there for them, not for this woman who started freaking out everyone around her. I'm not sure how to create a citation for it though. I'm open for suggestions on that.MasterPrac 00:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 72.225.222.55 00:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding re-organizing this section:

I confess, btw, that I have taken every course that TR has offered, including an Advanced Leadership Webinar taught jointly by TR and Cloe Madanes. I have more manuals from his seminars than most people, and I could easily put up 25 pages of very technical material on how Robbins teaches OTHER people to do what he does. In doing so, he details what HE does. I have a 304 page textbook for his Advanced Leadership seminar, and a 300+ textbook from his "Leadership Academy." The "Leadership Academy" textbook includes over 100 pages comparing and contrasting all different varieties of psychology, from Freud through NLP and "somatic" psychotherapy, which is basically pharmaceutical. My daughter-in-law, who is getting her doctorate in psychology, found it very useful. ;-)

I write this to acknowledge that, yes, I could be called a "fan," but I am as much a student of Robbins as a fan. Further, he is making a concerted effort to teach people not just how to help themselves, but also to use the what he knows to help other people. In so doing, he has developed a very comprehensive system that uses quite a bit of NLP, but is also significantly different, People coming to this article to find out who Tony Robbins is might want to know more about what he actually teaches.

I wouldn't necessarily put up that much material, but I could. I'm not sure how appropriate this would be, and I'm also not sure how to cite the material. To compare, for fairness, if you look at Freud or Erickson, you will see very detailed information about their work. The article on NLP also covers it in far more detail, with a much smaller area dealing with controversy. I'm not suggesting that TR is of the stature of Freud or even Erickson. I am suggesting that his work has evolved and mutated far enough away from NLP that it warrants a detailed description. The question is how long or detailed to make it, and how to cite textbooks that are distributed at seminars?MasterPrac 01:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe reviewing some of the good and featured articles that are biographies of other notable people might give you an idea of what's appropriate for inclusion in the Tony Robbins article and what's not appropriate? I'd recommend reviewing the policies and guidelines thoroughly here too, not because I think you're going to do something wrong, but if you have a better idea of what's appropriate, you'll be less likely to be disappointed by the deletion of stuff you've worked hard on.

Also, if there is a significant enough amount of material that you're adding, you might consider breaking it off into a separate article. Unleash the Power Within might warrant its own article, as well as each of Tony's books, his audio programs, and his other seminars. The thing to be careful about is not making the article about Tony an article about his products, if that makes sense. And many of his other products are notable enough to have their own articles; those articles just haven't been created yet. Rray 09:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the UPW requires its own article. It is, after all, nothing more than a product (more accurately a service) that people purchase in an effort towards self-improvement. Human Needs Psychology, however, developed by Robbims and Dr. Madanes, could well warrant an article. I come back to the same question I had before, though: how do I reference a textbook that is not available to the general public unless one attends a seminar?MasterPrac 18:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

To be sure, the information is not "secret," as Robbins freely talks about this in front of audiences, on Larry King, etc. It is, of course, copyrighted, as is all material in any book cited on Wikipedia.MasterPrac 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Humanitarian?

Robbins' website lists the following:

"Robbins has been selected as Vice Chairman of Health, Education, and Science for the United Nations Research Center for the International Council for Caring Communities (ICCC) NGO. Working with the Organization of American States, the Carter Center, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Robbins helped negotiate an electoral solution for peace to the strife and conflict that have devastated the Venezuelan people and their economy. Robbins has collaborated with political and business leaders in diverse world communities such as South Africa, England, Cuba, Panama, Venezuela, and the United States."

I did some cursory research and found a website for the "Council for Human Rights of Children (CHRC)." Within that website is a list of the "Participants in the First Meeting of the Council for Human Rights of Children on the subject of Alternatives to Institutionalization of Children and Adolescents in Crisis that was held in Oxford, Great Britain, from July 31st to August 5th, 2005. (http://www.rightsforchildren.org/participants.htm). Among the participants listed are:

• Cloe Madanes, Lic, HDL/President, Robbins Madanes Center for Strategic Intervention/La Jolla, CA, and
• Anthony Robbins/Vice Chairman, Health, Education and Science for the United Nations / International Council for Caring Communities/La Jolla, CA

So, not only was he present as one of only 20 prominent people at the first meeting of this organization, but they confirm that he was the Vice Chairman of the UNRC for the ICCC.

Is that enough documentation to include in the biography? If not, what more would be needed? If so, where would it go?72.225.222.55 01:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)MasterPrac 02:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are okay, but it's usually a good idea to find at least one or two secondary sources too, just to demonstrate that the information is notable enough to include. Maybe a search for "Council for Human Rights of Children" in Google will bring up an additional reference or two? That's just my suggestion. Hope it helps. :) Rray 05:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.rightsforchildren.org/ is that website. http://www.rightsforchildren.org/advisory.htm shows Robbins and Madanes both on their advisory board. So he is listed both one of 20 participants in the first meeting of the Council, and on their advisory board. Is anything else needed? Thanks.MasterPrac 13:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, a secondary source is needed. That's a primary source. I could go launch "Rray's Council for the Betterment of Humankind" on a website and list myself on the board of directors, but it doesn't become notable until other secondary sources cover the subject in a non-trivial manner. Rray 16:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: Under "sponsors," on the CHRC site, it says: "The Council for Human Rights of Children has been made possible in part by a grant from the Anthony Robbins Foundation."

Now, the fans will say that this shows that he not only a humanitarian, but that he puts his money where his mouth is. The cynics will say that he bought this honor. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterPrac (talk • contribs) 14:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The University of San Francisco School of Education (www.soe.usfca.edu) has a Center for Child and Family Development. At the link for the CCFD within the soe.usfca website, there is a link to the Council for Human Rights for Children. Clicking on that link, (http://www.soe.usfca.edu/institutes/ccfd/chrc_main.html) you see a picture of Cloe Madanes, and the text:

• The Council for Human Rights of Children is a project of the University of San Francisco Center for Child and Family Development; the Council is made possible in part by a grant from the Robbins-Madanes Center for Strategic Intervention.

• The Council for Human Rights of Children convened in Oxford from July 31st through August 5th, 2005,and in La Jolla, California, from January 7th through 12th 2007.

Is this a significant enough secondary source to warrant inclusion?MasterPrac 22:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A note to editors : Neutral Point of View

Wikipedia articles are required to be in a neutral tone, for instance, not to claim that robbin's self-help theories are the reality, or be written in any way that implies his courses will change your life!!!!!!1111, merely to report that they are his beliefs/claims. Some sections run the risk of being advertising or fanboy-like.Merkinsmum 03:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

While what you write is true, it is certainly also true that

1. Robbins believes that his seminars will have a positive impact on the lives of that seminar-participants, including the possibility of changing their lives for the better; and

2. Most participants spend money to go to these seminars with the express intent and expectation that the seminars will do just that.

Whether the experience will or won't is certainly open to debate, and IMHO it is not Wikipedia's place to say whether it will or won't. It is certainly appropriate, I believe, to both articulate Mr. Robbins' beliefs and theories, as well as to state the purpose of the seminars, whether or not they work. Even if the reader believes that he is little more than a snake-oil salesman, it has to be acknowledged that the reason people spend money to purchase snake-oil is the hope, belief or expectation that it will improve their lives. This fact has to be incorporated within the article without either endorsement or discrediting therein.MasterPrac 00:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The article already says what robbins believes, and what he claims to teach people in the seminars. That said, it's clear why some people would go. (Whether mistakenly or not) :)Merkinsmum 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mahavorick

What is the ethnic origin of the surname he was born with, Mahavorick? Badagnani (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Robbins Foundation and Robbins-Madanes Center for Strategic Intervention

What is the reasoning behind listing this as a subsection of "Seminars and Claims"? I don't think this section has anything to do with any seminars Robbins delivers or claims that he makes?

Also, this article is about Anthony Robbins. The frequent addition of information about Cloe Madanes in this article seems at best off topic and at worst promotional. Rray (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Robbins partners with Madanes. She lectures with him at his seminars. They co-founded the Robbins-Madanes Center for Strategic Intervention, and work together on behalf of the Center and the Council for Human Rights of Children. It may not belong within "Seminars and Claims." I concede that. His work with Madanes, though, is very relevant to any article on Robbins.MasterPrac (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is no more promotional to talk about the R-M Center for Strategic Intervention than it is to talk about his Foundation. They are both Not-for-Profits that do charitable work.MasterPrac (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add this information, then you need to include it in a logically organized manner. In other words, put it in a section that makes sense, not in the Seminars and Claims section.

As far as the Cloe Madanes additions go, you need to avoid giving Cloe Madanes an undue amount of weight in the article. The article is about Anthony Robbins, not Cloe Madanes. Rray (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

See section on "Humantitarian?" Above. We had this discussion. I asked you if it was worthy of inclusion back in October. Hearing nothing since then, I included it now.

It's worthy of inclusion if there are enough multiple reliable sources covering the subject in enough depth to make it notable. This is an encyclopedia article; not a collection of random facts and trivia. And just because it's a fact that Robbins does some work with Madanes doesn't make that work necessarily notable or important enough to include. A Google search for "Robbins-Madanes Center for Strategic Intervention" brings back very few results which I would consider reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. And just because Madanes is involved in a nonprofit organization doesn't preclude multiple references to her in an article from being vanity or promotional name drops. Rray (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a one line mention of something parenthetically isn't significant coverage. It's just a mention. Rray (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The University of San Francisco School of Education (www.soe.usfca.edu) has a Center for Child and Family Development. At the link for the CCFD within the soe.usfca website, there is a link to the Council for Human Rights for Children. Clicking on that link, (http://www.soe.usfca.edu/institutes/ccfd/chrc_main.html) you see a picture of Cloe Madanes, and the text:

• The Council for Human Rights of Children is a project of the University of San Francisco Center for Child and Family Development; the Council is made possible in part by a grant from the Robbins-Madanes Center for Strategic Intervention.

• The Council for Human Rights of Children convened in Oxford from July 31st through August 5th, 2005,and in La Jolla, California, from January 7th through 12th 2007.
• Is this a significant enough secondary source to warrant inclusion?

You never replied. No one replied. I took that as a "Yes."

As to your question about the relevance of Dr. Madanes, I will ask you this: Could you have an article about Jerry Lewis without mentioning Dean Martin, or visa versa? Can you have an article about Paul Simon without mentioning Art Garfunkle? Robbins and Madanes lecture together, and have a Center for Strategic Intervention that has both of their names on it. As important, the partnership with Madanes adds credibility to Robbins, amidst a ton of criticism.

No way is Cloe Madanes as relevant to Tony Robbins as the two examples you gave. That's just such a patently ridiculous assertion that I'm almost speechless. I've followed the career of Anthony Robbins for 20 years and never even heard of her until you started adding information about her in this article. Surely you can see the difference?

The amount of text that you quoted above is in no way significant coverage of a subject. It's a minor parenthetical mention, which doesn't necessarily warrant its inclusion in an encyclopedia article. And just because I didn't reply to your question months ago doesn't mean that it's appropriate for inclusion in this article. Rray (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

I'm bringing this to the talk page in hopes of avoiding an edit war with User:MasterPrac. The word "claims" is a weasel word. See Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. The word "describes" doesn't imply that the subject is possibly lying, but it also makes it clear that what follows is just the subject's description and not empirical fact. I can't believe I'm having to bring something so minor up on the talk page, but it looks like it's necessary. Sigh. Rray (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We can safely say that Randi "calls" it a scam. He does not "explain" that it is a scam, if you look at the citation. Nor does he call it a "trick." He does say that it is used by many dentists and chiropractors.MasterPrac (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Calls" is fine. But you didn't change it from the word "explains" anyway. You changed it from the word "describes". Rray (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to call me on the word "claims" on Randi as a "Weasel word" when the entire article on Robbins is littered with the word. If you look, the word "claim" or "claims" is used 13 times in the article, included (please note) a section called "Seminars and Claims." If you have a problem with the word "claims" in the obscure mention of Randi, why don't you clean up the rest of the article? MasterPrac (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Never Mind. I did it. I also cleaned up the Section on Jarvis. There were incomplete sentences, and mismatched tenses. More important, the link to Jarvis's article had some references that discredited just some of what Tony states as fact, and states his own version of fact without evidence to support himself. I changed it so that they are competing beliefs, not "right" or "wrong." If one "claim" is unsubstantiated, the other is as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterPrac (talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And I apologize for forgetting to add the four tildes to the end of my last post. It's obvious that I wrote it. Sometimes I forget to add them. MasterPrac (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing disingenuous about it. The article has been tagged for cleanup for months, and IIRC, I'm the one who added the tag. Just because the article has language in it that needs to be cleaned up isn't a reason to add or change things in the article to make it worse. Rray (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to go clean it up right now, but you need to understand the difference between pseudoscience and reality. Most of the changes you made were not only inappropriate but actually made the article worse. Having a neutral point of view doesn't mean you can't debunk pseudoscience. You seem to have a conflict of interest (or multiple conflicts of interest) as they relate to the subject matter of this article. You should probably review Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22. Rray (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rray, on the contrary: Your bias is showing. YOU appear to have a conflict of interest. Your bias is in debunking what you consider pseudoscience.

At your suggestion, I did read the FAQ. It says:

The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has described pseudoscience as follows (at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience):

• Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.

• Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

"The ArbCom ruled that the following should not be regarded as examples of pseudoscience:

• 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.
• Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

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]

Your bias, Rray, appears to be that you feel compelled to debunk here, when clearly that is not appropriate. You are, and forgive me for saying so, acting as arbiter of all that is right and good here. In YOUR opinion I made the article worse, because YOU believe -- operative word is "believe" -- that this is something that needs to be debunked.

Robbin's work is certainly not "Obvious Pseudoscience," by the definition above. It is not even "Generally considered pseudoscience," though you might personally believe so. NLP, NAC, Human Needs Psychology, and applied kinesiology for that matter, at worst are "Questionable science" by the above definitions. You may not think so --that's what makes it "questionable."

I will repeat what it says above:

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]

You write: "Having a neutral point of view doesn't mean you can't debunk pseudoscience." You obviously did not read the FAQ you suggest that I read. First, by their own definition, it is "questionable science," which, by their definition, is NOT "Pseudoscience." But even it it IS "pseudoscience," the FAQ clearly says that Robbins' work is expected here to be seen as a minority view. You can explain that there is also a majority view. BUT -- and this is a big BUT -- the FAQ is clear about these articles as NOT being a vehicle for debunking. Disputes need to be described "fairly." That means that they are to be described as "disputes." "Debunking" is therefore out of the question. MasterPrac (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Is there any information about what Tony did in his twenties? He often talks about his own success, but is his only success that of being a successful motivational speaker?

Tony was born in 1960, so his "twenties" were from 1980-1990. "Unlimited Power" was first published in 1986, when he was 26. If you read the book, you will find a lot of what happened in the immediate years before the book was published. At the time, he was transitioning from working with people one-on-one to working with groups.MasterPrac 00:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Kicking this legal threat upstairs

copied from the Pump:

---

In the article Tony Robbins, there is/was the following text:

"Controversial issues regarding Tony Robbins:

• In 2001 Robbins was divorced from his wife Becky. This disturbed some who had read his books (one of which is dedicated to her) and listened to his cassette programs, since both liberally dispense advice on how to have a happy marriage relationship. Robbins has, however, advocated that if one is truly unable to be happy in a marriage, one ought to improve it - possibly by leaving.

• Dreamlife.com, a company founded by Tony Robbins failed and went bankrupt. This obviously shocked some who depended on Robbins for business and investment advice."

I am not the author of this text; it is part of the earliest version given on the article's history page, dated May 29, 2003 with author Jpb1968; I do not know if that was its creation date, or if it goes back further still. The last sentence of the marriage topic was added more recently, again not by me.

This text was block-deleted by an anon on Sept. 22 and I reverted it back in. It was anon-block-deleted again this morning, Sept. 27, and I reverted it again. It was then immediately deleted again, this time by a new user, User:RRIESQ, who called it false and defamatory, and put this on my talk page:

"Mr. Gary D:

You are requested to contact the Law Office of Lavely & Singer PC (310-556-3051 x247) with regard to defamatory content on wikipedia that you repeatedly have restored, and therefore posted, after deletion by our office on behalf of our clients. If you do not respond, formal action shall be required. Thank you. Lavely & Singer P.C."

I suspect this may be part of the the new-found attention WP has gained from the AP article about it that was posted on Yahoo. I have verified that Lavely & Singer is really a law firm in Century City, a toney section of Los Angeles, with about seventeeen lawyers. I know WP is very sensitive about legal threats, so I'm kicking this upstairs for whatever you want to do with it. --Gary D 22:15, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

cc:Jimbo Wales' user page

Jimbo is aware of this. He's just been talking to the lawyer on the phone. Angela. 22:52, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Fact checking

So while the damn lawyers talk about the things that damn lawyers talk about, can we do some fact checking here?

• Hard Facts:
  1. Did/does Robbins have a wife named Becky?
  2. Did Robbins divorce a wife in 2001?
  3. Does Robbins have a book dedicated to a wife/woman named Becky?
  4. Did Robbins found a company called Dreamlife.com?
  5. Did a company called Dreamlife.com enter bankrupcy?
• Relatively Simple Assertions:
  1. Do Robbins' books/cassette programs liberally dispense advice on how to have a happy marriage relationship?
  2. Has Robbins advocated that if one is truly unable to be happy in a marriage, one ought to improve it - possibly by leaving.
• Possibly Problematic Assertions:
  1. This disturbed some who had read his books....
  2. This obviously shocked some who depended on Robbins for business and investment advice.

Are there any other points I've missed?

func(talk) 04:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is based on an IRC report of a phone call, so all the details might not be 100% accurate here. According to the lawyer, dreamlife.com did not go bankrupt and Tony Robbins was associated with the company but was not president, an executive, or a director of it. He was divorced from Becky but his books relating to marriage guidance came after the divorce, not before. I think it might be best to put in just the facts unless there are any reliable sources for those opinions about what readers supposedly thought about this. I've moved Mikkalai's comment to his talk page. Angela. 06:39, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

He wasn't president, an executive, but lawyers-be-damned, he was on the board of directors. To quote the section of their last S-1 filing on January 15, 2004:

ANTHONY J. ROBBINS

Anthony J. Robbins, 43, founded our company in November 1999 and has served as a member of our Board of Directors since such time. Mr. Robbins has served as the Vice Chairman of our Board of Directors since August 2001, and had served as Chairman of our Board of Directors from November 1999 until such time. Mr. Robbins has served as Chairman of the Board of Robbins Research International, Inc., also known as the Anthony Robbins Companies, since 1983. Mr. Robbins is a best-selling author of five books. His audio program, “Personal Power” is the best-selling personal improvement program of all time with more than 35 million tapes distributed worldwide.

Maybe the lawyers are operating on some strange legal definition of "director" that doesn't include "member of [the] Board of Directors". -- Cyrius|✎ 06:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I decided to tackle the "hard facts" section.

• Hard Facts:
  1. Did/does Robbins have a wife named Becky?

     Yes, he did. Robbins talks about his first marriage and its end briefly in a 2001 CNN interview. [9]

  2. Did Robbins divorce a wife in 2001?

     The divorce appears to have taken place in 2000 [10].

  3. Does Robbins have a book dedicated to a wife/woman named Becky?

     Yes, sort of. Courtesy of Amazon.com's full text search. Unlimited Power: The New Science of Personal Achievement contains the dedication

     "Dedicated to the greatest power within you, your power to love, and to all those who help you share its magic

     Most of all for me, to Jairek, Joshua, Jolie, Tyler, Becky, and my Mom"

     It's a bit of a liberal interpretation of "dedicated to Becky", but not false. I haven't performed an exhaustive search, and Amazon does not have text search for all of Robbins's books, so there may be a more clear-cut dedication to her in another work.

  4. Did Robbins found a company called Dreamlife.com?

     Yes, although the exact name appears to be "dreamlife, inc." [11] [12] [13]

     And from an SEC S-1 filing from earlier this year:

     "Anthony J. Robbins, 43, founded our company in November 1999 and has served as a member of our Board of Directors since such time." "Mr. Robbins is a best-selling author of five books. His audio program, “Personal Power” is the best-selling personal improvement program of all time with more than 35 million tapes distributed worldwide."

  5. Did a company called Dreamlife.com enter bankrupcy?

     Unknown. On April 19, 2004, "EOS International" (name changed from Dreamlife, Inc. in December 2001) issued a 15-12G "Certification and notice of termination of registration". I'm not skilled enough at sifting through SEC filings to determine if they had actually filed for bankruptcy, or what a 15-12G actually means (although it sounds reeeeally bad). They have made no filings since that I can find (but I don't know my way around).

-- Cyrius|✎ 06:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More on 5: http://businessweek.com/1999/99_37/b3646116.htm, it appears that he did NOT go bankrupt, and did a manuver called "reverse merger" into this GHS inc. More reasearch is being done on what happened to GHS inc. -Vina 00:57, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

GHS turned into DLIF at the end end of 1999. As part of the reverse merger mentioned above, the "old" dreamlife filed the 15-12G. at the end of 1999, GHS filed an 8k (I think) that changed their symbol to DLIF and their name to dreamlife. But by the middle of 2001, they weren't doing so well. Tony then acquired Discovery Toys after DLIF started suffering from losses. (see http://www.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2001/07/30/story2.html). After the acquisition, the company name changed again to EOS International (symbol EOSI) in early Jan 2002 and is now a "holding company". As of 9/13/04, they declare their book value as ~$6million or so, with most of that valuation in stock (I assume, of Discovery Toys.) Since they bought Discovery for ~$30mil in stock, it's safe to say that the buy didn't work out. -Vina 01:31, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why all the fuss?

(Remarks restored and turned into civilized text) Is it really necessary to go to depths with the sole apparent goal to defame a person? Mikkalai 05:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

;-) But I'd like to see a neutral-POV article on the guy. func(talk) 05:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV does't mean dirt digging. What's encyclopedic in trying to prove that the guy allegedly didn't do what he advised for others or that his bancrupcy made other lose money? Mikkalai 15:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you suggested I was interested in dirt digging? The article had a criticism section, which is entirely appropriate when a person, group, or institution has received notable criticism, such as this individual has. I took the contested criticism part of the article, and I broke it out into a list, so that we could work towards NPOV. Defamation is not the sole apparent goal of any criticism section in any Wikipedia article. The existence of known and widespread criticism is factual, and is always covered in articles, such as for George W. Bush, John Kerry, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc. All of the fuss is over the attempts of an outside legal agency to subvert the Wikipedia editing processes. func(talk) 15:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

there is merit to the above comment, i havent seen a single more slanderious article in all of wikipedia until this point. There is a huge bias towards the negitive. It would be reasonable to see a larger positive section as this article seems poorly written and seems to push somebody's personal bias or agenda, opposed to offering a balanced argument and then allowing the reader to make his own judgement at the end.

I think the negitive parts are fine, but the article needs to be balanced.

Going forward?

Have we heard back from the lawyers? It appears most of the "facts" are true, to a degree, other than the fact that he went bankrupt. Filing a termination of a business is not the same thing as bankruptcy. Can we unprotect this and insert the ones that are true and provable? -Vina 00:41, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Angela would probably be the best person to ask, or Jimbo Wales himself. func(talk) 13:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[05:21] <Angela> jwales: did you hear anything more about the Tony Robbins case? It's still protected
[05:25] <jwales> Angela, no...

So I unprotected it. Angela. 04:27, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

removed non-criticism from the criticism section.

If someone wants to reintegrate it somewhere else, fine. But this is hardly criticism:

Robbins is involved in a number of charitable works, including his "basket brigade" which helps feed the homeless and poverty-stricken. He also appeared as himself in the Farrelly brothers movie Shallow Hal.

Themindset 02:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

An anon user added some rebuttals in the criticism section. Please, if you are going to do this, at least create a response section. The criticism section is for criticism. Themindset 19:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Brain-washing?

I attended one of his seminars,[14] and he employs some techniques used by cults. Telling the crowd the only way they'll be good business people/healthy is by listening to him - that they can't do it on their own. That sort of "you are nothing without me" talk is very common among cults. Also, the fact that he tells people to repeatedly come back to his seminars demonstrates that his seminars aren't what they purport to be, and indeed look more like a scam intended to get people to attend every seminar they can, thereby depriving needy people of their money in return for "guaranteed" happiness. Then there's the strobe-lighting, the incessant high-fives, the blaring early-1990s cheesy music, and endless "facts" without any sources cited, and the ridiculous "role-play" (where you have to pretend strangers are your best friends, running around and hugging them). For a person offering "scientifically-proven" information, his dislike of actually telling anyone who proved his assertions is disturbing beyond belief, especially as many people adopt his advice in many facets of their lives. This even extends to the use of "RPM" (Rapid Planning Method), which he extols as a perfect solution for company organisation, even though it's comprised entirely of Microsoft Word and Excel templates, or if you shell out a lot of money, some hastily-constructed, bug-ridden software complete with pictures of tropical islands and other such targets.

The reason I'm posting this, is that I've seen how many Tony Robbins followers actually live their lives, and it seems his teaching methods affect people in ways not generally accepted to be beneficial to the people. Couple that with the aforementioned lack of supporting evidence, and things suddenly start to look somewhat dubious, to say the least.

It is more accurate to say that cults use some of the same techniques as Tony robbins as do cocacola and all advertising systems. its how you use a technique thats important not the technique itself. you can do many useful things with these techniques and you can also do great harm. I have attended UPW three times and at no point does tony ever say that he is the force that directs personal change. there, as in all the CD and book material he always makes clear that change is an internal process and that he is only a guide providing techniques and strategies.Tony does not guarentee happiness he offers the oportunity to achieve happiness from internal resources. no one has to pretend that strangers are friends role play is not involved. if you hug someone its as real as any hug you have had in your life and all voluntary. the writer of this biased drivel has no clue about what actually goes on. no one forced me to spend money. I have chosen which things I do and dont do. no one is forced to go without breaks in the seminars no doors are locked. only during one session are people specifically requested not to leave but no-one is physically forced to remain only if a participant is physically or verbally abusive to another person will they be removed. food and water are freely available for purchase immediately outside the room at all times.rest rooms are also freely available at there are queues all day. not great but thats a criticism of the venue not Tony Robbins. Excel centre is new but still made no account of the needs of women when constructing the toilet facilities. yes he heavily promotes other seminars. and offers huge financial incentives to seminar participants. but he also makes clear that everyone can attend these seminars listen to half the programme and then get a full refund if not happy. All the techniques including the loud music, strobe lights and physical activity are explained in detail. no one is under any illusion about whats going on. every one is a volunteer to be there and hardly anyone chooses to leave. I have no issue with criticsm but these are lies.

It's not a lie. He *does* ask people to hug others, pretend to be their age-old friends, and other role-plays, etc. He *does* tell us why we're unhappy/unsuccessful, then turn around and tell us how to fix it. He doesn't back up his facts, he references studies that never even took place. I've been to UPW - I've seen it with my own eyes. I guess if you take his word for everything, then yes, it's not cult-like. If you look at it objectively, it sure as hell looks like one. The fact people aren't forced to pay for goods/services doesn't mean nothing untoward has taken place. People get defrauded alarmingly often. Surely if it works, you only have to go once :) Dave420 01:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I attended Unleash the Power Within recently. What I found really impressive was the fact that a man was virtually shouting (almost constantly), bounding around stage and clapping for over six hours for three days in a row. Moreover, he makes similar demands on his audience - I suspect that few people at the Glastonbury festival which was taking place in the same weekend had busier times. It could be mentioned just how physically demanding his seminars are in the article.

A few interesting observations I made:

• Many people I met, including the personal representative from the sales team, had attended multiple AR seminars, deeply believed in his methods and liked Robbins very much. One man claimed that AR had changed (and virtually saved) his life five years ago.

• Some personnel were unpaid volunteers, some not. One has to question why unpaid volunteers were employed at a commercial event. One job the volunteers appeared to have was motivating people to return to the seminar room after the infrequent refreshment breaks by clapping, cheering.

• A motivation for some of the volunteers was commercial - I was approached by one volunteer who was promoting a 'new and upcoming' product (she worked for the company that made it) who gave me samples and engaged me in an interesting conversation on the positive aspects of globalisation. I imagine this gambit was worthwhile because there probably were wealthy investors in AR's audience, not to mention ambitious students, etc.

• The firewalking event was meant to be experienced with a constant chanting of 'yes', accompanied by clapping (the use of clapping and the word 'yes' had, according to AR, been set as an 'anchor' during the previous seminar which, when used, induces a feeling of 'energy and motivation'. This was the basis of the whole seminar series, essentially. The firewalking event was quite hypnotic and emotionally charged. The 'tribal' aspect of it was deliberately played up by the use of drum music.

• Robbins engaged several audience members in his performance. A notable and emotionally-charged happening of this sort concerned a middle-aged woman who was raped and was felt unable to have intimate relationships. Robbins used a technique whereby he invited the woman to visualize the 'pain' in her life that caused this in one hand and 'all the love' in the other hand. He then invited her to sprinkle the 'love' over the 'pain' until it was covered, and presumably obliterated. He also got the whole audience to do this and even invited everyone to learn how to do this to others.

• Robbins was not without critics. One audience member objected to his use of the term 'laid', saying it was 'gender-biased' and claiming authority on the subject of linguistics. AR did not apologise for causing offense and pointed out that 'the use of provocative language' is a part of the seminar - this was very clearly documented, btw. He did not particularly address her concerns but did use her as an example of the 'needs that drive everyone'. Supposedly, the basis of this woman's objection was soley a desire for recognition, be it aggressive or confrontational. Essentially, he rejected the woman's academic standpoint as merely an emotional need. Presumably, he could do this for anyone that questions or criticises his methods.

• I cannot comment on the precise basis of the psychology of neuroassociative conditioning. Its like Pavlovian conditioning but using internal stimuli I suppose.

• I can say that the diet and health seminar (called 'vital life') and its documentation was seriously flawed and contained several serious omissions and errors. A particularly irresponsible claim (unreferenced of course) is that positive mental attitude (and diet and exercise) can cure a serious illness such as cancer. The few references were for very fringing science authors, including Dr. Fereydoon Batmanghelidj on his water cure studies.

• It takes no dietician to note that AR's suggestions for a healthy lifestyle/lose weight are exactly those that would be provided by doctors and government information sources. However, the more strict aspects of the diet are based on much less proven principles.

Hope that someone finds this act of investigative journalism useful. --82.6.86.217 13:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page here is really meant to be used for discussion of the article, not to relate your personal experience at a Tony Robbins' seminar. Rray 14:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that. However, it may be useful for someone who would want to edit the article - I have provided information that is unlikely to be available unless one has attended one of these seminars. A good example of this which is not mentioned in the article is the physical demands of his seminars. Another is the quality of information supplied regarding a healthy lifetyle, which is based on very dubious information. --ChrisJMoor 21:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be good to add some other information about the seminars, but if the only place that information is available is in a post on the discussion page here, it would be original research. Cheers. Rray 23:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot disagree with you on that - I was unsure whether to write the post on that issue. You were right to correct me - I shouldn't have posted it here but I find it very frustrating that critical information of this sort is not available from reputable sources - thats how Robbins is able to carry on telling people to make important decisions based on flaky evidence that is touted as science. --ChrisJMoor 22:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being a good sport. I wasn't really trying to "correct" you, just sharing information. I liked certain aspects of UPW myself, and certain aspects of it were pretty disturbing too. Would be a good project for a sociology graduate student somewhere. :) Rray 00:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Its okay, you did the right thing - this page should be filled with information on how to improve the article, not unverifiable claims. However, it deeply annoys me that a man can present biased/incorrect information which people are supposed to eat, live and sleep by while people like you and me (who work without reward to inform people) must keep our lips buttoned down for fear of misinforming because we are potentially unreliable sources. I also enjoyed UPW and I can honestly say it has helped me, but that does not justify that fact that AR is misinforming people.--ChrisJMoor 02:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Should this not be titled "Anthony Robbins" rather be "Tony Robbins" as he signs his books and per wikipedia common practice (i.e. full names)? --nirvana2013 12:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

To quote WP:Naming:

Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem.

7. In general, use the most commonly recognized English-language form of the name. Create redirections or disambiguations for other plausible links.

My impression is that Tony Robbins is the more commonly recognized form of the name. Themindset 17:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Get the Edge

anybody actually got this on dvd or video?

i wanna know what its about, that is how i know this fool, anthony:D

>x<ino 02:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"New Age Vanguard"

I'm not sure how somebody simply being "in the vanguard of the New Age movement," necessarily constitutes a criticism, although if it does, to me that is a POV generalisation, as it applies a disparaging tone not just to Robbins himself but to a very large number of other individuals as well. Petrus4 08:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources for Republican

I am new and unsure how this fits as a Wikipedia policy, but it is poor journalistic practice. In the 2008 Presidential Considerations section, there is the sentance "Many say that if he ran, it would be for the Republican nomination.". Who says this? Is there a valid source available or is this speculation of the author?

Brainwashing - only Tony's way?

I have not attended any of Tony's seminars, so I can't comment on what happens there. I have listened to two of his tape programs. In those programs he stresses that we should think for ourselves, and make sure what he is saying makes sense. He does this a few times throughout the program.

He says that, yes, but that shouldn't be up to the listener - he's making the claims, he should cite sources. Like that ONE source he does cite - the study at Yale (where the 3% of people who wrote down their goals had more wealth than the other 97% after 20 years), which never took place. Dave420 01:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Robbins' use of "cult-like" techniques

I was an avid Robbins fan for close to a decade. I have Personal Power 2, Get the Edge, Time of your Life, RPM, Awaken the Giant Within, Unlimited Power and have attended an Unleash the Power Within 3 day seminar. This is what is says on my user page re Robbins and cults:

"Cults have always interested me for years simply based on their mystery/ability to draw unwavering devotion to ridiculous premises even from otherwise intelligent people, and I have always read books on unconscious influence, LGAT (large group awareness training) and "brain washing"; At the same time I would also read self improvement material. However, that changed and my interest in cults really peaked because I was a Tony Robbins advocate, and when attending an "unleash the power within" weekend seminar I saw to my horror it had some striking makings of a LGAT/"Landmark Forum/Werner Erhard" type event, with cultish rituals (15-18 hour days with almost no breaks for food, repetitive chants, unconscious influence techniques, charismatic leader, strict guidelines even to the point of totalitarianism).

From there I researched Robbins, Landmark Education and Church of Scientology extensively (although I do not believe Robbins is at all a destructive cult, I do believe he uses unconscious persuasion (or mind control), and cult like LGATs to sell more of his products). "

So yes I believe Robbins in some ways does lead a cult. - you may find this link interesting reading. It's on rickross.com - one of the world's foremost cult experts.

If you feel this info warrants being added to the mainpage I'd be happy to. Glen Stollery 01:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if it were all true, Tony is using these methods to suggest ways of how to be more successful and happy on what your own interpretation of success and happiness should be without having to give your total self (or anything at all if you don't choose to) back to the "cult". It is very different than a cult in that way. Without giving anything back to the organization itself, you can still be just as successful and happy as you want to be. He does suggest that you should at least contribute to a charitable organization. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.239.1.122 (talk • contribs) .

Whether or not his 'followers' believe it is helping them become more successful or not has ABSOLUTELY NO relevance on whether or not the organization or group falls under the definition of a cult or not. In fact the vast majority of cults are LGATs (which means the utilize Large Group Awareness Training) so if anything this only adds to the argument. If you ask a Scientologist or someone partipating in Landmark Educationif they believe it makes them more successful they will definitely tell you yes. Look up the definition of what a cult is before commenting please. Glen Stollery 13:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Glen is making very broad statements and seems to have little actual knowledge of Tony Robbins' seminars, tapes, etc. People who seek/have sought Tony Robbins' work ("followers" is a very loaded term in this article, you're assuming facts not in evidence) are largely professionals who do so to make marked improvements in their business, their personal relationships, their finances and their health. In order to make significant or dramatic changes in your life it often involves changing the way you think, believe, and behave. While cults encourage change in the same areas, it does not follow that anyone who attempts to change and improve their life is a "cult" member. Also the changes offered can be independently measured by, it's not a matter of "are you happier".

Unlike a cult, the changes sought by people who attend a Tony Robbins seminar, or do a tape program, are not just in mood. The successful results (or lack of results) can be measured as to their success. If your finances increase, your relationships improve, your business becomes more successful, or your health improves as a result of Tony Robbins' teachings (depending on what you seek to improve)then these are measurable results of whether his advice and methods work. Improving individual lives in quantifiable ways is not the goal of a cult. Cults don't enhance a persons present life, but offers to give them a new life with their membership in the organization.

This article is one of the most biased I have ever seen on Wikipedia and clearly written not from a NPOV.

Since all of the measurable stuff you mention is so quantifiable, you shouldn't have any problem finding published sources which verify these claims, should you? Then you can edit the article and present the other side that you think isn't well-represented here.

If you think the article is biased, then do something appropriate about it instead of posting an anonymous rant on the talk page. Rray 18:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Addition of allegations of "cult like" techniques should be added?

Please read above and comment if addition is warranted. Please also follow the external link above to the rickross.com site. I would like your thoughts Glen Stollery 16:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Concern of similarities of Robbins' techniques to those employed by cults

Has been added with references to attendees observations noted at http://forum.rickross.com/viewtopic.php?t=236 as well as Margaret Singers citing New age self-improvement courses using cult techniques in her book "Cults in our Midst" Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 00:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For 202.7.166.164 could you discuss before deleting please Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 04:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved the section referring to the New Age Movement and other authors (Wayne Dyer) etc. to the NPOV section. It's not inherently a criticism to be related to the New Age Movement or to other very popular authors even if someone somewhere has written a book suggesting the whole lot of them uses cult-like behavior. Personally, I think the New Age movement has a lot of whacky characters and a lot of good stuff but there's no way that being "New Age" proponent is inherently good or bad, just like there's no way that being a Christian, Muslim, Republican, Democrat, Capitalist, Socialist, etc. can infer criticism other than being an editorial comment that has no place in an Encyclopedia. Also, relationship with other people itself is not a valid criticism unless perhaps there is a general knowledge of those people. In other words, it's one thing to note that a person has close ties to Hitler or Stalin. Or to the Moonie organization or to Scientology. However, it's an incredibly weak argument to say it's a criticism to be associated with the likes of other authors and speakers like Wayne Dyer, Louise Hay, and Deepak Chopra. - Lou 7 March 2006

I removed this section entirely as it is not verifiable, it is simply a session in negative spinning with no substantiation or real documentation. Hardly appropriate for a NPOV article. --FreedominThought 02:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No substantiation? There's over 240 posts discussing the subject here. The article states "critics note" and references a source where dozens of critics are discussing the subject... what further reference do you needs? Besides this is exactly appropriate for an NPOV article. I notice you added (uncited) references to Robbins' numerous "charitable works" (although your statement doesn't even make sense), so it is entirely NPOV to also show the flip side of the coin and reference criticism of Robbins. With your attempt to discredit Wade Cook in the article it reads like it's been written by Robbins' PR agent. Please discuss and wait for feedback before removing this material in the future. _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 20:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous rants are not substantiation. First of all, these statements are tantamount to libel which is not allowed under Wiki policy. None of this is verfiable by any independent source, only your little anti-Robbins brigade. No discussion is needed for its removal and besides you don't own the article. 2nd, you are placing copyrighted material into the article which is also against Wiki policy. I have no problem with rational criticism, but your biased hyperbole is not that. --FreedominThought 04:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There are dozens of articles on TR using LGAT techniques if you would like them referenced I will, though it will do little but make it seem more like a heavy attack (which it is not) rather than another section. I laughed when I read your "anti=Robbins" comment. You obviously know little about me so please keep your uninformed opinions to yourself. Finally, regarding your "copyright" comment, please read Fair use and again, do not comment on subjects in which you are uneducated. _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 00:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between TR and some other cults. I am an accountant, and have a client who is a new Scientology member. The Scientology people insisted on seeing her income tax return, and forcing her to eliminate any exaggerations. When they found out that she was a self-proclaimed healer, Scientolology almost kicked her out (she said) because she would be competing with them!

TR, on the other hand, teaches people to do what he does, and encourages people to help other people in the ways that he helps them. And he does. Say what you want, but there are a lot of people who used to be suicidal until they met him, and I've seen him transform people in person.---- User:MasterPrac 22:55, 26 October 2007

Quotes section

Shouldn't this be on wikiquote rather than here? --Terminal157 18:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible copy vio material

I have removed two paragraphs of material which clearly originate here. Unless we have clear permission to use this material in a manner compatible with Wikipedia, it cannot be included.

It also has the problem of being inherently POV, given its source.

Fourohfour 11:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

More potential copyvios removed; example sentence search on Google shows non-Wikipedia sources. Fourohfour 11:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Tougher prison?

"Robbins says in his book, Awaken the Giant Within, that he supports tougher sentences for criminals."

I was surprised to read that sentence... because I just finished Awaken the Giant Within, and he doesn't say anything like that. This is what he says in the book:

"We must provide our prisoners with an environment in which they don't have to constantly worry about being beaten or attacked by cellmates, yet at the same time we cannot make prison the home they never had. I'm suggesting that prison terms should be undesirable - uncomfortable - and that during a prison term, people should be shown ways to make the outside world an experience that they can be in control of, one of pleasure and posibility..."

I think the claim in the article is very biased, and is twisting Tony's words.

Bleedstupid 06:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I must say that statement goes against his handling of the "Tookie" trial... it sounds as though you are certain in which case I would make the edits. Where else do you feel it is bias _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Who is this guy?

This article is terrible. It reads like a freaking comercial. I want facts about where he grew up, how did he get all this wisdom, what are his credentials? Wikipedia is not a place for promoting a guy and his products. Plus I can't believe that no one has piked up yet that he lifted all his concepts straight out of the Carlos Castaneda books. Personal power? Come on give me a brake. Cleargreen should sue him for plagerism. Who the hell is this guy? I don't want a comercial. I want facts.

Since this is a Wikipedia, if you think an article is "terrible" and "reads like a freaking commercial", then you have the option of rewriting the article. Instead of posting ranting criticisms on the "Talk" page, you should contribute to the article by editing and rewriting it. Rray 15:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this guy, so I don't feel comfortable altering the article. That's why I came here to learn about him, but instead I was surprised how biased and one sided this article is. I'm used to reading Wikipedia every day and most articles are factual and to the point, but this one stood out severely. So I'm asking people who are more knowlegeble of this man, and who have more than a passig interest in him to be more factual in their profiling.

Books don't exist

Apparently Tony Robbins has some books listed at Amazon and elsewhere that have not yet been published:-

• "The Driving Force"
• "Inner Strength"

Even though they have not been published designs for the book covers seem to exist. I am going to qualify the footnote for the bookcover shown in the article. Terjepetersen 14:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge of Human Behavior

For all who question how legitimate Tony's methods are, it would be wise to first and foremost question ones own methods of communication.

It is in the subconcious nature of all human beings to use subtle, suggesting, hypnotic type language to influence the thoughts of another, to side with, and believe the one delivering the message, whatever it may be.

If a child wants candy the precious one will, by all the tact of emotional responce it can muster, persuade the parent or elder to give what the child is asking. Children do this, as a part of their subconcious nature, on a regular basis. But no more than their counterparts, the parents. As a matter of fact, it is an inherited behavior. Such is not only pre-existant, by more acurately developed and even honed as a skill, with each and every passing day spent with their parents and surroundings.

But what about the the adults? Don't they use even more sofisticated tactical skills of manipulation on their own children to get them to do what they wish. Do not parents and teachers alike, coerce children by a much more forceful means of communication, using fear and control tact. The pleasure/pain motivating factor is inherant in all human nature.

"Good" and "Bad" emotions stimulate every descision and action we do/don't make. Tony Robbins teaches a person to discover what those maximum pleasure motivations are, and how to use them as an unlimited energy force to achieve all goals. Don't we all want our children and youth to grow up as incredible achievers? Don't we want all of our nation to be happy, fulfilled, and at peace? Only then will violence and poverty be vanquished.

If it is ok for "the law" to motivate us to do right and protect us from wrong doing (which is of it's own interpretation by the way), though the controlling coercive means of punishment(NLP trick to associate fear of PAIN), then shouldn't it be ok for a person to motivate another to motivate us to choosed what we wish for our lives by revealing to us possible rewards? Epecially with no threat of punishment?

Our founding fathers used such tact and s;ubtle suggestions to stimulate our emotions to move us to live for individual freedom. The "Birthright" to choose that which makes us fulfilled , and promotes world peace.

Maybe a person should deeply, and honestly study any and all things, before ever speaking upon such issues. "Opinion" has never had great influence for good, unless backed by diligent science.

Thank you loving us enough to study us TONY. Only through such passionate understanding as your's, will our species progress and fulfill purpose.

• Not sure what your point is here, but I edited the spaces from the beginnings of your lines to keep the paragraphs from running off the sides of the window. Manys 05:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The NLP moron clearly has no point. Robbins is a cult leader who should be shut down, but America is one big barbecue for these lizards. --81.103.144.60 03:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the "Seminars and Claims" section to make it more comprehensive. "Unlimited Power" is a very outdated source for information about TR or about what he teaches. His work has evolved considerably since that time, and includes collaboration with Dr. Cloe Madanes. He primarily teaches "Human Needs Psychology" today, and his concept of "Six Human Needs" needed to be described.

I have tried to be fair, and not a "cheerleader" in elaborating on his claims and better describing his seminars. MasterPrac 04:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your edits did read as if they were written by a fan of Tony Robbin and not by someone who's writing an encyclopedia article. Some of the information you deleted should continue to be included. Adding more information might make sense, but it has to be written from a neutral perspective. I'm not a TR-basher btw; I like some of his stuff too. But the article needs to be NPOV and encyclopedic. Rray 04:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. While I am clearly a fan of Mr. Robbins, I also know a heckuva lot more about his "claims and seminars" than most people. Basing information on a book he published 20+ years ago and ignoring what he has done since is just ridiculous. And the "Seminars and Claims section was about the shortest in the article, when IMHO it should be the longest, because without his seminars and claims there would be nothing to write about! MasterPrac 04:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

While I respect that you have a different opinion, an encyclopedia is a place to share what *other people* know and have written about a subject. See Wikipedia: No original research.

One of the sentences you wrote was: 'To understand Robbins' work, one must understand the concept of CANI, an acronym Robbins created for Constant And Never-ending Improvement.'

It's hard to understand how anyone could not see that as "fan-like" language, or how anyone could consider that encyclopedic. It might be appropriate for a website that is selling Robbins' content or seminars, but it just isn't written in a style appropriate for an encyclopedia. It's also not referenced. It's not enough to just make a statement that the only way you can understand his work is to understand "CANI", you have to include a reference to a reliable source which says that. Otherwise it's just an opinion dropped in at random. Rray 04:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ray, to understand Robbins' work, one must understand the concept of CANI. This is a true statement. He mentions this in his Personal Power study course, and I will create a citation for that. I have to mention this because his work is not static. To have people think that his first book -- as I wrote previously -- is what he professes today is a disservice to the reader. MasterPrac 04:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at what I wrote, I can see some things that can be construed as cheerleading, and removed them. There was no reason to remove the whole edit. MasterPrac 04:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, there is far more opinion in the criticism section than there is in what I just edited. MasterPrac 04:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Truth" isn't the criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia; verifiability is. Indicating that Tony Robbins *says* that you have to understand "CANI" might be verifiable, but I'm pretty sure that we don't have multiple reliable sources who agree that this is actually the case. Also, while it might well be a disservice to only include what he claimed in his early work, it's also a disservice to exclude what he claimed there also.

I'm sorry if reverting your whole edit hurt your feelings, but there was no edit summary, and the additions were uncited. The previous version was better than the new version, so the easiest way to make the article better was to just revert your edit. You might want to review Wikipedia: Ownership of articles. People will edit your changes here mercilessly. If you don't like that, then you will be unhappy here. :)

Regarding the amount of opinion in the criticism section, I see none other than the opinions of other people. References have been included, and the references are to reliable sources. Feel free to add more praise to the article if you can find a reliable source to site when you add it. Rray 04:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment about verifiability has merit. I removed the CANI reference, even though TR talks about CANI on his Personal Power 30 day home study course. I have cited every paragraph I added. Most come from the "horses mouth;" You can watch him talk about the Six Human Needs on that Youtube video if you have 22 minutes. MasterPrac 05:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed your edits to the article. Here are examples of cheerleader and advertising talk:

• "In his popular Personal Power program," - Calling this program "popular" is unnecessary. It's just sales-talk, and it's not at all encyclopedic.
• "Dr. Cloe Madanes, internationally reknowned innovator in both family and brief therapy" - Again, total sales-speak, written like an advertisement for a book or website.
• You included multiple link drops to external sites. These belong in the external links section of the article, if at all, but given their content, they really don't look appropriate for inclusion here at all.

Your edits also include multiple spelling errors, inappropriate uses of italics, incorrect header formatting, and awkwardly-written sentences. While your intentions might be good, reverting your "whole edit" makes complete sense. If the previous version of the article is better than the version of the article you edited, then reverting it back is clearly appropriate. Rray 05:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have listened to all of Tony's audio programs, and I've read all of his books, and I have been to UPW, so I don't need to watch the YouTube video. I'm familiar with his "six human needs". The problem is that most additions to articles need reliable secondary sources to be included. "From the horse's mouth" is a primary source, which is appropriate sometimes but not always. (Like in the case of someone who makes claims of helping other people for a living.) Rray 05:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, please show the other editors here the courtesy of including edit summaries when you make changes to the article. It helps everyone understand what you've changed and why. Rray 05:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ray, I was surprised to find this morning that the page had been reverted back to my edit complete with changes suggested by you. That was not done by me. Someone apparently reverted it and edited it as "minor changes" per your critique. For example, "popular" was removed from describing "Personal Power." The description of Dr. Madanes was removed. The italics were removed and the heading was corrected. Then I find that you reverted it anyway. If you want to find consensus, as you state, that is fine by me. You can start by taking what I wrote and editing it, rather than reverting back to status quo. At least I -- and whomever did the revert this morning -- are attempting to use your criticism to create some consensus. You, on the other hand, are the one creating the "edit war," as you call it.MasterPrac 17:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Unless I missed something, no one else has made any edits to this article since you started editing it besides you and me. You can review the changes to the article using the "history" tab. Had your edits been made with more care, then I wouldn't have felt the need to revert them to the status quo, but there were so many mistakes in so many ways that reverting it to the previous version was the appropriate thing to do. You'll note that I've included reasons for any edits I've made to the article in the edit summaries here, and I also came to the talk page to discuss these edits. By immediately reverting those edits with no edit summary and without discussing it on the talk page, you're the one who's edit warring. I'm not being contentious here; I'm trying to explain edit warring to you because you appear to misunderstand what the phrase means. Rray 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the description of Cloe Madanes came not from "sales-speak," but rather paraphrased from her biography page from the American Psychology Association (http://www.americanpsychotherapy.com/bios/chloe_madanes.htm). The first line states, "Cloe Madanes is recognized internationally as an innovator in both family and brief therapy." I don't see the APA as a sales oriented organization. I included it because she has no Wikipedia page and someone who is looking at the article might want to know who she is.MasterPrac 17:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Had you included a reference when you added that to the article, I might have known that, but even then it would have still been sales-speak. That's the kind of thing that's written on book jackets to make them sell more books. You might consider creating a Wikipedia article about Cloe Madanes if you're concerned that a reader doesn't know who she is. Rray 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is many things to many people. Some people might actually want to know what his theories actually are, and what is behind the changes that people claim he is able to create for people.

• You might review what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia is not for more information about what the Wikipedia actually is. Rray 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I recommend the Youtube video highly. There is a terrific interaction at about the 5 minute mark between TR and Al Gore.MasterPrac 17:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You write earlier: "Regarding the amount of opinion in the criticism section, I see none other than the opinions of other people. References have been included, and the references are to reliable sources." So, does that mean that the entry on the Rutgers Women's basketball team, if there was one, should have Don Imus's criticism that they are "Nappy headed Ho's"? Just because someone said something, and it is verifiable, doesn't mean that it merits inclusion. Sometimes you have to consider the source.MasterPrac 17:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Surely there's a difference between a racial slur from a shock jock and a criticism from a noted authority who debunks charlatans on a regular basis, don't you think? Besides, I don't think that mentioning his slur on that page is inappropriate either, if it's explained in context. It's certainly a notable occurrence with plenty of references to cite. But that's a lousy analogy, since it's an entirely different situation. Rray 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am going to revert it back -- with the changes you suggested. I am going to make further changes as needed, based on your critique. Feel free to edit as needed. But if you want consensus, as you suggest you do, stop being an "imperial censor" and start practicing what you preach. Edit. Work at the consensus you desire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterPrac (talk • contribs) 17:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please review the guidelines on being civil to other editors. Namecalling ("imperial censor") and making snide comments about me isn't an effective way of getting your point across. Implying that I don't edit or work at consensus is just silly and wrong, also. I've edited 100's of articles and participated in 100's of discussions here about all kinds of articles. At any rate, I'd appreciate it if you'd limit your discussion here to the article and the edits to the article. Rray 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to whomever made that change before I got a chance to do so. with any luck, it will meet Ray's discerning tastes. MasterPrac 18:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• See my earlier comment about civility above. The sarcasm about my "discerning tastes" isn't necessary or helpful. Rray 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my apparent lack of civility. I was responding to the "either/or" method of constantly undoing my changes in spite of my best efforts to respond to your criticisms. It did not seem that you wanted anything to do with consensus until you said so.MasterPrac 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't confused about what you were responding to. You weren't making efforts to respond to my criticisms in my edit summaries; you were just reverting them back to your preferred version. Now you're discussing it on the talk page, which is a giant leap forward. Thanks for the apology. Rray 00:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The first time I reverted as you had. But if you had looked carefully before you pulled it a second (and third) time, you would have noticed copyedit changes that attempted to answer your criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.222.55 (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that you're correct. I don't remember the exact details and don't want to wade through the history, so I'll just apologize and try to be better in the future. :) Rray 05:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

External links section

I cut it down from 6 to 2. We do not want links in there that are just links to promotional material for Tony. It violates the guidelines on external links. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a joke right? Like seriously this stuff above must be satire of some kind, like surely noone thinks this big toothed goon is out to do anything but enrich himself.

Possible link to add

The methods in his seminars were discussed on Penn and Teller: Bullshit! They can be found on Google Video 12.226.178.27 01:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

^Link is broken? Shaybear♥

criticism section gone

From this talk page it looks like there was once a criticism section. Well even the title has gone! Could it be reinstated in some way? I.e. out of a previous version? It looks like a robbins fan has come along and deleted it wholesale. I don't know enough to do it myself but could someone remake it?Merkinsmum 17:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Checking the history, I see that the criticism section was renamed "Legal affairs" and some unsourced criticism was removed. [15]. -Will Beback 18:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed not to find the same content in this section as there used to be. There was once some critical information given from a psychological point of view in how his methods can be harmful, including arguments (perhaps references also) to back it up. This no longer exists. {Strange: In the last two minutes two small paragraphs have been added! However, it's not the content I'm describing.]

All previous versions of the article are archived in the "history" of the article. Maybe you can find the content you were disappointed to see gone and re-add it, making sure that it includes appropriate citations? Would be a great way to participate here at the Wikipedia. Rray 03:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

balancing external site

I have added a link to a site critiquing robbins, for balance. Please do not remove, some balance is needed.Merkinsmum 15:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because an article is critical of Robbins doesn't make it notable or a good addition to the external links section. This particular site you added is only 2 pages long and doesn't have any authorship information or look like it has any authority - it's just a personal critique. I'm removing it for being non-notable, and if you can find a more notable or trustworthy page critiquing Tony Robbins' methods, I'd support its inclusion here. Rray 19:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've found a better one. James Randi article do? At least until something else is found. Some link critical of Robbins IS necessary hereMerkinsmum 22:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think James Randi is a notable source, yes. Rray 06:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

There is now a criticism section, as there should be to balance the article. Its the best I can do for the moment. At present it's based on the work of the James Randi Educational Foundation, though there are other critics of Robbins. Nothing here is at all libellous. Please edit to improve if you are unhappy with it, rather than deleting wholesale.Merkinsmum 23:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I did some copyediting on this section you added. You might give it a second look to see if I've missed anything. This section could probably be expanded; I think an episode of Penn and Teller's show might have also criticized some of Robbins' methodology. Do you think this section is enough to warrant removal of the "other viewpoints" tag in the article? Rray 06:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what sources there are for this Penn and Teller show, as well as other references besides just the one James Randi. Smeelgova 06:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

Heh. Guess I need to break out the boxed set and find the episode so we can cite it huh? Rray 01:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We need another source alongside this, because people who are into New Age etc dismiss comments from Randi as he is critical of these therapies as a whole, not just any particular purveyor of themMerkinsmum 11:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The article from Randi is from 2002 so we should be able to find some articles or something that are more recent. There's stuff on forums but I don't think that can be used here. I don't know what copyediting is, have to look it up, but thanks, you've made it stronger. I was trying not to be libelous to Robbins, for reasons of wanting some criticism to stay up here, and not bring his legal mates in as happened earlier in this talk page.Merkinsmum 11:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting just means editing the actual written copy for things like grammar, style, etc. Usually that's used in the "Edit summary" when you've made a lot of those kinds of changes, and it wouldn't make much sense to record all of them in the summary.

I took the liberty of taking out the Randi criticism of the "applied kinesiology scam." Applied kinesiology is used by chiropractors and other health professionals. Whether you believe that chiropractics is real or a scam I will leave to the reader. But AK is so tangental to ANYTHING that TR does that I have to remove that. Sorry.

In addition, I Googled "Q-link." They DO have research -- including THREE double-blind studies at that -- on their website [16]. MasterPrac 04:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterPrac (talk • contribs) 04:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edits here. The criticism from Randi is notable and should be included. If you can find a reliable source to cite refuting Randi's remarks, then it would be appropriate to include them there.

Regarding Q-link, when you're talking about a company that's selling a product, you really need to cite a reliable source *other* than that company to provide evidence of the research. (Since Q-link has a vested interest in selling its products, it's probably not the best source to cite. Rray 04:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)\

The criticism from Randi, again, is so tangental to TR's work that it has no place here. If you don't understand that, then you should not be attempting to edit this subject matter.

And Ray, did you take a look at the link above???? You will see links to 3 double-blind studies including one conducted by Dr Norman Shealy, MD, and William Tiller, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University. They link to the conclusions of the studies themselves, which can be researched further. MasterPrac 04:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 72.225.222.55 04:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Michael Roes' criticism is legitimate. But Randi's criticism is 4 times removed:

1. According to Roes, it was Joseph McClendon who did the applied kinesiology, not Tony Robbins.
2. The applied kinesiology was to demonstrate a Q-Line product that has nothing to do with what TR calls his "technologies." AK has nothing to do with NLP or NAC or Human Needs Psychology. AK was simply used as a test of the Q-Links effectiveness. It has NOTHING to do with anything TR espouses.
3. Mr. Roes asks a Q-Link rep for a copy of the double-blind studies done on the Q-Link's effacacy. He is told that the research is "on the website." Well, it actually is. If you go to (http://www.q-linkproducts.com/h_science_research.shtml) you will find 10 studies, including one single-blind study, and 3 double-blind studies, including "A double-blind study conducted by Dr Norman Shealy, MD, and William Tiller, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University, 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." The site links to the conclusions of each study, and the full studies can be found with a little effort. The point is that Mr. Roes implies that rep's answer suggests that the research does not exist. It does. It is up to the reader to determine the validity of the research, but it has been done.
4. Randi comments that "this is the old "applied kinesiology" scam we're already familiar with. It's used by chiropractors, dentists, all sorts of "new age" systems, and it just doesn't work. But, it's very convincing to the naive, so the Robbins folks have dragged it in to sell the unicorn they're offering....."MasterPrac 18:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This Randi line is like Don Imus calling the Rutgers team "Nappy headed Ho's." Yes, he said it. It was verifiably said, but the opinion is not worth the ether it was written on. The jury is decidedly out on AK. Randi is convinced that it is a "scam." He might as well be writing that he is convinced that people over 6'5" are idiots. It is a statement, but has no merit. If anything, the criticism belongs on the Wikipedia page on Chiropractics. It does not belong here.

You could say "Randi is convinced that the AK TR's associate used in testing a product being sold at one of TR's seminars is a scam." In fact, I will change it to say so. But to say Randi calls "Robbins' "applied kinesiology" a scam is just inaccurate.MasterPrac 18:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Balancing this article

I believe many will agree with this comment. True, in 1996 approx. 315 entries in Webster's Dict. were misspelled, and Britanica and Wikipedia had the same rate of factual errors in a sampling reported by CBS News. That being said, if the objective is to write facts and do so with neutrality notwithstanding, I must admit I found the entire article to be a low-grade negative over-all, (9th grade readability-no offense, it's been edited numerous times by many), very disjointed, and predominately negative to an obvious degree (hence unbalanced), and added to that-without benefit of skilled writing and research to present fluid objectivity.

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.

The predominant theme I get from just reading it is the concern of this comment: if you cannot support by heavy reference a large movement stating, i.e, Robbins' cult-like methods, etc., it is probably best not to open the can of worms until it can be suitably addressed. Stub those sections, without playing up superlatives in the positive. I believe I would also check Wikipedia's liability for slander suits, which I am sure is held harmless based on the nature of this project; however, that is what this article leads me to thinking. One wonders to keep a good reputation, shouldn't persons have to take some kind of test before they edit? The DMOZ Project directory editors have stricter criteria for selection.

To be specific in closing: There is a Section on Criticisms, but no Praises Documentation. There are many that provide supporting view of his methods, not just celebrities, and yet that section is glaring missing - none are mentioned. If you mention negatives, you should balance with authorities on both sides. It is entirely one-sided. Research is necessary! This is a major unbalance given that Wikipedia cryptically describes his personal life, narrow and very negative sounding without benefit of true writing ability - have several negatives in numerous sections, and I've yet to find a postive or truly neutral statement in the choppy collection.

I'm afraid I cannot offer any assistance of than this, I would feel compelled to rewrite every part; as it is I have another project I'm diligently drafting for Wikipedia.

Good Luck to all of you on this, KUDOS for your efforts. I've used Wikipedia for years, and would like it to remain a great archive of knowledge and information. DVH-24 October 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imagraphicx (talk • contribs) .

• You should consider rewriting the article, since you obviously care about the subject matter, the Wikipedia project, and the quality of the article. That's the great thing about the Wikipedia; you can fix what's wrong with it. Rray 01:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If you do not like it, don't moan, you can rewrite it:) The unbalanced header is there because before the criticism section was added back in it was basically a rave about him. There is no praises section as the entire article lists Robbins' many achievements. A praises section would be too much like advertising, but I suppose you could add a 'noteable fans of Robbins are ...' type of section.Merkinsmum 02:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Removed the criticism section. It was a blank copy from the mentioned website - and was first-hand opinion only. I have left the link to the critical website though, as it is relevant to the published opinions on Robbins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.168.28.59 (talk • contribs) .

I've restored it. In what way is it a "blank copy"? It does quote the source, but the other text appears to not be copied. -Will Beback 19:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi anonymous person:) There was nothing copied about it whatsoever apart from naming the source and summarising. I wonder why you want no criticism of Robbins here.Merkinsmum 21:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

While you're dealing in obtuse ad hominem, maybe there's more to the tale than classics, dressmaking, feline husbandry, curiously fashionable caffeine addictions, and cake. That's just super, thanks for asking. Wondering about fictitious ideas like me not wanting criticism of Robbins is both a shamefully incorrect approach to the nature of mindful reality and an abberation of the very moderation your message seems to presuppose. All the best with your edit, despite being initially confused by your presuppositions. I am convinced that this entry continues to offer a criticism of Robbins which, despite my personal preference, unfairly frames him as, at worst, a charlatain. Notable criticism is clearly helpful. My mind maintiains that the opinions offered on the 'critical' website this article references aren't noteworthy and, incidentally, unduly harsh. Why risk the veracity of your wikipedia reputation on speculation that you "wonder why I want no criticism of Robbins here?" Please offer our community more than a thinly-veiled personal shot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.168.28.59 (talk • contribs) .

• Just a tip for the above user- You might come across better if you were to have a username and sign your posts. I would add this to your talk page but am not sure if you check it. This is not meant as a 'dig' at you in any way.

Are you refering to the article on James Randi's site as unduly harsh? As to whether he is a good source, it was decided earlier in the talk page that he was. There are others with far more vehement views on Robbins, such as http://www.tony-robbins.org/ You say that the article you are commenting on "frames him as, at worst, a charlatain"(sic). At http://www.tony-robbins.org/ Robbins comes across as, at best, a charlatan. But I suppose you're right, we don't have enough information to use these links and this criticsm. Merkinsmum 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I added in the additional critical site of http://www.tony-robbins.org/ yesterday as a guest (can't remember my login, been too long). Saw that it had disappeared and thus checked this discussion page. Not too sure of my IP address, but I'm not a sock puppet for Imagraphicx. Hope you guys see fit to have the additional reference added back. - Andrew 22 Dec 2006

I removed the link because the site is not notable, not authoritative in any way, and its content was written anonymously. Rray 00:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

At least leave one critical link

When you edit, Robbins fans.

Robbins' "Awards"

If Robbins' awards are not genuine in some way, that's a valid point of cricism. We just need to find some reputable sources saying it.Merkinsmum 12:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Salerno

I've inserted a summary of Salerno from the NLP article. It is mainly about Robbins. It has been verified. Is this author and opinion notable? --Comaze 23:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice one Comaze. SHAM is a brilliant work. Salerno's expose hits inhumane practices within the SHAM enterprises pretty hard. I reckon your paragraphs were directed and appropriate. I'm concerned however at the relevance of the phrase: "He [Salerno] also claims that when working for SHAM publishers,"failure and stagnation, thus, were central to our ongoing business model"." It's about Salerno and his work with SHAM publishers, rather than a point of notability and direct reference to Robbins himself. I'll leave this here for a week and then change it if there is no comment on it. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

That sounds reasonable. I believe that statement was an attempt at context. I think you should go ahead and make the edit. --Comaze 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Comaze - just one last thing. I think the SHAM section is better suited for the Criticism section. I know that the SHAM section is in the NLP section because it's all about NLP, but the nature of the NLP section is simply to introduce TR's NAC as a version of NLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.24.18 (talk • contribs)

Yes it is a good'un, I read the SHAMblog. Thanks for putting more criticism in here.Merkinsmum 00:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Praise

While I agree that some of TR's use of things like NLP or Alkaline diets, etc., are scientifically tosh, his other areas of focus have meant that there are literally thousands of people out there who have been helped (or signficantly, think they have been helped) by him. Given that he's "had the unique opportunity to meet, interview and model a huge variety of people... from Norman Cousins to Michael Jackson" (from his book Awaken the Giant Within, pg 29), surely there has to be some notable support andpraise for him out there, as mentioned above. I think this would balance the article more, and so I'm going to do some research and add this section in a bit. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 10:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's enough that we list all his events, work for charity etc. The NPOV was put there because originally it was basically an advert for tony and his supporters were deleting all criticism. Maybe just a list with 'noteable people who praise tony include oprah, etc, etc just mention some famous people who like him. Or a short sentence or two saying how muuch his books have sold (don't know if anything like that is in there yet.) But look at how long this article is about tony, all his events, charity work etc, the criticism section is only one short paragraph, so I don't think it makes the article unbalanced.Merkinsmum 11:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely with Merkinsmum here. This article is not at all unbalanced now. Rray 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Brill. Thanks for removing the tag, Rray. Let's try and make sure it stays that way:)Merkinsmum 17:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ad Hominem

Hey, I added the note about Steve Salerno's comments being Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, simply because they are. I love Salerno's work, but I feel it's very important that our opinions don't get offered up on a resource like Wikipedia as fact. Salerno's charges against the self-help industry are serious and his research and anecdotal evidence is, in my opinion, reasonable. But for us fans of Salerno, there's just no getting around that many of his claims are ad hominem based arguments (possibly designed to ironically point to the shameless use of these logical fallacies by self help punidits?). I feel it's essential to the credibilty of our wikipedia, and to Salerno himself, that in criticsing Robbins, we frame it the way it is, not the way we'd like to see it... otherwise we're guilty of doing the same thing that the criticism of these NLPers seeks to expose. For more discussion on how this is Ad Hominem see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem -

Until you can find a published source saying it's ad hominem (you probably could find that somewhere) it is Original Research, which can't be used. I know what ad hominem is:) Salerno's work may well be considered ad hominem by some people but others would consider his comments fair in relation to helping someone choose a teacher or course. It could be considered helpful to know whether or not they have achieved what they are supposed to be teaching (such as longevity of a marriage) themselves. As such adding ad hominem is not a neutral tone, is POV in a way as it prejudices the reader against Salerno's comments and tells them what to think. Let them make their own minds up. That's why you need a reputable source saying it, so you can write 'however, fred bloggs says that this is an ad hominem attack.' Otherwise, calling it ad hom. is editorialising and not neutral- do you see what I mean? It should be easy to find an acceptable source saying this though.Merkinsmum 11:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced to the negative - looking to understand depth of negative concern

I have been a fan of Tony's for many years and have listened to a wide variety of his tapes and read more than one of his books. While I don't agree with everything he espouses, I believe that this article is significantly unbalanced to the negative. There are 100's (probably 1000's or 10's of thousands) of individuals around the world who believe that Tony's techniques have helped them tremendously. Tony has impacted many, many people's lives (including mine) in a very positive way and this is not reflected in the article.

I am not in a position to evaluate claims made by people who have attetnded his seminars. I also am not scientifically able to refute/support issues associated with his use and promotion of NLP. However, I believe I could edit the article to help balance it to the positive. How strong would the objections of others here be to adding positive balance to the article?

kbedell(talk) 16:11, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Adding positive claims to the article *could* be okay provided they were appropriately cited and were from reputable and objective sources. The problem in the past with users who have tried to "rebalance" the article to make it more positive is that they haven't included citations, or they just turned the article into a big "rah-rah" Tony praise session. Rray 21:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking a couple options -- 1) a series of quotations of others regarding his work. Tony has many reputable and well-known fans who I've heard discuss his work. The quotes could be cited. Also, 2) I'd like to include some discussion of his philosophies as taken from his work. These would short summaries of particular ideas and include direct, cited quotes from his works. kbedell(talk) 17:43, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd be careful about citing Tony's own works, since he is by far his own biggest cheerleader, and I doubt he's objective. If you include a series of quotes from fans, there should be a section of quotes from critics as well. (I don't think lists of quotes is encyclopedic content though) I personally don't think the article is unbalanced toward the negative, but be bold and we'll see what the consensus opinion is. Rray 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe in some way this needs to be balanced. It is totally non-reflective of the positive impacts that he's made on the lives of 1000's of people. By far he has many, many more supports than detractors and this article doesn't that reality. I'll put something together over the next week or so. kbedell(talk) 12:19 PM, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

But really you have no way of knowing how many detractors he has. Most people's attitute, at least in the U.K, is probably a healthy scepticism and apathetic mocking of Tony. They don't care enough to write stuff online about their views, but they will laugh and turn over if they happen to see the start of what they would view as a cheesy 'infomercial'.Merkinsmum 16:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To add to that point, I think it's hard to point to "thousands" of people whose lives Tony's work has impacted. Legitimate sources would need to be included before you could say that thousands of people have benefitted from Tony's programs. Rray 16:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

They would ideally be relatively impartial sources, not just from Tony's website or advertising as his figures would be there to encourage others to take the course.Merkinsmum 11:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

By 'impartial', are you looking for reviews neutral as to TR's techniques? The link included in the article to a first-hand account is clearly negative, and isn't balanced by an equal account from a positive attendee. Having said that, the article does mention many positive points - though it doesn't match up very well with my own experience of attending, which didn't include most of the pseudo-science that was mentioned here. What fraction of attendees come away with a negative impression, and what fraction come away with a positive impression? Are they being fairly represented here, in accurate proportion? It's always easy to find highly intelligent, vocal critics. I worked in academia for long enough to realise that it was a good idea to learn how to identify and ignore them ;) ColinFrayn 15:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I've worked in academia I would never completely ignore critics, but include and engage with their arguments. Anyway that is not what happens in an encyclopedia entry, which is not a personal essay.We have no way of knowing such numbers as happy vs unhappy attendees, hence it would just be speculation/original research, which is not included in Wikipedia. Some reasonably well-known critics or critical publications are useful to mention, for balance.Merkinsmum 12:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Height?

"He is almost 2 meters in height, or 6 feet 7 inches"

2 meters = 6 feet 6.7 inches. Thus, "almost 2 meters" is less than 6 feet 7. Which is right? Widmerpool 11:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a grammatical error, looks like they meant to say 'about' or something. I presume what is meant is the same as you explained, 'he is 6ft 7 inches in height- or just over 2 metres.'Merkinsmum 22:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

I read the article on Randi's site about the Roes' experience at the Tony Robbins seminar, but the story I read there does not match the story in this article. Would someone else also read the reference to see if this section is an actual reflection of the content on Randi's site?

It seems as if I remember a different criticism from someone anonymous on the Internet describing some of these criticisms, but I didn't see these specifics on Randi's site. Rray 22:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Seminars and claims section

With the new additions, this section is becoming increasingly disorganized and needs to be cleaned up. It might make sense to have an entire section about "Claims" and another section about "Seminars", but if not, these should at least be the 2 major subsections of this section of the article. Right now the section jumps from topic to topic almost randomly:

• The distinction between being a motivational speaker and a peak performance coach.
• Promoting seminars for Jim Rohn.
• Distinction between NAC and NLP.
• Brief mention of both his books and how they relate to his seminars.
• 6 human needs.
• Which seminars Tony conducts.
• 20/20 claims that Tony reintegrated someone with multiple personality disorder. (This section is particularly far-fetched and definitely needs a citation, btw.)
• Unleash the Power Within and other seminars are briefly described.
• Learning Annex and TED conferences.
• Dietary claims.

It would improve the article to organize this information better and add context to how it fits in with the other information, but I don't have time to rearrange the info into logical sections tonight. Might be something good for User:MasterPrac to work on, if User:MasterPrac feels up to it. :) Rray 00:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be cleaned up. The prior section was too short in relation to the article as a whole. The only reason anyone pays any attention to Mr. Robbins is because of his "Claims and Seminars." Without either one, there would not be any discussion here at all. I will post possible ways to clean it up here, first, before I change the section yet again.

BTW, I saw the 20/20 profile first-run, back in 1994, and friend of mine videotaped it, so I saw it again recently. Actor Neil Patrick Harris and a bunch of high-powered CEO's were at that Date With Destiny seminar. Dianne Sawyer and the 20/20 crew were there for them, not for this woman who started freaking out everyone around her. I'm not sure how to create a citation for it though. I'm open for suggestions on that.MasterPrac 00:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 72.225.222.55 00:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding re-organizing this section:

I confess, btw, that I have taken every course that TR has offered, including an Advanced Leadership Webinar taught jointly by TR and Cloe Madanes. I have more manuals from his seminars than most people, and I could easily put up 25 pages of very technical material on how Robbins teaches OTHER people to do what he does. In doing so, he details what HE does. I have a 304 page textbook for his Advanced Leadership seminar, and a 300+ textbook from his "Leadership Academy." The "Leadership Academy" textbook includes over 100 pages comparing and contrasting all different varieties of psychology, from Freud through NLP and "somatic" psychotherapy, which is basically pharmaceutical. My daughter-in-law, who is getting her doctorate in psychology, found it very useful. ;-)

I write this to acknowledge that, yes, I could be called a "fan," but I am as much a student of Robbins as a fan. Further, he is making a concerted effort to teach people not just how to help themselves, but also to use the what he knows to help other people. In so doing, he has developed a very comprehensive system that uses quite a bit of NLP, but is also significantly different, People coming to this article to find out who Tony Robbins is might want to know more about what he actually teaches.

I wouldn't necessarily put up that much material, but I could. I'm not sure how appropriate this would be, and I'm also not sure how to cite the material. To compare, for fairness, if you look at Freud or Erickson, you will see very detailed information about their work. The article on NLP also covers it in far more detail, with a much smaller area dealing with controversy. I'm not suggesting that TR is of the stature of Freud or even Erickson. I am suggesting that his work has evolved and mutated far enough away from NLP that it warrants a detailed description. The question is how long or detailed to make it, and how to cite textbooks that are distributed at seminars?MasterPrac 01:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe reviewing some of the good and featured articles that are biographies of other notable people might give you an idea of what's appropriate for inclusion in the Tony Robbins article and what's not appropriate? I'd recommend reviewing the policies and guidelines thoroughly here too, not because I think you're going to do something wrong, but if you have a better idea of what's appropriate, you'll be less likely to be disappointed by the deletion of stuff you've worked hard on.

Also, if there is a significant enough amount of material that you're adding, you might consider breaking it off into a separate article. Unleash the Power Within might warrant its own article, as well as each of Tony's books, his audio programs, and his other seminars. The thing to be careful about is not making the article about Tony an article about his products, if that makes sense. And many of his other products are notable enough to have their own articles; those articles just haven't been created yet. Rray 09:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the UPW requires its own article. It is, after all, nothing more than a product (more accurately a service) that people purchase in an effort towards self-improvement. Human Needs Psychology, however, developed by Robbims and Dr. Madanes, could well warrant an article. I come back to the same question I had before, though: how do I reference a textbook that is not available to the general public unless one attends a seminar?MasterPrac 18:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

To be sure, the information is not "secret," as Robbins freely talks about this in front of audiences, on Larry King, etc. It is, of course, copyrighted, as is all material in any book cited on Wikipedia.MasterPrac 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Humanitarian?

Robbins' website lists the following:

"Robbins has been selected as Vice Chairman of Health, Education, and Science for the United Nations Research Center for the International Council for Caring Communities (ICCC) NGO. Working with the Organization of American States, the Carter Center, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Robbins helped negotiate an electoral solution for peace to the strife and conflict that have devastated the Venezuelan people and their economy. Robbins has collaborated with political and business leaders in diverse world communities such as South Africa, England, Cuba, Panama, Venezuela, and the United States."

I did some cursory research and found a website for the "Council for Human Rights of Children (CHRC)." Within that website is a list of the "Participants in the First Meeting of the Council for Human Rights of Children on the subject of Alternatives to Institutionalization of Children and Adolescents in Crisis that was held in Oxford, Great Britain, from July 31st to August 5th, 2005. (http://www.rightsforchildren.org/participants.htm). Among the participants listed are:

• Cloe Madanes, Lic, HDL/President, Robbins Madanes Center for Strategic Intervention/La Jolla, CA, and
• Anthony Robbins/Vice Chairman, Health, Education and Science for the United Nations / International Council for Caring Communities/La Jolla, CA

So, not only was he present as one of only 20 prominent people at the first meeting of this organization, but they confirm that he was the Vice Chairman of the UNRC for the ICCC.

Is that enough documentation to include in the biography? If not, what more would be needed? If so, where would it go?72.225.222.55 01:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)MasterPrac 02:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are okay, but it's usually a good idea to find at least one or two secondary sources too, just to demonstrate that the information is notable enough to include. Maybe a search for "Council for Human Rights of Children" in Google will bring up an additional reference or two? That's just my suggestion. Hope it helps. :) Rray 05:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.rightsforchildren.org/ is that website. http://www.rightsforchildren.org/advisory.htm shows Robbins and Madanes both on their advisory board. So he is listed both one of 20 participants in the first meeting of the Council, and on their advisory board. Is anything else needed? Thanks.MasterPrac 13:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, a secondary source is needed. That's a primary source. I could go launch "Rray's Council for the Betterment of Humankind" on a website and list myself on the board of directors, but it doesn't become notable until other secondary sources cover the subject in a non-trivial manner. Rray 16:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: Under "sponsors," on the CHRC site, it says: "The Council for Human Rights of Children has been made possible in part by a grant from the Anthony Robbins Foundation."

Now, the fans will say that this shows that he not only a humanitarian, but that he puts his money where his mouth is. The cynics will say that he bought this honor. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterPrac (talk • contribs) 14:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The University of San Francisco School of Education (www.soe.usfca.edu) has a Center for Child and Family Development. At the link for the CCFD within the soe.usfca website, there is a link to the Council for Human Rights for Children. Clicking on that link, (http://www.soe.usfca.edu/institutes/ccfd/chrc_main.html) you see a picture of Cloe Madanes, and the text:

• The Council for Human Rights of Children is a project of the University of San Francisco Center for Child and Family Development; the Council is made possible in part by a grant from the Robbins-Madanes Center for Strategic Intervention.

• The Council for Human Rights of Children convened in Oxford from July 31st through August 5th, 2005,and in La Jolla, California, from January 7th through 12th 2007.

Is this a significant enough secondary source to warrant inclusion?MasterPrac 22:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A note to editors : Neutral Point of View

Wikipedia articles are required to be in a neutral tone, for instance, not to claim that robbin's self-help theories are the reality, or be written in any way that implies his courses will change your life!!!!!!1111, merely to report that they are his beliefs/claims. Some sections run the risk of being advertising or fanboy-like.Merkinsmum 03:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

While what you write is true, it is certainly also true that

1. Robbins believes that his seminars will have a positive impact on the lives of that seminar-participants, including the possibility of changing their lives for the better; and

2. Most participants spend money to go to these seminars with the express intent and expectation that the seminars will do just that.

Whether the experience will or won't is certainly open to debate, and IMHO it is not Wikipedia's place to say whether it will or won't. It is certainly appropriate, I believe, to both articulate Mr. Robbins' beliefs and theories, as well as to state the purpose of the seminars, whether or not they work. Even if the reader believes that he is little more than a snake-oil salesman, it has to be acknowledged that the reason people spend money to purchase snake-oil is the hope, belief or expectation that it will improve their lives. This fact has to be incorporated within the article without either endorsement or discrediting therein.MasterPrac 00:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The article already says what robbins believes, and what he claims to teach people in the seminars. That said, it's clear why some people would go. (Whether mistakenly or not) :)Merkinsmum 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mahavorick

What is the ethnic origin of the surname he was born with, Mahavorick? Badagnani (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Robbins Foundation and Robbins-Madanes Center for Strategic Intervention

What is the reasoning behind listing this as a subsection of "Seminars and Claims"? I don't think this section has anything to do with any seminars Robbins delivers or claims that he makes?

Also, this article is about Anthony Robbins. The frequent addition of information about Cloe Madanes in this article seems at best off topic and at worst promotional. Rray (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Robbins partners with Madanes. She lectures with him at his seminars. They co-founded the Robbins-Madanes Center for Strategic Intervention, and work together on behalf of the Center and the Council for Human Rights of Children. It may not belong within "Seminars and Claims." I concede that. His work with Madanes, though, is very relevant to any article on Robbins.MasterPrac (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is no more promotional to talk about the R-M Center for Strategic Intervention than it is to talk about his Foundation. They are both Not-for-Profits that do charitable work.MasterPrac (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add this information, then you need to include it in a logically organized manner. In other words, put it in a section that makes sense, not in the Seminars and Claims section.

As far as the Cloe Madanes additions go, you need to avoid giving Cloe Madanes an undue amount of weight in the article. The article is about Anthony Robbins, not Cloe Madanes. Rray (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

See section on "Humantitarian?" Above. We had this discussion. I asked you if it was worthy of inclusion back in October. Hearing nothing since then, I included it now.

It's worthy of inclusion if there are enough multiple reliable sources covering the subject in enough depth to make it notable. This is an encyclopedia article; not a collection of random facts and trivia. And just because it's a fact that Robbins does some work with Madanes doesn't make that work necessarily notable or important enough to include. A Google search for "Robbins-Madanes Center for Strategic Intervention" brings back very few results which I would consider reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. And just because Madanes is involved in a nonprofit organization doesn't preclude multiple references to her in an article from being vanity or promotional name drops. Rray (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a one line mention of something parenthetically isn't significant coverage. It's just a mention. Rray (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The University of San Francisco School of Education (www.soe.usfca.edu) has a Center for Child and Family Development. At the link for the CCFD within the soe.usfca website, there is a link to the Council for Human Rights for Children. Clicking on that link, (http://www.soe.usfca.edu/institutes/ccfd/chrc_main.html) you see a picture of Cloe Madanes, and the text:

• The Council for Human Rights of Children is a project of the University of San Francisco Center for Child and Family Development; the Council is made possible in part by a grant from the Robbins-Madanes Center for Strategic Intervention.

• The Council for Human Rights of Children convened in Oxford from July 31st through August 5th, 2005,and in La Jolla, California, from January 7th through 12th 2007.
• Is this a significant enough secondary source to warrant inclusion?

You never replied. No one replied. I took that as a "Yes."

As to your question about the relevance of Dr. Madanes, I will ask you this: Could you have an article about Jerry Lewis without mentioning Dean Martin, or visa versa? Can you have an article about Paul Simon without mentioning Art Garfunkle? Robbins and Madanes lecture together, and have a Center for Strategic Intervention that has both of their names on it. As important, the partnership with Madanes adds credibility to Robbins, amidst a ton of criticism.

No way is Cloe Madanes as relevant to Tony Robbins as the two examples you gave. That's just such a patently ridiculous assertion that I'm almost speechless. I've followed the career of Anthony Robbins for 20 years and never even heard of her until you started adding information about her in this article. Surely you can see the difference?

The amount of text that you quoted above is in no way significant coverage of a subject. It's a minor parenthetical mention, which doesn't necessarily warrant its inclusion in an encyclopedia article. And just because I didn't reply to your question months ago doesn't mean that it's appropriate for inclusion in this article. Rray (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

I'm bringing this to the talk page in hopes of avoiding an edit war with User:MasterPrac. The word "claims" is a weasel word. See Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. The word "describes" doesn't imply that the subject is possibly lying, but it also makes it clear that what follows is just the subject's description and not empirical fact. I can't believe I'm having to bring something so minor up on the talk page, but it looks like it's necessary. Sigh. Rray (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We can safely say that Randi "calls" it a scam. He does not "explain" that it is a scam, if you look at the citation. Nor does he call it a "trick." He does say that it is used by many dentists and chiropractors.MasterPrac (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Calls" is fine. But you didn't change it from the word "explains" anyway. You changed it from the word "describes". Rray (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to call me on the word "claims" on Randi as a "Weasel word" when the entire article on Robbins is littered with the word. If you look, the word "claim" or "claims" is used 13 times in the article, included (please note) a section called "Seminars and Claims." If you have a problem with the word "claims" in the obscure mention of Randi, why don't you clean up the rest of the article? MasterPrac (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Never Mind. I did it. I also cleaned up the Section on Jarvis. There were incomplete sentences, and mismatched tenses. More important, the link to Jarvis's article had some references that discredited just some of what Tony states as fact, and states his own version of fact without evidence to support himself. I changed it so that they are competing beliefs, not "right" or "wrong." If one "claim" is unsubstantiated, the other is as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterPrac (talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And I apologize for forgetting to add the four tildes to the end of my last post. It's obvious that I wrote it. Sometimes I forget to add them. MasterPrac (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing disingenuous about it. The article has been tagged for cleanup for months, and IIRC, I'm the one who added the tag. Just because the article has language in it that needs to be cleaned up isn't a reason to add or change things in the article to make it worse. Rray (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to go clean it up right now, but you need to understand the difference between pseudoscience and reality. Most of the changes you made were not only inappropriate but actually made the article worse. Having a neutral point of view doesn't mean you can't debunk pseudoscience. You seem to have a conflict of interest (or multiple conflicts of interest) as they relate to the subject matter of this article. You should probably review Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22. Rray (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rray, on the contrary: Your bias is showing. YOU appear to have a conflict of interest. Your bias is in debunking what you consider pseudoscience.

At your suggestion, I did read the FAQ. It says:

The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has described pseudoscience as follows (at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience):

• Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.

• Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

"The ArbCom ruled that the following should not be regarded as examples of pseudoscience:

• 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.
• Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

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]

Your bias, Rray, appears to be that you feel compelled to debunk here, when clearly that is not appropriate. You are, and forgive me for saying so, acting as arbiter of all that is right and good here. In YOUR opinion I made the article worse, because YOU believe -- operative word is "believe" -- that this is something that needs to be debunked.

Robbin's work is certainly not "Obvious Pseudoscience," by the definition above. It is not even "Generally considered pseudoscience," though you might personally believe so. NLP, NAC, Human Needs Psychology, and applied kinesiology for that matter, at worst are "Questionable science" by the above definitions. You may not think so --that's what makes it "questionable."

I will repeat what it says above:

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]

You write: "Having a neutral point of view doesn't mean you can't debunk pseudoscience." You obviously did not read the FAQ you suggest that I read. First, by their own definition, it is "questionable science," which, by their definition, is NOT "Pseudoscience." But even it it IS "pseudoscience," the FAQ clearly says that Robbins' work is expected here to be seen as a minority view. You can explain that there is also a majority view. BUT -- and this is a big BUT -- the FAQ is clear about these articles as NOT being a vehicle for debunking. Disputes need to be described "fairly." That means that they are to be described as "disputes." "Debunking" is therefore out of the question. MasterPrac (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)