Talk:Tony Robbins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

/Archive 1 (contents=legal threat, cult allegations, criticism section, NPOV)

Contents

[edit] Fair? Balanced?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 There were just about as many words in the negative as their were in the positive, and the positive was horribly outdated and focused primarily on irrelevant material (when you discuss the Mona Lisa, you do not spend half of the discussion on the frame).

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

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

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

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

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


[edit] Human Needs Psychology

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Lead

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

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

[edit] pic

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

[edit] the 'human needs psychology' section

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

[edit] Fair? Balanced? Redux

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Suggested articles on Robbins' books and seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Books and Tapes

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

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

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

[edit] Applied kinesiology etc- masterprac

Sorry, I missed that comment of yours before.

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The Purpose of the Article

Rray has stated, above:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] books and tapes

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

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

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

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

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

FYI, I personally believe that the original dates of publication are important, as it corresponds to his personal chronology and the chronology of his ideas.
His first book Unlimited Power, first came out in 1985. Awaken the Giant Within was his second book, and it came out in 1993.
Regarding the Q-Link: I start with the disclaimer that I am wearing one as I write this. That said, I make no claims about it's efficacy, other than that Physical Therapists and Chiropractors have insisted that I take it off before they worked on me, because they themselves volunteered to me that it would skew the results. I make no claim that it is either scientific or unscientific. I will say that on the website of Q-Link there are single-blind and double-blind studies. Feel free to analyze the studies and tell me if you think that they are faulty or poorly designed or otherwise slanted. Maybe they are. Maybe they are actual, academic, single- and double-blind studies on the efficacy of the Q-Link. I don't know. But I do know that research has been done on the Q-Link to determine the effectiveness of the instrument, and the research has included single-blind and double-blind studies. So I would be careful throwing around the word "unscientific," let along "highly unscientific."
Among the studies is a double-blind study published in April, 2000, conducted by Dr. Norman Shealy, the neurosurgeon who invented the "TENS Unit," and William A. Tiller, Ph.D., professor emeritus of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford University. This study, from April, 2000, "suggests that the QLink® pendant helps to mitigate the disruptive effects of EMF on the electrical activity (EEG patterns) of the brain. This published study demonstrates beneficial effects of the QLink in stabilizing the EEG responses in the presence of transient EMF stressors." [1]
Again, even though I wear one, I am not married to it, I am not endorsing it, and any testimonial I could give on it would be purely anecdotal anyway. I'm not selling or endorsing or recommending the Q-Link here in any way, shape or manner. I have not analyzed the methodology of any of the ten studies listed on their website. I am suggesting, however, that the term "highly unscientific" is not supported in this case, based on the number of studies conducted on the product. That's my take, anyway.MasterPrac (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The other issue is this: just because the jury is out on something, does that make it "unscientific?" I mean, I also have no idea if "energy tapping for trauma" works or doesn't. But if the jury is out, and it has not been proven to be either effective or a crock, does that make it "unscientific?" I'm not attempting to be argumentative. I'm just wondering what the Wiki standards are if something has been proven neither fish nor fowl, so to speak.MasterPrac (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I just read the article on Emotional Freedom Technique and it answered my question. What a short, terrific article! If we could use that template here, that would be great.
What I mean is that the first paragraph of the article says what it is, mentions that there are two studies that show that it works, but that another study suggests the placebo effect. It says that critics criticize it for the reasons critics do that sort of thing.
It then has sections on "Background," "Theory," "Effectiveness," and "Criticism," as well as a "Reference" section.
The section on "Criticism," most importantly, rather than a hodgepodge of this one calling something tangental a "scam," and that one complaining about something else, it is a coherent section, ending with the founder responding to some of the criticism with research.
If this article on Robbins was as coherent, well-structured and balanced as this one is, I would never have bothered to attempt to edit it.MasterPrac (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The jury isn't out about any of these therapies. All scientists except those who are believers already (a very rare few) know there's no reputable evidence whatsoever for them. Merkinsmum 22:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, Merkinsmum. The jury isn't out on which therapies? If you are referring to the Emotional Freedom Technique, there are studies that support it, and others that say that it's placebo. It sounds like you have come to a conclusion and have your opinion, and you certainly are entitled to do so, of course. How is the jury not out, though, if two reputable studies support it, and one does not? Your statement, "All scientists except those who are believers already (a very rare few) know there's no reputable evidence whatsoever for them" refers to what, specifically? There are reputable studies of the EFT, and there are reputable studies on Q-Link. Are you suggesting that all of the studies that support Q-Link -- some double-blind -- and all of the studies that support EFT, are methodologically flawed? Are you suggesting that they are flawed because they were conducted by "believers" who are slanting the results in an effort to prove a point? Or, are you saying that because they got results that support the "questionable science," therefore they must be believers, or else they would not have obtained that result? Or, are you saying that because you don't believe this stuff works, therefore any studies that support must have been conducted by "believers?" I'm just not sure what you are saying here. Please help me out. MasterPrac (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Edit

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

[edit] review of NAC

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

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

[edit] Personal life section, first paragraph

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

[edit] Reliable secondary sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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