Talk:Tony Robbins/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment

message: (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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why all the fuss? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Angela would probably be the best person to ask, or Jimbo Wales himself. func(talk) 13:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going forward? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  removed non-criticism from the criticism section. 

message: I attended one of his seminars, 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Brain-washing? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Get the Edge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "New Age Vanguard" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Brainwashing - only Tony's way? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Addition of allegations of "cult like" techniques should be added? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible copy vio material 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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€ŖγŤč 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tougher prison? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Books don't exist 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible link to add 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Balancing this article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Robbins' "Awards"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agree completely with Merkinsmum here. This article is not at all unbalanced now. Rray 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brill. Thanks for removing the tag, Rray.  Let's try and make sure it stays that way:)Merkinsmum 17:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praise 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ad Hominem 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Height?

message: 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)
thread_title: Criticism section

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment

message: (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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why all the fuss? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Angela would probably be the best person to ask, or Jimbo Wales himself. func(talk) 13:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going forward? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  removed non-criticism from the criticism section. 

message: I attended one of his seminars, 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Brain-washing? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Get the Edge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "New Age Vanguard" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Brainwashing - only Tony's way? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Addition of allegations of "cult like" techniques should be added? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible copy vio material 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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€ŖγŤč 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tougher prison? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Books don't exist 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible link to add 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Balancing this article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Robbins' "Awards"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agree completely with Merkinsmum here. This article is not at all unbalanced now. Rray 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brill. Thanks for removing the tag, Rray.  Let's try and make sure it stays that way:)Merkinsmum 17:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praise 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ad Hominem 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Height?

message: 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)
thread_title: Criticism section

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