Talk:Tony Robbins

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Career section is whacky[edit]

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

Gosh, I couldn't agree more. Has it been redacted? There's nothing about what he actually does or has done. It's like a description of a ghost. – AndyFielding (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The documentary was translated into languages for 190 countries" Did he write that himself? What is "languages for 190 countries" supposed to mean? 173.177.140.48 (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations[edit]

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

Seems due to me, there’s plenty of coverage. Freoh (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of the coverage is from a single source BuzzFeed, or other sources covering his lawsuit against buzzfeed. Wondering out loud if this makes it due or not. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzfeed sexual abuse allegations[edit]

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

Comments[edit]

  • My concern is this section seems to be solely sourced on the Buzzfeed News accusations WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS (says generally reliable prior to 2019 and this is dated Posted on May 17, 2019. My concern is that the article subject has denied it, sued for defamation (dont they all) and that no other WP:RS seems to have corroborated. The only other news all cites buzzfeednews and seems to follow the lawsuit. I am concerned this could be a WP:BLP violation in its current form, but was on the fence about it, hence started this discussion. Feel free to snow close it if I am being stupid here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Section is fine. Wording is kept to a minimum. True that WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS lost personnel in 2019, but the organization is ultimately the same. Among the reporting on BFN reporting is USA Today which is surely a reliable source. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
USAtoday doesnt separately report on it, they only re-iterate the buzzfeed allegations. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Reporting for USA Today, Bryan Alexander repeats the Buzzfeed News allegations, analogous to what this article does. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely the question I was asking, if one medium quality source is sufficient for this type of claim/weight. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Given it's a single source perhaps this could be summarized better, but the reporting deserves inclusion. Nemov (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, unless you can find articles supporting the accussations from other reliable parties.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. As SusanLesch pointed out, there are articles supporting the accusations from other reliable parties. [1] Freoh (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the weight is comparable to similar amounts of text in the article devoted to other subsections in that section and to the "philanthropy" section (which, looking at it, has extremely weak sourcing overall and probably needs to be trimmed.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, per above. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it passes WP:DUE & WP:NPOV. However, I would like to see different sources as there a lot of Buzzfeed News sources and WP:MEDIUM is generally not considered a reliable source. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grahaml35: there isn't much coverage other than BuzzFeed and there isnt any coverage that doesnt cite buzzfeed (this all being the reason I created this RFC). However, it appears snow is starting to fall here in the mountains ;-) The Medium source is really WP:PRIMARY and is the article subject's official response, which is probably DUE. I am a bit confused how one low quality publication with no other publication verifying it is DUE, but that seems to be wikipedia today. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do see your point. Additionally, it does seem odd that Buzzfeed News is doing multiple pieces on him. However, it would not be a case of WP:V as these are just allegations. After a Google search, I found other sources such as NBC News, Chicago Sun-Times, and Vogue all reporting on it. Grahaml35 (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they are simply allegations and there is single source, then should be the section be re-named to focus the as "Buzzfeed allegations." Did the sources you mentiond state that they had spoken to the people alleging? For example in Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases (I think before the article was called allegations) I believe most of the victims had interviews in many different publications, so in that case we could put the allegations in wikivoice. If we are only regurgitating the allegations of Buzzfeed, we probably should state that here in the article section name. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the weight is comparable to similar amounts of text in the article devoted to other subsections per Aquillion. Pincrete (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can he help me[edit]

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

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

Method[edit]

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

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

5 children[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tony_Robbins&oldid=1196077792"