Jump to content

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]


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

Buzzfeed sexual abuse allegations

[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]
@Grahaml35: there isn't much coverage other than BuzzFeed and there isnt any coverage that doesnt cite buzzfeed (this all being the reason I created this RFC). However, it appears snow is starting to fall here in the mountains ;-) The Medium source is really WP:PRIMARY and is the article subject's official response, which is probably DUE. I am a bit confused how one low quality publication with no other publication verifying it is DUE, but that seems to be wikipedia today. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do see your point. Additionally, it does seem odd that Buzzfeed News is doing multiple pieces on him. However, it would not be a case of WP:V as these are just allegations. After a Google search, I found other sources such as NBC News, Chicago Sun-Times, and Vogue all reporting on it. Grahaml35 (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they are simply allegations and there is single source, then should be the section be re-named to focus the as "Buzzfeed allegations." Did the sources you mentiond state that they had spoken to the people alleging? For example in Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases (I think before the article was called allegations) I believe most of the victims had interviews in many different publications, so in that case we could put the allegations in wikivoice. If we are only regurgitating the allegations of Buzzfeed, we probably should state that here in the article section name. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the weight is comparable to similar amounts of text in the article devoted to other subsections per Aquillion. Pincrete (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per myself elsewhere on this page. Polygnotus (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can he help me

[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]

Bias

[edit]

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

That's often the case on this site, but what specifically are you talking about in this case? --FMSky (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its a bummer that these 'allegations' end up on all these WP:BLPs, some with little foudation other than one press piece. This one is just a buzzfeed expose that got picked up by other sources and regurgitated. Then the article subject sued to try to quash the allegations (probably adding additional WP:WEIGHT to the matter on this article. Sad, but it is how wikipedia works today. However, many editors do support the inclusion of this type of content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OF the worst wiki articles ever

[edit]

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

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

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

What do you mean? He gets paid for speaking to people and doing stunts like firewalks, and he writes books, that's it. What else do you expect from the article?
The picture at the top could be improved - his expression is like that of a minor sneering anime ruffian who gets beat up a few seconds later. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is what he currently does, yes.
But what was his history / career to get there?
How did he build an audience and influence? How did he start?
I never heard of him until yesterday when I saw him on the PBD pod...
This weirdly written sentence is all I know of his career before today. "Robbins began promoting seminars for motivational speaker and author Jim Rohn when he was 17 years old. He subsequently learned to firewalk and incorporated it into his seminars."
And then it just lists an odd shopping list of things that don't seem to describe his CAREER at all.
Maybe it's just me, but I could not figure out how he became successful in this article Creditsam (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We would need sources for that. I suspect that you do not need to actually know anything to become him, he can just invent stuff that sounds good. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the article is a bit sparce, please find some stuff you want to add. More is often better. Generally for a WP:BLP we want to see mainstream WP:RS, but even WP:PRIMARY sourced stuff is ok with me as long as it doesnt sound WP:PROMO. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

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

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

Interesting stuff. The issue with the Buzzfeed allegations is that we cannot find any confirmation of it, thus we are just parroting buzzfeed in a manner that is grossly UNDUE weight. I have previously argued for its exclusion entirely, as I dont like to see these single unverified claims amplified on wikipedia. Here we have no witnesses, no courts, no second journalists. Even NBC says "NBC News has not been able to speak to BuzzFeed’s unidentified sources. It was not clear how many women BuzzFeed spoke to for its report." However, WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS is green on RSP meaning it is deemed reliable, but reliable enough by itself? Certainly not reliable for us to put their allegations into wikivoice. This Buzzfeed news piece is dated May 17, 2019 and our RSP summary states "In light of the staff layoffs at BuzzFeed in January 2019, some editors recommend exercising more caution for BuzzFeed News articles published after this date.". Therefore, its iffy content at best here, even it is parroted by other news sources. That people have been burned walking on coals isn't very surprising to me ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf To me it is. We know how to do these firewalks safely and they have been done for decades. I don't recommend doing it of course, it is very stupid, but it is surprising that they haven't followed the proper technique to do it safely. According to [2] he learned it in 1983 so it is weird[3] that people get injured in 2016[4]. It was a Buzzfeed investigation and victims of such things usually don't go on a mediatour to every outlet. I also don't like BuzzFeed, but it was at some point a big company and this was a serious investigation, even if not all of their output was serious. They had some high-profile scoops and won a Pulitzer. Note that we also have stuff that is not related to BuzzFeed for example https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tony-robbins-asks-for-forgiveness-about-metoo-comments/ and https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/business/tony-robbins-me-too-apology.html Polygnotus (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He spoke out against MeToo and got spanked. He directly contradicted the MeToo movement saying he didnt support the victim mentality. Then the founder of MeToo tweeted she doesnt like him and then Robbins was smart enough to get out of the way of that issue. Its kinda like celebrity triva. The stuff I am talking about is sexual abuse allegations (which are generally the most salacious of all claims) that are not well sourced, are single sourced, and have zero other verification (court or otherwise). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf We got one reliable source for the sexual abuse allegations, and because they are sexual abuse allegations that is likely all we are going to get. So I'd say that the fact that there are allegations is well-sourced. What we don't have is evidence if the allegations are true, which would require a judge to make a decision (or perhaps video tape). People who sexually abuse people generally don't do that in front of many witnesses. So for now we can say that allegations exist, and if and when Robbins gets convicted then we can update the article. Polygnotus (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed in an RFC above. My position is that it is not an RS and thus justification to exclude. Other editors didnt agree with me, although quite a few didnt like that it was a single source. Is what it is. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • An IP address removed the tag today. I support removal. If you want to propose actual changes go ahead or even go and edit them, it is a wikipedia. But tags are not meant to be simply placed on an article because you dont like the content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jtbobwaysf But you just said you don't think the article is neutral, right? I agree with you, but for a different reason.
    I am not sure what the IP is doing and why.[5][6] It doesn't seem likely that an ex-social media editor for the Daily Mail is a left-wing radical.
    The conditions to remove the template have not been met, and removing it because of a WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT is a bad idea. Multiple people complaining on the talkpage is usually an indication that an article is not perfect. Polygnotus (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the article has too much criticism but I just looks terrible with that large banner on top and the issues aren't too extreme 77.22.105.56 (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest I am far more curious why you wrote that someone who worked for the Daily Mail is a left-wing radical.
    I mean she did tweet For the zillionth time I’m not a liberal and I’m not a Democrat. I know it benefits the media to lie and frame me this way, but it’s simply not the reality.[7]
    And she worked at right-wing media outlets (WaPo, NYT, Business Insider) and the Daily Mail.
    Another quote from the article: In August 2024, the Post began an internal investigation for evidence of bias after Lorenz shared an image on a private Instagram story depicting President Joe Biden with the caption "war criminal :(", referencing a meme criticizing the president for his support of Israel in the Gaza war.[39] Lorenz initially denied making the post, and later said that a friend created the captioned picture, which Lorenz shared. According to NPR, four people with direct knowledge of the post confirmed its authenticity.[40] Lorenz never published another article for The Post, which did not announce any findings of its investigation. In October 2024, she left the paper to focus on her own ventures. Polygnotus (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopic
Lets keep the focus on this article. I dont think this article has anything to do with Biden unless I am confused about something. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some things are more interesting than other things. Aren't you curious? Polygnotus (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, i'm not. I tend to try to avoid the political articles. Please dont bring politics discussions here to this article. Lets focus on the content of this article on this talk page please. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are not the IP, so if you do not want to join our conversation you don't have to read it. You do have a very political statement on your userpage: We reject: kings, presidents, and voting... Polygnotus (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt refer to politics, it refers to Rough consensus, more in the computer science or wikipedia sense. Be advised of WP:NOTFORUM in relation to off topic discussions on this talk page. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, it refers to politics.
Your comments appear to be completely unrelated to improving this article, or to the conversation with the IP. Polygnotus (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

@FMSky: changed the header 2019 sexual harassment and abuse allegations to 2019 allegations by BuzzFeed in this edit.

I changed it back to Sexual harassment in this edit.

Then @2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:10EF:5DE6:7739:E860: editwarred with @MrOllie: and then @ToBeFree: got confused by the IPv6 on their talk and reverted the header to 2019 allegations by BuzzFeed.

The are IP hopping because they used to be User talk:2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:943D:B9A6:E157:8B86 which was reported here.

I think the header should be restored, either to Sexual harrassment or the original 2019 sexual harassment and abuse allegations.

I think Sexual harrassment is more fitting because that is what the allegations center on in my view but if people disagree and think we should also mention sexual abuse then that is fine with me.

It is not true that BuzzFeed is doing the alleging; it simply investigated and published the allegations made by others (fans and staff members, according to the article). Polygnotus (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that these are allegations. So removing "allegations" is misleading at best and vandalism at worst — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:810d:bc82:1e00:10ef:5de6:7739:e860 (talk • contribs)
Ok, so you agree with changing it to 2019 sexual harassment and abuse allegations? Polygnotus (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Abuse" does not seem to be mentioned anywhere so the best we can do is "2019 sexual harassment allegations". But either way it is only sourced to Buzzfeed so I'm not even entirely sure if this is appropriate to include at all especially at that length 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:10EF:5DE6:7739:E860 (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. From my side, this is about keeping the word "allegations" during the dispute to avoid incorrectly labeling a living person as a definitive criminal in Wikipedia's voice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Molesting and groping people is sexual abuse, but I think Sexual harrassment is fine because it is sort of an umbrella term which ranges from dick pics to more serious stuff.
I am fine with including the word allegations. If he ever is convicted then we can remove that word.
The BuzzFeed article mentions that there were already older allegations (~2006), before the BuzzFeed investigation, so the best option is probably Sexual harassment allegations.
@MrOllie what do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"2019 sexual harassment and abuse allegations" or "Sexual harassment allegations" are both fine by me. 'By BuzzFeed' is a problem both because of the older allegations and because it seems to suggest that BuzzFeed made the allegations themselves, which is not accurate - they reported on the allegations made by the alleged victims. MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, maybe Sexual misconduct allegations is better. That term is also used in Operation Underground Railroad (for another person). For now I have changed it to Sexual harassment allegations. Polygnotus (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should remain Buzzfeed allegations as we are giving undue weight by summarizing in wikivoice. There is no other source that ever reported this (other than sources that referred to buzzfeed). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BuzzFeed didn't make the allegations. And while BuzzFeed did an investigation and interviewed the people who made the allegations, there are many sources who reported on this fact. Polygnotus (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please show a source naming the person that made the allegations and/or another source that 'covered' this that didnt reference buzzfeed. I have never found a single one when I looked. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you now also restore the part ", an anti-child sex trafficking organization" behind "Robbins helped raise money for Operation Underground Railroad" 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:5DAA:4227:7A1:6973 (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:5DAA:4227:7A1:6973 Nope, see Operation Underground Railroad. Polygnotus (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add "an anti-sex trafficking organization" as per the article. 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:5DAA:4227:7A1:6973 (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reading. Polygnotus (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you want. Restore the description and stop wasting everyone's time. 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:B1E8:370:A6C3:758E (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want you to read at least the WP:LEAD section of Operation Underground Railroad. You read the first sentence, which is great. Polygnotus (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: Can you re-add the part "an anti sex trafficking organization" that was removed here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Robbins&diff=prev&oldid=1287625400 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:9075:128F:216D:BEFA (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we should not add that back in. Polygnotus (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking to you, stop being a pest 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:9075:128F:216D:BEFA (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Making personal attacks on Polygnotus will not get the article changed as you would prefer. I concur with Polygnotus, that description of Operation Underground Railroad would be misleading given the information in our article on that group. - MrOllie (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why should they not be called an anti sex traficking organization? 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:9075:128F:216D:BEFA (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BURDEN is on those who want to include content, not those who exclude it, for obvious reasons. Polygnotus (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reason is "they are an anti sex traficking organization". I hope this is helpful and understandable for you 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:9075:128F:216D:BEFA (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is more "why do you think that that description should be included in this article", and not "how would you describe them". Polygnotus (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: Buzzfeed for all intents and purposes did make the allegations. When I looked at this before there were no sources that didnt reference Buzzfeed. There is also no name of the accuser correct? Thus we have nothing but buzzfeed, and hence these should be buzzfeed allegations and not 'the unamed person that only buzzfeed spoke to allegations'. Please post the sources you are referring to that are unrelated to buzzfeed or provide more insight if they exist. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also no name of the accuser correct? Huh? Buzzfeed has clearly named several of the accusers, as well as eyewitnesses. MrOllie (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops i stand corrected and I retract that. However, there are no other sources that confirm any of these allegations right? It is just the article subject against buzzfeed? Buzzfeed post the layoffs (includes this time period) is dubious in terms of reliability per RSP. To my recollection we have no other sources other than buzzfeed stating this, and we dont even have the accuser making a statement in any other publication (even primary sourced). Am I correct? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf I know you have a minority viewpoint on how to handle allegations, but can you please accept the outcome of that RfC and move on? You appear to have repeated your viewpoint on allegations on multiple pages recently, and it should be clear that the consensus differs from your opinion. I think that people who play 10 minutes of sportsball in an obscure local amateur Guatemalan tournament are not notable, but I have to accept the consensus that anyone who has every kicked a ball is notable, because that is the consensus.
However, there are no other sources that confirm any of these allegations right? There are, as you've been told already. It is just the article subject against buzzfeed? That is incorrect, as you've been told already. Buzzfeed post the layoffs (includes this time period) is dubious in terms of reliability per RSP. No, as you've been told already, in an RfC you started. To my recollection we have no other sources other than buzzfeed stating this Incorrect, as you've been told already. and we dont even have the accuser There isn't just a single accuser, as you've been told already. we dont even have the accuser making a statement in any other publication That is not a requirement and never has been, as you've been told already. Am I correct? No, nothing you say is correct and at this point I doubt the facts will change your views.
Alleged victims of sexual harassment or abuse usually don't go on a media tour to every outlet. There are many alleged victims and alleged witnesses, and there is a similar allegation that is completely separate from the BuzzFeed thing. Polygnotus (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, I often land on a much stricter view of allegations across all BLPs. Could you please post links to the sources that do not mention buzzfeed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf Have you read the BuzzFeed thing? Polygnotus (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have. Are there any other sources that refer to these allegations besides buzzfeed and do not reference buzzfeed? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf What did the BuzzFeed source say about the topic of allegations unrelated to the BuzzFeed investigation? I am specifically talking about https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janebradley/tony-robbins-self-help-secrets which you have read. Polygnotus (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help you, it says: The firm has been shielding Robbins from scrutiny since at least 2007, after a website published anonymous criticism of Robbins, including allegations that he had sexually harassed and manipulated women insiders. The site quickly disappeared, and website registration records show the domain was taken over by Lavely & Singer. and that domain is still visible via archive.org. Polygnotus (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And have you read https://www.insideedition.com/woman-says-tony-robbins-groped-her-breast-made-her-touch-him-in-1980s-57042 which says Among the women who've made accusations of inappropriate behavior against Robbins, two of them spoke to Inside Edition? Polygnotus (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, yes we seem to have some corroboration of the buzzfeed allegations from Inside Edition. That is exactly what I was looking for. Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth and tell me what sources I have read. Please WP:AGF when I am saying I havent seen anything, which means I havent seen anything. I retract my objection to these allegations, maybe I got lost in all the discussion of it over a long period of time. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: I said: Have you read the BuzzFeed thing? and you said: Yes, I have. I assumed that that means that you have read the BuzzFeed thing. Communication via written text is super annoying and life would be so much easier if we could share our screens and brains. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have read it. Doesn't mean I have read every source on it or remember it as I type. These discussions go on over months or years. Its not like I keep Tony Robbins in my mind when I sleep ;-) I edit all kinds of dubious personality's BLPs, even if I dont particularly care for them. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf Haha ok makes sense. Polygnotus (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tony_Robbins&oldid=1288145749"