Talk:Kevin Trudeau/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Kevin Trudeau. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

AIDS dissident

" The book claims that AZT, in particular, can be linked to causing AIDS."

From the Wikipedia article on his book... sounds like classic Peter Duesberg. I think he should be categorized as "AIDS dissident".—Preceding unsigned comment added by LinkinPark (talk • contribs) 00:40, January 5, 2007

POV

new: I've marked this article as not being neutral because it is vagrantly biased against mister Trudeau. I don't support him or Scientology myself, but I found it kind of startling to read this article. As mentioned, the first sentence reads 'Kevin Mark Trudeau (born February 6, 1963) is a television infomercial spokesperson[1] and convicted felon[2] who grew up in Lynn, Massachusetts, USA', a rediculous introduction with clear bias intended to sway the reader from trusting Trudeau. The remaining 'chapters' go on to reveal scandal, arrests and controversy. Nowhere is any support offered for his ideas, leaving the picture that he is just a wildly sociapathic liar running rampant on infomercial streets selling twigs to americans as miracle cures.

Again, I don't support or condemn the man because frankly I don't know enough about him. Reading this article has only informed me that people on wikipedia apparently hate him. To put this in contrast, look at the beginning statements of L Ron Hubbard's page, which say:

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (13 March 1911 – 24 January 1986), better known as L. Ron Hubbard, was an American pulp fiction[1][2] and science fiction[3] writer and founder of Dianetics and Scientology. In 2006, Guinness World Records declared Hubbard the world's most published and most translated author, having published 1,084 fiction and non-fiction works that have been translated into 71 languages.[4][5]

A controversial public figure, many details of Hubbard's life are contentious. The Church of Scientology official biographies present Hubbard as "larger than life, attracted to people, liked by people, dynamic, charismatic and immensely capable in a dozen fields".[6] However, the Church's account of Hubbard's life has changed over time, with editions of the biographical account published over the years differing from each other.[7]

Biographies of Hubbard by independent journalists and accounts by former Scientologists paint a much less flattering, and often highly critical, picture of Hubbard and in many cases contradict the material presented by the Church.[8][9][1]

Considering the controversy surrounding the subject of this article, it doesn't seem strange at all to start the article with his criminal convictions and legal troubles with the FCC. His claim to fame, the only reason why he rates and article is his success as a salesmen of dubious and unsubstantiated cures. How does one separate this from his legal issues. It's as relevant as his success from what I can see.Mysteryquest 08:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That is what neutrality looks like.

I have to agree that the mention of him being a convicted felon within the first sentence is something I'm not too crazy about. However, there has already been considerable discussion and even some colorful debates on its inclusion (please read through the archives). As to the support of his ideas that too has been discussed time and time again. Unfortunately, most of his career and practices and the informational sources about them is rather negative. What support information were you referring to? Others have cried foul without any effort to actually include sourceable information or offer anything substantial beyond consistently complaining about the POV and slapping the NPOV tag up again. Others still have been uable to offer anything beyond testimonials and their own opinions, or support propaganda while claiming the other editors or Wikipedia as a whole to be a propaganda machine. You are invited to edit the article or offer discussion about the inclusion of information beforehand if you so choose.

As this seems to be yet another also-ran complaint about the article's neutrality without any bit of credible information (basically whining that it paints as true picture no matter how ugly), I'm removing the NPOV tag. Again, please see the discussion archives or offer something substantial. TheDevilYouKnow 04:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

old: I've marked this article as being one that does not meet the neutrality standards. This article is filled with scare and weasel words, much like the article on Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About. If anyone would like to help me out in cutting down on those, please do so. Beginning 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

To add to that, I've also found that a lot of the information is repetitious, including sentences found in multiple parts of the article. Can we maybe cut down on some of that, especially due to the size of the article (30kb at the moment)? Beginning 22:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It really depends. Perhaps you could give some specific examples. The beginning of the article is simply a summary while sections go more in depth. This article is as neutral as it will ever get. That is unless those who keep sticking in i there can offer some type of factual information with citations which moves it the other way. Please read through the archives and all the past discussions (most from people wanting testimonials, anecdotes, and personal views injected into the article) to see that the NPOV debate has been beaten to death. Also I would like to add that the citation request in reference to his claims of being "attacked" by a particular interviwer or program would have to come from a transcript or video of his infomercials (off the top of my head the one featuring Tammy Faye where he claimed to have been attacked during his Good Morning America interview though ABC lists no appearance). Trudeau has gone to great lengths to remove the infomercial videos from his sites. Most media links at kevinfightsback.com don't even work. TheDevilYouKnow 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is the first thing said is that he is a convicted felon? Should we start all peoples' Wikipedia entries charged with a crime with the crime they were convicted of comitting? For example, why doesn't President George W. Bush's entry say "George Walker Bush (born 6 July 1946) is a convicted drunk driver, and the 43rd and current president of the United States, inaugurated on 20 January 2001 and re-inaugurated on 20 January 2005."

Firstly, the GWB makes no mention of a conviction for DWI or DUI. Now on to Trudeau. There was a lot of discussion (please read through it) and quite a bit of debate as to whether or not "convicted felon" should appear in the first sentence (latest dealt with referencing though it appears later in the article). As such it was apparently agreed that it would remain. Whether or not it should be listed first is another matter. I'm sure that's another debate for another time. Please read the article history too as it may give you some clues as to how it won first mention (i.e. people vandalizing it with "scam-artist", "wonderful man", "dirt-bag", etc.) TheDevilYouKnow 18:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, as principle, the DUI conviction will be added to George W. Bush's Wikipedia under neutrality until this is changed to something less bias against Trudeau. I'm also going to look up other notable figures that were convicted of a crime and add it to the first sentence of that person's Wikipedia. I figure if this is the standard we take with Trudeau; we must hold it to everyone. FreakOut GiveIn 21:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC) ^^^ Yes, because Kevin Trudeau's honor should be defended much more than our presidents.

Mention was made of this article's bias against Mr. Trudeau, and that it portrays him as a pathological liar going around selling twigs to American consumers. Well, could it be that this is in fact, the truth? One thing not elaborated in the IPT Pool Tour section of his page is that Trudeau kept holding high entry fee qualifiers to this tour, after an incident where he did not pay prize funds, and also kept insisting that the normal tournament schedule was going to be adhered to. The remaining tournaments were cancelled, effectively ending any chance the qualifiers had of competing on the tour for that year. After legal threats from the players, he has decided to attempt to pay the prize funds. He insists that he is trying to obtain new sponsors, to continue the tour. If that is true, the latter qualifiers will have a chance at a a retun on their entry fee. If no more tournaments are held, and Trudeau keeps the qualifier money, it will in effect be stealing from them. Trudeau has been caught in many lies by the billiard industry. He point blank told the billiard industry he would fund the IPT out of pocket for two years, then almost immediately started having payout problems. Russ Chewning

Let’s stop for a minute and ask ourselves why Kevin Trudeau is even notable. The answer is because he’s a huckster. As to whether his criminal record should be brought up in the first paragraph of the article, that should be a no-brainer. — NRen2k5 12:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

. His latest series of infomercials features his book Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About . After criticism [by whom?] that the book did not contain any natural cures promised in his infomercials - Trudeau claims [when? where? source?] that he was not able to include them because of threats from the Federal Trade Commission - Trudeau released an updated version of the original book.

Greenstar3000 01:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)greenstar3000Greenstar3000 01:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

SO why didn't you put a citation request into that section of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.59.69 (talk) 03:38, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I know only too well what you're talking about, but I ended up getting blocked when I tried to insert positive statements about Kevin Trudeau to counteract it... (Yes, I'm unblocked now, the block only lasted for a day.) --Luigifan 11:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any positive information about Trudeau from reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia? I would love to see it. And I agree, he's famous or notable because he is a huckster, two felony convictions, one for stealing from his own customers -- yes he posed as a doctor--, but that was to steal from his own customers, numerous civil fines by numerous jurisdictions for misleading infomercials, a 2.5 million dollar settlement with the FTC and the only person ever to be banned from doing infomericials by the FTC, turning to publishing, so it would seem, in order to exploit the one loophole in the FTC ban. If there is positive information from reliable sources, I would be curious to see it. Please come forth with it.Mysteryquest (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition to "no basis" in research removed

I removed the addition made by 203.217.44.228 to the sub-section titled "no basis in research" for numerous reasons. The first and most obvious of course are the spelling and grammatical errors. While those could have been fixed further reading revealed that evidence of other readers opinions was not cited. The addition also included a conspiracy theory entry (the hidden evidence of known to quacks but not the mainstream claim). It also included factual errors about about real doctors and well known quacks who lack the medical credentials they claim.

Dr. Robert O. Young is quack who claims medical and research credentials. His credentials "M.S. Nutrition" (1993); "D.Sc. Science" (1995); "Ph.D., Nutrition" (1997); and "N.D. (Naturopathic Doctor" (1999) were issued by the American Holistic College of Nutrition in Birmingham Alabama, which is a nonaccredited correspondence school (diploma mill). Despite his claims no articles authored by him have ever been published in a recognized scientific journal.

Alexis Carrel - proved by experiment that cells can be kept in a healthy state by providing adequate nutrient and water - This is well known and didn't require notable mention and there's no citation of any experiments by Carrel. Carrel is best known for proving that organs and tissues could be kept in cold storage for long periods for later transplantation.

Harry Goldblatt This is one where someone interpreted his research and research by Dr. Otto Heinrich Warburg and attributed quotes to them which do not appear in their research papers. Golblatt's research (Induced Malignancy in Cells from Rat Myocardium Subjected to Intermittent Aanerobiosis During Long Propagation in Vitro, JEM 1953). These statements are often used by quacks to promote questionable oxygen therapies. The quote by Goldblatt, "Lack of oxygen clearly plays a major role in causing cells to become cancerous." ~Dr. Harry Goldblatt, (Journal of Experimental Medicine) is sometimes dated 1953. The article I listed earlier is the only one dated 1953 in the JEM database.

The rest involving lifestyle changes is also well known. Despite what Trudeau and other questionable characters would like you to believe, lifestyles of the patients is a concern of doctors and is hammered into them during their schooling and continued education. TheDevilYouKnow 19:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't do very much good when the only thing supporters have to offer is twisted facts. This may very well be why supporters believe him, but attempting to make it sound like these are legit source of information is laughable. Again, his supporter likely believe this nonsense to be true and that may very well need to be mentioned but trying to do the way so many have tried is unbelievable. If such a section could be added without stepping over the lines of discussing the merits of Trudeau's theories I would likely accept its addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.252.138 (talk • contribs)

It is NOT wikipedias' place to ddiiscuss whether or not supporters of Mr. Trudaue is "twissting" facts we shhould report what is given by the primary-- and seconndary suorces as given without adding our own originil know to it okay?Smith Jones 01:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation requests

I noticed a HUGE increase in the number of citation requests in this article. Hell it seems that someone (likely his supporters) are requesting citations at the end of almost EVERY SINGLE sentence. Many of these require a link to video footage of the various versions of his infomercials. However, they have been removed from NaturalCures.com and the links are broken at KevinFightsBack.com (other sites have been taken down). If anyone is able to find such footage and it could be uploaded to say YouTube it would be of great help. Interviews featuring Trudeau would also be good. These could likely be placed in their own section without needed to cite them every other sentence.

Also does anyone know if any interviewer or anyone as ever requested to see the police report from the supposed incident with GMA (Trudeau claims he had to call the police and have them removed)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.28.59.69 (talk • contribs).

i am the one who MADE one of the cittation reguests butr that was only one not a HUGE request. i wil try to look for you things now Smith Jones 18:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a citation request concerning Trudeau's claims that he was "attacked" or "ambushed" by the news media (notably GMA) and that he later tried to gain sympathy from readers of his newsletter. The request for citation was not necessary. If one were to simply look at the very next paragraph, they would find a reference link to the March 2005 newsletter. On the very FIRST page it reads "ABC's Good Morning America Attacks Me!". The story is also reprinted in the updated version of Natural Cures on page 443 in the Chapter titled "Free Bonus Material: Newsletter Articles". TheDevilYouKnow 06:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that a particular anonymous editor believes that the ref link does not specific use of the word "ambush" (rather than a description of it) it warrants further citation. As such to satisfy this I have removed the word "ambush" from Trudeau's claims. It now simply noted his claims to have been "attacked". This of course is despite the fact that descriptions are sprinkled throughout his Natural Cures book and newsltters. Hopefully, if archived footage of his infomercials is found where this claim is made as well as how these stories are chronicled in his newsletter, it can be used for ref link and the word "ambush" can be re-inserted. TheDevilYouKnow 07:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Background info

Can someone add background info on Trudeau: where he was born, his education, etc.

He was born February 6, 1963 in Lynn, Massachusetts, USA. It's right there in the first sentence. If you think there should be more you could always do a little research and start writing. Too many people are treating the discussion section like a place to request/demand that someone else do the actual work. TheDevilYouKnow 01:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Lock it up already

The amount and frequency of vandalism is getting to be a bit much. The unsourced quack claims and utterly horrific grammar of these vandals has gone from laughable to flat out annoying. I'd like to see this article protected from unregistered users. Thoughts? TheDevilYouKnow 04:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

the purpose of locking i st top revent vandlaism not to prevent poeple that you dont agree with ({the "quakcs")) from contributing to the artice. if you have a rpoblem with their submissions then revert hem dont try to use the lock function as thought control. Smith Jones 04:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack claims was an example not the only example of vandalism. However, much unsourced quackery has found its way into the vandals additions. TheDevilYouKnow 21:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

AGAAIN we should try to stop the vdanlism without causing the loding because the lock feautre is only used when the admin deicdes that the article needs to be protected for a while. most articles are vandalized but the key is to keep the faith and keeping working to prevent the articles and thent ry to talk to the vandals to seee if you can stop them. flipping out and them and locking the article causes chaos aqnd nonsense throughout wikipedia and prevent stha estalbished rules from being enforced, which stops the purpose of having an article that "anybody can edit". you should at least give it a few more days before suggesting that he aritcle be locked, okay??? Smith Jones 23:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

TheDevilYouKnow, get thee to WP:RFPP for all your locking needs. Bi 20:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Trudeau is the Devil. My aunt tried his cures for cancer, thinking they would help. She died. Thanks Kevin Trudeau. Maybe if you would have wrote in your book "go to the hospital where real professionals can help you" she might be alive today. Dickhole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.51.51 (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of additions to criticisms

I removed an addition by 68.113.119.220 which read "but this must be a matter of opinion dealing with the word "few" as the book contains treatments and/or cures to 53 illnesses on pages 345-356 along with more information throughout the book" as it gives his opinion on why the critics made such remarks. The treatments and cures listed are simply duplications. Candida cleanse is listed NUMEROUS times along with chelation therapies, and colonics. The chapter also contains common sense and a myriad of also ran (for years) quack claims made by numerous others which Trudeau claims to be REVEALING. I've read the book. It's really nothing more than the same old also-ran quackery simply cobbled together with some misinformation from recent events for good measure. Sprinkle in some misunderstanding of the FDA approval process and claims of nonexistent censorship while championing the First Amendment and you've got yourself a Trudeau book. TheDevilYouKnow 01:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Convicted felon"

I'm baffled by Bridge & Tunnel's insistence, in this article and elsewhere, that the introductory sentence should only be a "list of accomplishments" and should only mention the subject in a positive light. Since when did the introductory sentence become exempt from WP:NPOV? Bi 20:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Bridge & Tunnel needs to actually read the NPOV policy and FAQ. For one it should not be used as grounds for outright deletion of text. Rather it is meant as a means to engage in discussion and edit the content (if necessary) accordingly. TheDevilYouKnow 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Listing "convicted felon" as one of the attributes of a person is a personal attack. It's totally unencyclopedic. Just write a sentence that says "Trudea was convicted of..." whatever he was convicted for. Bridge & Tunnel 23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack. It is a factual statement supported and cited in the article. Even the argument of letting the facts speak for themselves (covered under the NPOV policy) does not come into play as it does not present an opinion based on facts. It is also not an expression of opinion. I have always felt that the inclusion of his conviction in the first paragraph is not necessary as it is covered extensively. Beyond trimming the size of this article there isn't much more support I can offer for its removal. This is a subject that has already been debated up and down and left and right. TheDevilYouKnow 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's misleading and blatantly looks like an editor stuck it in there simply to attack the person. It really looks silly and is unencyclopedic. "Convicted felon" could mean anything from rapist to simply a tax avoider or something as benign as being caught with a bag of cocaine. At least say "convicted tax avoider" or whatever it is that he was convicted of. Clarity is better than lack of clarity. Bridge & Tunnel 03:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh great, so it's POV because it "looks" to me like a POV? Isn't it great to be able to argue independently from facts?

Now, Trudeau was convicted of credit card fraud, misleading advertising, and goodness knows what else. If you actually think it might be good include all that information (as is, with no positive spin whatsoever) in the opening sentence, I may be persuaded to make a similar change to the Frank R. Wallace article. If not, you're just using ad hoc argumentation. Bi 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. It makes sense to list the things that he was convicted of instead of just saying "convicted felon" which looks clearly like a person attack. Bridge & Tunnel 04:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Trudeau was convicted of larceny (he posed as a doctor to deposit false checks and credit card fraud). There was no conviction due to his misleading the public. Those cases all ended in settlements. The conviction(s) should not be listed in the first paragraph (or the summary section) as they are detailed in the rest of the article. The NPOV tag is used too often by people that would readers not to know about Trudeau according to facts but rather according to Trudeau and his supporters. Unfortunately B&T your solution would do more harm than good. Seriously, is it better to say that he is a convicted felon (which invites the reader to continue on and learn about his legal problems) or to state flat out that he was convicted of larceny? TheDevilYouKnow 16:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's much better to say straight out he was convicted for larceny early in his career. Just labeling someone a "convicted felon" brings up images of being a rapist or something. It's unnecessarily unclear. Just a couple more words clears it up. Besides it's totally unencyclopedic. Can you imagine an Encyclopedia Britannica article listing "convicted felon" in an article about a person as one of a person's characteristics? Lots of people have committed crimes at sometime in their lives. Saying "convicted felon" in the first sentence is an obvious attempt to brand someone. And it's silly. It's laughable when you see it. It really is. I'm not trying to defend the guy. I really don't know anything about him. But just take a step back and look at how unencyclopedic and silly and vengeful it looks. But then Wikipedia is a silly encylcopedia that no one takes seriously anyway, so take my advice or don't. Bridge & Tunnel 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. It does invite the reader to continue reading the rest of the article. Now, every article is a bit different and this would not hold true for others. However, when you consider that the very next section relates to KT's criminal past it work here. Given that this section sets the timeline for the major events covered in the article it's not going anywhere anytime soon. This is because the major events involving KT usually directly coincide with his criminal past or legal issues. Now Bridge & Tunnel, you have tried to attack this by removing it outright, protesting its inclusion, both based on neutrality, and now you're trying to claiming it's unencyclopedic based on what you believe others will assume. Assuming the reader will immediately start imagining instances of rape or murder is just plain silly. I've looked at your other contributions involving similar items and they have all resulted in reverts or edits because of duplication. The last item would follow what I mentioned earlier with the criminal history section directly following the summary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.252.123.131 (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

At first I was a bit adverse woward the use of the term "convicted felon" in the opening, but I have to say that overall I see no problem with it. We know that (a) the statement is true, (b) his criminal history is a very significant part of his biography, and (c) the term itself is accurate and objective. The only possible problem I could see is that "convicted felon" is a fairly ambiguous term, as the felonies one can commit are numerous and varied. I would prefer if there were a single term that could be used to describe his felonies, but to my knowledge there isn't, so, as far as I see it, "convicted felon" is the best we can do, and certainly not as bad as, say, excluding the information from the opening all together. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.224.63.131 (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I'll try a new wording that is more specific. WLU 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Treatment plans

I have made a recent edit to this section because I believe it should be noted that there are treatment plans for 53 diseases in the book. If you don't like how I worded it, reword it, but do not remove the note in it's entirety please. Perhaps the section should make it clearer about the difference in the number of treatment plans and the number of diseases that can be treated along with the treatment plans. I just thought it was important to note. 68.113.119.220 05:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I reworded it; as far as I know the second edition does have the treatment protocols the first edition lacked. I also moved your comments to the bottom of the page, where they are supposed to be posted. WLU 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

French American

What's required to put someone in the category of French American? Just the last name, self-identification? WLU 12:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the person who contributed that little bit forget to read the part about Kevin Trudeau being ADOPTED! TheDevilYouKnow 03:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Article needs to go on diet

This is an article about Kevin Trudeau. However, there seems to be far to much information about his Natural Cures book that should probably be moved to the article about the book. TheDevilYouKnow 20:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Trudeau's research

Any claims of travels by Trudeau to "witness" supposed cures cannot be considered by any means research into the cures themselves. 1.) Trudeau lacks the training to validate any claiming or scrutinize evidence. 2.) Trudeau is quick to rely HEAVILY on testimonials rather than scientific evidence. By the way anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron! 3.) Trudeau's own statements such as that all the cancer patients he's "examined" have acidic bodies should be proof enough that he's not credible.
Too many families have been duped by evidence from these quacks claiming to cure everything from an ass rash to cancer. Even one claims to know the exact cause and cure for cancer and other diseases. There's more than a dozen of these theories thrown around by Trudeau everyday. There's no reasearch just reprinted re-versionings of the same tired old garbage that can easily be proven false within minutes.

you see it doesn't matter what you think that Trudeau is saying and doig h e is still a legitimaete member of the american MEdical Community and no one is entitled to prove his research false on the WIkiipedia since this is a full and unbaised source. I understand that you are trying your best but this article will not be imrpoved if you insert drug company propaganda so I want to suggest politely that you stick with the facts instead of making foolish personal attacks. Thanky ou for your time. Smith Jones 03:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, friend. I am a rocket scientist, professional physician, and expert Formula 1 driver. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

completley irrelvent unless you have published and peer-reviewed workds then your opinions are wrorth shit on Wikipedia.

Yes. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

then linkt to them Smith Jones 21:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I was agreeing with your point, not stating that I have peer reviewed works to link to. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

okay thank you for your agreement. Smith Jones 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(((SORRY ABOUT THE SPACE I JUST WANED TO get this in before the bitching about ipt and links takes over averhything. Smith Jones 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

International Pool Tour

I'm not sure what a "Russbot" is, whether it is a person or an automatic computer function. However, Russbot removed 19 referenced links that I inserted in the IPT segment of comments made by pool players on their Player Bio about what they thought about the IPT and replaced it with one link of the IPT tour website. I posted the 19 references because each one of these 19 pool players had comments about the IPT tour as a whole to enhance the comment about how the pool players felt about the IPT tour. I do not think it was proper to remove them as they verfied the statement. In fact, the pool players who did compete in the IPT were surprised and excited about the first-class venue and stated so on their player bios. I think the 19 reference links belong, which verify the one sentence that the pool players were genuinely surprised and happy about the first-class venues. Maybe I should mention each pool player by name and insert their 19 comments, which will make the IPT section very, very, very large. Removing 19 referenced links to the one-and-only sentence and replacing it with one link was in poor taste. It seems the editors of this article are prejudiced. I was stating FACT and referencing the FACT with 19 references. Now I have inserted 19 comments as opposed to 19 reference links to enhance the one sentence. RailbirdJAM 09:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, each reference did not require it's own unique edit. Also the IPT section of this article is just that a SECTION. Your contributions to the article have been reverted or condense because of a couple of reasons. The first of which is that it is not necessary to provide a reference link to each player. This amounts to nothing more than the promotions of the players while not really adding anything to the article or section(s). The additional information you added recently to the section regarding Trudeau's link to the IPT was WAAAAAY overboard. This article is about Trudeau. Sections within the article should be summarized. In other words a section should not be an entire article in an of itself. If you wish to edit or create an IPT article you are more than welcome to do so. If you wish to then add a link to that article to the section you are also welcome to do that too. TheDevilYouKnow 20:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I initially had only references. You deleted them. That is when I added the comments -- because you deleted the references. I, therefore, elaborated the references since you do not understand why the references were there in the first place.

This has nothing to do with the promotion of the players. You have a prejudicial opinion and think others do not matter. I initially summarized and inserted links. You deleted all the linked references twice.

Furthermore you screwed up reference nos. 21 and 22 which are not the proper reference format.

RailbirdJAM 00:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I initially linked only references to appear as only numbers at the end of the paragraph.

You deleted all of the numbered references. Again, I inserted the references comments after you deleted the numbers. The numbers only took up one line. You deleted them all. Therefore, I elaborated each reference number for clarity about Kevin Trudeau, the topic of this article. RailbirdJAM

The article is about Kevin Trudeau. The amount of information you included in IPT section is just plain overkill. Utilizing article link or "see also" and creating a bridge beyond the IPT section and the International Pool Tour. It's more about the IPT itself and less about Trudeau. Again overkill. If someone else doesn't beat me to it, or chimes in with their own opinions, I likely make the changes (linking or see also) myself if time permits. TheDevilYouKnow 21:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow! Yeah, I'd say overkill too. There seems to be a lot of overly-detailed info about the International Pool Tour itself. This is definitely something that would benefit other pool related articles but is too much for an article about Kevin Trudeau. It reads like something someone just copied and pasted in without being editted. Also I have checked through the history. Why so many edits? Does it take 10 or more to add each sentence?

RailbirdJAM, when I read through your contributions they all seem to be pool realted. Tournaments, players, etc. I have too wonder if you a simply using the part of the KT article to promote pool and players. I noticed the many many reference links to EACH INDIVIDUALS PLAYER BIOS solely as a means to cite a statement about the I.P.T. Come on! Again, it feels more like you are just using THIS article as a means to promoted pool related stuff. While your contribs are welcome it's not necessary to include such detailed information about the tournament. I have to agree with TDYK. The section needs trimming (links to every players bio don't belong here as an example) and it should include a see also or "for more information" link to the I.P.T. article. My advice would be to check out Wikipedia: Summary Style. I'm also curious as to why you haven't made such edits to the I.P.T. article? 70.246.253.130 02:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your stated opinions about my contributions to the Kevin Trudeau article. From reading the Trudeau article, there seems to be a great deal of effort made to contributions which are negative in nature. I mean, talk about overkill. Like it or not, one thing Trudeau did do, in fact, was invest several million dollars into pool, which was welcomed by pool players around the world. He instituted a dress code for pool players in the IPT. In past times, most pool players wore relaxed clothing and not formal suits and ties. Trudeau's contributions to pool as a sport was a godsend to pool players. Previously, before the IPT came to the fore, a first-place prize in a pool tournament might have been 15- or $20,000. Well, when the IPT came forth, there were first-place prizes of $200,000, $350,000, and $500,000, multi-million-dollar tournament purses. World-champion Filipino Francisco Bustamante won $70,000 for coming in third place at the IPT event in December of 2005. He, in fact, stated it was the most money he had ever won in pool in his life. Now, here's a world-class champion stating this, a champion who travels around the world to compete in professional pool. Yes, Trudeau's influence on pool was very, very, very, very, very, very big.

I am curious as to why you think I am trying to promote pool players by referencing their comments about Trudeau's contributions to pool as a sport because that, my friends, is exactly how they felt at the time.

Did either of the two responders to this talk section of the IPT even read the referenced links to the comments made by pool players about Kevin Trudeau?

Trudeau was a MAJOR influence on pool around the world, like it or not. It would seem prudent to state in the Trudeau article how his influence affected pool players around the world. I also inserted the Trudeau picture at the top of this article. So are you saying that by me doing so, that I am trying to promote Trudeau, as you say I am trying to promote pool players? I have every right to reference links to pool players' comments about Kevin Trudeau, just as you have every right to reference links to facts that pertain to Trudeau.

So while others continue to make what I read as "negative contributions" -- thus, the NEUTRALITY WARNING -- to this Trudeau article, I am making a positive contribution which seems to upset the negative contributors. You can't argue with the facts, and I have referenced these links to back up Trudeau's effect on pool players. If you are going to insert a section on the IPT, then be prepared to have it referenced. Trudeau did, in fact, have a strong effect on pool around the world with the IPT tour, and as the IPT founder, Trudeau instituted some changes which affected pool as a sport. The dress code was made at Trudeau's insistence. If players showed up not in suits and ties, they were disqualified from competing. 09:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC) &#91The previous unsigned comment was posted by RailbirdJAM (talk · contribs)]

What's with the overly excessive ref linking in the IPT article? I've made mention before how the section is more a copy and paste of what should actually be in the main IPT article. The refs seem to be in relation to the sentence "Many IPT members were thankful for Trudeau's vision when they came to the tournaments...". There are about 20 links with only a handful of them having any mention of KT. So we can avoid the POV and bias rhetoric the first link (Corey Deuel) makes no mention of KT!!! Is there something I'm missing? Why not link to the main Player Bio page as opposed to individuals? Quite frankly this section, once again, that others have already expressed issues with has become nothing more than a shameless promotion of the IPT, the players and "cue sports" in general with only vague references to KT. 70.246.255.226 00:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and this dispute

It is interesting that there is a NEUTRALITY WARNING on the Trudeau article. I wonder who the contributors are who are making contributions which are viewed as not neutral. If you are trying to prevent me from making contributions to the IPT section about Trudeau's influence on pool as a sport, then I deem that it is very revealing who the contributors are who are continuing to post up non-neutral contributions. Just because I post up something that is not negative, then you want to have it removed, so that you can continue to post up negative crap on Trudeau. Sorry, but this is supposed to be a factual Wikipedia, not just negative contributions from people who don't like Trudeau. 09:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC) &#91The previous unsigned comment was posted by RailbirdJAM (talk · contribs)]

The neutrality of the article has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion. It has to do with the size and scope of your contribution. The fact that it very well could be considered an article article itself. That's the point. This article does not need links to EVERY player bio or overly detail infomation on every aspect of the tournment. Some form of external linking should have been used. Simply plopping it into the article overshadows the rest of the article. Relevant information can be contributed better. 70.246.253.130 14:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Neutrality Tag is NOT A WARNING. It was put there by another editor. It's simply there to state that an editor believes the article is biased on way or another. However, it's been slapped up there so many times it's not even funny. The simple fact is that most of the information about Trudeau and his life that can be sourced and cited is negative. Trudeau is a turd. You can dress him up in a nice suit and tie and put him on TV but he's still a world class turd. As someone wrote earlier, the neutrality is not the issue. Read through the discussion logs. You'll find a number of editors calling for summaries and trimmings. I would like to say thank you to user with the IP address 70.246.253.130 for the idea to use a "For more information about" type linking. TheDevilYouKnow 14:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, actually neutrality tags emphatically are warnings, to the reader that the article may not be trustworthy, and to editors that the article needs cleanup. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If the Neutrality Tag is not a warning, but was placed on the Kevin Trudeau article by another editor, it would seem prudent that there are BIASED happenings in this article.

For anyone to object to a valid contribution with referenced links to the IPT section of the Trudeau article, referenced links about Trudeau in a section which was inserted in the Trudeau article pertaining to the IPT, the objection to these valid contributions with referenced links seem to me as biased.

Therefore, I must agree with the editor who initially placed the Neutrality Tag on the Trudeau article. It would seem, in fact, there is an existing bias that is taking place. I do not agree with the unidentified User "70.246.253.130" or TheDevilYouKnow's objection to my referenced contributions to the IPT section of the Trudeau article, references which directly pertain to Trudeau himself. RailbirdJAM 23:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What does NEUTRALITY have to do with it? Absolutely nothing. There is NOTHING wrong with offering a summary section to include a SUMMARY of the information. However, you included numerous bio links (no which mention Trudeau) as a connection to IPT rather than Trudeau, overly in-depth information about each round or competition. The information bias is NOT the issue but the amount of relevant or direct versus indirect information you dumped into the article. It disrupts the flow of the article and detracts from the fact this is an encyclopedic article about Kevin Trudeau and NOT the IPT. I have also been reading through the various guidelines and consensus such as summary style, linking (relevancy, overlinking/clutter, etc) and others. I will be looking into how the information from your contributions which is not directly related to Trudeau (the indirect info and numerous player bio links) can be moved to the IPT article and how the section can be summarized. The section will then include a SEE ALSO or FOR MORE INFORMATION link to the IPT article. There they can read a more complete article about the players, competition and Trudeau's involvement. Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia. If you look up Napoleon in an encyclopedia (and wikipedia) you will find a SECTION about The Battle of Waterloo. That's right, The Battle of Waterloo, not an overly in depth section about Waterloo itself. TheDevilYouKnow 00:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Before you bring up the NPOV tag, bias and so forth again I honestly believe you should check your facts. It was placed there in response to another editor screaming bias. The editor turned out to be a sock puppet using standing on a soapbox and disrupting Wikipedia. Truthfully it should have been removed long ago as it was only ONE editor against a a popular consesus. Seriously I think we left it up because we were tired of constant vandals blanking the page or removing any an all negative info (criminal history) among other things and finishing off by throwing up a NPOV tag. Now that we have that out of the way. As it has been mentioned, this disucssion is not about bias or neutrality. It is simply about the section being waaaayy oversized and including information well beyond the context of the Kevin Trudeau article. 70.246.253.130 00:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you READ the referenced links, they are comments about Kevin Trudeau made by pool players. They are directly related to Kevin Trudeau more so than the IPT. This is an article about Kevin Trudeau. If his name is mentioned by pool players, then I think that it belongs in the Kevin Trudeau article. They are not talking about the IPT. They are talking about Kevin Trudeau. It is a shame that anyone would take such a stance on having Trudeau-related links inserted in the IPT section of the Trudeau article. I still am thinking there is bias that exists in this article if REFERENCED LINKS to TRUDEAU cannot be inserted in the IPT section. If there was not an IPT section in the Trudeau article, then there would be no need for this colloquy. Again, the referenced links are about TRUDEAU. This is my opinion, and I stand by it! RailbirdJAM 15:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I sagree with RailroadJam, it is Wikipedia policy to, incase the information is disbuted, to leave it it in incase that is is proved right. It is better to leave the IPT tournament information in because it adsd to the article while taking it out would make the article worse. Smith Jones 20:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Railbird, of 19 reference only 8 mention Trudeau. 19 refs! Talk about overkill. I suggest you read up on some guidelines about links and article clutter. It soesn't matter if Kevin Trudeau is mentioned. Your contribution is oversized. There are half a dozen articles that can be found within 5 minutes but we don't right what amounts to an entire article in a section. They exist in this article as a SUMMARY (read the link I provided). The number of link (clutter) is not the only issue. Does the section need to include such overly detailed information about each round in the section? NO. I've already been looking into moving much of your contributions to the IPT article while keeping a section summary of around a couple of paragraphs with a link to the full IPT article.

Smith Jones, this issue is not whether the information is correct source or cited. And it's not that it should be removed. The issue is that it's overly long and too in-depth for a section and should be trimmed and summarized with relevant information that would add considerable value to the IPT article added there. See Wikipedia:Summary Style (right side of article give a PERFECT example) TheDevilYouKnow 22:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with you, "TheDevilYouKnow," and as such, I will continue to maintain my stance on the IPT section of the Kevin Trudeau article. I believe there is bias existing in this article, and anything that is contributed to the Trudeau article which is positive in nature seems to be criticized by you, "TheDevilYouKnow." I do not think it is fair that you have self-appointed yourself as to what you think is right and wrong about the quality of contributions to this article. I believe a higher authority on Wikipedia needs to be called in to arbitrate this situation. You seem to have a lot of bias, as evidenced by your contributions in the article as well as your comments on this Discussion Page.

Thank you, SmithJones, for speaking the truth! Your comments are appreciated. RailbirdJAM 23:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 23:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

you're welcome ralibird Anyway, I dont think that we need any arbirtration. Let try to come to a compromise first. The Devil You KNow said that 8 of the references were okay with him/her.

"and all competitors were excited at Trudeau's vision for pool as a legitimate sport.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]"

These references don't have to all be in one place. you can take all but 8 of them away from tihs sentence and use them elsewhere in the article in reference to the Internatioanl Pool Tour business. Smith Jones 00:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

This is a total tempest in a tea cup. The clear, blindingly obvious, solution to this mess is to merge the IPT section of this article into the IPT article, use {{Main}} to link to that from here, and replace the IPT text here with a one-paragraph summary written with relevance to Trudeau in mind, and when citing any of these player refs, cite only a few that specifically speak to Trudeau's personal contributions (or lack thereof) not those of IPT more generally. I agree with RailbirdJAM that wholesale deletion of reliable sources is never a good thing, ever - instead take the matter up on the talk page until it is resolved, don't just revert away valid reference citations just because you doubt the relevance of them (that is a matter to be decided by consensus in discussion, not by editwarring). I also agree with other respondents here that the bulk of these reference citations are not in fact relevant to this article. Rather than kill them, move them and the material they support to International Pool Tour. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Support (as nominator, obviously). Barring substantive objections, I'm likely to just do it, by early next week so that this dispute can be buried. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to explain the blanket revert. I've done that too many times. So, in moving forward JUST DO IT. As has already been suggested, the bulk of the section would be a great addition to the utterly dismal IPT article. If only more time had been spent on IT rather than needlessly jam-packing this one section. TheDevilYouKnow 04:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Alright. I'll try to get to this tomorrow (or later today, Aug. 4 UTC, in many parts of the world. A bit tired now, and I guess it would be polite to wait a little while longer see if anyone has an outright objection or a narrower concern about the nature of the sectional merge. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You may take out whichever reference links you do not like. If "THEDEVILDOYOUKNOW" had not deleted them NUMEROUS times previously, OVER AND OVER again, this would not be happening. Trudeau, like it or not, is directly responsible for promoting pool, and as such, these referenced links of IPT players' comments belong here. They were pared down a while back, but AGAIN, "THEDEVILDOYOUKNOW" eliminated them ALL instead of keeping the pertinent ones. This is pure bias on the part of "THEDEVILDOYOUKNOW", IMHO, and as such, I have elected to insert them once again. They belong here in the Trudeau article. Trudeau invested MILLIONS of dollars to help promote pool. The IPT article is, of course, a good place to put some comments and references, but when IPT members attribute TRUDEAU as being responsible for elevating the sport, these referenced links belong here. If "THEDEVILDOYOUKNOW" deletes them again, I will replace them. We need to have this problem arbitrated by a Wikipedia arbitration expert. "THEDEVILDOYOUKNOW"'s bias is well documented on this article, and it seems that "THEDEVILDOYOUKNOW" wants to have COMPLETE control. This is not "THEDEVILDOYOUKNOW"'s article. This belongs to Wikipedia. Sir Timothy Berners-Lee would not like this type of behavior that "THEDEVILDOYOUKNOW" is exhibiting on this article. One person's opinion is not the be-all-and-end-all. RailbirdJAM 14:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply comment: I've raised some concerns with this user at his/her talk page. I doubt that continued invective here will serve any purpose. Y'all jus' don't git along. >;-) PS: Berners-Lee doesn't really have any connection to Wikipedia... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I've sat on it an entire extra day to see if anyone would have issues. I'm pretty certain that I can produce a merge result that will make everyone happy. We'll have a much better IPT article, with more sources, and the Trudeau article will cite sufficient material for the purposes needed at this article, without literally burying the reader in citations (some of which do not mention Trudeau at all, as some others have pointed out here.) I think the compromise version will be much stronger, at both articles. And of course it can all be reverted if people disagree. I have had some practice at this, though. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply: If it is deemed necessary to edit the IPT section in the Trudeau article, then I would respectfully suggest to do the same with every single other section in the Trudeau article. Why would it be prudent to shorten the IPT section and not shorten the others? As long as it is NEGATIVE contributions in the Trudeau article, some Wikipedia contributors seem to think that is okay, the more the merrier, but when it pertains to something POSITIVE, like the IPT, the negative contributors don't like this one bit; thus, they DELETE over and over again anything POSITIVE written about Kevin Trudeau. Kevin Trudeau invested MILLIONS of dollars into pool. In fact, the Orlando, Reno, and Vegas events had historic record-breaking purses in pocket billiards, the LARGEST any player has ever seen in the history of pocket billiards, bar none. Filipino Francisco Bustamante, who came in third place in Orlando, told me personally that the $80,000 that he won was the largest amount he had ever won in his entire career at a pool tournament, and this is third place! Trudeau elevated the sport, providing a platform that pool players have NEVER seen in their entire life of competing in pool, to include green rooms, a professional television stage as depicted in the picture, and a mandatory dress code. Trudeau brought in the game of 8-ball for professional competition, changed the playing conditions to 4.5 tight pockets (instead of the 5-inch big buckets) and SLOW cloth (instead of Simonis fast cloth), as opposed to the 9-ball game which is more of a luck game today due to the breaking gaffes, rack riggers, et cetera. Kevin Trudeau deserves to have a STRONG section in his article about pool. To shorten it to one paragraph does not seem right. If anything, it should be expanded to equal the other sections in his article. Of course, then that would upset the naysayers. I may be outnumbered in this debate, but I believe with all my being that I am right. JMHO, FWIW! RailbirdJAM 09:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Explanation: Sorry I wasn't clearer on this... The reason that the IPT section would be short here is because of the recommendations of WP:SUMMARY style. If you come back to this article in a year or two, the entire thing will probably consist of very short paragraphs with {{Main}} cross-references, because there will be an article about his FTC case, about this book and its controversy, etc. When a main article exists for a topic, as it does for International Pool Tour, the details go there, and only the most relevant aspects of it are mentioned in related topics, like the founder of the IPT, which instead summarize very briefly and use {{Main}} to link to the main article on that side-topic, where all the details on it are. This helps prevent article bloat and out-of-synch details. As I said above, I am almost dead certain that a merge of this material into the IPT article will satisfy everyone. I'm holding off another day instad of just doing it; I want everyone's buy-in or my attempts at dispute resolution will have been wasted effort. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to RailbirdJAM : A quick search through the talk page will reveal that trimming down the 'Natural Cures book' section has already been discussed. It's already been renamed PUBLICATIONS. I've been looking into what information can be trimmed/moved. TheDevilYouKnow 21:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay on the dealing with this; been very busy offline, then ill for a week. I should be back active again in a few days and will try to make this one of the higher priorities. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. I've got my regular job plus I've been trying to find some spare time do rebuild and re-tool my brother's site for his company (just dropped it in my lap with no mention of $$$). I thought about going ahead and doing it but I figured you might already have some ideas on what exactly you wanted to do with the section. TheDevilYouKnow 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Attention

Attention PLEASE don't rea-dd the rude and obnoxious categories confidence trickster and fraudster to the page without tlaking on the talking pag ebefore hand Smith Jones

Hear, hear. I agree 100 percent. There is a great deal of BIAS in this article the way it is currently written. I still believe that a higher-up Wikipedia authority needs to review this article and make some suggestions. One person's opinion should not be the sole judgment as to what goes in and what is deleted in the article. Thank you, Smith Jones, again, for stating the TRUTH! Wikipedia is a fact-based encylopedia and should not be ruined with one person's opinion. It is the collective effort that is what makes this website what it is today. JMHO, FWIW! RailbirdJAM 15:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of tags

NPOV tag removed...It has been there for far to long without the issue being address as to the neutrality of the article. Beyond the opinion of the person who place the tag (or resulting discussion which resulted in it being placed by another editor) there has been no attempt cite specific or any effort made to correct it.

Drive-by tagging is not permitted. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

Beyond repeating soapbox rants or turning one editors issue of section length/summary style into an unrelated argument about bias no effort has been made to address specifics or correct possible issues according to policies/guidelines.

RefImprove tag removed.... all citation requests added by the same editor who placed this tag have been satisfied. No effort has been made to address specifics beyond citation requests.

Peacock...failure to specify - Drive-by tagging

Unbalanced...failure to specify - Drive-by tagging TheDevilYouKnow 06:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually many editors have explained in-depth the POV problems of this article, here on this talk page. Reading through it myself, I concur with them. I will restore one of these tags (however, whoever added three NPOV tags of a different "flavor" doesn't understand how cleanup templates are supposed to be used.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Media Interview refs

I have added or moved around some of the ref links regarding Trudeau's media interview. Unfortunately, the companion video for the 20/20 piece "King Con" at ABCNews.com is overly edited (psst...some random user posted the full version over at YouTube). TheDevilYouKnow 05:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

CAN WE USE YOUTUPE AS A SOURCE?

There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would be infrequent). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights. TheDevilYouKnow 22:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Books section

Ok this section has gotten to be a bit long. Also include information about the other books looks like a badly punched in edit. I meaning simply sticking "New Book: blah blah blah" as a subheading makes no sense. Much of the section should be contributed to the Natural Cures article, then condensed under a single section, possibly called PUBLICATIONS. Then each book (and newsletter info) could be listed below with a brief summary. TheDevilYouKnow 00:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

just did it Smith Jones 05:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So that takes care of the section title. Trimming the article down by moving some of the info to the Natural Cures article is something that still needs to get done. TheDevilYouKnow 04:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

oh yeah? then do it yourslef. eveybody has to work hard to make this article nuetral and god, not just me, okay? Smith Jones 05:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No Neutrality on Weight / hCG

12-Aug-2007: I also clearly view the article as slanted against Kevin Trudeau. Specifically, I added hours of detailed sources about his book "The Weight Loss Cure..." with hCG tied to increased testosterone levels in men (for building muscle to burn fat) and cited a clinical source stating no result for women, and it was all removed with a blanket rebuttal: "so-and-so says that hCG is ineffective for weight loss." I intend to dig-up and un-wiki-rot the sourced statement. It was much more detailed, and scientifically questioned the use of hCG for women (ergo, did hCG help Kevin lose weight because he is a man?). Is Kevin promoting weight-loss ideas that worked for him, as a man, that won't work for women? That's a newsflash, rather than adding FDA dogma. That was crucial, valuable information removed by Wiki edits. I don't care for such statements as, "The Kings of Medical Evidence said Kevin is wrong." Well, duh... (what do his book titles say about them?) Look at the whole picture, because Trudeau says that the "Kings of Medical Evidence" are lying to everyone. Do you now also see the need for keeping some detailed, NPOV analysis in the article? -Wikid77 01:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have re-added the deleted text, about hCG, and added more in connection with the hypothalamus and also "tongkat ali" ("longjack"). More could be added since Trudeau mentions herbal supplements in his book ("The Weight Loss Cure.."). -Wikid77 12:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The addition was overly in-depth. The article is about Kevin Trudeau and is in the process of moving more toward WP:SUMMARY style. You must understand that this is merely a section (rather a sub section of PUBLICATIONS) of a larger article. Consider creating the Weight Loss Cure article and placing a MAIN ARTICLE link within the section. You over used and overlinked references which were nearly impossible to read and were badly formatted. Not to mention that it seems you misunderstood most of the source materials you cited and used them anyway despite only vague covering the topic. The current ref links point to detailed information clearly showing that hCG is completely ineffective as a weight-loss aid, period. TheDevilYouKnow 20:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I DISAGREE the main porpose of wikipeida articles it ro provide INFORMATIOn that had SOURCES which wikid77s response DID! if IN YOUR OPINION the weightloss hCG does not work then that is fine burt since there are sources that can attest to the fact that it des work then the information should be restored to the article PERIOD END OF STORY! wikipedia is NOT the place to provide madical advice the only reason it exists to provide inofmraiton about subjects such as these and your decision to censor some medical evidence just because you don't personally agree iwth it is not only a violation of wikipedia rules by a trespass onto the idea of free speech and democracy on the internet. i recomemnd that the article sections that were blanked should be repeated unless there are any ACTUAL nonb-aised reasons for their removal apart from ad esire to make wikipedia into a gate communited where only some ideas can be aire.d Smith Jones 16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

4 step weight loss cure

I have reverted the edit that claims that the "Weight Loss Cure" is a 4 step process. If it is indeed a 4 step process, please provide a source and describe the step. --Spring Rubber 22:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Clear bias of articles about Kevin Trudeau and the FDA

Having read through the articles on Kevin Trudeau and the FDA, including the article "Criticism of the FDA", I must say that there is clear bias against Trudeau. The reason is that there is no examination of Trudeau's assertion that the FDA operates on a purely money-orientated basis, and even the article "Criticism of the FDA" leaves you with the impression that the fundamental purpose of the FDA is health care. This is sharply contrasted with the direct criticism in the Trudeau article about his life and opinions, which seem to form the life-blood of that article. Is it now Wikipedia's policy to protect large organisations and attack individuals solely on that basis? I have no personal bias for or against Trudeau as I have only just discovered his existence (I am a UK resident) and therefore welcome all responses to my points. Jamespelham1978 01:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

james, i wouldnt bother. for some reason any attept to correct the humongous bais against truedeau is met with violence and hostilityi. i dont understand it myself either; i dont want to beleive that all of this people who working ont his article are FDA employes but icannot think of explain the vicious anti-truedeau attack pieces that thies artyicle is turning in too. maybe you can help out since you havent been here for the earlier desbate s. ? Smith Jones 21:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Jamespelham1978, if you believe there to be "clear bias" please specify which areas are bias and why it is so. I see that you have pointed out one section and I will address this. This article is about Kevin Trudeau and contains sections which list claims or opinions. Factual information is included which points out how the claims are often flat out incorrect. For example if his claim that heart burn is cause by gases produced in the stomach during digestion. The section would go on to contain a correction to this statement and likely include the fact that other such claims are no longer included in spots since they were ridiculed. It may even include a linked to an archived version of naturalcures.com which listed information which directly contradicted is television and radio claims.

In regards to "Criticism of the FDA", this article is about Kevin Trudeau. It is not a forum to discuss the merits of his claims and opinions. The fore-mentioned article is a collection of opinions if you will. So and so believes this and so and so has raised this concern. You simply cannot support one opinion by offering up another. I find the very first criticism quite comedic. People don't care what the FDA does right. They only get all stirred up when they do something wrong.

Lastly, I'm curious as to why you felt it necessary to mention that you're from the UK. I won't bother going into Trudeau's celebrity status in the UK, his run-ins with British regulatory agencies, his blonde British co-host, etc. Less we not forget his endless anecdotes about something that happened to his friend or some unnamed big-shot in the UK.

SmithJones, don't even start. Your contributions seem to be less about being constructive and more about utilizing the discussion page to stir people up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.48.145 (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, sorry I didn't get back sooner, I've been relocating. Thanks for your comments, Smith Jones and the next guy - who are you? I mentioned I was from the UK because I assumed Kevin Trudeau has celebrity status only in the USA, i.e. to explain my apparent previous ignorance. Secondly, I don't see why a genuine attempt to try to understand Wikipedia's policy by giving an example can be described as "comedic". The life-blood of what I was trying to say was that Mr. Trudeau is clearly being painted as a villain while the FDA comes off at worst as an organisation blighted by criticism with no real fault. This is clearly unfair, hence my entry. Thirdly, and most importantly, you failed to answer my main point which was why is he, an individual, slighted so much, where as the FDA is not? It seems fair to say that all individuals or organisations will have supporters and critics, so I feel that it would be best that every article has an equally sized section of positive and negative points of view, in this way providing as fair a representation as possible for each individual/organisation (sorry for not finding a more concise way to explain that!) I still appreciate all comments, I would like to get to the bottom of this. Jamespelham1978 23:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And Now For A Completely Neutral Take On The Ongoing Dispute...

First off, I'd like to start by saying... DAMN! I had a feeling Kevin Trudeau was a controversial person, but I didn't expect this. Though, after everything I've read about him, I can't say I'm surprised. But before I get into the meat of this discussion, a little on how I came to be here. I was doing some research on the Net regarding his newest book and, to be honest, was a little shocked at what I found. After perusing about ten or so websites of reviews, both good and bad, about his book and several websites those reviews linked to (they linked to news articles about his battle with the courts, criminal history, and interviews with the press, and when I say news, I'm talking ABC and Nightline here), I found myself here at Wikipedia. I use this site quite often to look up information so I figured, "Hey! I bet they have an article on this guy! Let's see what they say!" And I have to say, a lot of what is on that page you guys have seems to be corroborated by the news articles I have read. Now... while I have been using Wikipedia for quite some time, this is my first time posting. And no, I don't have an account... yet. I know I will probably raise the ire of some people with what I'm about to say, but I hope you don't rip me apart... too much.

Ok... so now that I've got the introduction out of the way, I'd like to say... boy... you guys sure don't follow your own rules, do you? Let's start with... oh I don't know... the top of this page. What's the first item on the list? Be Polite. Well... that got chucked out the window pretty fast. The went out the window when the third item on the list went out the window. What's this Third Item? No Personal Attacks. After having read every single post on here (and, yes, I did, in fact, read every single post), I can safely say that, at least, half of RailbirdJAM's posts, if not more, contain personal attacks on TheDevilYouKnow. And TDYK, I know how hard it must be for you to bite your tongue and not call Rail every bad word in the dictionary. Trust me, I have a bad temper and won't hesitate to curse someone out if they piss me off enough. But that's going a bit off-topic.

Back on topic... time for the big rule... the one that's going to get everything including the kitchen sink thrown at me. Found on the right hand side of that little tan double-box under 'Article Policies.' It's the second of the three policies: Neutral Point Of View. Hoo Boy... where do I begin? How about... there isn't one? Yeah I think that's a good place to start. It seems to me that SMcCandish is the ONLY Neutral Party in this dispute. So SM... I feel for you. Especially since it seems like you're the Mod or Admin or someone with that kind of authority and it's your duty to moderate these kinds of disputes. So... let's talk about the parties involved. And I'd like to state the I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Ok, first, RailbirdJAM. You make some valid points, but your attacks on the Criticism Section and all the Negative Information about Trudeau has done nothing but hurt your stance. A lot. You say that you want the positive side of Trudeau to be given a chance, but at the same time you want the negative side to be cut down, 'to be fair.' That's hardly fair. That's hypocritcal. Both sides deserve to be heard. And if there's more factual evidence to support the negative, well... sucks to be you. But you can't just go around saying, "Cut back on the stuff that hurts my position." That goes against rule number two on the left hand side of that little tan double-box: Assume Good Faith. Now what does that mean? That means assume that everyone is here to further Wikipedia in it's goals. What is Wikipedia's goals? As has been stated here, first and foremost, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. What is the most simplistic definition of an Encyclopedia? A book of facts. That's right. FACTS. Good or Bad, Positive or Negative, whether you like it or not, facts are facts. So by asking that the negative stuff be cut back, you've broken that good faith that others in this community had in you. And that... if you break it too badly... is hard to get back.

Next person, TheDevilYouKnow. You also make some very valid points. Points that I agree with. I'm speaking, of course, about streamlining the page, adhering to the rules, etc. However, many of your later posts are riddled with bias. Bias AGAINST Trudeau and, subsequently, RailbirdJAM. It would also seem that you are the one who has been deleting or otherwise editing Rail's additions to the Trudeau Article. I have to say, that while your intentions may be good, your bias in this issue makes you the completely wrong person to be making judgments as to what should be deleted or edited and what should not.

Lastly, Smith Jones. I applaud you for trying to mediate this dispute. However, your mediation has embroiled you so far into this dispute that you have now become biased. Biased AGAINST TDYK. Not only that, delving this far into the dispute has shown that you, in fact, are biased TOWARD Trudeau. As such, I believe you are no longer qualified to mediate this dispute.

Well that's all I have to say about those involved in this dispute.

My Personal Opinion: My personal opinion of Mr. Kevin Trudeau is based solely on the research I've done in the last three or so hours, that is to say, not much, but enough. I cannot speak about his intentions, as I do not know them. However, I can speak on his actions and the results of those actions. That is to say, they're despicable. If what I've read is true (and I have no reason not to believe credited news sources such as ABC or NBC and actual Medical Doctors), then this guy should be locked up for scamming an entire country. However, having said that, I have not found one site or one credible news source that can actually say what actually IS on Trudeau's Site. For all we know, he does have these 'cures' listed on them. I highly doubt it, but it's possible. Also, I don't know anything about his affiliation with Pool and what's done or not done for sport, shot of what's on this site. And, if what is written on this site is true, he's thoroughly screwed them too. Now, you may be saying, "Hey! It doesn't sound like your unbiased at all!" To tell you the truth, at this moment, no. I'm not unbiased. Based on what little I know, I have no choice but to biased against Trudeau. However, unlike some people, I can put that bias aside for the greater good. What's the 'greater good' you ask? It's the goal of Wikipedia. The Pursuit of Truth. If it turns out that this Kevin Trudeau is the purest soul since God, fine. No complaints from me. If he turns out to be the scum of the Earth, I won't even twitch. If it's the God's Honest, backed by Facts, Truth, then I have no problem with it and it should be put on this site.

My Suggestions: I think this article (The Kevin Trudeau Bio/Profile) should be locked down like Fort Knox. I think someone completely unbiased, like say... SMcCandish, be assigned the task of editing this article as need be. I also think that all additions and edits should go through SMcCandish, that is to say, through a PM (if Wikipedia supports such an option, again I don't have an account yet, so I don't know if PM exists here) or through e-mail. The reason I believe such strict action should be taken is because of the sensitive nature of the controversy surrounding Kevin Trudeau (as proof of this statement, I present... the discussion posts before mine). I can almost guarantee that if this article remains unlocked, there will be a constant battle of Pro Trudeau versus Con Trudeau. Even if this dispute miraculously gets resolved, another one will emerge. I believe that a lock-down of the article and the assignment of a completely unbiased Admin or Mod to oversee the editing of this article will cull this current dispute and keep others from popping up. Also, this will serve to further Wikipedia's reputation of being an unbiased 'book of facts.'

Final Words: The last thing I'd like to talk about is that I noticed a few questions regarding the Court Proceedings of Kevin Trudeau peppered throughout the above posts. Here's a novel idea - LOOK IT UP! From what I understand, by Law, all Court Cases that have reached verdict and are not connected to other pending Court Cases must be available for public record. And, from what I know, Trudeau's case was settled out of court and his subsequent requests for further proceedings have been outright denied. Therefore, his 'Court Records,' as it were, should be on file for public viewing. If you need a good place to start looking, try The Library of Congress. I bet you those records would shed some light on this controversy. Of course, it could raise more questions then answers.

Well that's all I have to say for now. Let the flaming begin! 66.235.5.55 13:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And your point is... ? No one is going to read all of the 10KB of text you posted. Give us the Cliff's Notes version, please. Cheers, Skinwalker 13:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

HIS "poin"T is that everyone excpet for him is hopeleslsy biased and cannot "medate" the discisuon thread. WTF does that domeaning? Smith Jones 13:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kevin Trudeau article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. You left your soapbox!

Rarely does anyone sign.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 06:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

indict

Due to a radio report that I'd heard, I have had the impression that he had been. I only know that he keeps intruding on what I do want to watch; whether the indictment is factual,.....? It had been a story about one of his books not including advertized contents. Why is this month not mentioned, or not clearly?? Does anyone know the subject well enough??

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 06:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

ITV

Is Kevin Trudeau a 'silent' partner with ITV Ventures?

--Rebmareve4 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Concerned Consumer

ITV Ventures is a MLM "Work from Home" Vitamin peddling initiative. The result has been a huge increase in the amount of spam and marketing videos on sites like YouTube. TheDevilYouKnow 18:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE - Kevin Trudeau is mentioned throughout ITV Ventures related sites. The partnership goes well beyond MLM though. If you look over at NaturalCures.com there is a lot of ITV related stuff plastered all over the thing. TheDevilYouKnow 06:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Natural Cures Book Section

Not sure why this has to be in the Kevin Trudeau article since there is a parallel article which does a good job of summing up the book. Additionally, this section is long and more importantly not supported by citations, I guess because there is no online version of the book? Or is it okay to cite the book though it can not be verified by the general public. Anyway, I would cut out most of that section for the aforementioned reasons or transfer most of it to the parallel article.Mysteryquest 23:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The section does contain a couple of citations. However, it contains a link to the main article. That article used to contain a myriad of citations. However, there was a little trimming to the article as it contained too much biographical information and unnecessary found in this article. Dealing with vandalism Kevin Trudeau articles took it's toll on a lot of people. TheDevilYouKnow 07:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Eliminate College Debt

How can he make a claim that you don't have to pay student loans when even bankruptcy will not allow most debtor's to escape payment?

There are exceptions if you get a degree in a certain field (loan forgiveness), or die. Trentc (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Debt Cures, New Book?

I was flipping through the broadcast TV Channels and saw an infomercial with Trudeau promoting Some book about how to get out of debt, Debt Cures, Credit Cures , something along those lines, But it's not listed in the article. From the little bit of the Infomercial that I watched it seemed like a sort of conspiracy theory where banks, credit card companies, and, of course, the government are working together to be sure that people can't get out of debt. The book supposedly will help, and you can subscribe to a newsletter too. edit:oops forgot to sign--Compgeek86 05:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You are referring to Sara Jean Underwood 2007 Playboy Playmate of the Year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Jean_Underwood rumjal 19:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's just a repackaging of other people's information. He just claims he's REVEALING it. His weight loss book is really just Simeon's "Pounds and Inches" coupled with more FTC/FDA ranting. All the Debt Cures information, like "pay yourself first" has been on popular shows like Oprah, Good Morning America and more. Kinda hard to tkae the "'They' Don't Want You to Know About" part of the title seriously when you learn that little tid bit. TheDevilYouKnow 07:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Debt Cures should include notice that the Trudeau infomercial advertising this book has appeared in at least both the USA and Australia and perhaps also the UK, but that such advice would always be nation specific and should only be provided only by an attorney or solicitor licensed to practice in that nation, preferably one who is also specialised in bankruptcy law. Links should be provided to readers to:

United States of America The American Bankruptcy Institute http://www.abiworld.org/

National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys http://www.nacba.org/

Similar links should be provided to Wikipedia readers for the same types of associations in Australia and in all nations where convicted felon Trudeau's Debt Cure infomercial is aired. rumjal 11:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why his debt cure book is controversial. There are thousands of books that repackage information that is readily available. This entry is biased and I think it needs to be reworded.

Same as compgeek I ran across this show this morning. If you having seen it here's what it looks like. He had 2007 Playboy Playmate of the Month as one guest; I suppose the only redeeming quality of the show. ;) Anyway, he claimed he's received death threats for writing and promoting this book. Maybe these death threats are from customers, I don't know, but why can't the FCC regulate these infomercials based on some reasonable criteria? I don't think any of his products per se are controversial (as indicated above), but his pattern of activity is probably a good example of the types of people in the business. Maybe this should be the focus in the article. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 13:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So does the three year ban mean he can't make them or he can't put them on the air? October 2008 put a ban on him. November 21, 2008 just had the credit one on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If only we took the time...

I was skeptical about Kevin Trudeau, but actually calling the FTC and judicial systems, for public information, Kevin Trudea has NEVER been found guilty of any wrongdoing in his dealings with the FTC and FDA, as the FTC was ordered by the courts to sign a document implying he has never been 'fined' or found guilty of wrongdoing. Look up any other celebrity who has beenfaced with criminal charges jail time, and you will note that the most prominent information within the first two sentences, let alone the rest of their articles, of said publications is NOT about wether or not they have been convicted or found guilty of crimes. Just a thought, who is funding the Kevin Trudeau wikipedia page? Who wrote and maintains the information and flow of information within it? The facts are the facts, and as long as Wikipedia maintains provably false and misleading information, it is just another worthless source of paid-for corporate media. Just my two, un-biased cents. I love Wikipedia! -Adam Jones Computer Sciences 68.0.173.185 22:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

First, Kevin Trudeau has not been found guilty as the cases against him have never reached a Federal court. Basically, Trudeau signs a settlement stating that he does not admit to any wrongdoing but he won't do it again. However, he HAS violated settlements on a couple of ocassions. The most recent being one example. The FDA, nor the FTC have NEVER been ordered by ANY court to sign ANY such document.

Requesting Citation/Proof Here To Support Above Statement.--HackReality (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact it's the EXACT OPPOSITE. As you can see in the article, including citation, that case brought by Trudeau was DISMISSED and the DISMISSAL was held up on appeal. Trudeau has made many claims the FTC officials are on record making such claims in the 2004 Stipulated Final Order. In actuality the statement was made by TRUDEAU. If there is ANY misinformation it's that which you are trying to spread, despite FACT. TheDevilYouKnow 07:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE -- I forget to include that Trudeau's status as a convicted felon deals with his past activities such as credit card fraud. The statement is NOT in relation to cases involving him and the FTC. TheDevilYouKnow (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, this is his way of manipulating semantics. He hasn't paid "fines" but he has paid millions in settlements. And he's the only person in American history to be banned from promoting products through infomercials (aside from his books). You don't think that counts as being found guilty of wrongdoing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.28.118 (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Random stuff by someone

... he recently informercialed "dept cures they don't want you to know about" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.73.232 (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Random Stuff by Someone else

Please clean up the first few paragraphs of this article. Trudeau is a snake oil selling carpet bagger of the worst sort but I suspect "Kevin "Steal Your Money You Gullible Idiots" Trudeau" comes close to a NPOV violation. As satisfying and well called for as the insults may be in this case they still fail to educate Trudeau's potential customers er, victims as well as a dispassionate recitation of the facts regarding this man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.145.196 (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Billionaire Claims

It seems that some contributors have taken it upon themselves to inject claims of Trudeau's financial status without bothering to cite any reliable source. One editor even asked if there were cited sources for Oprah, Gates, Jobs, etc as the reason for the inclusion. Yes...The Forbes 400!!! I find it interesting of course that someone would feel the need to suddenly include this claim. It's funny because the 2004 Stipulated Final Order includes an Avalanche clause. If he made his MULTI billions in a mere 3 years, why was he unable to pay the winners of the IPT!?!

It is my belief that these claims are being introduced into this article (and other sites) to coincide with his Debt Cures book. Not only is it a means to promote his book which reveals secrets already revealed years earlier on shows like GMA, Oprah, etc., but to present him as some kind of financial guru. Personally, it makes me wonder if this is simple vandalism or if said contributors are acting as agents of Trudeau. TheDevilYouKnow 22:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow...amazing. I can't stand the guy personally. I think he should be put under the jail. I added the billionaire thing because it is a true and interesting fact, but also because I thought it might help to shock people about what a crook this guy is and how successful he has been at ripping people off. Are you always so paranoid about edits? By the way, google "Kevin Trudeau Billionaire" and don't just read the first page of entries. There are hundreds of pages of entries about this. Please table the paranoia, too. katherinewelles 04:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources for this information (which is a tall order - just because a tabloid like People magazine or whatever says it does not make it true), then fine. You can't keep adding unsourced assertions, and the excuse that some other articles make similar assertions without sources doesn't fly; the assertions should be removed from those articles as well until they are sourced. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I too was unable to find one reliable source after about an hour or so. I even went back and searched his books (I have the ebooks as PDFs on my HDD). He goes on and on making claims about his wealth. He mentions making a couple million and TALKING to billionaires. I was able to find a number of relatively NEW discussions on forum where people randomly plop in "he's a billionaire". There's some info about Stanley Ho, whom KT teamed up with for the IPT. He's a rich guy. Again, nothing solid.

I do notice that Katherinewelles mentions HUNDREDS of sources yet can't give us ONE. Katherinewelles then goes on to ask where the sources are for Winfrey, Gates and other although I have already mentioned the most notable. So here you go. The Forbes 400 Richest Americans (lists their net worth) and Forbe's The World Richest People (again lists their net worth). Trudeau isn't on either list. TheDevilYouKnow (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It was in the Boston Herald. Other sites have linked to it but the Boston Herald no longer has the article available on their site. Here is a link of another article that reprints the Boston Herald article and also gives the credit to the article being from the Boston Herald: http://www.backchannelmedia.com/newsletter/articles/2314/WHY-MY-SON-WENT-BAD-Trouble-Began-With-Adoption-Self-Help-Guru-Says OK so go ahead and click on that link and then come back and tell me I'm wrong. You guys are much smarter than me and stuff and much more internet savvy so I'm sure I am wrong and that article does not actually say it was from the Boston Herald. I also read a guy's blog where he talks about the Boston Heraldn referring to Trudeau as a billionaire. katherinewelles 05:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a single source which you have failed to verify with all the other HUNDREDS you claimed you had Googled. While it does present the notion of BILLIONAIRE (which flies in the face of know facts about Trudeau's IPT pay out woes) it DOES NOT substantiate your "added the fact that he is a billionaire (MULTI-BILLIONAIRE). surprised this wasn't already mentioned!" edit. MULTI!?! Where did you find this? Also there are no other articles, even within the same timeline mention this billionaire status. It is also unclear as to whether this is information the author is provided or claims made by his mother. Now let's look at the 2004 Stipulated Final Order --

If, upon motion by the Commission, the Court finds that the Defendants’ or Relief Defendants’ financial information failed to disclose any material asset, materially misrepresented the value of any asset, or made any other material misrepresentation or omission, the Court shall enter judgment for consumer redress against Defendants and Relief Defendants, jointly and severally, in favor of the Commission, in the amount of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000); provided, however, that in all other respects this Order shall remain in full force and effect unless otherwise ordered by the Court; and, provided further, that proceedings instituted under this Part would be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other civil or criminal remedies as may be provided by law, including any other proceedings that the Commission may initiate to enforce this Order.

Trudeau paid $500,000 plus handed over a luxury vehicle and a house to satisfy a $2 million settlement. Trudeau would have had to have made his [MULTI] billion dollars in as little as a year OR would have been subject to the avalanche clause summarized above. TheDevilYouKnow (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

So I proved he is referenced as a billionaire by a reputable source (the Boston Herald) and now you are saying I have to prove "multi" billionaire status. WEAK. So basically whatever I prove doesn't matter. You will just change the rules, sort of like a child on a playground who lost a game. Not going to play this game with you. I would rather find an actual child and play with them. You have some sort of personal problem with facing the truth that a crook charlatan can become a billionaire in today's world. Maybe you should seek help with that isssue instead of playing it out on Wikipedia. hey, I hate Trudeau. I wish he wasn't a billionaire. I wish he had nothing and was homeless to be honest with you, but that isn't the truth. I also wish Oprah was penniless too but I'm not going to go over to Oprah's page and remove the billionaire stuff because I don't like it. I will consider taking this matter up with wikipedia admins since I have found a credible source and you want to keep blocking edits in the face of that with flimsy excuses and new standards. I never put "multi-billionaire in the article, not a single time. I put billionaire. Again, Boston Herald article not my opinion. Unless you can find a printed retraction by them admitting an error then there it is in writing. Again I will mull this over for a possible formal report to admins. you are deliberately blocking what has appeared in print from a reputable news outlet. A source such as that is the only thing needed for a wikipedia standard. No original research--or wishes or opinions--are allowed here. katherinewelles 21:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who put forth his MULTI-BILLIONAIRE status. I was also able to find at least ONE additional archived source which uses billionaire to describe Trudeau. However, like your own source it isn't recent (2005) and simply plops the adjective in there without anything to back it up. Most information from other sources is from Trudeau's own mouth but it is in regards to overall revenue over years from his supposed 60 or so "companies", many of which are now defunct and bankrupt (Trudeau paid out quite a bit in civil lawsuits)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1558471,00.html

However, unless you can provide a current up-to-date source regarding his financial status it cannot rightly be placed in the opening paragraph in the present tense. It should be easy with all those hundreds of sources you Googled. Otherwise it will continue to be scrutinized or removed by myself and other editors if there are no current citations.

One last item. The Oprah Winfrey article you mentioned contains no less than seven (7) citations in regards to her billionaire status. All of these are recent or refer to previous years. Bill Gates contains eight(8). Let me know if you need a count on any others. If you are looking for sources regarding Trudeau's financial status, you need only look to the IPT section and full article. There you will find a multitude of excuses and whining from Trudeau about his difficulty coming up with the money to pay the winners. TheDevilYouKnow (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your excuses just keep changing, don't they? Now you are demanding that it be up to date. Who defines up to date? Is there a section you can show me in Wikipedia policy that shows the definition of up to date? 2 years is too old for you. If I find one with a year that will be too old for you. Then you will probably come up with a new feeble reason. So every references source on Wikipedia is something that was sourced within the past calendar year? Is that right? About the whining about paying, plenty of people do that even when they have money to pay. It's called stalling. Corporations worth tens of billions of dollars stall payment on claims all the time. I guess they are broke too? OK, next feeble excuse? Again it is hard to keep up. First you need proof so I give it to you. Then you say it isn't proof of "multi" which again I never once (never one single time) put on the article itself, only in the talk page. Then you say the source is outdated because it didn't happen last week.

Again: define up to date sources. If you do not cite this area in policy then you do leave me no choice but to re-write the article again with proper citation per wikipedia policy, and then if you edit it report you to admins for malicious edits and/or edit wars or whatever violation it would be known as. So show me the policy on how old a source can be. I'm waiting.katherinewelles 23:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading through the article and it would seem that something more recent would be warranted. I agree with TDYK because if you read through the Pool Tournament citations there are numerous occassions in which KT claims not to have the money. During one interviewe one of the players makes the statement to the effect that if KT has as much money as he claims to be he should be able to pay them. Many of the billionaire assumption do in fact come from Trudeau himself. There is an interesting interview linked at infommercialwatch.org where he claims to have made his first millions before he was 18 and later set up something like 60 companies in 6 different countries with earnings of up to $3 billion (Gross? Net?). There are a number just like this. Most were Amway and Nutrion for Life and other such companies. In the face of contradiction I would like to think there should be a bit more solid info on his current status as a billionaire. After all you did drop in the claim as a "present tense description". All those other folks you mentioned all have up to date information regarding their net worth.

For the record you did in fact claim multi-billionaire and not just in the talk page. You titled your edits things like "he's a billionaire, no mutli-billionaire" and he's a "billionaire it's common knowledge" at no time did it seem you provided any source information other than that we should just Google it ourselves. Quite frankly if I had seen your contribs earlier, as opposed to just your comments on the talk page, I would have wrote it off as vandalism pure and simple. SIGNED -- Sorry about the rush job and any misspellinga or bad grammar. I'm at work guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.123.107 (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To the previous poster: if you could sign your responses with the appropriate approved and prescribed method that would be great. We are trying to follow policy to the letter here, remember? Again, for the (fourth?) time: I never edited the article itself to say multimillionaire. I may have put that on the talk page or the section for the reason of my edit, but never once would anyone have read the article itself and seen the words "multi" next to Billionaire. not once. do I need to say this a fifth time, or are you guys going to revert to another feeble--and utterly inconsequential--technicality with which to support your flimsy point? Just in case, here's the fifth time: the article never, not once, read "multi-billionaire" (at least not on my accord; I'm not sure what anyone did months or years earlier before I ever came here) I simply put the word "billionaire" in with the list of things that describe him. One word only. Check the logs and then make me explain it the 6th time. katherinewelles 22:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Might I propose some sort of balanced compromise? Perhaps a neutral statement which addresses both points. I.E., "Some publications, including the Boston Herald, have referred to Trudeau as a "billionaire." However, this has proven difficult to confirm, and Trudeau himself claims to have a much lower net worth." That would seem to address the points of both sides, which I think is in keeping with wikipedia's objectives of providing as much verifiable information as possible from a NPOV. -JBlinder 24.72.150.82 (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia itself on the definition of a billionaire, it is a case when assets *minus liabilities* is still over a billion. We seem to agree that "Natural Cures was listed in September 2005 by the New York Times as the number-one-selling current nonfiction book in the United States for 25 weeks, and has sold more than five million copies." Here is an Amazon page. http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Cures-They-Dont-About/dp/0975599518. It lists the full retail price as $29.95. Excluding tax and assuming no profit on handling, that can be rounded up to $150 million. It only takes about 6.5 times hitting those figures to get gross sales over $1 billion. My guess is that the lone reporter who called him a billionaire may have blurred his financial terms. Even if Mr. Trudeau did barely scrape the billionaire mark on a single point in time, it seems he did not sustain it for any meaningful period of time since, which explains the Tour problems. TaoPhoenix (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The total profit from "Natural Cures" might have been $150 million, but minus the promotion costs, the camera crew, his co-star, the video editor, the book editor, the guy at the printing press, the lawsuits, taxes (I could go on for a while), he probably took home no more than $50 million. I don't know if anybody recalls, but I know I saw his infomercial every night; usually on multiple channels. That costs a lot of money, and his later books didn't sell nearly as well. Minnesota cold (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

University of Calgary claim

Is there any more information about Trudeau's claim that a University of Calgary study found the "final cure for diabetes?" This is one of his most frequently discussed claims of his by the media. I understand how Trudeau is protected under the First Amendment, but can he not get into trouble for making a claim that is so overtly false and attempting to profit from it? It appears to be an outright fabrication that he is getting away with. Clinevol98 (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No there have been no updates in regards to statements made by Trudeau. I do believe that a number of his infomercials were re-shot because they included statements by Trudeau that the UofC was "lying" when they denied any such trials or findings were made. This isn't the first stop Trudeau has been caught with his foot in his mouth only to pull the spot due to libelous statements. There has also been no information about the lawsuit between Eastwood Biomedical/YungSoo Kim versus the UofC in the media. Access to those court documents require subscription or payment to access. TheDevilYouKnow (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In a 20/20 interview, he was told by the interviewer that 20/20 contacted the University of Calgary about the supposed study. The University responded "there has been no study done at the University of Calgary in the last 25 years about herbal cures for diabetes." Trudeau then said he was shocked, saying that he had been in "an office in Connecticut" just a few days ago looking at the study that was in a "stack this thick" (used fingers to show thickness). He also said he would send the study to 20/20, which he never did. It sounds like the University of Calgary needs to sue him. Clinevol98 (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Also sounds like Wikipedians editing this article need to take a step back and remember that we are here to document, not judge. There is way, way, WAY too much editwarring going on in this article. Everyone seems to have a point of view, either to defend Trudeau or to gut him. That is not why we are here. We are here to reliably source the notable facts about this article subject, no more, no less, period. Clinevol98, I honestly am not picking on you in particular - I could name many other editors, you just happened to be the latest and I just happen, right now, to feel that this needs to be said; no attack or particular blame implied. We really need to start being actual encyclopedists about this article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

me too, i am SICK of this bullshit going on with the trudeaubashers trying to use thes article's prestige on the internet to badmouth and slander mr. Trudeauandhis efforrts on this website. i recommend the REMOVAL of all the unrwarranted hate speech and anti-Trudeau commonts that aren't sourced in order to FINALLY bring this article to something aprpoaching dignity and accuracy. wikipedia is an NECLYCLOPEDIA, NOT A FRICKING HATE SPEECH ARCHIVEOF BIGOTRY AND LIBELS Smith Jones (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

NECLYCLOPEDIA? Congratulations, you have successfully created a new non-word by misspelling two words and then mashing them together. Your mother will be so proud. User:Jbourne99 —Preceding comment was added at 10:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Smith Jones you have done more to hinder the your own progress. Time and time again you have removed well cited information because paragraphs or passages were cited and not every single sentence. You have stuck in at rand words like alleged, claim and slapped the label critic on anything that cast Trudeau in a bad light. You have taken a "let's reword or delete it no matter if it's sourced or cited because it apparently overshadows what few positives there may be". Read through the NPOV guidelines again. It's not about being wishy washy with articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.48.145 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

i am perefectly willing to cooperate but the way rthis article stands is intolerable to the ethics of wikiepdai. Smith Jones (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So, SmithJones, do you recieve a paycheck from this snake oil peddling asshat? Seems that you are really defensive of anything that is negative about him. It has been cited and is verifiable. Please quit using weasle words and taking up for a proven con man.SincerelyMustang Six Zero 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

believe or nto not everyone is motivat ed by money and is it quite possible for someone to have an opiinoion different from yours without having some evil motive as you imply. i was under the impression that wikiepdia requireds GOOD FAITH, not the automatic assumption of BAD FAITH AND EVIL. i am trtying my hardest not to lose my temper with the constant barage of hypocrites hopping all over this talk page accsing me of the very same crimes that they thesmelves are quite blatantly committing. YES, i believe that kevin trudeau is more good than he is bad YES i believe that his health care claims are LARGELY useful if combined wit h a bit of critical thought NO i don tbelieve in a massive big pharma conspiracy but YES i do believe that pharmaceutical companies, like ALL large influentail groups use htier influence to try and slant mediaand government support in their direction. perhaps i am wrong about all of htis; perhaps you are right that Trudeau is a "snake oil peddling asshat" but THAT IS BESIDE THE POINT. the purpose of wikipedia is to record information culled form other reputable and notable sources to provide an info suppository. The purpose of wikipedia is NOT to make decisions for readers and NOT to make value judgments about the nature of ANY of its subjects. you do not see me going over to the pages of sceptics or other peopel whom i disagree iwth and actually writing out "HE IS WRONG BECAUSE X". the most we SHOULD ever say is "PERSON X says that HE IS WRONG IN A CNN INTERVIEW" or something of tha tnature. NOTHING MORE. Anyhting else is a violation of original research, NPOV, and other clauses in the wikipedia policy. Smith Jones (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Random injection of CRITICS

It would appear that whenever a claim is debunked or refuted someone feels the need to include CRITICS as if THEY are the ONLY ones mentioning these items.

The infomercials suggest that these subjects will be addressed further in the book, but critics don't believe this.

This sentence has already been changed by another editor but it shows a PERFECT example of my point. It's not only critics. It's his supporters too. Read through the book reviews or even the archives for this article and discussion. You'll see them leap forth with wild conspiracies that the information was censored from the book and that's why it's on his website because (as one editor put it) because the "Internet laws are different". It's poor attempt, not through evidence or fact, but a futile attempt to discredit fact by claiming the information comes merely from critics and skeptics. In reality most of us know it's merely people reaching for any excuse not to be labeled a sucker because they were duped once again by Trudeau. Any such random injections of CRITIC(S) or SKEPTIC(S) should be heavily scrutinized. TheDevilYouKnow (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a good reason to use the WHO? tag. This is not limited to this article. There are unfortunately many articles that have unquoted or unattributed quotations. There are a lot of good people trying to fix these edits. Read WP:AWW for the policy. Rmosler | ● 20:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point, TDYK. But wouldn't supporters who criticize Trudeau's book for this reason be, by definition, critics? Or at least former-supporters. Perhaps both? -JBlinder 24.72.150.82 (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get "supporters who criticize"? These people are not criticizing the books. They are making EXCUSES to explain the materials are lacking. For example when it's brought up that the book does not contain actual cures (though some would argue otherwise) or does not expose secret ingredients in food which result in addiction (Trudeau merely presents the age ol' quack claim that they are hidden behind flavorings but doesn't actually REVEAL them) supporter look for excuses. So it's not just critics who are saying it. His supporters are confirming it but trying to explain it often times with wild conspiracies. Critics are simply stating their opinion and raising valid questions. Skeptics are people that demand proof. They demand that you provide credible evidence to support a claim. Trudeau will not answer critics nor provide proof. He simply dismisses them or claims conspiracies and cover up or that he would be glad to provide proof but he would go to jail (baloney). TheDevilYouKnow (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

so you're saying that Dr Trudeau should risk PRISON just to answer some critics who will never be satisifed with this research? That's crazy. let's stick to writing an article instead of discussing this subject like WP:FORUM. User:Smith Jones 21:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Smith, if you think Kevin Trudeau is a doctor then you probably aren't qualified to contribute to this article. And it only makes sense to insert "critics say" when it's a matter of opinion. When discussing what the book does or does not contain, it doesn't even make grammatical sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.28.118 (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

More sources if needed

I got recurring billing on my credit card, after the telemarketer told me I wouldn't be charged, and had 90 days to cancel the "extras" that they try to shove down your throat when you just want to order the book.

Anyways, I hired a lawyer, and he did a lot of digging, and I have a long list of civil complaints against companies that he was partner in, or was the person behind the shell corporation or whatever type of legal mask you chose (a rose by any other name... right?). Anyways, I got it all in .pdf's if this page needs more proof of his antisocial personality disorder. email me at honda_rabbit@yahoo.com its 119 mb. I'm glad he hasn't hired people to infiltrate this article and give him a positive slant. Right on, this guy is the reincarnation of enron. 198.70.210.88 (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

quite frankly we dont need any anti-Dr. Trudeau "factoids" for this article. Smith Jones (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Career

Should you not also include his involvement with undisclosed intelligence agencies, or at least his claim there off, as an aid in his financial success? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadyes (talk • contribs) 12:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

dont bother unles you have any sources. Smith Jones (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)???

I corrected the part at the end of the career section about Kevin's radio show. It doesn't "mostly" consist of brokered programming. Look at his list of radio station he airs on: http://www.ktradionetwork.com/2009/11/16/kevins-radio-network/ Go ahead and check all those station websites and you will find only a few are brokered air time.

I cited sources when I posted it and now someone changed it back. Post a reference to show it's "mostly" brokered and it will be fine. Until then, this statement is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jango1077 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Is Being Bashed NO Neutral Point of View, Only Bashing!

He is a lier. You can not cure type 1 Diabetes. You have to stop the body form destroying its on islet cells. He could kill people with his bullcrap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.13.218.203 (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, it does not take much to know that this ARTICLE HAS BEEN TAINTED....PROBABLY, SOMEONE WILL REMOVE THIS MESSAGE BECAUSE IT GOES AGAINST BIG COMPANIES! Well, do not! It is obvious that this article is made to sound like 98% criticism against him. HOW IS THAT NEUTRAL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.92.128 (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and guess that this comment was made by a Scientologist, to support the Scientologist author of this book. Don't believe me? It's true: http://freeplay.ircdotcom.com/photos/trudeau.jpg

24.25.142.109 (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

wow, a jpg file. that's your best evidence for accusing any supporters of Dr. Trudeau of being a Scioetnologist? really, that is incredibly direspectufl. Smith Jones (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Incredible! Someone really wants to discredit him! First of all, these are assumptions and discriminating comments. I should have a mind to report comments like that to wikipedia editors. And so you know, I do not personally agree with EVERYTHING IN THIS BOOK. However, I know enough that someone wants to bash this article. STOP DESTROYING WIKIPEDIA and ANY VALIDITY THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE! I am not what you presume and furthermore, you are degrading wikipedia. Tell me any valid argument that you have, then argue. 68.197.92.128 (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

save your energy. a few editors have goten it itno their head that they somehow own this article and wil respond to any attempts to criticize the direciton it has taken with extreme perjudice. there is really no need to overreact, however; there are many other articles that work on while you calm down and hope that the anti-Trudeua crowd moves away. Smith Jones (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is extremly bias. How can you guys put more bias torwards one person than you do the holocaust? So he has been sued. Many people have been sued but it's not the focal point of their article. Isn't the point of Wikipedia to be unbias? You can at least add a nuetrality dispute to the top of the page. There are many people against the FDA and what not so not saying there is any evidence is stupid. And to say his book is taking other peoples works and putting them into one book is also stuid. A lot of books are other peoples works, its called citations. Wikipedia is other peoples works. Wikipedia has tons of backlash against it, and that's not the focal point of Wikipedia's Wikipedia article. So why is this one article so bias , when i haven't seen any others that are this blatent?

I think there may be a small bit of confusion concerning the difference between the concept of 'neutrality' and the notion that 'there will be a positive point for every negative'. Unlike an earlier editor, I won't make ad hominem attacks against his supporters (personally, I find his infomercials downright entertaining. Never have I ever seen someone take so much care to precede every claim with, "I believe"!). However, a subject's article should contain all noteworthy and verifiable information about that subject. As it so happens, the vast majority of notable and verifiable material concerning Trudeau happens to be negative. If you have reliable and verifiable sources that claim that, say, he's very active in charity work, or, uh, invented a new vehicle that runs on water, then by all means include it in the article.

But the problem with simply stating that it's too heavily biased against him is that there are only two possible remedies:

Removing some of the material currently in the article (if this is your suggestion, then what isn't worth including?)
Including additional material that you feel would make it more fair and balanced (if this is your suggestion, then please help to contribute)

However, barring one of those options, I really don't see any option here. 209.90.133.173 (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well for one example, he talks about and explains most of his critism in his book, or a retaliation against it. I could proably add myself but I'm shocked no one else has yet. For example where he was arrested he says in his book that he was arrested and that he use to do things for money. If you really think about it, it is kind of obvious that he would be attacked. Isn't everyone that says something against America attacked? If he wasn't attacked it would kind of mean that they agree with him, and to agree with him would mean the FDA is corrupt and that most drugs are unhealthy. So it is obvious he will be attacked. If you mentioned everytime anyone was sued there would be a lot of sections about states getting sued or companies that have been sued. I would assume famous people get sued a few times or more. There have also been some news interviews taht agreed with a lot of what he said. Natualnews.com gave his book a good review. Just some ideas. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.206.206 (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Regarding the legal issues that surround him and otherwise his past crimes, he has admitted to them in his book, and for me that is a notable fact to be placed in this article. If someone commits a crime and has the courage to openly admit them (of course after a great deal of time, but that's not the matter), then that is notable. Not only that, but read his naturalcures.com faq section: "I have never publicized my personal giving", by doing good deeds and being secretive about it, he further shows his character (either in a good or bad sense, either he does contribute or doesn't, but the latter is unlikely, at least that's what I believe after reading his book). 203.190.33.94 (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So this is some vast overreaching conspiracy to libel Kevin Trudeau for his selfless crusade to stick it to The Man and help the little guy out. Am I getting this right? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 14:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, maybe he wants to help little people, maybe not. But why accuse him over anyone else? Does any actors page say they make movies to make money? Or a singers page say they sing to make money? Why is Kevin Trudeau attacked more than most others? If everyone in the world that is rich does everything solely for money then shouldn't this be listed for everyone and if this is true then isn't Kevin Trudeau at least right on that level? If not then why would Kevin Trudeau be the only person ever to only be after money? That is getting of the subject anyways, the point is he said he did things that were wrong. Unlike almost any corporation ever that never thinks they did anything wrong ever. All of the evidence of him being a criminal is from before he said he was a criminal and that he did things wrong. So what new evidence do you have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.206.202 (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"But why accuse him over anyone else? Does any actors page say they make movies to make money? Or a singers page say they sing to make money? Why is Kevin Trudeau attacked more than most others?"

Because Kevin Trudeau's doesn't act or sing. He makes a living giving people (false) medical advice without a license.

"If everyone in the world that is rich does everything solely for money […]"

Straw man.

"the point is he said he did things that were wrong. Unlike almost any corporation ever that never thinks they did anything wrong ever."

So he's a good guy because he's the lesser of two evils. But even that argument falls apart when you actually think about corporations. The idea that they never think they have ever done anything wrong is an obvious load of bull. It sounds to me like you're just paraphrasing the reasoning he gives his ~~suckers~~ customers as to why they should trust him despite his track record.

"All of the evidence of him being a criminal is from before he said he was a criminal and that he did things wrong."

Wrong. Even look at this article as a reference to how you're wrong there. He's been peddling his wares on infomercials despite a court order forbidding it. And there's the reason for that court order in the first place: False and misleading claims. And then there's the Ponzi scheme he ran in the 1990s.

"So what new evidence do you have?"

Admittedly, nothing that isn't already in the article. But hell, if you don't trust the article, feel free to check the references yourself. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 09:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Dianetics Claim

I see no problem with this - he does talk about it in his book, and recommend it. The source is the book. There is no claim that he is a Scientologist. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

whatch who you are calling a sockpuppet, Hackereality? Smith Jones (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What the heck are you going on about now? A quick search of this page shows absolutely no trace of any editor by the name of Hackereality. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you mean Hackreality? He hasn't made any claim of sockpuppetry on this page. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

hCG

As the page is mainly composed of criticism toward Trudeau (I addmit - I find his enterprises very odd) - other kind of information mentioned along with his name is equally bashed. I'm talking about the hCG that people are instantly dismissing without even knowing what is it. Trudeau should have done people actually needing it a favor and not have associated his name with it as this hormone is controversial enough.

Whenever people are going to wake up from this nutrition nightmare that big companies (food & pharma) have gotten us into (as in when McD and the like go broke), maybe someone will do some unbiased ($$) research regarding it.

If you are looking for more info on hCG and you are scientifically minded, ignore Trudeau and his allegations. Go to the source - dr. Simeons and the people taking the time to post feedback on his research all over the web. Put those horse glasses away for a minute and see what it is and what it is doing for people who actually found some use to it. (without putting a dime in Trudeau's pocket).

Marahth (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Information on hCG belongs at Human chorionic gonadotropin, not here. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Who really cares?

Let me just ask any of the bashers who are bashing Trudeau If you support the FDA,AMA,or the Pharmaceutical Industry? If so what would happen to these entities If a cure for Cancer existed? What about A.I.D.S.? Well there is a cure for A.I.D.S. ^[1] I wonder why it's not being used? What about Diabetes? I think the bashers know what would happen to these entities. They would virtually cease to "Extort" "Commit Fraud" "Mislead the public with false advertisements" "Murder other human beings for knowing the truth" "Commit the largest scale of mass genocide in the history of humanity" and my favorite "Exist"

Since the reference did not work here is a direct link to the U.S. Patent Office #5676977

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5676977.PN.&OS=PN/5676977&RS=PN/5676977

Yashua1970 (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)yashua1970Yashua1970 (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So what's your point? Skinwalker (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. WP:TALK. Discussion should be kept relevant to the article itself. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

“Let me just ask any of the bashers who are bashing Trudeau If you support the FDA,AMA,or the Pharmaceutical Industry? If so what would happen to these entities If a cure for Cancer existed? What about A.I.D.S.? Well there is a cure for A.I.D.S. I wonder why it's not being used? What about Diabetes?”

Gee, I don’t know… maybe they’d regulate the testing, production and administration of that cure, just like they’ve done with thousands of other cures and treatments throughout the history of their existence?

“Well there is a cure for A.I.D.S. I wonder why it's not being used?”

Just because someone obtains a patent for something doesn’t mean it works. The purpose of patents is to protect inventors from competition for a set amount of time to allow them to fine-tune and market their inventions.

I read the patent’s abstract and didn’t have to go any further. It’s bullshit. Then I decided to google the name of the author, Marvin S. Andelman. He pushes the same patented treatment as a cure for cancer. He’s also – rather unsurprisingly – a conspiracy theorist. So I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that the patent you showed us is not a working cure for AIDS and that’s why it’s not being used.

“They would virtually cease to "Extort" "Commit Fraud" "Mislead the public with false advertisements" "Murder other human beings for knowing the truth" "Commit the largest scale of mass genocide in the history of humanity" and my favorite "Exist"”

To stop doing those things they’d have to have been doing them in the first place.… — NRen2k5^(TALK), 10:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So… who’s the bad guy here? Wikipedia doesn’t care. If you have any specific objections to the way the article is written, voice them here. Your insinuations of bias would best be backed up by evidence, not followed by innuendo. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 10:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record this is typical conspiracy theory nonsense coupled with ignorance about patents. The makers of Propolene tried this and got slammed. "Propolene is so effective is was awarded a US Patent for weight loss." COMPLETELY FALSE. Patents don't prove effectiveness. I can patent pooping on someone's face to cure AIDS but it doesn't mean it works. This is a story that was allowed to get waaaaayy out of hand because of, again, IGNORANCE. Why are medical doctors not pushing this stuff? Why is it chiropractors and others with NO REAL KNOWLEDGE OR TRAINING TO SPEAK OF? Keep the SPAM out of this discussion area. The same goes for trolling and logical fallacies. 98.156.39.160 (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that this guy is a perfect example of why Wiki (or even books or any kind of learning was invented). Typical conspiracy theory wierdoness, backed by no evidence. This guy should stick to editing the David Icke website, looking for Elvis on Mars, Illuminati mind control and other rubbish.

Rod Szasz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.116.40.235 (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The "two magic words" in Debt Cures?

Could someone reveal the "two magic words" (supposedly revealed in the book) that he talks about in the infomercial so that readers of the article might gain some perspective on just how illuminating his advice would be. I imagine that sharing it in the article would allow others to make the same sort of judgement about the book that I am trying to make. I imagine the reader's reaction would be either "Brilliant!" or "That's the lamest thing I've ever read".

Roger Midnight (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, some research found that the two magic words are "Identity Theft". Though they are very powerful words in the credit and collections world, they would apply to very few of the viewers of the infomercials, and using them fraudulently is a path to prison.

Roger Midnight (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Copy Editing

I've done some copy work on this piece. I've focused mainly on grammar, spelling, and style, though I did remove one sentence from the section on non-surgical facelifts ("There is great controversy on the internet about this duo teaming up."), because "great controversy on the internet" is not notable or particularly easy to support. In general, though, I'm not pulling anything else out unless it's redundant, ungrammatical, or nonstandard. P.F. Bruns (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

...and the "other" Two Magical words he has for you is Credit Fraud! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrisFisch (talk • contribs) 07:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Recession Cures" New Book

There should be another subsection in this article about his new book "Recession Cures They Don't Want You To Know About"

Recession Cures

There is a new infomercial on television which features himself promoting this book. What I don't understand is how can he even be on television when he was banned by the FTC. Either way, we need to address this new book in the main article. --Punkrocker27ka (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the new section myself.--Punkrocker27ka (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary and over-critical bias against

I understand that there has to be criticism, but why such an unbalance. Let's use an example: His credit card/check scheme before 2000....yes, it's true that he did commit those crimes. HOWEVER, he does admit his mistake in his book and notes that he once was obsessed with money and claims to be a better person now.

IF REASONABLE (and that's based on what it says in the article), I think that for all of the parts that are biased against him, there should be research done to counterbalance if it is possible.

Again, do not take my words out of context, I am advocating that the article be balanced if possible. And I'm more than sure it is, especially with that example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Trudeau&diff=237226550&oldid=236190989

There also seems to be interesting biased edits against him, notably that one.

This article sound more biased than neutral, we still didn't purge the bias.

"complex plan that requires intense dieting, daily injections of a prescribed drug that is not easily obtainable, and lifelong dietary restrictions"

For example could also be fixed up to be neutral. "lifelong dietary restriction", sounds professional, but is biased. Try "lifelong dietary requirements of organic foods and foods without chemical/synthetic additives among a variety of other things." That makes the article less biased yet retains the point that it requires lifelong dietary requirements which per my opinion isn't bad advice (find a doctor that will say to eat more foods with chemical additives). Even then, it's biased, but I'm willing to make compromise, until others agree that the diet modifications are not negative (exclusive of human growth hormone or whatever it's called, I lack knowledge on that topic; eating fewer synthetic materials is a good thing, no?). Instead of "intense dieting" which is unprofessional because of the use of the word DIET which can refer to what a person eats... you can try "substantial modification in an average's person's diet"

This part was especially biased

More Natural "Cures" Revealed In May 2006, Trudeau published More Natural "Cures" Revealed: Previously Censored Brand Name Products That Cure Disease. This less-publicized book responded to aforementioned complaints that its earlier version did not actually contain any cures but instead pointed consumers to his subscription website.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.152.238 (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In regards to your last example, it appropriately and objectively describes exactly what his book did. It lacked any specific information which is exactly why he wrote the follow up book. --Punkrocker27ka (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mega Memory

This article needs some balance. I bought the Mega Memory course and it works! I can memorize a list of 100 things very easily, frontwards and backwards. It really works. There has to be some positive reviews out there that can be used to offset these attacks. Otherwise this article is really POV and unbalanced. Nigtones (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Your trolling and spamming is not welcome here. Testimonials mean SQUAT. TheDevilYouKnow (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

free money book?

I'm seeing his infomercial right now, Free Money they don't want you to know about". This new book should be added to the list of his scam's, I mean books. It may also worth be mentioning the deceptive advertising he uses, advertising his new book through "QSN Direct" which doesn't exist.Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a typical mock "interview style" infomercial tactic which Trudeau has used for years (see: Trudeau and 'A Closer Look'). I believe it's still mentioned in the article. Many others have employed this tactic and even continue to do so. Similar commercials run daily claiming to be IMPORTANT/URGENT announcements/bulletins from the government or news media. Some go a step further and offer a special 1-800 number viewers can call for more information often times forgetting that they are required to make viewers aware that is an ADVERTISEMENT. This is usually done via a disclaimer at the top or bottom of the screen or a message before and after an infomercial. Again, not really anything new. If you remember one thing they are usually very easy to spot. Accept for Donald Barrett (no relation to Stephen Barrett) these "interviewers" talk less than five percent of the time. Some are there merely to provide paid endorsements or to serve as "eye candy". TheDevilYouKnow (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am curious also as I have also seen that very infomercial. It needs to be verified if the court order was lifted or not. Trentc (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I see why. According to Alex Jones TV http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejbBJfk61mY , he is now in Germany and claims to have the court order/contempt in appeals court. I don't think Germany will do anything over violating a court order. Trentc (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

REFERENCES/CITATION CLEAN UP

At first I looked at the first paragraph and though it was a little excessive. Upon further investigation I found it goes well above and beyond the references and citation guidelines. Numerous citation are provided which are merely opinion pieces and should be removed. Still more are articles which do nothing more that cite citations already provided. A report by John Stossel calling Trudeau a liar and briefly mentioning his criminal record is not an acceptable citation. Still more are simply the same thing reprinted on third party web sites. If we have the FTC press release already cited it is not necessary to link to another web site which does nothing more than summarizes the EXACT SAME INFORMATION while sometimes injecting the author's own opinion.

The first section/paragraph needs some serious cuts. TheDevilYouKnow (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to an earlier version, now there are 12 refs for the opening sentence. That's almost certainly still very excessive, but I don't have time to cull through them at the moment. Additional cuts are probably necessary though. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

order of terms

is thera a rule that governs how a WP:LEAD should be written as far as stylistic? once conerne that I have is that Trudeaus status as an alleged convicted felon is provided with mroe weight than his more notable and more well verified work as the founder of the International Pool Tour, for hwich he is a prominent leader. I feel that his work should come first in the lead and then his status as a felon should go next after his Pool contributations. User:Smith Jones 23:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Jett Travolta

I've removed completely the section that claimed this person was responsible for Jett's death. It had absolutely no sources.That claim that this person is responsible is in direct violation of the WP:BLP policy. Do not add this without many reputable sources to back it up. Ariel♥Gold 11:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

you dont even need to come on the talkpage to explain yourself. anyone ehow puts that information there should eb reverted and warned, and if they do it again they should be the ones who have to justify wit with sources on this talk page and in the article. There is no excuse for this kind of slandering and rudeness and violations of WP:BLP and I am glad that you were able to catch it so quickly because it caused problems with Dr Trudeau or the Wikipedia. User:Smith Jones 21:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I second that!Mysteryquest (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Resolved

– No such term appears in the article any longer.

There is a line that claims K. Trudeau is a sayain. I'm going to assume that no one has a reasonable objection to its removal.

What is a "sayain"?

It's been removed. In the future, just remove nonsense and suspicious, unsourced statements, per WP:BLP; there's no need to report them here, just use a clear edit summary. PS: Please remember to sign your posts, with ~~~~. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Global Information Network

Kevin Trudeau seems to be associated with the website www.globalinformationnetwork.com (possible scam) yet I cannot find anything to link him. If he is associated and sources can be found, reference should be made on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.5.170 (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have found several links betwween the Global Information. Here is the one where Kevin himself talks about his support for this (very likely) scam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW_HjhO-cCY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.116.40.235 (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone seen his links with the (probable) ponzi scheme...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C2GHeQQjZI&feature=related Here he talks about it here... Of course one cannot call it a scam without proof. But should one not cite this on his homepage. He appears to be deriving the majority of his revenue from this as it is offshore and the Feds can't touch him...

Any thoughts ideas are appreciated... (~~ Rod Szasz ~~) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadaman1960 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK now I have an email from Global Information Network stating that KT is indeed associated with them. We have YouTube recordings of him talking about GIN and encouraging investors to get involved in what looks totally like a pyramid scheme. Is this enough evidence to cite the YouTube link? Certainly the email will not do...Any one have any published sources linking KT with this organisation? Would be apprecaited. R. Szasz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.116.40.235 (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Banned from Infomercials?"

The article states, "In August 2008, he was fined more than $5 million [18] and banned from infomercials for three years for continuing to make fraudulent claims pertaining to the book."

10/23/09 11:20pm PST. I wonder if the ban was only for that book or all infomercials? I'm watching CNBC right now and he is on selling 3 new books. "Free Money they don't want you to know about", "Debt Cures", "25,000 easy ways to $5,000". He is saying that he is not making any money on this that it is a free public services. The number is 800-916-8110 by QSND, if anyone wants to validate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boopsipookums (talk • contribs) 06:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd call "bullshit" on the banning too. Since Aug 2008 it seems like he is on some channel every night pushing his load of crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.70.110 (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

He was banned from promoting products through infomercials. He could not be banned from promoting books, however, because of free speech issues. It's all in the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.28.118 (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

How are his books not "products"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.84.11 (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"See also" policy and guideline violations

Interested editors, please watch for the re-creation of a "See also" section and its population with unsourced and otherwise inappropriate attack entries. I have hit 3 reverts of this stuff within 24 hours, so for the short term I can't do anything more about it (and frankly, I don't care all that much about or regularly watch this article anyway). The principal issues are:

WP:BLP [policy] forbids the addition of negative or controversial material to a biography article about a living person unless that material is sourced, and reliably so [policy and guideline, respectively].
As WP:SEEALSO [guideline] strongly suggests, "See also" entries should not be redundant with links already in the main prose of the article; thus we do not add things like pyramid scheme to a "See also" section here.
A "See also" link should not be to an article (e.g. Ponzi scheme) that is related to a very general overarching topic mentioned in the article (e.g. scams and fraud), but which has nothing to do with this particular article subject (Ponzi schemes are a very particular kind of scam (namely a special sort of pyramid scheme), and there is zero cited evidence of Trudeau engaging in them). Cf. WP:SEEALSO again, on what "See also" sections are actually legitimately used for, when they are legitimately used at all.
"See also" items cannot attempt to predict the future [policy], e.g. by assuming that Trudeau's forthcoming finance book is a get-rich-quick scheme.
WP:SEEALSO further deprecates the addition of a "See also" section at all to an article of this size and level of development.
The "See also" material in question has been repeatedly inserted over such objections, through sockpuppetry (3 accounts, 2 IP and one named, created yesterday) and editwarring [both policies].

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The disputed links

I have moved the whole section here for discussion:

Fraud: Consumer Affairs. Consumer affairs http://www.consumeraffairs.com/health/trudeau.html. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Quackery: Dr. Steven Barrett. Quackwatch http://www.quackwatch.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=trudeau. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Swindle: Copy of Indictment for Credit Card Fraud. The Smoking Gun http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0826051trudeau1.html. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

These wikilinks and their sources should be examined for validity. If they are proper, they should be incorporated into the article, not used as See also links. Since See also links are never referenced, I have made them direct links. It should be possible to find a way to incorporate this stuff properly. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is only three of them; the user in question has been repeatedly adding several others, and we're sure to see those again given this editor's habits so far. The sources appear to be random bloggy websites (i.e. unlikely to pass a WP:RS examination), but I'll reserve judgement. Yes, definitely should not be a "See also" section. "Quackery" has to go, since the source cited doesn't use that term (i.e. if I start a blog called "BigAsshole.nu", and write about George W. Bush on a page there, that is not sufficient sourcing to add "big asshole" as a term for Bush, citing my site's name as a "source"). "Swindle" has to go for the same reason, basically. The article already deeply covers the facts of the fraud indictment; there is no justification for adding various synonyms of "fraud", citing the same source, which doesn't actually use those words. Finally, the "fraud" bullet item also has to go, per WP:SEEALSO, since it's already covered in-depth in the article, as noted above.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"Funny" in second paragraph

In the second paragraph the article says:

In these cases Trudeau signed a consent decree in which he did not plead guilty but did agree to make the claims and pay a fine.

He agreed to make the claims? Surely he agreed to stop making the claims. This sentence needs changing, methinks. I am not familiar with the court case (never heard of the guy; no TV) so haven't changed the article. HairyWombat (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This really has to stop

This article is starting to look more and more like Swiss cheese (among other smelly stuff).

Every time something is added to or changed in this article without a source it must be immediately reverted per WP:BLP policy, unless it is a trivial change that could not reasonably be questioned.
Every time an online source is cited, it should be immediately checked to see if it qualifies as a reliable one by WP standards. Many in this article do not, such as the blog/personal website type material cited throughout (see for example the Tipton source that is someone's personal anti-Tipton rant page with pictures of Tipton done up like a horned devil). Anything that is not a reliable source must be deleted, per both WP:V and WP:BLP policy), along with anything cited to that non-reliable source, unless it is also cited to a reliable one.
Every time someone adds a "reference" in the form of simply pasting in a URL, that addition should be immediately tagged with {{Clarify me}}, and the culprit should be contacted on their talk page directly and admonished not to do that again, please. If they cannot take the time to bother formatting a reference citation with at very least the title, year and author (or publisher or work, for things without a specified individual author), then the information they are trying to put into the article cannot be very important, so it should simply be removed, per policy at WP:NOT as "collection of indiscriminate information".
In the interim, every wanna-be "citation" like this should be tagged, checked for probable reliability, and either completed or deleted (along with the alleged facts it is "sourcing", if applicable).

This might well result in a considerably smaller article, but that is perfectly fine so long as it is one that is actually a reliable encyclopedia article instead of a collection of questionable allegations, fought-over minutiae, unsourced assertions and arguments that depend too heavily on guilt by association and the presumption that when one has transgressed in the past everything one does since then must necessarily be transgressive.

NB: I am no fan of Trudeau's. I am a fan of WP policy being followed, and a bigger fan of that the more controversial the article subject is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Quote, "This might well result in a considerably smaller article, but that is perfectly fine so long as it is one that is actually a reliable encyclopedia article instead of a collection of questionable allegations, fought-over minutiae, unsourced assertions and arguments that depend too heavily on guilt by association and the presumption that when one has transgressed in the past everything one does since then must necessarily be transgressive." end of quote,

I agree 1000%. It is this editors observation that this article is hardly neutral in its current form. It is practically dripping with bias juices. Having read all the other comments, now I see why my hours of edits last nite got deleted. It would appear as if a fair and balanced article has been out of the question for some time. And My G-d, what is passing for "reliable sources" on this article is shocking. This article has clearly been edited by a majority of persons who hold a paticular opinion or bias against the article's subject, Trudeau. This is not only unfair but this is against wikipedia policy. In the future, I'll be more careful to post here and on the edit summary, but considering there has been no significant revision in quite some time, major edits and cleanup, if not overhaul to this article seem justifiable. Also, there need to be cited references to his book when a claim is made about something he said in the book, which is a repeat problem in this article. Thank you. Fringedlunatic613 (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I would grant most of those points. (And I apologize if I undid any edits of yours that legitimately addressed them, but at least one of your edits actually removed a source). My issue is that inserting an opposite bias doesn't help anything (a number of your edits seemed outright fannish in pro-Trudeau sentiment, even crediting him with being a consumer rights activist – keep in mind he's been sued and successfully criminally prosecuted by the US government's own consumer protection agencies for fraud among other consumer harm). All that's going to do is polarize the article, with parts of it being glowing butt-kissing and parts of it being outright attacks, not make it more neutral. I agreed with (and unreverted back to) your overall restructuring of the article such that the legal controversies are in their own section instead of dominating the entire article. That seems like a good start. What did you have in mind next? While I think that material may need to be removed in some cases for balance, just the fact that this article dwells so heaviliy on the 'mercial stuff is itself a strong form of bias, as if there is nothing interesting about this subject other than what has led to the court cases. Frankly, I'd like to see a lot more material about the founding, running, tribulations and overhaul of the IPT (with aspects not relating to Trudeau in particular saved for the IPT article). It's a completely different aspect of Trudeau's story - no infomercials, no books, no court dates (that I know of), though still plenty of controversy. I'm also a pool-focused editor, so I'm biased in a different way. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

^ http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5676977.PN.&OS=PN/5676977&RS=PN/5676977

[1] ttp://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5676977.PN.&OS=PN/5676977&RS=PN/5676977

[1]