Talk:Trevor Loudon

Comment

New Zeal recently had a post by the subject of this article (here) refuting some of the things its stated, its been corrected now but can I just say for the future, using comments on a blog as a source for information isn't a good idea (even if you cite them!) at the very least, anything from a blog comment or even a blog post in many cases should be added to the article as; (example only) "John Doe has claimed Trevor Loudon was in the World Anti-Communist League" not just "Trevor Loudon was in the World Anti-Communist League" that leaves it up to readers to decide weather or not John Doe is a reliable source. Although personally, I would hold off using blog comments as a source all together.Lossenelin 02:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I think blogs have very clearly elucidated the fact that Loudon is involved with the Zenith Applied Philosophy movement (with Loudon's own admissions he is part of the sect/cult/whatever you'd like to call it), and thus I have slightly expanded that part of the page. Cheers, Hauser 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no cite for anything to do with ZAP from any sort of reliable source. It appears to just be a smear so it's been removed per wp:blp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.52.71 (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The subject is very open about his involvement with ZAP and the article previously cited a blog post authored by the subject where he spoke of being a ZAP student. Something isn't a smear just because its something you wouldn't want to be associated with, I wouldn't like to be called a conservative, but many people openly embrace that label, its in this same way that ZAP students see nothing wrong with being a ZAP student- and as Wikipedia is meant to be as objective as possible, we as editors shouldn't make that value judgement either, and just include the facts that they are. If there is no further opposition I'll revert the article in 24 hours. Lossenelin (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Bias

Heavy bias in this article. It's obvious that political opponents wrote this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhetorent (talk • contribs) 03:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never hear of Loudon before being directed by Google to his webpage on Robert Borosage a few moments ago. I was astonished by the level of his raging virulence, pathological red baiting, racism, conspiracy theorizing, sexism, etc. In terms of style, this whackjob seems as if he might have done an internship with Lyndon LaRouche.

Oddly, I Googled his name and found a website attacking him in the same hypervitriolic style that Loudon himself uses. It accused him of being a cashiered CIA agent, in the employ of Richard Mellon-Scaife, of sadism, mutilation, murder, necrophelia, etc. I'm not sure if it's not a parody of his own ravings or just a counter by someone as loopy as himself.

By entitling his propaganda site "KeyWiki" I assume that Loudon is capitalizing on Wikipedia's reputation of striving for objectivity to disguise his own pervasive bias.Activist (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate references

The fundamental problem with this article is that it uses material from the subject's own blog as references. This does not meet the criteria for general notability or reliable sources. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracy or Omission

KeyWiki has an entry on me, but it only states my being retired and having signed a petition for Bill Ayers. This leaves out a long list of suspicious activities on my part, such as having run for office with Green Party endorsement and working for both Liberation News Service and WBAI. Place it somewhere between nutcase and futility.Tham153 (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Self-Published Designation

Why is it necessary to make a point of indicating that Trevor Loudon is "Self Published"? TruthMatters (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Why do you object to describing them as such?-gadfium 21:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Initially, because it is redundant. There is a category for self-published authors and very few other self-published authors are listed explicitly as "self published."TruthMatters (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

As has already been explained to you, the presence of the category does not alter the need for the article to have referenced material, and if you find examples which don't meet this criteria, you are welcome to improve them rather than reduce this one to a lower standard.-gadfium 21:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Create an article for Keywiki?

Should we create an article for keywiki.org to help explain what it's used for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by This-is-name (talk • contribs) 02:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if it yet meets WP:Notability standards. I've found many sources that link to its articles but not any sources that examine it. Timtastic (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Unlikely. Nobody takes it seriously and it's largely just a clearinghouse of names based on Loudon's trolling of Facebook event invites and other public content. There's no editorial standards and most of the prose where it exists is just copy-and-pasted from the source material. But if it's reported on and taken seriously by third-party press, then it might meet notability, but no sense in putting the cart before the horse here. JesseRafe (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment

Referring to Trevor Loudon as a "far right conspiracy theorist" is an obvious politically motivated smear. The sources used are clearly biased and only cite one another, and not one of Trevor Loudon's points of fact in his massive body of work is disputed. Wikipedia should only use subjective labels like that if they are backed by evidence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.234.53.178 (talk • contribs)

We go by what the reliable sources say. Loudon's own writings are not a suitable source, other than to show his opinions.-gadfium 19:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)