Talk:Kevin Trudeau/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Citation requests 

message: 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)
thread_title: Background info

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: TheDevilYouKnow, get thee to WP:RFPP for all your locking needs. Bi 20:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lock it up already

message: 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)
thread_title: Removal of additions to criticisms

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Treatment plans

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  French American 

message: 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)
thread_title:   Article needs to go on diet 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: *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)

text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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  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  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)
replies: text: *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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed resolution

message: 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)
thread_title:  Attention 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removal of tags

message: I'd like to offer my meager services as a dispute resolver here. Due to the lack of ~~~~ attribution, I can't even tell who half of these messages are from, and I don't care.  I just want the article to be accurate within the bounds of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.  Could the combatants here please sum up their positions in, say, 1-2 sentences (without personal invective against one another), and sign them? I think that would be conducive to arriving at consensus on what to do with this article. I would really like for us to balance the fact that there is some tension between the liberal WP:V interpretation canard that if it can be sourced you can add it, with the WikiMedia Foundation's unwavering legal stance that WP:BLP trumps everything, period, end of story; while this bio article does pretty much necessarily have to go into Trudeau's legal problems it also must stick to utterly reliably sourced information in that regard. I think/hope that recognizing this will in and of itself eliminate some of the disputation here.  Let's start anew not with what we feel to be true about Trudeau but what we can say about him in a reliably sourced way, both pro and con. (Disclaimer: My interest in the subject of this article is no more and no less than a) that he qualifies for inclusion in :Category:Cue sports non-player personalities and b) that editors are irritated and fighting amongst each other here.)— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 10:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute resolution on this

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Books section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: No Neutrality on Weight / hCG

message: 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)
thread_title:  4 step weight loss cure 

message:  hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 06:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rarely does anyone sign. 

message: 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.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 06:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ indict ]] 

message: Is Kevin Trudeau a 'silent' partner with ITV Ventures?
--Rebmareve4 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ITV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Natural Cures Book Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eliminate College Debt 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Debt Cures, New Book?  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  If only we took the time... 

message: ... 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)
thread_title:  Random stuff by someone 

message: 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)
thread_title: Random Stuff by Someone else

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  University of Calgary claim 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Random injection of CRITICS 

message: 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)
replies: text: quite frankly we dont need any anti-Dr. Trudeau "factoids" for this article. Smith Jones (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sources if needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: dont bother unles you have any sources. Smith Jones (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career 

message: 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)
thread_title: Dianetics Claim

message: 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)
thread_title:  whatch who you are calling a sockpuppet, Hackereality? [[User:Smith Jones|Smith Jones]] ([[User talk:Smith Jones|talk]]) 20:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  The "two magic words" in Debt Cures? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copy Editing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Recession Cures" New Book

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: WP:FRINGE. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary and over-critical bias against 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: free money book?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  REFERENCES/CITATION CLEAN UP 

message: ::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)
thread_title:  order of terms 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I second that!Mysteryquest (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jett Travolta 

message: 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)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: 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)
thread_title:  Global Information Network 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: How are his books not "products"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.84.11 (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Banned from Infomercials?" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "See also" policy and guideline violations 

message: I have moved the whole section here for discussion:
* Fraud: 
* Quackery: 
* Swindle: 
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The disputed links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Funny" in second paragraph