Wikipedia

Talk:Kevin Trudeau/Archive 5

< Talk:Kevin Trudeau
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Mysteryquest in topic NPOV Problems with the Current Lead
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

John Stossel on ABC, Busted Trudeau

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Health/story?id=1527774 You can find the video on Youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.39.139 (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:THETRUTH - Wikipedia is not a place to do what you want. You need to be looking for an Attorney General or similar position. Ravensfire (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This article seems to be sorely non-neutral. Could someone clean it up for neutrality?Alan (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Fringedlunatic613 seems to want to do some of this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 20:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
PS: My main concern is that previous attempts by various editors over the last several years have shown the following flaws (cures worse than the disease) among others:
  1. Removal of sources without consensus to do so, and usually removal of the material sourced by them (generally reliably), apparently simply because the editor in question doesn't like it, not because anything has proven the sources wrong.
  2. Addition of "sources" that are obviously not reliable, and addition of "facts" based on them.
  3. Deletion of factual and notable critical information simply because it is critical (dumbing the article down in an attempt to balance it is not acceptable; find new material that balances the article). But by all means delete material that can be shown to be unsourced or unreliably sourced.
  4. Insertion of "facts" with sources attributable directly or indirectly to Trudeau himself or his works, companies, etc. These are not reliable because they are not independent of the subject, and one of the main criticisms of Trudeau is dishonest self-promotion.
  5. In a related vein, there have been a number of credulous descriptions of Trudeau, sometimes in glowing terms and sometimes more neutrally, as things like a consumer advocate and such. It might be possible to include the fact that he claims to be such things and cite those claims, but there doesn't seem to be any independent, reliable source that shows that he is such a person. Court cases say firmly that he is a felon and an intransigent breaker and skirter of civil laws. Different kind of evidence, different kind of claim.
  6. Editors on the other side have tried innumerable times to include more and more and more critical material; I have reverted much of this myself.
Anyway, I hope to not have to be involved at all. I'm just laying out ahead of time what some of the red flags are that I've seen so far. (And I've actually skipped a bunch that come from the anti-Trudeau side, since we're talking about lessening that rather than adding more of it).
— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 20:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources about "members-only" advice from Trudeau offerings

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Thread unrelated to improving the article (WP:NOTFORUM)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

After scouring the web to see examples of the super secret private members-only advice that Trudeau dispenses, I could not find one example. Surely, there has to be one member willing to share, or does Trudeau require a promise of secrecy? I find it odd that not one web member has done a detailed testimonial of the members-only advice received. How can such a complete black hole of information be maintained in the age of Google? Marerules (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'll read his text at the Global Information Network site, you'll discover a very clearly described pyramid scheme/scam:
Affiliates don't even sell anything, so it is clearly an illegal pyramid scheme: "A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, often without any product or service being delivered. Pyramid schemes are a form of fraud." -- Brangifer (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to GIN, it led me to discover the Country of Nevis. Apparently they have great arbiters.. Also, although membership is by Invitation Only, punching in 1234asdf works as a referral code.. 155.8.89.2 (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see the section about on GIN... I need some published sources on this... I know that some journalists are working to try to get this most probably (pyramid) scheme out in the open, but I have nothing solid as of yet... though I do have an email from GIN stating that KT is indeed a member... but this won't suffice for evidence. R. Szasz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.116.40.235 (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Colleague" reference should be changed

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This sentence seems unnecessarily whitewashed, "Trudeau partnered with his former colleague to join Nutrition for Life..." When the source cited clearly states that it was a fellow inmate that he met in prison. The term "former colleague" implies that they were employed together somewhere and as far as I'm aware that's inaccurate. It's also an awkwardly worded sentence. I propose we change it to clarify the relationship between him and his partner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.28.118 (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been fixed. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The current version of this does not make any sense and isn't even grammatically correct - incarceration is mentioned without any tie-in to why it's applicable to Nutrition for Life, and there is ambiguous use of "they" and "together" without adequate explanation:

After being incarcerated for fraud in the early 1990s, Trudeau joined a multi-level marketing firm together, called Nutrition for Life. They met with success until the Attorney General of Illinois charged them with running a pyramid scheme. They and their company settled cases brought by the state of Illinois and seven other U.S. states for US$185,000.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlively (talk • contribs) 17:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Rip-off?

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thread unrelated to improving the article (WP:NOTFORUM)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If you've seen the ads on TV, Trudeau is offering the Natural Cures books for free; you only pay shipping and handling. You think Trudeau trying to steal money from "gullible idiots"? Sorry, but I am getting very annoyed. The book has very good information, especially in chapter 6. Yes, the conspiracy theory is disputed. But what author does not make money from selling a book? Trudeau is not ripping people off, but rather, is presenting a conspiracy theory along with good and useful information. (And by the way this is totally original research. I know, WP:NOR, but there is really no unbiased source, according to Trudeau.) Samwb123T (R)-C-E 18:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you think tht the book is just an ad for the newsletter and website, well, during his TV broadcast he not only gives away the books for free, but you also get a free subscription to the naturalcures.com newsletter and website. That's not a pyramid scheme! He doesn't even make any money off of it! Samwb123T (R)-C-E 15:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The book might as well be blank with a link to his web page. and no if you are using advice that you've gotten from the website via the book (that I assume you haven't read seeings how the book is just conspiracy ramblings and has no actual advice) I urge you to stop doing so immediately as many treatments aren't as harmless as claimed and the general practice delays proper interventions increasing mortality of many illnesses Donhoraldo (talk • contribs) 26:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Impartial=/=equal

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The claims made about Trudeau are true and they are given not in an impassioned language to slant the readers opinion. if there still appears to be a bias in favor of his guilt then that is what the facts support. if we change the article so there is no leaning then that is unduly adjusting the facts to meet the other bias. frankly dose wikipedia have any journalistic integrity or not.Donhoraldo (talk • contribs) 26:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Lede

Latest comment: 14 years ago27 comments15 people in discussion

There's currently a dispute as to whether or not to put "convicted felon" at the beginning of the lede, as opposed to after his occupations. I feel that it's WP:POV to say Trudeau is known more for being a felon than for his other endeavors, although that designation certainly does belong in the lede somewhere. Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Put it after his occupations - add WP:UNDUE as another reason. He's known for his other activities more than the conviction. Ravensfire (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
His "occupations" are all related to it, so placement near the beginning of the lead, rather than burying it, only makes sense. It's what makes him notable. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be made into an official RfC. I'll do that right now. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Placement of Trudeau's felon status in the lead

Does the notability of Trudeau's felon status justify its mention near the beginning of the lead or not? "Yes" for near the beginning or "No" for much later in the lead after less notable activities. Brangifer (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes. The notability of his felon status all depends on whom you talk to or read. Few ignore it. His dubious and criminal activities are a very important part of why he's known, and in fact the act of committing them (his infomercials promoting his dubious projects) is definitely what makes him known, so no matter how you cut it it's his dubious and criminal activities he's known for, whether the viewer realizes it or not. Much of the article documents how there is hardly anything he has done or does that isn't done to make a buck, often at the expense of people who feel cheated by him, and the courts and authorities have agreed with them. It would be undue and POV to place it after his lesser known activities. Many of those activities are actually part of his moneymaking schemes, so placing his felon status at or near the beginning simply sums up what follows. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No. As I said above in my pre-RfC comments, it seems very POV to say he's more notable for being a felon than for being an author, infomercialist, etc. In any case, we're only talking about moving the phrase "convicted felon" to the end of the sentence. It's not being buried or ignored, it's only on the next line. Dayewalker (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Question: Does this diff (most recent edit as of this post) fairly represent both proposed versions of the article? - 2/0 (cont.) 07:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • If this the the choice to make, I prefer the second option by Dayewalker, which falls into the no group, if I'm not mistaken. It's more aesthictically pleasing, grammatically simpler (one could read the other version's serial comma list as describiing Trudeau as a 'convicted felon, convicted American author,...etc.'), and more context-friendly (the other descriptors actually define the activities that in-turn contributed to the last). As with other articles on ethically-dubious individuals following a similar treatment, it's probably more NPOV-appropriate to avoid bounding into the most negative descriptor in the very opening of the article. — Scientizzle 17:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No. Give the reader some credit; if the man has that many job titles, it should be clear that you'll have to read the whole thing to get the whole story. So then it's mostly a matter of style, and I agree with Scientizzle that it just reads better at the end of the sentence. Yoshi348 (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. His first felony conviction is over stealing from his customers. Yet the man is still on TV, selling crap stuff and getting credit card numbers by the truckload, possibly from readers. Mentioning it in the lead prompts readers to go look at the rest of his abysmal legal record. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. At the very least, the lede should reflect his recent convictions, which have arisen from contempt of court charges that stemmed from civil findings that he had been guilty of providing false and misleading health and nutrition information; seeing as his singular claim to notability is that he is a TV and online provider of health and nutrition information, the fact that he has been found guilty of both civil and criminal charges regarding fraud in this area seems highly relevant. The felony convictions for check and credit-card fraud may be argued to be less lede-worthy, but the contempt convictions related to his central claim to notability seem quite lede-worthy (though criminal contempt of court convictions are classified neither as felonies nor misdemeanors, if non-lawyer me understands this correctly). IceCreamEmpress (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)@Niteshift36 & IceCreamEmpress: it's my understanding that this RFC isn't about whether "convicted felon" belongs in the lead, but rather the word-choice and order in which to present it. As noted above, this represents the debated difference in the opening sentence of the article:

    Kevin Mark Trudeau (born February 6, 1963) is a convicted felon, American author, infomercial salesman, founder of the International Pool Tour, self-proclaimed advocate of alternative medicine, and radio personality.

    versus

    Kevin Mark Trudeau (born February 6, 1963) is an American author, infomercial salesman, founder of the International Pool Tour, self-proclaimed advocate of alternative medicine, radio personality, and convicted felon.

    Option 1 equates to the Yes position and option 2 to the No position. I bring this up because it appears you both are arguing that the information should appear in the lead (which doesn't appear to be in dispute) rather than where in the lead. — Scientizzle 17:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I also think another option is to just remove "convinced felon" from the first sentence since his legal issues are immediately dealt with in the next paragraph. Iterating it in the first sentence is redundant given the second paragraph and seems to violate WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. I actually think this is the best option and am changing my vote above. DKqwerty (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No. "...and convicted felon." is out of place in that sentence, and no context is given for it. Convicted for what? It should be moved to the second paragraph where those his legal troubles are discussed. The lead is less than 100 words long so moving it won't make it any less noticeable. —Sebquantic (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No. Sebquantic puts it nicely. We should also consider that just being convicted of fraud &c. would not confer WP:notability, but we would still have this article if he had not been. It is an important piece of the biography, but it should be presented in appropriate context. On the issue of balancing the lead, I think moving the felon status to the second paragraph but keeping controversial in the first would be acceptable. We could then add another sentence or maybe two worth of detail; for instance, I believe the ban on appearing in infomercials is quite unusual and could bear mention. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Offer to withdraw RfC: I think the last comments strike a nice balance and I support them as a solution and thus am willing to withdraw this RfC on the condition that "controversial" be added left in the first paragraph and "convicted felon" be added to the second paragraph. If the following comments accept this as a solution, I will withdraw this RfC. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Forgive me, but where would the "controversial" be placed within the lead? I didn't see anyone else suggest that, though I could be mistaken. DKqwerty (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I have started a section below for trying to hack out a lead that both flows well and accurately reflects the balance of the article. We can work on that with or without this RfC. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral, the last two points sum it up. We should maintain standard BLP practice, but in so doing its dependent on what the subject is truly notable for at any given time. When I began the article it was for the Natural Cures book, now not so much. I am removing the disputed template at this point. - RoyBoy 16:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes to current lead

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Current lead:

Proposed lead:

Log of changes: remove convicted felon from first sentence; re-order descriptors in first sentence roughly by prominence in the article; remove self-proclaimed from advocate; separate IPT into its own sentence (read: Trudeau is an American founder of the IPT); added FDA conspiracy clause (this clause needs work); completely reworked second paragraph. There is certainly more that could go in the second paragraph, but I think it should not be longer than a few sentences, and those look like the most significant points. As a reminder, this article is governed by the Biographies of living persons policy. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Article updated. Anyone should feel free to revert with discussion or improve. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you're another one of his shills editing the page in his favor. I'd say the fact that this con man is a convicted felon is a pretty important lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.178.49 (talk • contribs) 2010-11-07

Its been some time and I almost hate to raise this topic again, but with the new federal court ruling against him maybe the lede should be updated. I know the article already has a mention of this ruling under 2011 section. But a brief mention in the lede seems to be in order. I don't have the "light touch" needed to add it in. If agreed maybe someone who isn't a bull in a china shop like me could work it in?Sgerbic (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Problems with the Current Lead

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The statement "best known for promoting alternative medicine" is untrue He is as equally known for his run run-ins with the FCC and the suspect nature of his "promoting". There are many reliable sources that suggest his "promotion" is self-serving and profit driven. I do not believe that he is not accepted as advocate or promoter of alternative medicine by other advocates or promoters. Who else characterizes him as a promoter besides himself?

Additionally, pointing out that his books allege that the FDA is more concerned about profit is laughable considering that (a) his entire "career" is about profit and (b) his characterization of the FDA is arguably partly based on the fact that they don't "support" his "theories". I see no reason for such a statement in the lead as it gives undue weight. I would propose removing it or enlarging it and placing "self-proclaimed" in front of promoter.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

He is still doing infocommercials

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

(I am watching him on 6.9.2010 on a fake interview infomercial marketing his new book : Your wish is your command; how to manifest your desires... so his agreement to a lifetime ban must be untrue.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.22.7 (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The lifetime ban does not apply to his books. - RoyBoy 16:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of the court order? Trudeau has accomplished some great feats, and he should be recognized as such. The information about his "ban" is unsupported, and possibly grounds for defamation.

No. The FTC has the claim in black and wight.BTWhe scammed millions of people out of money and has a death toll associated with his advice fore people to stop taking their drugs. He is a conman with a big following, not a saint or even a doctor of medicine. BTW end your posts with 4 ~'s to time stamp and sign your post.Donhoraldo (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh and I forgot. "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that after October 1, 1997, or the date of entry of this Order, whichever occurs later, defendant Kevin Trudeau shall in connection with the advertising, promoting, offering for sale, selling, or distributing any product or program to the general public by means of an infomercial, obtain and maintain in force a performance bond in the principal sum of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000)."http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/01/trudeau.ord.htmDonhoraldo (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He is still promoting his horrible book in many Latin American countries through infomercials. - 190.98.13.89 20:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The lifetime ban does not apply to the infomercials he's currently doing. The ban prohibits him from selling *products*, but the FCC was unable to stop him from promoting his books because that's considered freedom of speech. He's allowed to promote his own--written--words. 66.129.224.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC).

Too bad. May 2013 and the scumbag is on the tv pimping his book and said []he] can show you how to make $10,000 in 24 hours.

Fantastic Claims

Latest comment: 13 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

He said he has been to Bilderberg meetings, friends with lots of rich people, hangs out with billionares. Any evidence of this being true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.251.190 (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

He has also stated on a Radio Programme that he met John Paul Geddy Sr. When he was 13 yrs old... And travelled around the world numerous times without a passport, because his friends in the "Brotherhood" (or was it the Illuminati?) let him do this... he says that they pulled strings to get him into all these countries without a passport for secret meetings... all completely unsubstantiated.

Canadaman1

Simple answer. No. We have his word and that's it. There for it's none of Wikipedia business.Donhoraldo (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
is there ANY REASON (besides moral cowardice) that you can't check on the BIlderburg Group website before mindlessly redacting this information? your fear of Trudeau is getting out of hand, you know... User:Smith Jones 00:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Got a source showing it's true? Ravensfire (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed! Where's their website? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
i see you have failed to even do the curosy research to find the MANY, MANY sites here, and here, also briefly cited here, and here, here and even here. I am surprised that Wekipedians failed to find this information. I found all of these links, -- including one RIGHT HERE -- through what was approximately 2 hours of research. This is the bare minimum of research that wikipedian major contributions should remand, and i feel that you should take seirously these citaiton. User:Smith Jones 23:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
We obviously have a misunderstanding here. The websites you have found (which anyone can easily find) are websites about the group. I have never found a website that they actually have as their own. That's what I thought you were referring to and which I asked for. Since they are secretive and don't even have an official "membership", I doubt they have a website. All their communication is by other means.
Barring finding such a website, in what way can we use the mentioned websites in connection with Trudeau's claims? Do any of those websites mention Kevin Trudeau? The only one of them that would be allowed here as a RS would be the cbc.ca website, and it doesn't mention Kevin Trudeau. The Bilderberger Group is mentioned in news sources and they can be used. Sourcewatch is notoriously unreliable, much worse than Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
it si beneath laziness that you expect me to not only do your resaerch and find sources for you but to also read and analyze all these texts on your behalf!!! come on, this is a collaborative project; that means that we share the work!! do i have to give you a lesson on WIkipedia policies' too?! i have so much respect for you and you are lettng me down here, but i will assume good faith. but since YOU are the one claiming that Kevin Trudeau is a fraudster you should be the one to defend your argument by using the sources that I have thoughtfuly furnitured towards you. User:Smith Jones 02:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
You are incorrect - the WP:BURDEN is on you to prove your claims about Bilderberg using reliable, verifiable sources, which NONE of what you provided can be considered. You haven't even come close. This is, indeed, collaborative, and you're insisting that we find evidence to refute fantastic claims without a shred of evidence in support? I think not. Prove the connection. Ravensfire (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I fear that you might have misnterpeted the policy WP:BURDEN (i can see why, it does deal with some complciated Wikipedia-related policy issues). I was NOT the one who made the inital claim; the burden falls on the person making the initial claim. Canadaman1 and Donhoraldo must be bound toa nswer for their charges, and not I who have onl y sought to provide valluous information to you people. User:Smith Jones 05:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
You defend him but still haven't provided anything to help confirm Trudeau's fantastic claims about some connection with the Bilderberger Group. It's his fantastic claim without any evidence. With his track record, is it any wonder why we'd be skeptical? It would be foolish to be otherwise. When dealing with a convicted felon who hasn't changed his ways one must be wary. BTW, try indenting properly and doing a bit of spell checking. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

i am not defending etither Canadaman or DonHoraldo, who were the ones who introduced this claima bout Trudeua. My point was to reference the BIlderberg information as proof counterpositing ::that Trudeau hath not such links between Himself and the mysterious Bilderbergers. And what is your complaint about my indents? You are the one who chooses to use huge indents; that is a personal choice rather than anything found at any such wikipolicy including WP:INDENT and I would also thank you follow the policies WP:CIVIL when replying to me. I do not nitpick as to your editorial policy or writing styles and I feel that you owe me the same courtesie. User:Smith Jones 20:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Sigh.... Okay, what RS do you have that is "proof counterpositing ::that Trudeau hath not such links between Himself and the mysterious Bilderberguites"? None of the sources you provided mention him at all, and only one would be a RS for anything here at Wikipedia.
2. BTW, your sentence construction and choice of words leaves me puzzled. Just what do you mean by it? I think I know, but I can't be sure. My comments about your formatting and spelling were only helpful suggestions to make it easier for us to figure out what you're talking about. Right now it appears you are either uneducated, have dyslexia, or are lazy. I AGF and figure that English must not be your mother tongue, which would certainly be an acceptable excuse. Until you provide us with some reason for your poorly formatted comments, you'll have to bear over with us because it's sometimes hard to be sure what you mean, and because of your nonstandard indents we can't be sure about the target of your replies. I'm just trying to be helpful. I'm being very civil, so just AGF. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
my apologies i just assume that WP:AGF was related to respect for other users and civility and not just anything you want to say to anyone else. Thank you for tha tlesson in manners. Moving on; my POINT (my ONLY point) was there there is NO evidence on any Bilderberg related site that Kevin Trudeua has even claimed to be a member. All we have is the unsstaitnatied words of DonHoraldo and Canadaman. They are the ONLY ones to make this claim, and yet everyone else is posting to make fun of Trudeau for saying something that there is NO PROOF that he EVER said. I pulled out thos elinks not to include in the article but as proof that the people who really do have info on the "Bilderberguites" (that's BILDERBERGERS, genius) make NO mention of Kevin Trudeau, either as a MEMBER or as someone who EVEN CLAIMED to be a member.
2. i hope I have been more clearer now. thank you for your patience and diligence so far in dealing with my errors and our misconstruction. User:Smith Jones 05:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, an IP editor started the section, Canadaman belittled the claim, pointing out other claims made by Trudeau and Donhoraldo correctly pointed out that we only had Trudeau's word and that it didn't belong here. I think you've completely mis-characterized Donhoraldo's involvement. And nearly everyone has said (when talking about this) that without a good source, something like this doesn't belong in a WP:BLP article. Ravensfire (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
i apologize if i made a mistake. in ANY CASE i hope you can agree that any mention of Bilderberg does not belong in miconstruction of Kevin Trudou's article. There is absolutely no evidence that he has made any of the claims attributed him by this so-called IP "editor" who started this ection, and to belittle and disparage Troudau based on the word of an ip editor seems unreasonable, even on a talk page which is still viewable. User:Smith Jones 16:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous... Anyone listening to KT radio or a member of Global Information Network (KT's latest scam) will know that Trudeau laces all of his conversations with outrageous claims as those cited above. In the same way, KT should never be allowed to say the rubbish he routinely gets away with unless there is a verifiable source... So... if such claims ever come forward, they need to be backed up by evidence. And of course KT claims he was a member of the "Brotherhood" -- a mythical, most-likely non-existent secret society frequently referenced by Conspiracy Theorist such as KT. This is well documented.Canadaman1 (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

i have no doubt hat he MIGHT say things LIKE that, but since you admit you have no proof (you cant link to a particular radio broadcast or a transcript, can you?!) then you must be mindful of WP:BLP lest you be dul chastised for making unverifiable claims re: Trudeaus character on the talk page. Again. User:Smith Jones 17:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP issues

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

apart from the repeated WP:BLP violations re: Kevin trudeua being falsely dubbed without any WP:RS sourcesa as a "con man", the picture is also a potential violation. The picture is a headshot of a man with greasy, salow skin and an unpleasant smirk on his face. is there any reason why we cant use a free image instead of one that is so intentionally ofensive to Dr Trudeau? I am not asking for anything major here, only permission and consensus to replace this image so egregiously ofered despite its repellence and add an image that is more respectable and representative of the mans real appearance and not borderline defunctatory. User:Smith Jones 00:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

When did Trudeau become a "Dr"? He has no medical qualifications of any kind. As to him being called a "con man", in English being a convicted felon = con man. "Con" is just short for "convict". Note that we have been deleting the expression con man in favor of convicted felon, since the sources use that terminology. We generally use amateur images here, and that often results in more accurate images of the person, but not always as good as could be wished for. Have you taken a better one? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
From this link you can see that the original image (which made him quite small) has been in use since 2007, and the newer one is a clip from it, which makes for a nice portrait. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The phrase "con man" doesn't belong in the lede, but it's hardly unsourced. The article has many sources for convictions, jail time and civil settlements establishing Trudeau's involvement in pyramid schemes, credit card fraud, false and misleading marketing claims, and promoting dubious science for financial profit.
Also, he's included in the WP list of real life con artists.
Because it's amply sourced and reported in the body of the article, and described sufficiently in the lede, the phrase "con man" need not appear there. Indeed, its appearance there might implicate WP:WEIGHT. "Con man" is reliably sourced, unless there's some nuanced distinction between "con man" and "con artist" I'm not getting. But reliability of the sources is a red herring. The real problem, even with oodles of reliable sources, is the potential for giving sourced derogatory facts undue weight in the biography of a living person. David in DC (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, the "con" in "con man" or "con artist" is not short for convict. It's short for confidence. Please see this wiktionary page or similar entries here, here, here, or here. Con artists/men are a small subset in the much larger universe of convicts. And Trudeau merits the appellation, based on convictions and settlements, all recorded in numerous reliable sources. What we're dealing with here is an issue of weight. Same goes for the picture. To my eye, it's not a problem, but if a more visually inoffensive open source image exists, please insert it, with the proper documentation. David in DC (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
David, thanks for reminding me of the definition. I slipped up there. I've been living in Europe for too long and my English has gotten rusty! Regardless, he is both. His modus operandi has been that of a con man and he's been convicted of it. His continued course of action bears no visible difference to his previous courses of action. He still follows the same MO. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thats fine that you think that, and there are plenty of sources that appear (at least on the purpose) to validify your conflagrations, but the problem here is not with the word "con man" or the cruelty, but my issue is focused on the image. before i seek documention for another image, I would like to ask you to submit reasons pro and con for removing this image in favor of a better one or a more neutral stock photo. User:Smith Jones 18:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Because our images must be in the public domain, or licensed for free use, they sometimes suck. This one's really not too bad. The article should have an image. But the whole point of the project is to put up the best free content available. Any better, more neutral picture, uploaded with the proper documentation, would be welcome. I honestly don't see much wrong with this image. I do not think BLP is implicated by this picture at all. But a better one would be, um, better. David in DC (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I concur with David in DC. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with BR and David in DC, we use the best picture available to us. If there's a better one, please suggest it. Otherwise, I don't see anything wrong with the current picture. It's certainly not a BLP violation. Dayewalker (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
i am glad you are all being reasonable about this. i have already located a beter image and will be uploading it here for your review in short time. User:Smith Jones 00:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously posting this crap on wikipedia?

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Wikipedia is not a forum.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"Science writer Christopher Wanjek critiqued and rejected many of these claims in his July 25, 2006, LiveScience health column.[9]"

Why is this article included on Kevin's page? This article is the worst example of a "science writer" that I have ever seen. It is nothing short of one angry man sitting down at his desk to critique a topic he obviously has no knowledge of. There are thousands of scientific studies to back up Kevin Trudeau's "claims" and this article attempts to tear that down with absolutely no factual evidence? This needs to be taken out as its relevance on Trudeau is 0.

The idea of wikipedia is that searchers can come to an article and learn more on the topic they are researching. Coming to Kevin's page, people would think him to be nothing other than a criminal and con artist. If you really knew Kevin or did any research on him you would know that this is a very small part of his life. It would not be possible for this man to have made millions and gained the support of thousands if he were truly a criminal. You make him sound like a drug dealer...then you use quotes from true drug dealers (a.k.a. doctors) to try and dispel him. What about all the wonderful things he has done for people? Or are you really that negative that you can't even see a positive thing when it looks you in eye and says hello? You can't criticize what you do not understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.75.40 (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of the anagram for carp is incivil. This isn't "Kevin's page". The remainder of your comments suggest, assuming you're editing in good faith, that a thorough review of WP:NPOV might help you understand what's going on here. David in DC (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not editing... but Kevin Trudeau IS nothing but a criminal and con-artist... perhaps one of the most successful since Mr. Ponzi and his grand scheme... KT is health advice for retards... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.20.86.78 (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting that Mr. Trudeau is a criminal and con-artist is your opinion. "He is nothing but?" You do not personally know everything this man is so this is an absurd statement. As I said, I have purchased thousands of dollars worth of products and information from this man and he has yet to "con" me out of anything. If 99% of Americans are retard than yes, he is health advice for retards. It is due to the ignorance of the population blindly accepting the government, their schools, and their local restaurant's health advice that we have so much disease. It is a fact that if everyone followed Mr. Trudeau's health advice, the world would be rid of all diseases and illnesses. If you yourself have ever been sick I would watch what you say, since following Mr. Trudeau on a few topics I have never been sick. Mr. Trudeau himself has not been sick in over 20 years. These are facts, not the "criminal documents" you support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.75.40 (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
He is a convicted felon and confidence artist, and his methods haven't changed. That's what the courts and reliable sources say and that's why we write it. Your comments violate NOTAFORUM on many levels, so unless you wish to be blocked from Wikipedia, stop leaving comments on various talk pages. These pages are to be used for constructive comments designed to improve articles. This isn't a discussion forum or blog. Now I'm going to follow your contributions and delete those which violate NOTAFORUM. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

One sided writings

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Wikipedia is not a forum.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


After reading the articles on Kevin Trudeau and being able to verify several of the criminal charges, as well as being able to verify 1000's of claims that his products DO work, I would like to point out that this entire Wiki has a 100% negative bias towards KT and his businesses. As he states in his books, the FTC and the FDA and other government departments, want to close him down for fear they will be exposed. He has already exposed the FDA for fraudulently making claims that some natural products are drugs. The FDA (et al) have a history of pushing untested, unsubstantiated chemicals into our products (the latest being an admittance that they have been lacing chicken meat with arsenic for decades!).

Anyone who has listened to and read the materials by the G.I.N. that Trudeau and 29 other affluent members of society own, will know for sure that Kevin Trudeau has been constantly eyed, poked and pulled by the Federal government in various departments, regardless of their reasons. They simply want to shut him down, without reason.

Whether you believe in KT or not, is irrelevant. The entire Wiki has done nothing but negate the character of Kevin Trudeau and anything he has done. You simply have to read the testimonials from many people who have benefited from what he offers (myself included). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.47.118.121 (talk • contribs)

Hey, Kev, how's it going? Sorry you got popped so many times by the feds, but being a serial fraudster will tend to do that to you. It's too bad we in the U.S. don't treat fraudsters like they do in China and make their families pay for the bullet.Arlesd (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal testimonials. Dayewalker (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
As this thread has not raised any issue that can be used to improve the article, such as identification of an allegedly biased particular phrase or sentence, or an allegedly biased source that needs closer examination, and is simply and emotive rant against the entire article, and a non-constructive response to it, I'm closing this per WP:NOT#FORUM. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 02:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletions proposed by Trudeau representative per WP:BLP

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I represent Kevin Trudeau. I'm here to contribute information that will improve the quality of his page. I am aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and I will abide by them. My edits will be proposed on this talk page, and I ask for the help of impartial editors.

This bio needs a lot of improvement, but would like to propose the clearest violations of the BOLP first. I propose removing the following material because it is clearly contentious and does not contain an inline citation from a reliable source:

  1. In the lead section -- “Trudeau's activities have been the subject of both criminal and civil action. He was convicted of larceny and credit card fraud in the early 1990s, and in 1998 paid a $500,000 fine for making false or misleading claims in his infomercials. In 2004, he consented to a lifetime ban on promoting products other than his books via infomercials.”
  2. Under the “Career” heading -- “After being incarcerated for fraud in the early 1990s . . .” AND “The book was criticized for containing no natural cures. Trudeau said he was not able to include them because of threats by the FTC, then released an updated version of the original book.”
  3. Under the “Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You to Know About” heading -- “Other doctors have expressed serious concerns that the book's instructions, such as stopping all medication and refusing vaccination, are not only misleading but harmful.”
  4. Under the heading “References to Scientific Studies” -- “He does not mention names of people who have been cured by his methods. For example, he tells a story in an infomercial about "a friend from England" who came to his house and complained of heartburn. He also references a study done on the antidepressant qualities of St. John's Wort compared to two prescription medications. He claims that the media reported St. John's Wort was "proven ineffective in study," but critics say that none of the medicines tested were effective at combating depression.” AND “Critics say that by not referencing studies to substantiate claims, Trudeau risks a conflict with the FTC. The infomercials suggest that these subjects will be addressed further in the book, but this is not the case. Readers of his book are often referred to his fee-based subscription website to find Trudeau's suggested natural cures.”
  5. Under the heading “Legal Proceedings,” the following material is cited, but with someone’s personal blog, which is not a reliable source --

    “His change of modus operandi has been explained thus:

    "Certainly pitchman Kevin Trudeau learned this lesson years ago. After serving a 2-year federal prison sentence for credit card fraud he changed course. He's since made far more money stealing from the gullible using phony self-help programs and books than he ever did as a common forger... Kevin learned a valuable lesson: outright stealing – doing things like forging checks and stealing credit card numbers might get you locked up – but dressing up a pyramid scheme to look like a legitimate business will probably only get you sued."[46]

  6. Under the heading “2004: FTC contempt of court and injunction” -- “Trudeau was the only person ever banned by the FTC from selling a product via television.”
  7. Under the heading “No Proof of Claims” -- “Trudeau has been criticized for his inability to provide substantial evidence to back up many of his claims. Although he provides anecdotal evidence, he has not provided evidence that such customer claims have been evaluated by a licensed medical practitioner. As such, any claims made by Trudeau or his supporters that his book or other business endeavors have helped people cannot be verified and are based solely on testimonials.”

Mannpark (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Mannpark, you represent a position with an obviously biased viewpoint. Considering Trudeaus verifiably fraudulent past, I regard your proposals as vandalism and they will be dealt with accordingly. Additionally, you represent an element which seeks to corrupt the truth, and I will see to it personally that you are banned from Wikipedia if you engage in edits mentioned above. This page is now on my watch list - Gunnanmon (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Gunnanmon: click here. That was incivil and very non-responsive to concerns raised about the biography of a living person. Please don't be flippant, even if you disagree with the concerns. And please read WP:Vandalism; what it describes does not apply to raising concerns on a talk page and proposing solutions to them, even if the solutions are in some cases invalid and clearly self-serving. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 05:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


I will try to address Mannpark/Trudeau's concerns, in order (and I have taken the liberty of numbering them to make this easier). I am not someone with any personal bias against or for Trudeau. My only interests in editing this article have been: 1) ensuring that Trudeau's role in pool (pocket billiards) is covered in the article (I'm principally a cue sports editor here), as the article tends to focus on his more frequent marketing activities and their consequences which can drown out other subjects; and 2) to ensure that Wikipedia's neutrality, conflict of interest, reliable sourcing and related policies and guidelines are being followed here, and I have some experience at "wiki-mediation".
  1. All of the claims in the two lead-section sentences that have been challenged are expanded upon and fully sourced in the article. It is generally not necessary to source things in the lead (which is a brief overview and summary of the rest of the article, for reader convenience) if they are sourced in the main prose. While editors, including a Trudeau representative, can insist on redundant sourcing in the lead section itself, this is generally discouraged, as it makes the lead more difficult to parse quickly, partially defeating its quick-summary purpose. If someone feels that a particular fact has been incorrectly summarized in the lead from sourced correctly used elsewhere, this can and should be addressed on a per-occurrence basis. The entire lead, arrived at over several years of compromise, is not going to be massively altered because of a perceived fault in one or two clauses. That said, genuine problems can and should be addressed, and this should obviate the need to "uglify" the lead with redundant citations.
  2. The "incarcerated for fraud" claim is sourced by Copeland, Wash. Post on page 3 of its 5. Probably others, but one is enough. I'm frankly very surprised that editors here, given this article's contentiousness, are still doing paragraph-level citations instead of providing citations on a per-fact basis, but this was a flaw in citation style, a matter for cleanup, not a valid claim of unverifiability or violation of the bios of living people policy, as the citations aren't as convenient as we'd like, but they're not false or absent. I would advise regular editors of this article to tighten up the citation style from the top of this article to the bottom. I've done so in this fact's case, but I have other things to do than totally fact-check this article. "The book was criticized for containing no natural cures" is sourced by Shapiro, Suckers and by NYSCPB further down in the article; the citations should appear first where this sentence occurs, and I've fixed that here, but again this was a minor cleanup issue, not a policy violation. The FTC and re-release statements following that are sourced by Wanjek, LiveScience, again further down and needing to be cited sooner in the article, so I did that again in this case, but I'm not going to clean up the entire article.
  3. The "other doctors have expressed serious concerns" statement does appear to be unsourced, but given the material being cited throughout the article about the Trudeau book in question, almost certainly can be sourced very quickly and easily. As a WP:BLP matter, I believe it should be deleted until sourced (an hour?). I've flagged it with {{weasel inline}}, as I am not going to delete stuff and get involved in the dispute, having other reasons to edit this article without them being suspected of controversy.
  4. Most of this paragraph is sourced to Trudeau's own published work. The "but critics say..." bits are both weasel-wording, but in the process of reading various sources in preparing this response, I've seen several that cover Trudeau's claims in detail that is this granular, and I would bet US$20 that the source(s) for these has/have already been cited earlier or later in the article To comply fully with WP:BLP, they should be temporarily removed until the source(s) is/are identified and cited properly. I've flagged both cases with {{weasel inline}}.
  5. While not all self-published sources are automatically considered unreliable (a common Wikipedia sourcing fallacy), the quote from the cop's blog is indeed just random noise. It's unencyclopedic, since the author is not notable or otherwise presumably reliable on legal topics, does not cite any sources himself for coming to conclusions about Trudeau's "modus operandi", and has no direct connection to the subject. It should be deleted in my opinion, on the basis of relevance, lack of reliability as a source for verification purposes, and as an inclusion that pushes a particular editorial point of view. I have flagged it with {{verify source|failed=y}}.
  6. The "only person ever banned by the FTC from selling a product via television” statement was sourced by the very next citation that appeared in the article (then; I've since interpolated another). As it sourced two sentences at once (the one at issue here and the second one after it), I have simply duplicated the citation tag to prevent any ambiguity about both statements being sourced, and then sourced the sentence in between them. This should be done throughout the entire article. While it is not necessary in an article like, say, Lego, it is very important in living-person bios and in contentious articles of any kind, and is more and more expected by WP:GAN and WP:FAC reviewers, that every fact be individually sourced.
  7. "No proof of claims" section: The first sentence is another case of weasel-wording technically, and I've flagged it as such, but it is borne out by pretty much the entire article, so sourcing it should take someone 5 minutes or less. If no one sources it forthwith, it should be removed along with the other weasel sentences I've tagged. The second sentence is essentially sourced by its very nature by all of Trudeau's own works, and is not an issue; books and TV shows are their own references. Even so, an external citation couldn't hurt, and can probably be found in already-cited material. The third sentence, however, appears to be obvious and blatant original research and should be deleted per policy unless it is sourceable and is rapidly sourced. I've tagged it as such with {{or}}.
I've made the heading title of this talk page discussion clearer, and will also post a notice about at it the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, as my interpretations of WP policy are not magically infallible and my involvement is ending here.
I have to observe, in closing, that there is no doubt and no question that Trudeau has been civilly sued and criminally prosecuted successfully, and that there is a general perception, reported in reliable sources, that some of his actions have been unethical, unlawful and illegal. There is no way to "whitewash" these facts away in a Wikipedia article. Actions have consequences, and Wikipedia is not a PR tool (for any side to a debate). I also have to note that the majority of the WP:BLP claims raised by Trudeau's representative have proven to be trivially easy to dismiss with reliable sources already cited in the article, and most of the rest will surely be fixed very quickly. The only disputed content that clearly needs to be deleted and to stay that way is the original research ranty sentence, and the blathery quote from the random ex-cop blogger.
— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 05:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Trudeau and Barefoot Vindicated on Claims About Multiple Sclerosis

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Kevin Trudeau and chemist Robert Barefoot were hounded by the FDA and some members of the press about their claims regarding calcium, Vitamin D and how they claimed on T.V. that it could help MS (Multiple sclerosis).

New science study results: Today they were vindicated by a major science study that confirms a strong connection between defective Vitamin D processing and people who have multiple sclerosis. It should also be noted that Vitamin D and the body's processing of calcium are intimately and tightly connected. These new findings should really be cited in this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16086004

98.245.172.142 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. The article doesn't mention Trudeau, so adding this to the article is original research. If the BBC, or a similar reliable source connects this science to Trudeau, then it could be added. Otherwise, it cannot. Sparthorse (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes it can be used, they were both sued by the FDA for making this claim, and Trudeau was also subjected to a gag order. So the results of this study are very relevant topically to this article, whether or not there is a direct mention of their names. 98.245.168.93 (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
No, it clearly can't, for the reasons stated above. It has nothing to do with Trudeau or with any legal cases. It might belong in the MS article or in the vitamin D article; just not in this one where it would constitute WP:SYNTH. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
First this is emerging science. Second neither Trudeau nor Barefoot claims to the effects of Vitamin D in their infomercials were scrutinized (try doing some research beyond what Trudeau spews). The only mentions of Vitamin D by Barefoot/Trudeau deal with sun exposure (a known fact) and the absorption rate of vitamins and minerals (quackwatch has the infomercial transcripts on their site). The article you cite has nothing to do with Trudeau/Barefoot or their claims. Stop wasting space on the interwebs. 75.92.195.155 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Before, the section included this sentence:

On November 19, 2007, a court found Trudeau in contempt of that court order for making what they consider deceptive claims about his book The Weight Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know About.

I changed it to this:

On November 19, 2007, a court found Trudeau in contempt of that court order for making deceptive claims about his book The Weight Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know About.

In the former sentence, "what they consider" is biased. When you talk about court rulings, you say "they found X to be guilty of Y", not "they found X to be guilty of what they consider to be Y". "Found", in this context, refers to the ruling, not to guilt; even someone who is completely innocent can be found to be guilty of a crime. Adding "what they consider" only serves to convey the writer's doubt that the ruling was correct. To summarize, "X was judged guilty by the court" means the exact same thing in this context as "X was found guilty by the court". In this context, "judged"="found" Aero-Plex (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kevin_Trudeau/Archive_5&oldid=1136873756"