Talk:Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles

Untitled
It's a start. Enjoy. -- Sy / (talk) 05:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality issues
Article on Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles may be POV and promotional -- [] 18:47, 29 Jun 2007 (UTC)


 * This article has issues with Non-neutrality and having a promotional flavour. Excessive editing of this article without explanation has made it hard to trace its roots. An update made June 29 attempted to correct this problem but supporters of the Brave Words marketing team have removed the content (again) Article seems to promote Magazine but when any information is inserted which discusses aspects not in the Magazine's promotional advantage these sections get conveniently removed leaving the article with a Biased or POV feeling. Case in point: Latest edition of magazine is on display in the picture section and data seems to be updated each month. There is excessive use of Weasel words and Peacock language! The accusation that the document is somehow being Vandalized by those of us who claim this is silly... Address the problems with the document and those claiming issues. -- 64.229.206.12 11:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC) (copied from Cleanup)

Looks like an advertisment
I don't see the point of this entry - I'd delete it. MarkinBoston 21:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Third Party Unbiased Proof Needed
3rd party unbiased proof is needed to make this article believable.

This article features many claims that this Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles was the "First" at achieving something or that something-or-other they did was hugely successful, yet I see no statistics or third party quotations from respected impartial sources to back up these claims. Statements such as, "Each BW&BK issue comes with a free compilation CD known as "Knuckletracks". Knuckletracks was created as a vehicle for bands to expose their music to the mass audience BW&BK reaches each month, and the concept has been extraordinarily successful." is an excellent example of this. To what standard was it successful? How many sold?

But the most irking part to me is this phrase, "BW&BK’s distribution now totaled 23 countries and the publication became available wherever metal magazines are sold." I am aware of the Heavy Metal musical genre and know where to buy such magazines so I conducted my own audit just on my local errands and concluded that at my local stores, INCLUDING the local HMV shop, BW&BK magazines were nowhere to be found! No they were not sold out - they weren't carried; and the few store clerks I talked to knew nothing of this magazine. Now my test was just a small one but it proves to me that this claim is just outright false! Maybe it is in 23 countries - but not in my suburban American town.

These "reporters" that gather information? Are they actual professional reporters, or volunteers writers who happen to have access to a computer? Wiki is an Encyclopedia, let's get the facts of history correct.

Speaking of history: after examining the HISTORY file on this document it appears that anytime anyone else outside of the author's immediate group of buddies tries to add ANYTHING, it gets reversed (so-called "Vandalism" claim aside) leading me to believe that the article was written by members of... or at least supporters of.. this BW&BK franchise and for that reason it should be deleted as it looks like a shameless & cleverly disguised advertisement.

There is just too many questions on the credibility of this article an as the author wrote in the HISTORY file... would the Wiki Management please come and do something about it? 64.229.206.18 00:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)