Talk:Louder than Words

NPOV
This person has been widely critised in the media for his fringe views, yet this is not reflected in the article. Any relevant links are removed by his followers. A stain on Wikipedia.

- not sure who's removing any criticisms or critical links, but agree that it's not balanced to have an article without any criticism of the guy and with only one critical link. It was not appropriate for criticisms to be removed (as things stand, there's more criticism of Ghandi on wikipedia than of Avery...) It would be good to add some critical quotes and links again - hopefully this time they won't just be removed Jon m

Maddox
Sorry, but he is totally irrelevent. This is an encyclopedia. -Yaldabaoth


 * I completely disagree that he is "irrelevent". And I do not understand why people have such displeasure towards those that seek understanding in moments of great relevence.

I also think this wiki article is crap. I will work on coming up with something better.


 * No, he's not irrelevant. He brings up good points. I was actually surprised by that. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 21:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He only brings up good points if you are mind-bogglingly naive and gullible.--Ensrifraff 10:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This page falls under is an example of Vanity, it needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SillyPuttyJW (talk • contribs)


 * See Articles for deletion for information on deleting pages, and guidelines at Notability (people). After looking those over, you still think the pages should be deleted, then go ahead and nominate this page. -- Aude  ( talk   contribs ) 18:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

i think his irrelevance has being disproven within your claim, your clearly not happy with his views and therefore want the article removed. the fact you are so worked up about it without knowing him on a personal basis shows that he has attained enough coverage to warrent some sort of cult status. not to mention that he helped create a popular underground documentary. besides to deem any being or object "irrelevant" is idiotic.

as for "vanity", how exactly is this article testiment to his "vanity", i could be wrong but its highly probably that he himself is not responsible for this pages creation.

it seems very much against the grain of wikipedias values that people are against the idea of a fair and balenced overview of this important individual. just for the record i do not have complete faith in his work but at least it is an independant investigation from people who care about the truth of the situation and i think that should be respected.--AnRK 22:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What a crock. His many lies have been exposed time and time again and he is a scumbag.--Ensrifraff 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up
I cleaned up the refs and some other things and removed the template. It looks fine to me. If you have complaints then go ahead and address them. Aaрон Кинни (t) 21:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * i can't see a list of refs at the bottom of the page--AnRK 22:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section
I removed some criticisms of the criticisms - if articles include criticisms, and criticisms of the criticisms, then why not also include criticisms of the criticisms of criticisms and so forth... If reworded for NPOV this might be good in another part of the article. Jon m 15:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dylan Avery Merge
Proposing merge as Dylan Avery is NN outside of Loose Change and Louder than Words.--Rosicrucian 20:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have also proposed merges for Korey Rowe and Jason Bermas for the same reason.--Rosicrucian 20:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I support all these merges. CWC (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Some language is not fitting NPOV
I will be changing a few lines that appear to favor the 9-11 deniers. 67.10.133.121 03:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"inaccurate and disrespectful"?
I've never written in this edit box before, so I don't know if I am doing this right but, I just have to say... someone wrote that "Loose change is completely inaccurate and disrespectful." That seems completley personal on the part of who ever wrote it. First of all, I don't understand why anyone would consider the documentary disrespectful as it is obviously a big attempt on the part of Avery and the other creators to put in to light the truth behind the deaths of the people on 9-11. That is honerable. It is not a question of if they are right or wrong, it's their intent. And their intent is good. That is obvious. So the people who say that they are being disrespectful... I don't believe that is really what they mean. I think that they are politically attacking this film via a wikipedia article and are masking their argument in guilty feelings that have nothing to do with encyclopedia's. Now, I agree there should be critisims, but no arguments like Yo' moma' and so forth. It's like saying in an article, I saw Star Wars, it sucked. It is a really bad movie. Readers of this article should not watch the film.

As for it being inacurate, I believe that is ansered in the Loose Change article it's self. This is a page about its creator, not as much what he created. If it is inacurate, it is alright to say so, but you need to back it up, and this article is not the section for that to be done in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaDTruthSeekeR (talk • contribs)