Talk:Dylan Avery

Untitled

Is he from/and live in the USA or Brittain? Maddox mentions the US government didn't kill him. Anomo 21:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

He's from upstate New York. [1] --Aude (talk contribs) 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

When was he born? -- Craigtalbert 00:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

--AnRK 22:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

We should try to avoid use a derogatory term like "fringe" where "alternate" views or something similar would be more appropriate. It has come to my attention that there is an organized body of engineers and architects that question the official 911 story. If this film maker reflects some of their points or if he is able to substantiate a general criticism of the official narrative, this may advance public discourse on the subject, and is certainly in the public's interest. Esperion (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for information on deleting pages, and guidelines at Wikipedia: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)

Now that's what I call argumentation. Well put. I guess the only way to give more force to a personnal conviction would be to get it said by Kennedy playing for the Red Socks. A crock? Jeech. Keep dreaming.--SidiLemine 13:37, 23 September 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)

there is no criticism left in this article. so - somebody removed all criticism to avoid criticism of criticism and criticism of criticised criticism? did i get that right? remove this article, please. I thought about quitting drinking coffee myself several times, if anybody finds it worth to make a worldwide wiki article about it, go ahead. --77.181.42.158 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality, maintenance tags, and the lack of information

I've tagged this article for maintenance to address a few concerns. The article's subject is a divisive figure that has created something controversial that has been discussed frequently and from various points of view. I feel the context of the article should include the flurry of discussion surrounding Loose Change as it is his only notable work, and without this context I'm not even sure if the article fits within the relevant notability guidelines -- specifically the absence of any other notable work credited to him. My suggestion would be to merge his article into a section of the Loose Change article, and I will do so myself in the near future unless there are significant objections (assuming I can even remember to do it). ☉ nbmatt 13:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)