Battle of Blackmore/Historical Event Voting

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Revision as of 11:15, 12 January 2008 by Vantar (talk | contribs) (removing category tag for non existent category)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

While the event itself may be historical (I disagree, but whatever), the tone and process of this article is not one that befits something that should get a "historical" stamp. It's insanely, pointlessly POV, and should either be rewritten and corrected, de-historicized and moved to a subpage of a user group, or deleted entirely.

For Removal

  1. Be gone with it already --HHLethal 17:27, 11 August 2007 (CET)
  2. --Jorm 18:08, 9 August 2007 (BST)
  3. Hear Hear! --Grim s-U! 18:09, 9 August 2007 (BST)
  4. I hate to say it, because it's an entertaining read, but it is completely subjective and that's not what such an article should be. --The Hierophant 18:43, 9 August 2007 (BST)
  5. Aye. As it stands it could still be a fun C4NT subpage, but as an account of a historical event it needs to be rewritten. -- Murray Jay Suskind 19:01, 9 August 2007 (BST)
  6. Yeah, but not because it's not a good article or an important event. It's certainly both. It's just not a good historical article. The Battle of the Bear Pit is good reading, but it should never be listed as historical.--Insomniac By Choice 19:05, 9 August 2007 (BST)
  7. It's even worse than The Battle of Walrond Square --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS CRF pr0n 19:06, 9 August 2007 (BST)
  8. Good read, yes. Accurate and impartial, no. It's trencherific in the highest order. Talunex 21:54, 9 August 2007 (GMT)
  9. Just rewrite the damn thing.--Karekmaps?! 22:27, 9 August 2007 (BST)
  10. No. Just no. --Kibbs 23:39, 9 August 2007 (BST)
  11. Terrible article. EGo 23:41, 9 August 2007 (BST)
  12. It was a good battle and historically noteworthy, but the article however entertaining is to biased to carry an official Historical Event tag. A new player who has never heard of Blackmore or the participating groups is given a skewed view of the event. Simply writing another POV article for zombies will only delude the importance of this battle, without resolving any of the POV issues. -Barroom Hero 00:48, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  13. Remove. --Kashara 02:48, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  14. Whatever happened to NPOV? -- Grogh 02:51, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  15. I'd be fine with it if it where NPOV and accurate --Pyromonkey 03:02, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  16. Zoutroi 03:48, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  17. The article's a piece of shit. Burn it! Or at least remove it from Historical events. Alan 03:48, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  18. --Blark 05:06, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  19. It's good reading, sure. It's not a historical account of what happened. It's very simple really. --LordOlam 05:20, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  20. Rewrite it or delete it, please --Heiki 13:07, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  21. Don't be full of shit. Rewrite this page to proper NPOV format.--User:Axe27/Sig 18:01, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  22. This article needs so much work (to make it historically accurate, for one thing), I have doubts it can be saved at all. It should be removed and a new NPOV- compliant version submitted (if it's even possible to do). --Liche 18:14, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  23. Overwhelming bias does not belong in historical records. C4NT can host it themselves if they want, but a more appropriate record for all players involved would be better. --Beauxdeigh 18:31, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  24. Completely POV, full of baseless accusations and other such crap. Remove. Srekto 18:43, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  25. This is a great page, and it SHOULD be saved, but not as a historical event. The page is a well written humorous story, but NPOV and factual? No. Move it to the C4NT page, and when they are made a historical group it will be saved for posterity. --DonTickles 18:59, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  26. The official article should be neutral, though I'm all for this staying up as a human account of the story somewhere else. --A zombie01 21:36, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  27. Needs to be changed as it's currently too biased. --Mobbo RRF/AU10 22:00, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  28. Keep a link to the current account - it is entertaining - but it is heavily biased and as such should be clearly noted as a 'survivor account.' Need a new, historically accurate, and unbiased version. --McTrout 22:16, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  29. I'll write up a page when I get off of work tomarrow and see what you guys think of it, though I'll need some help in order to get both sides evenly represented --Bobs Aturd 23:08, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  30. We need to stop putting emphasis on these singular, relatively inconsequential events. Caiger, Blackmore, and the rest of the malls really should step out of the spotlight for events that are actually... Interesting. Torec T-CC/CS/CS/CS 23:45, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  31. This description of the event is made of epic fail. Incredibly too biased. -- BeefSteak WTF 23:48, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  32. Rewrite or delete--Malkav 00:29, 11 August 2007 (BST
  33. If the article was accurate and unbiased I'd vote to keep it, but it isn't, so I'm not --BraggledorthRRF/AU10 09:57, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  34. Definitely biased. An entertaining opinion piece about a major event, sure. A wiki-worthy description of that event? Nope. --David Suzuki 10:38, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  35. Biased and insulting --Thekooks 11:18, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  36. Amusing, but ultimately biased. Write two/ change one. Whatever. --The Supreme Court RR 12:01, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  37. Far too biased to be historical. --Reimu Hakurei 20:42, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  38. For reasons stated above. -- Shadow of the Undead 21:30, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  39. As has been stated before it is a blatantly biased and entirely a-historical account of the events. --Shaggy123 07:47, 12 August 2007 (BST)
  40. If its not made neutral, it should go. --Gut stench FU BAR 10:06, 12 August 2007 (BST)
  41. Very biased indeed. Either re-write to NPOV or move it to the NMC page. Ardenio 15:48, 12 August 2007 (BST)
  42. needs a serious rewrite. --Ropponmatsu 16:12, 12 August 2007 (BST)
  43. Extremely biased, and not especially well written. Needs major cleanup.--Jiangyingzi 17:18, 12 August 2007 (BST)
  44. Funny? Definitely. Extremely biased? Unfortunately so. --Goolina Gore Corps 22:45, 12 August 2007 (BST)
  45. It's all been said already. I say it goes.--Globule13 02:59, 13 August 2007 (BST)
  46. NPOV or GTFO, plz. --Gafgar 04:52, 13 August 2007 (BST)
  47. Definitely a NPOV, says I. -IyandaCloud 05:58, 13 August 2007 (BST)
  48. About as unbiased as Bill O'Reilly. -Jonny Cerebros 01:49, 13 August 2007 (EST)
  49. Horribly biased. Remove or drastically rewrite. --Priapus 20:28, 13 August 2007 (BST
  50. --Karlito T Milk 19:34, 14 August 2007 (BST)
  51. Bah-Bye --Jaysonequalsyayy 04:28, 15 August 2007 (BST)
  52. Write something more worthy of being the official accounting if you wish to protect a page about the event. Keep this one in the C4NT comedy bin. --Sauth 04:59, 15 August 2007 (BST)
  53. biased drivel NPOV required Mortificant 16:21, 15 August 2007 (BST)
  54. It's entertaining, but it can in no way be considered neutral or unbiased, which should at least be attempted for something to be considered "Historical". Read The Battle of Santlerville for an example of what I consider a good style for "historical" articles. It's not like we're voting for removal of the ARTICLE, after all, just recognising its flaws. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:58, 18 August 2007 (BST)
  55. Remove the article, but find a place for the Darth Vader picture. --Chauntie 18:41, 18 August 2007 (BST)
  56. Too biased. Keep the HALT HAMMERZEIT pic though. --VinnyMendoza 21:34, 18 August 2007 (BST)
  57. Harmanz don't need another ego boost. Gnashing of Teeth of the Lebend Totes 16:59, 18 Aug 2007 (BST)
  58. Logging the Battle of Blackmore as a historical event, I have no problem with. But could we get a page that's a bit less propaganda, and hews closer to the actual events? No appelflappen for you this time around. Chronolith 23:22, 18 August 2007 (BST)
  59. Not neutral, thus not qualified. Remove it.--Drag'n'Feast 01:58, 19 August 2007 (BST)
  60. Zaneus 05:58, 19 August 2007 (BST)
  61. In dire need of a proper NPOV which is more in tone with this Wiki. Mrhton 11:23, 19 August 2007 (BST)
  62. Begone! AssassinZ 14:10, 19 August 2007 (BST)
  63. I propose that it be moved and explicitly labelled as a biased, NPOV 'alternate' account of Blackmore, but the main article definitely needs a complete revision. --Apocalypse89 16:13, 19 August 2007 (BST)
  64. This page can stay as a C4NT page but the historical version should be as objective as possible. Thats what history studies are about. Propaganda can be done on Group pagees, thats what there are for. To Hell who won and who lost. Just make it as close to neutral as possible. --Zawa o' Draugr 21:37, 19 August 2007 (BST)
  65. This article is so biased, it's laughable. Is it an actual history article at all? It looks like a shitty shameless promotion of the douches on the channel 4 news team. -Downinflames 23:04, 19 August 2007 (BST)
  66. What they said. Do save the document though, just not as the ONLY record of the fight. And play nice, kids - save the pointless conflict for the streets of Malton. Keith Moon 23:39, 20 August 2007 (BST)
  67. Historical documents should be of the utmost serious and neutral POV Sockem 04:37, 21 August 2007 (BST)
  68. Yes, please to be removing this or making it NPOV. --D J Eggman 02:26, 22 August 2007 (BST)
  69. Yup. --Mayor FittingTalk RR 23:52, 22 August 2007 (BST)
  70. Ditto. --Marluxia 04:48, 23 August 2007 (BST)
  71. Remove -- Blood red Bread

funny but very one sided and inaccurate. -Bullgod 11:04, 26 August 2007 (BST) Late vote struck. Can this page be protected again, please? -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 21:39, 26 August 2007 (BST)

Against Removal

  1. Heck no! That battle shows that the survivors can hold off a single building for months in the zombie heartland! Definitely a keeper! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 18:11, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    The article needs to be rewritten to not be so survivor trenchie centric. I could care less about its presence in the pantheon, but it's not appropriate as it sits now.--Jorm 18:19, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    Damn Lach...stole what I was going to say...Look. Forget it. This stuff was ages ago. If it wasn't NPOV, why did everyone vote it into historical, huh? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:44, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Because most of the voters were Survivors who write notoriusly POV articles. It wasn't even an important event in UD history, having no tactical outcome, and resulted in the slaughter of survivors. --User:Axe27/Sig 18:00, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    It was an important event, and this coming from someone who has a PKer and a zombie character. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 07:57, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  2. Write a zombie version of the page, complete with excellent pics and general mockery of survivors, and we can have both of them as historical, complete with links to each other at the top. There's no way in hell we could have a NPOV version of this, unless Kevan wrote it. It's a fething siege, with 2 sides. Therefore, the story of each side should be told, and two pages would facilitate reading.--Lachryma☭ 22:45, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    discussion moved to talk page
  3. This article truly preserves the spirit of UD. Come on, guys. Lighten up. We're giving depth and history into an otherwise black-and-white game. This is the reason Urban Dead was created -- for people to live in it, to create stories, to make legends, to make history. This article really represents the spirit of the game. Not a bunch of numbers, cgi pages, and an RNG generator...but a living, breathing history. --MSTK 23:14, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    discussion moved to talk page
  4. Survivors need their moments too... also the battle ended on my birthday....--Someguy5031 23:18, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    discussion moved to talk page
    well I crap on your crap. jeez get a damm life. oh wait i forgot you live in malton.----Sexualharrison ה •TStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 14:20, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  5. It's a really fun page to read, and zombie groups are known for their POV issues too. I don't see how that page could be "improved", NPOV wise. Probably any change made would make it really shitty to read. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 23:33, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    discussion moved to talk page
  6. Because it fickles my tancy.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:41, 9 August 2007 (BST)
  7. This is one of UD's defining moments! How on earth could this not be historical? If you're so mad about POV then write one from the Zombie perspective. Redwave 00:04, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  8. Hell no! --Vortexx 00:23, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  9. I was on the edge of insanity. This article saved my life. It curred my brother's yellow fever and it caused the downfall of the Empire allowing the Rebels to free the galaxy. --Ice_Jedi5★ 01:15, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    discussion moved to talk page
  10. It's no more overly POV than any other siege page I've read - Vantar 02:15, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  11. Victors write history. Loosers ask for deletion. Bluetigers 02:42, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  12. Keep ! You had months to discuss this POV issue, but now you bring it up when everyone who wrote the article has idled out. I miss Ron Burgundy, Morth Babid, and even DHG. Either you put forth a non-biased version of events, or we should delete every biased article. I think the article about the Battle_of_Wagram is far too biased. Or would you like to remove that cute little pic from the Ridleybank page ? Sir FredQSG
    discussion moved to talk page
  13. Keep, because I'm certain that zombie players looking for Great Truth are coming to the wiki to learn their history, and I look forward to seeing them lied to. I wish somebody would quote Greek historians here, it'd probably clear things up. Or their works would be deleted. Actually, if we could get Hayden White to step in, we'd have a proper response. --Barbecue Barbecue 06:14, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  14. Keep This could have been discussed when we voted on this the first time. I think its pretty low to come back after the fact and then try to get it changed because its biased. The creators of the page have since basically left the game and are not here to defend themselves or their page, its pretty sad that now they are gone it is seen as a chance to get their work edited.--JleggittMR 06:23, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  15. Uh no. You wait until now to complain about this? Yeah that's pretty low. That is one of the high points in survivor history and it should not be tampered with.--Lord Wulfgar 06:26, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    discussion moved to talk page
  16. keep as is. lighten up.----Sexualharrison ה •TStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 06:49, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    discussion moved to talk page
  17. It should be kept as it is --~~~~T''' 08:50, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  18. No reason at all for it to be removed. Biased? Yes it is. But that's because this was a huge event in the human story, with the biggest personalities all on the side of the living. Who can forget reading all the daily updates by guys like Ron Burgundy with all the flourish and drama they added to it? This is epic UD stuff. Lieutenant Kingston 09:18, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  19. The Battle of Blackmore got me into the game when I was getting bored because my level was maxed and there wasn't anything else to do, from the perspective of achieving mechanical success, and it was all because of this wiki article. And now this wiki article has gotten me to create a wiki account when I thought I had no reason to join. Even a casual reader of this article should have no trouble recognizing that it is slanted deliberately to create a comic effect, so I don't see why it is so terrible that it isn't "historically accurate." What are you going to put forward to replace it - a dry recital of facts and figures that even the vets don't even remember anymore? I come to the wiki for factual accuracy when I'm looking for the best place to search for equipment. If I'm reading about fictional events in our fictional little city, though, I want to be entertained. As others have commented, it's not like our grandchildren are going to look to this wiki in search of facts for their history report on the Battle of Blackmore. The Battle of Blackmore is approaching a year old. Why are you bringing this up now? You can post two articles (one for each POV), as some have suggested. I dare you to come up with a retelling of this event that is more entertaining to read than this one is.--Gregory 09:33, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  20. Hilarity ensues. --Roger Oveur 10:54, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  21. Conditionally Against Removal (Change) Please refer to my suggestion, buried in the Battle of Blackmore talk page. I support it staying under the condition that a big bold "this article is controversial and widely viewed as biased, and its factual content is under dispute" ... and then links, or even a section in the main article, of rebuttals / critiques. It's my serious hope that this compromise will please both sides of this dispute. --WanYao 13:22, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Actually, that doesn't sound like such a bad idea.--Private Mark 06:40, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  22. Keep it the way it is. The "NPOV Crusade" is quickly becoming synonymous with "Whining" --Ryiis 13:48, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  23. As the one who put this event (and page) for historical status, i cant agree with its removal. Is this page highly POV ? Of course yes. Is it fun ? Heck yes. I would rather see this page in its current format, which is fun as hell to read and watch (hello kitty darth vader rlz) than read a page with no life in it. Those who dont like this page are welcome to add a paragraph or two at the beginning of the article in an NPOV way. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:20, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  24. I think it should stay. From what it sounds like it seems like the biggest problem is people say it is biased. That's simple enough to fix it, just edit it. But it sounds like it was a rather big event.--Ramsfield 8:40 10 August 2007 CST
    Ramsfield, the point is people believe that if it's edited, it'll be wrecked. I agree 150%. The main text either has to stay as is, or it goes in its entirety. And, something everyone ought to remember: sometimes the news itself is newsworthy... sometimes the reporting of history itself is part of the history... --WanYao 15:00, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Maybe, but if the event is as important as some people are claiming, it should probably be put in a neutral tone. If it's the article, why not just put it as "Channel 4's Combat Reporting of the Battle of Blackmore" instead of the complete history of the battle. I like the article though, it's pretty funny.--Ramsfield 21:15, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  25. The event is historical. The depiction is subjective, but it is not a reason enough to remove it. --JohnRubin 15:09, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  26. All those voting to remove this from historical events were not present at Blackmore, or are just whining ******. Quite possibly both. Leave the damn page as it is. If you don't like it... DON'T LOOK AT IT. --Sergeant Zerbrowski 15:32, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Actually many of the ones voting for removal were present in blackmore and battles you didnt even heard about :P --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:48, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  27. No-one likes reading a move by move account of a fight, without flavour this game is just us throwing random number generators at each other. The article is part of the reason the battle of the blackmore is famous aswell and for that reason ill vote for it to say. Its also a lasting tribute to the mighty ron burgundy, father of my child. al duck
    I do, actually. I prefer them, even.--Insomniac By Choice 18:38, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  28. This page should continue to be historical, not only because it's a damn good read, but because the Battle of Blackmore was an event that marked a triumph in the heart of all good freedom-loving survivors, (and a tragedy, of course) as well as proving that despite how over-powered the zombies are today, when the forces of "good" band together, we can accomplish anything for insanely long periods of time.--Private Mark 17:48, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    discussion moved to talk page
  29. Zombies can't write history books. All history has some biased to it, usually from the winners side. Anybody who can't tell it's biased is simply stupid, and needs to zombify themselves right now. To those who are feeling insulted for being called stupid as the article currently infers; you are stupid. Not the you that is going on about the arguement, but the zombie you in the game. Zombies with memories of life aren't even smart, they're just able to recall memories from their past life to mimic their actions in life to accomplish their goal. Brains. Mmm brains. Err.. Uhm... Caiger will stand! Go Blackmoore bastard brigade! Humans rule! --EternalOne 11:55 10 August 2007
    You're a st00pid trenchcoater that didn't even sign its post. Your "opinion" doesn't count. Go play with your bang-stick, n00b. --WanYao 19:29, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Dude, who are you?--Jorm 19:31, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Just an opinionated n00bie with some time on his hands ;P ... Who went through the wiki and learned as much of the "culture" as possible and really wanted to have some fun with creative role-playing and strategic gaming. But who is quickly getting really annoyed with all the immaturity and drama and posturing... But that's typical of online gaming, I s'pose... --WanYao 19:50, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Fixed. Work distracted me from my very important urbandeading. Sorry. --EternalOne 11:55 10 August 2007
  30. I'm usually a zombie player, and I love how the article is written! I don't think it should be deleted, or changed. It's funny, and should stay that way. I don't see any problem with it, at all...or how you could have a problem with it. I agree with MSTK. -- Standard Zombie
  31. I'm defenitely against. This was an event easily worthy of historical documentation-denying the sacrifice of the BBB,and the valor of those involved wouldn't do justice to them. Let this article stay historical! Simon Hollows 22:23, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  32. As far as I can see, the Battle of Blackmore was voted an historical event. Whether or not the description of said battle should be changed is another matter, and not related to the Battle of Blackmore's historicity. --Pavluk 23:21, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    The event's credentials are not whats up for debate, its the way in which the article, which is supposed to be a true, factual account is presented. The article itself is quite funny to read, but by no means should it be a historical article. A new, non biased article should be the official record of the event, not a recruitment tool.--Bobs Aturd 23:35, 10 August 2007 (BST)
  33. Against. .--Antipathy 19:00, 10 August 2007 (EST)
  34. Keep it. --Vercingetoriks 02:39, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  35. Written with flavor and in the spirit of UD, even with its survivor slant. --Zod Rhombus 03:27, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  36. Against removal. For keeping. --Paxsarahhhhh 03:54, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  37. Why rewrite? Isn't every historical battle page subjective? I mean, who can really gather all the facts and create a 100% perfect page? We know history is subjective, let the BoB page stay the way it is!--Big Bur 04:05, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  38. Keep. Nearly all conflicts in this game inevitably end with brainz being eaten and Barhah being furthered. This event had the same outcome, but brought hundreds of survivors and dozens of groups from around Malton to the centre of the zombie heartland. For weeks the RRF top brass denied there were even survivors taking a stand in Blackmore. To claim a duty towards historical accuracy regarding this event now is audacious, if not disingenuous. This event was conceived from survivor intiative and became what is remembered and celebrated now as a result of survivor passion and survivor solidarity. Survivors are mocked and criticised for their disunity, so where's their incentive to achieve something exceptional? Bad form, Jorm. Bad form. The story of this event is for the survivors to tell. --Jarper
  39. Keep - Just make another page that details The Battles of Blackmore in a balanced, non-biased fashion and call it a day. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 05:46, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  40. its historical, beyarch --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 06:42, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    That's a crap argument, and you know it. Also, you didn't capitalize 'its' and it really should be 'it's', not 'its'. That further shows survivor stupidity/bias/conspiracy-ness.--Lachryma☭ 07:24, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  41. Even if you don't think it's historical in game, the sheer amount of drama that it caused and the arguments that go on even today make it historical, in my opinion.--Labine50 MHG|MEMS 06:45, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  42. I agree with the above comment. This event has had a lasting effect in the UD community. Its also one of the few articles about historical events that is entertaining to read. Dont change it.--Dr Doom86 09:31, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  43. Just to piss off Jorm. Why not have the zombie players who were involved add their own section to the article? --Akule School's in session. 15:29, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    discussion moved to talk page
  44. I like the idea of a zombie-centric article on the same event. This one is too well written to get rid of. --James Ennis 17:59, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  45. Anything to frustrate the zeds. :) Nalikill 18:00, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  46. 'Cause the crusade has to end somewhere. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 23:11, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  47. Meh, whatever. Its impossible to be completely unbiased, especially in this situation. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:55, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  48. Just because you zeds want to forget it doesn't mean we surviors should --NNRC out--Matterfoot 00:13, 12 August 2007 (BST)
  49. What I have wanted to say has already been said, no point in repeating it. Just read the above votes. --Kiroto 00:55, 12 August 2007 (BST)
  50. Keep your hands off our history!! I wasn't there, and I was never affiliated with either Ron Burgundy's boys OR the Blackmore Brigade, yet even I know of this famous battle. I think that the article is entertaining, humorous, and worthy of retention. I furthermore think that the Neutrality Police who have been pushing this NPOV thing all over the Wiki need to go and get a job with Encyclopedia Britannica...while I do not mean to impugn the importance of recording history in a professional way (being a history major myself), I think you guys have gone way too far. Template:Tarumigan Gistarai 08:42, 11 August 2007 (BST)
  51. It should not be removed because it IS historical, and zeds whining about it is not an acceptable reason to remove it, delete it or relegate it to some group's sub-page that probably wouldn't be looked at. In other words...quitchawhinin'! --Chuck Rocker
  52. Do not pretend your history does not exist! This is history and should be recognized as such--Hejsa 05:35, 12 August 2007 (BST)
    History eh? So, apparently,we should list all Nazi Propganda as "History", now should we? --User:Axe27/Sig 05:37, 12 August 2007 (BST)
    Technically, propaganda is itself historical--i.e. as a subject of study. But I don't want to get into a huge debate myself over the nature of history and historical writing, since nobody took on my Hayden White link earlier : )--Barbecue Barbecue 05:42, 12 August 2007 (BST)
  53. Just keep it. Fun history.--Tosca 06:57, 12 August 2007 (BST)
  54. Write the zobie story and that's all. --Jim Bim
  55. Spirited submission, just put a "This article is heavily POV" sticker at the top. It is written more like a diary of events and should be preserved that way. --Virus002 16:21, 12 August 2007 (BST)
  56. I say keep it, it showed that Survivors could properly defend a building with basically just axes against a horde that was twice the size of the survivors held up in side blackmore. most that did take part dont want their efforts to be in vain. And Yes the battle of Blackmore page was a that was a diary written in the eys of the Bastards and as a fellow Bastard I cant see the historic Status removed -- Smithy Jones 18:53, 12 August 2007 (BST)
  57. Keep it...write that it is POV from the survivors on the top. Let one of the zeds write up their version of the story. --Kormosch
  58. there is no practical reason to remove it, and it has sentimental value to those who participated in the battle. this must not be removed. --Saria231
  59. Keep. Definately historical. Theres no reason to take it off - lighten up Sanpedro 07:23, 13 August 2007 (BST)
  60. Keep. It's a great part of Urbandead's history. If you're that annoyed about the POV then Split the page into 'Human POV' and 'Zombie POV' sections. It'd be an insult to the Blackmore Bastards to remove this event.--Unema
  61. I fear if this were rewritten to remove the POV all the humour would be driven out too. If anyone wants to make a NPOV or ZPOV article to show a more complete story, they should go ahead. --  T   10:31, 13 August 2007 (BST) Also: MASSIVE VOTER TURNOUT TODAY
    In order to make the page NPOV, just a sentence would be needed, strategically added at the end of the article: According to the RRF, none of the aformentioned events ever happened. =P --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 18:23, 13 August 2007 (BST)
  62. Keep. I see no credible reason to give two shits about how POV this page is. Write a zombie side. Well, it appears from the current trend that the Battle of Blackmore will have a solid majority to keep itself in history, biased or not.. Italus 17:03, 13 August 2007 (BST)
  63. I agree with the comment that begins with "I fear" and ends with "TODAY". This article is extremely well-written, and is currently the only historical account we have of an epic event. As soon as someone writes a NPOV article, then it can replace this one and this one can be moved to a subpage of Channel 4. The value of this piece, the quality of this piece, and the entertainment value of this piece, when combined with its unique position as the only long article on the subject, outweigh the article's problems. Whatever happens, this should not be deleted, only moved. --Doc'Oc 00:16, 14 August 2007 (BST)
  64. If you haven't heard of the Battle of Blackmore, you haven't really played UD. Absolutely against removal, but moving it to a sub-page of the C4NT page would be a reasonable compromise. NPOV issues should be brought up at the time of voting. --MolotovH 03:24, 14 August 2007 (BST)
  65. Keep it please. A very entertaining piece that shows some spirit in the game. NPOV rants after the fact are akin to sabotage.--Mad Pierre 13:26, 14 August 2007 (BST)
  66. Keep it. -- goebi oo ooooooo 19:47, 14 August 2007 (BST)
  67. Keep it. The assumptions behind the validity of this entry's deletion are flawed: There are ZERO standards for the POV of an entry to be historical, nor has there ever been expressed a need for such standards. Additionally, all history is written by those who live to tell about it and experienced it, and due to the large amount of groups who were involved in this event, moving it to a subpage of a user group would be impossible and its deletion would be unwanted. If ANYTHING could be done to this page, I would acknowledge that perhaps a 'contrasting view' or 'section of debate' could be added, if people feel events are not properly reflected. Such facts should perhaps be tagged on the page in questions talk page. --MorthBabid 13:28, 15 August 2007 (BST)
  68. Exactly!! Keep it!! SGT J0NES
  69. Keep it. Not only is the event historic, the article itself is historic in all its POV glory.--TheBerts 00:31, 16 August 2007 (BST)
  70. Agreed. Keep it. PsychoPhil CFT 17:56, 16 August 2007 (BST)
  71. keep, but jorm is right, if its to be kept it should be cleansed of its trencieness. The man 10:24, 17 August 2007 (BST)
  72. Urbandead's wiki has never called for unbiased articles. If someone wants to post the zombie's side of things, they should do it. Otherwise, who cares? It's all in god fun. --Oliver Bigler 12:33, 17 August 2007 (BST)
  73. It desevres to stay, because it is a historical event- they aren't determined by the article but by what actually happened. --MarieThe Grove on Tour 21:53, 17 August 2007 (BST)
  74. If it's something that happened, it's historical. Nit-picking over aesthetic aspects of the page are irrelevant--Crabappleslegalteam 03:15, 18 August 2007 (BST)
  75. Keep. What's to argue? The zombies won... Tyler Whitney0 17:45, 19 August 2007 (BST)
  76. Keep! This battle is historical! Abraxaslotus 6:02 PM GMT, 19 August 2007
  77. Keep. It's an entertaining article. I'm sure any new player who reads the wikis will be intelligent enough to notice that it is written lightly, and with a survivor POV. If they aren't, then to hell with them. The Zombies won, it was an interesting fight, the end.--Donathin 04:26, 21 August 2007 (BST)
  78. Keep. Its a good yarn and it would be a shame to lose it! If people are annoyed then it could be rewritten, but as long as it stays historical im happy. --SamtheMan 15:35, 21 August 2007 (BST)
  79. Keep. There isn't a lot of UD history, we should be grateful for what we have. --Hhal 02:02, 22 August 2007 (BST)
  • Voting is over - 70 votes For removal, 79 votes Against removal. For removal votes failed to get 2/3rds of the total, the Battle of Blackmore page keeps its Historical Event status. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:58, 23 August 2007 (BST)
    • Voting is NOT over. There are still 10 hours left of voting. --The Grimch Mod-U! 09:14, 23 August 2007 (BST)
      • NOW voting is over. 71 votes for removal, 79 against. --The Grimch Mod-U! 18:24, 23 August 2007 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Battle_of_Blackmore/Historical_Event_Voting&oldid=977246"