Jump to content

Talk:Ewood Park

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date error

[edit]

There is an error in your first paragraph. You've stated that Anfield and Stamford Bridge were contructed before Bramall Lane. Although Sheffield United were formed in 1889, the stadium was there many years before the football club. Bramall Lane is offically the oldest proper sports stadium in the world as it was contructed in 1855. Cricket was played there during the 1850's and the first football match was played at Bramall Lane in 1862.(before the FA was formed).

I would like to add that Ewood park was not built in 1890, as stated in this article. The Ewood Park grounds were built in 1882 as a multi sports venues and operated successfully as such for eight years before Blackburn Rovers made the stadium their home. This fact is correctly stated in the Blackburn Rovers article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.22.20 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and points of view

[edit]
Questionable material removed, and the editor responsible blocked and warned. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

its a great shame that you should allow someone to post such a load of biased twaddle on wiki..the section on crowd trouble would be laughable if it wasn't so sad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.8.142 (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section, an opinionated personal essay like that has no place on Wikipedia. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
..and I've now been reverted. I shall ask the user in question to engage in discussion here. The material is uncited, and in clear violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the person in question has again repeated the whole unsubstantiated nonsense...this is precisely why wikipedia is becoming known as an unreliable source of information which is in actual fact a great shame.The "author" of the less than neutral content clearly has his own probably hooligan based agenda and is using your pages to shall we say "wind up" followers of other clubs....several of the comments made can be checked quite easily and proved to be completely untrue..they have little or no basis in fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.8.142 (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My articles are sourced and referenced. Crowd trouble is an interesting fact associated with football. It played an important part in shaping the history of the game and the design of modern football stadiums, even the sociological make up of the fans. People are vandalising, editing & deleting on behalf of the world wide web because in their BIASED OPINION my articles do not match certain standards. No discussion from them but contempt. Entire articles simply deleted - no discussion first. This has been done numerous occasions without any attempt at engaging me. No examples given - just empty jargon and quite fankly, offensive name calling too. Only when i have changed the articles back to their original state in response to the pompous, arrogant contempt of several people has there then been a willingness to discuss. I have been no more biased than them who have been vandalising, editing and deleting articles without first attempting to discuss or explain why - and in doing so deciding what the rest of the world can or cannot read. Indeed, i would go as far as suggesting that the BIAS is against Blackburn Rovers and their supporters from people supporting other clubs. Let the Blackburn fans read the articles and discuss it. Those constantly vandalising these articles - and that is what it is - should try and grow up, maybe even get a life. It is tragic that people feel so self important. This is appalling behaviour and pompous buffoonery from BIASED anti Blackburn Rovers editors and cannot continue. Surely some sort of adjudication can be reached. I quote wiki guidlines: "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it." I have just this very minuted had an entire article deleted after i had reposted it. The reason given was that i was "vandalising" the article. How can i be vandalising an article that i have written and posted because someone has deleted it? That is a contradiction and makes no sense what-so-ever. It is simply arrogant. My articles are sourced and referenced. small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by DecZXZ (talk • contribs) 00:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the bias in your writing, much of it has nothing to do with Ewood Park. The article is supposed to be about the stadium, not the club. Stay on topic. --Jameboy (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, i have just had to reinsert an entire article that has been deleted and by people who are not being truthful about why they are editing and what they are editing. In a way this works in my favour as I am going to request full protection on this article. You and others are clearly violating wiki policy. This article has come under intense vandalism over the past 24 hrs, this is clearly no coincidence. People are either working together to vandalise the article or there are sockpuppets, which again would be a breach of wiki policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DecZXZ (talk • contribs) 00:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your input is not written from a factual base .. somehow you managed to get the year wrong of the infamous Ewood riot made several comments about the decline of your closest neighbours which has nothing at all to do with Ewood Park or crowd trouble in the slightest and have basically used an article about a football stadium to make a number of snide comments about other local clubs.Ten minuts research from someone with no knowledge of the topic would show them why your "work" should not be on wikipedia maybe you should stick to messageboards and such instead ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.8.142 (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong on just about every level. My work is from a factual base and I have provided sources. You have not provided any evidence that my work is not from a factual base. Which comments are biased? Which comments are personal points of view? Which comments are incorrect? Where are you sources to prove it? You are using empty jargon and not backing any of it up with examples.

I got the year of a crowd disturbance at Ewood Park wrong. Yes. I corrected it. I provided a source when I did so. Is that not one of the aims for Wikipadia? Is that your only reason for completely deleting an article without discussing it first, violating wiki policy and procedure in the process?

The 1983 Ewood Park crowd trouble with Burnley was not an infamous riot. That is your bias. My exposing of that is what you do not like. That is what you do not want people to know. It was a couple of idiots climbing on a roof and embarrassing themselves, the club they followed and football in general. I also mentioned a cowardly act of dart throwing . Do you not think so? Or would you condone it? Or do you wish to glorify such acts? Again, your version is an unsourced example of your bias.

The only snide and biased actions and comments have come from yourself. The only biased and snide actions and comments have come from people like you who have totally disregarded wiki policy and procedure by vandalising, editing and deleting articles. Which local clubs (plural) do I make snide comments about? Again, no example. Ten minutes research? Where is yours? Where are your sources?

Any casual glance at the history books shows league tables, positions, trophies won. I have provided a number of credible factual sources for attendance figures and crowd trouble. Let’s not forget, you and others have flamed this article on attendance figured too.

This article came under intense attacks from a number of editors over the weekend when Blackburn Rovers defeated Burnley and all but condemned them to relegation - like Easter 1983. Some of the editors on here are what I suspect are sock puppets. It cannot be a coincidence that most of the attacks on this article took place over that weekend.

You refer to me making comments about the decline of “local neighbours”. You do not use the word “Burnley“. Why? Is it because you want to create the impression that you have no vested interest? I have traced your IP address to Burnley. You are most likely a Burnley fan.

Comments about a “neighbours” decline are perfectly acceptable when that decline is being used to illustrate a point; the point being that a clubs decline can often coincide with the worsening behaviour of its fans. I refer to Blackburn Rovers decline numerous times and how this was reflected in the behaviour of their fans.

Did you actually read the article at all?

I have traced at least one other IP address to Burnley. That is really what is going on here. Fans from a rival club are vandalising this article. And it is very clear to see. This article needs a lock to be protected from the biased, unsourced editing, deleting and vandalism of editors with hidden agendas.

There are football message boards where people like you can go and argue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DecZXZ (talk • contribs) 17:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things: first assume good faith; second, please read tl; dr - make your arguments concisely. – ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous past makes no sense. You are clearly vandalising this page. Steps are being taken to have it more closely monitored by more than just myself. I am also taking steps to have it locked. This is disgraceful behaviour. I have heard and read about unreliable Wikipedia is, the action of the gang that are attacking this article every single day and not following wiki procedure has strengthened the view that wiki needs proper policing. I hope to have the article locked very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DecZXZ (talk • contribs) 21:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of attendance with population of surrounding area

[edit]

I have removed what seems to be original research in comparing attendances with the population of the surrounding area. Even if the research had been sourced from elsewhere, we need to be incredibly wary of throwing around statistics like this, as the data is probably too complex to draw meaningful comparisons. For instance, is Arsenal's surrounding area the Borough of Islington, the whole of North London or the whole of Greater London? Or do we use a certain km/mile radius? Listing record and average attendances is fine, but attempting to compensate for other factors by using arbitrary, inconsistent and poorly-defined variables (whether to support a particular viewpoint or not) is not something we should be doing. --Jameboy (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. I use the population figures of Blackburn (2001 census) to illustrate the point that per capita, Blackburn is the second best supported club in the country. It is that simple. It is a perfectly valid point to make. I am not talking About Arsenal. I am talking about the population figure for Blackburn - not the council population figure which includes Darwen - just the Blackburn population figure.
This article clearly needs a lock on it. I am also taking steps to ensure that this board is monitored by more than just me, as i am clearly being flamed by a number of suck puppets and Burnley fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DecZXZ (talk • contribs) 17:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To calculate the "best supported club" in the country, you need to calculate the support of all the other clubs (hence it is relevant to talk about Arsenal), and it simply isn't clear how you have done that. I think you will find that editors here support a variety of teams (mine is West Bromwich Albion) and that the vast majority are interested only in improving the quality of articles rather than knocking Blackburn Rovers or any other club. I'm not sure who you think the sock puppets are or if you understand what a sock puppet is, so I would encourage you to have a read of WP:SOCK. If you genuinely want to contribute to Wikipedia and improve as an editor, I'd be happy to help you by giving detailed feedback on your edits. There is nothing wrong with wanting to edit articles about subjects that interest you (most of us do so), but not by pushing a particular agenda or point of view. --Jameboy (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Burnley? I consider that a personal attack and ask that you withdraw such accusation immediately! No matter how you attempt to justify it, your analysis of the statistics is original research and should not be in the article. No one has agreed with you that it should be there, so the consensus is against you. – ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium Capacity

[edit]

I've been finding references for the current capacities of all of the championship grounds for the current seasons page. I've found two conflicting numbers for what the actual capacity is. Sky reckon it is 31154 while the current reference reckons it's 31367. I've found as many references for one as for the other but I'm tempted to treat sky as a more reliable source. can anyone clarify what the actual capacity is? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ewood Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ewood Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ewood Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ewood_Park&oldid=1207158578"