Talk:Black knight

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 November 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Cleanup

I cleaned up a few of the spelling and grammatical errors in the article. Gmrx 23:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Darth Vader can not, in any sense, be considered a black night. Essential to the black night label is service to no leige. Mr. Vader was in the service of the emporer. That reference should be removed.

I agree. However, it has been changed. Darth Vader is more of a Dark Knight than a Black Knight. Maybe switching the wording around would help? Knight45 9:55, 30 August 2006

Article is contradictory. Says black knights are black because they do not want (or have) affiliation with a liege. Later, it says that they're black because they don't want their armor to rust.

No, see, they paint their armor black to prevent rust because they have no pages, and they have no pages because they have no known affiliation with a liege. It makes perfect sense. CaptHayfever 19:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

the article lists more then one reason for why black knights blacken their armor, how is it contradictory? How would having no affiliation with a liege and also not wanted armor to rust contradictory? Lol. Also, what's the deal with the addition on Dark Knights, it seems out of place in the article and like it was taken from a certain story, not based on a wide view of Dark Knights. 1337wesm 01:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Some historical evidence and source citation ought to be included in this article (if there is any) --M.J.Stanham 20:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How has this artical not been deleted? It is 100% original research and opinion, theres no actual basis for black knights being grouped together. Theres the original Arthurian version, and then theres some instances of work obviously derived from that original, in Ivanhoe and Age of Empires for instance. Theres no evidence to suggest landless and liegeless knights called themselves Black Knights.

Another good point just showed up on TV, the stupid Black Knight movie with Martin Lawrence has character called the Black Knight in it who is described as serving only justice and is on the service of the Queen. Not a piece of great literature but theres no reason why it should not count. Ivanhoe can also be considered historically inaccurate (infact the forward in my copy admits that it is, and I believe that was written by the author Sir Walter Scott). Furthermore, while it this cites Richard as being a black knight in Ivanhoe, he was not a liegeless knight in Ivanhoe, he was a king, he was his own liege. Also I seem to recall the Black Knight of legend being appointed by someone (God usually) to guard the bridge or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes it to something more related to reality. In addition, for whoever thinks that a knight without a leige or lands is a black knight, or that a black knight is like a ronin, you are think of Knight-errants, those are the wandering knight dudes. And I'm not sure on the whole deleting Project Tags thing so someone might want to work on getting rid of the Biography thing how ever you do that properly, see as this and the previous version didn't even vaguely come close to being a biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe this nonsense has stood unchallenged for years. Worse, it was "challeneged" by Afd, two people voted "keep" and then did nothing. --dab (𒁳) 20:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)