Talk:Association for Renaissance Martial Arts/Archive 2

message: Note:  Let's start running this like a normal Wikipedia article; put new comments with a descriptive header at the bottom.  The Jade Knight 03:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I archived the previous dicussion page on Monday, October 2nd at ~2:10 PM EST. The page was really long and made editing and discussion relatively difficult. Hopefully with a 'clean slate' of sorts, the discussions can proceed and the article can move towards a more finished state. -- Xiliquiern 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: This is a rough table of contents of the section under discussion, broken down sentence by sentence to preserve as much of the content as possible. I hope this will help people looking to edit this section view the concepts in simplistic and holistic manner rather than scattered about and complicated by additional wording on the main page. It is apparent as I type this that a regrouping of many parts may be beneficial and that the section as a whole is very messy right now.
--This information has been removed by the author to reduce the page size. Please see below for an updated version.--
-- Xiliquiern 15:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Structure: Oct 14

message: I have moved ahead and incorporated the article text, with slight modification and addition of fact tags, into the outline format . This is provided directly below. Again, feel free to compare this with the above rough draft.
--This information has been removed by the author to reduce the page size. Please see below for an updated version.--
Again, I have a question.
*What does this: ARMA has also published material arguing against what it perceives as unrealistic and inefficient techniques employed by other organizations, holding their work to its own internal standards.
exactly criticize? What it sounds like to me is that ARMA finds other organizations at fault when they do not follow historical evidence - which seems kind of hard to criticize to me. Should this statement perhaps be made more towards the point that ARMA criticizes other organizations that do not follow guidelines based as strongly in historical text as ARMA believes its own guidelines to be?
Please feel free to provide any note or comment on the above. This is a touchy subject, and I want to try to get as much done "right" the first time as possible, to prevent much later reverts. As noted above, unless significant displeasure is shown, this is the text that will be inserted on October 18th. -- Xiliquiern 16:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been reading over the guidelines on biased or malicious content in regard to biographies. While this article is not a biography, I think that the section regarding Clements should be privy to the same protection. As such, I am no longer confident putting anything that could be considered biased or malicious content in the article without adequate third party citation per WP:BLP. I think that any criticism of any persons character or actions should be supported simultaneously with evidence and that if citation is not available, the information should not be presented. Again, feel free to comment on this assertion - I may be missing the point. -- Xiliquiern 16:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have it exactly right; the policy makes it clear that it applies to biographical information in non-biography articles.  I also think your edits look very good.  Thanks for putting so much effort into this.  I'm still of the opinion that the criticisms (or what remain of them) should be put into the article itself, but oh well.  The Jade Knight 00:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that option is very much still on the table, and I certainly wouldn't be opposed to it at all. In fact, now that you mention, I share that occurance as a sort of long term goal. What happened before, however, was that we had a large amount of uncited, partially unverifiable, redundant, and contradictory information both in the section for criticism and throughout the article. Needless to say, it was a huge mess.  I felt that the easiest way to control the criticism was (like a fire) to contain it - now that control is being established, I think that we may look towards the more literary aspect. Once citations and/or deletions have been made and the criticism itself is solid and encyclopaedic, I would view incorporation into the article as a sort of final step. --Xiliquiern 02:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would also recommend criticism of his book be placed in the "ARMA member published literature" section, along with references to the two books; issues with the citation method used in Clements' books are not necessarily issues with ARMA, and probably don't belong in a section meant to include criticism of ARMA.  The Jade Knight 00:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Text Draft: Oct 14

message: Here is my latest offering. Spelling has been improved, and a note of the books being added to the literature section has been made. Also, one of the criticisms was removed because the citations did not really offer any criticism at all, neither did the statement of criticism. Instead, I moved the citations to support the first sentence as examples.
Association for Renaissance Martial Arts  Suggested Table of Contents of Criticism - Second Draft  As of Oct 16, 2006	Association for Renaissance Martial Arts  Suggested Table of Contents of Criticism - Second Draft  As of Oct 16, 2006
Relationship With Other Organizations
*ARMA has publicly provided evidence against "myths and misconceptions" held by some in the sport and historical fencing field, and has received criticism in response, especially from "sport fencers and theatrical fencers" and "a few gurus among historical role-playing societies" who were supposedly "embarrassed by the magnitude of information contradicting them".
*ARMA also openly rejects the claims by some sport fencing and classical fencing maestros and instructors to possess a “living lineage” to Renaissance martial arts. 
:*They designate fencing maestros who claim to teach a living Renaissance or Medieval martial tradition as "frauds and deceivers". However, eight years after some of the cited "fraud" designations were published, none of these accused individuals has provided concrete evidence of their heritage as rebuttal.
*The ARMA’s focus on martialism (seen as more historical by ARMA practitioners) has been criticized by some other practitioners of Renaissance martial arts. Their criticism rests on a supposedly increased rate of injury among ARMA members in relation to other martial arts organizations. Concrete evidence of an increased injury rate among ARMA members is not forthcoming.
Training and Techniques
*The ARMA stance that all parries of cuts with cutting blades should occur edge-to-flat has come under particular criticism. However, it appears that this criticism is the result of a misunderstanding. 
:*ARMA's interpretation with most swords advocates parrying a cut either by displacing the cut by striking with one's edge into the flat of the incoming blade or by displacing the cut by receiving the edge of the incoming blade upon the flat of one's own blade.
:*In direct contradiction with the criticism, ARMA and its associates find edge-on-edge parrying historical with thrusting weapons such as "true" rapiers or when thrusting with cutting blades. 
:*Similarly, ARMA also acknowledges that edge-on-edge parries were a part of later sword traditions, such as the saber, backsword, and smallsword, though these do not fall into the primary area of study for ARMA. 
:*ARMA claims this position on edge-to-flat matches the techniques described by the historical masters.
:*ARMA-affiliated sword expert Hank Reinhardt argues that archaeological evidence supporting edge-on-edge parries is virtually nonexistent, and other historical manuscripts on swordplay instruction specifically warn against parrying edge-on-edge .
*ARMA's position for rapier sparring is that "For rapier fencing it is strongly suggested that the full body target be used (including the hand and foot). All thrusts to the torso, head, and neck should be counted as lethal. For true rapiers, slashes, slices, and draw-cuts should not be considered incapacitating or lethal." 
:*ARMA uses the term "true rapier" to designate a later rapier with a minimal blade that was, largely, an ineffective cutting weapon from other earlier rapiers that had effective cutting blades. 
:*ARMA scholars do use cuts in rapier sparring, though only with weapons historically able to cut effectively.
*However, some instructors from other organizations are critical of ARMA for not considering rapier cuts incapacitating or lethal in its sparring rules  and claim that this introduces unrealistic artifacts to sparring that leads to more grappling than might actually be reflected in a realistic encounter.
:*ARMAs position on the relative ineffective killing power of rapier cuts is partly based upon the fact that there is not a single historical record of anyone ever being killed by rapier cut!
John Clements
*John Clements, the director of The ARMA, has noted that he has "become something of a lightening rod in the historical fencing community and subjected to an array of amusing personal insults by 'saying it like it is' for the good of readers and asking others to back up their words with skill".
*Some of this criticism has come in the form of harsh reviews of his published books by Maestros, instructors, and researchers within the classical fencing and the historical fencing community.   
----
The following will not be included in the Criticism section of the article, but will be included in the ARMA literature section. 
:*In the book Medieval Swordsmanship (p. 172), Clements states: "The historical method of employing shields and swords described here stands in stark contrast to the typical manner of static shield use witnessed in a number of popular Medieval role-playing organizations and historical re-creation groups."
::*Stephen Hand, in SPADA 2 (p. 68) , notes the lack of citation for Clement's reference to a "historical method".
:*Two books featured prominently on their site make the claims "The most thorough attempt ever to examine Medieval swords from the point of view of their historical function." (Medieval Swordsmanship) and "The most thorough work on historical European swordsmanship ever undertaken." (Renaissance swordsmanship).
::*These claims have been criticized as "self-serving and egotistical" by Maestro Ramon Martinez.  In another article, Maestro Martinez's student Ken Mondschein writes a more scathing review, stating that "Mr. Clements adds little original research of his own—if it was research, indeed, since footnotes and documentation are few and far between."	
</noinclude>
I still intend for this to go into the article on October the 18th unless significant unresolved debate arises by then. -- Xiliquiern 04:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Text Draft: Oct 16 

message: This page had grown over the recommended WP page length and was last archived on November 1, 2006. xiliquierntalk 16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  archiving 

message: So far the modus operandi with xiliquiern seems to be to remove some citations and then later to remove the criticism as uncited.  Now he has shifted to demands of multiple citations for well-cited criticism.  That's a wonderful lack of integrity that would go completely unnoticed if people didn't look closely.  Likewise, editors like Mr. Pleasant routinely libel other editors without any citations whatsoever.  Its an amazing double standard and typical of what I have come to expect from the ARMA members who have been whitewashing this article to promote their own agenda.
I've given up hope that this article will ever be anything but propaganda.  Seriously, if ARMA wants to advertise, they should pay for advertising like anyone else, but don't try to call this anything close to unbiased editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.180.221.45 (talk • contribs) .
:*Just out of curiosity, when did I remove citations and then later remove the criticism as uncited? If I did so, it is likely that I did indeed do so wrongly, though not with ill intent. If you would point out the specifics of this situation, I would be more than happy to rectify it. 
:*However, I ask for multiple citations when a plural subject is used (maetros, instructors, researchers). Citing one source from one individual is not citation of agreement by multiple individuals, as indicated by a pluralism. 
:*I hope that the article is not propoganda - I have supported the existence of criticism by working towards its current state. I totally recognize that some people do not like individuals within ARMA or, for some reason, come to hate everyone in it without even knowing them personally. I understand that others may have high regard for the organization but still find issue with technique elements of it. There is nothing wrong with criticism - I welcome it. However, criticism does need to be cited, and the citations actually have to support the criticism and meet Wikipedia standards. I have spent several hours now searching a variety of websites hoping to find some articles to finish up adding (not removing, like you say), criticism citations to this section of the article. I do not ask you to leave, as you say you have 'given up'. I really genuinely welcome you to bring any grievances with the current state of the to bear here on the talk page. As far as further editing - if you can provide a significant criticism and citation of it, there is no reason it shouldn't be in the article. Similarly, if you can provide citation for any of the current criticism, please do so. - xiliquierntalk 00:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Something more: a maestro is not maestros.  If more sources can not be found, this should be placed in the singular.  The Jade Knight 10:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was precisely my reason for requesting the citation, but I think you explained it better than I. Thanks. - xiliquierntalk 13:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *I should add that, yes, the current criticism section is an example of unbiased editing. It lacks citations, and is inherently questionable at best, because of it. That is the reason I am spending my personal time to try and locate the source of these criticism from reputable (see WP:V) sources. Again, there is nothing wrong with showing criticism of ARMA, but the criticism must be cited appropriately, otherwise it becomes at best WP:OR or at worst, simple vandalism (in the case of uncited personal attacks). - xiliquierntalk 00:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: To add to what Xiliquiern has said, there are three established Wikipedia members who are in agreement with the care that has been taken with this article, and the direction the article is going.  Not a single registered, established Wikipedia user has stated that our efforts are making the article worse in any way (except to a limited degree Ranp, though he seems to be more comfortable with the article now).  If you have something constructive to add, please register with Wikipedia, and provide us with information from reliable sources that we lack, so we can all work together to further improve this article.  For the record, I am not an ARMA member, myself.  The Jade Knight 10:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing out of existence 

message: A few more citations were added today, two of which I do not wholly understand. 
John Clements, the director of The ARMA, has noted that he has "become something of a lightening rod in the historical fencing community and subjected to an array of amusing personal insults ...
:*Here, the requested citation is part of an already cited quote. I don't actually know what WP guidelines are for citing parts of already cited quotes, but I may be misreading the citation request. Are we to cite it with evidence that Mr. Clements feels he has been personally insulted? And if so, wouldn't this quote already fulfill that? I'm just uncertain. Please explain specifically what should be cited.
ARMA's position on the relative ineffective killing power of true rapier cuts is partially based upon the fact that there is not a single historical record of a lethal cut from a true rapier.
:*Again, this citation appears in the midst of a line for which there is already citation, and seems to request citation for an adjective (true). Is the citation actually asking for proof of consideration of the historical record in ARMA fencing, or is it looking for citation of the use of "true rapier" by ARMA? If the poster wouldn't mind, please provide a more detailed explanation of what is to be cited.
::* I changed the sentence to include a direct quote from the source cited at the end of the sentence so that it is comletely clear what is being cited.  It makes no sense for user 204.180.221.45 to change the meaning of the sentence from what is being cited.  The article cited does not say anything about true rapiers not having "immediately lethal capacity", rather it says that there are no records of any deaths being caused by a cut from a true rapier.  It is almost as if user 204.180.221.45 wants to change what John Clements wrote.Ranp 08:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I must express my own guilt in founding the "immediately lethal capacity" bit, though I assure you without ill intent and in effort for a more encyclopedic tone. As it stands now, quote included, the sentence is more than adequately cited. Thank you again, RanP. - xiliquierntalk 13:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Specifics Nov 6 

message: *User 68.219.12.38 (talk) reverted the page today. I explained to him/her that the current revision has been made through a process of consensus and that reinserting uncited criticism of any individual is vandalism. I also invited the user to take part in a discussion of grievances on this talk page. There is a log of such discussion on the user's talk page. Shortly thereafter, without any conversation, the user proceeded with another revert of this article. After fixing the article for the second time, I notified the user of his/her presumed mistake and warned him/her that future reverts will be followed with standard blatant vandalism protocol. -xiliquierntalk 03:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The user has reverted the page for the third time within a very short period of time. They have been warned with a blatant vandalism warning per two prior notifications of their activity. Future reversions may lead to a 3RR report or a simple vandal report. I believe that I (and any other user) is protected per WP:BLP in correcting these types of reverts. - xiliquierntalk 03:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *This morning the user reverted the page again for a fourth time. They were submitted for 3RR violations and blocked for 24 hours. It "would be best" for me not to revert his recent actions for the next 24 hours, so it's up to someone else. - xiliquiernTalk 15:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *In the future, leave a message on my talk page if you need someone else to revert the page.  I use Wikipedia regularly, but often don't check my watchlist (I just don't have the time).  Looks like someone's already taken care of it, however.  The Jade Knight 04:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: It has been over a month since specific citations were requested by myself on this page. (And, in some situations, over three months since original requests were made by others on the article page.) Some of them have been cited and, despite efforts, others remain without citation or verification. I believe that the statements remaining uncited on the 10th of December, 1 month and 4 days after specific request for citation on the talk page, should be removed from the article per wikipedia guidelines. Uncitable or undocumented information is not encyclopaedic. Please voice your opinion below. If someone wishes to extend the time for an honest and earnest attempt to cite some sources, please say so. If you wish the information to be removed as proposed, please voice your support or opinion. If you feel this is rushed or undue, please say so. This long process is finally drawing to a close, and I do not want to rush or hurry things now. -xiliquiernTalk 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead with this today. I also cleaned out the "book reviews" as suggested above. I'm taking a break from WP, and will only be monitoring things occasionally. Best of luck. -xiliquiernTalk 00:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited Criticism Removal Proposal 

message: What exactly are we trying to get across with this section? I do not know, or wish to know, the gory details, but as far as I am aware, ARMA is controversial because of:
1) Personal and political conflicts between various members/groups - these do not belong in an encyclopedia. There is some coolness between ARMA and some other groups, and maybe that is relevant, but we don't need a long section on it. I think saying that JC is controversial is fine, but we don't need to quote a dozen book reviews. His books had many errors, as he himself freely admits. 
2) Actual technical debates over various subjects, e.g. the relevance of modern classical fencing to Renaissance fencing reconstruction, the rapier cut thing, the dreaded edge-vs-flat, how early and how much sparring there should be in training, whether post-17th c fencing is any good, and so on. Everyone else disagrees about these things to some extent too, quite apart from ARMA and JC. These debates might belong, but as they are typically 95% semantics, shades of grey, and political bullshit, any detailed explanation would be (I suspect, feel free to prove me wrong) inappropriately long.
The lineage/fraud thing is a good example, I think. The cited articles only vaguely refer to uncited claims of unspecified maestros. It's all rank hearsay. We don't know who the accused are, or what they actually said, only that they supposedly exist and supposedly said things that JC doesn't think they have backed up. Now I am not claiming that there aren't any fencing masters who have made bogus claims, only that the citations in this article are utterly inadequate. Some fencing masters have, IIRC, argued that Italian classical fencing is descended from Italian rapier fencing, and that their knowledge is applicable to the reconstruction of rapier (or even earlier) fencing. These are perfectly reasonable arguments to make. One can also argue against this, perfectly reasonably. But this is a technical debate, not some sort of exposé of fencing fraud. Megalophias 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the recent anonymous edits particularly fail to improve the article.  I generally agree with you otherwise.  The Jade Knight 07:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism and controversy section 

message: Most of the article has no references, so I've tagged it in the hopes that we can find and introduce references to improve the article.  The Jade Knight 07:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Reviewing the archives, I see that I am not alone in finding this "encyclopedia entry" to be little more than a thinly veiled advertisement.  The article was originally created by an ARMA (Jaerom Darkwind) member to promote his group and is continually revised by members (Randall Pleasant and Xiliquiern) of the organization to portray it in a favorable light.  ARMA's wikipedia entry is unique in that other martial arts schools typically do not have a Wikipedia article plugging their school, its merits, and it's founder.
The ARMA article was created by members of ARMA.
See the following:
:Don't make a new article for your own product or Web site. Most often, when a person creates a new article describing his or her own work, it's because the work is not yet well-known enough to have attracted anyone else's attention, much less verifiable sources. Articles of this sort are usually deleted. Wikipedia does indeed have articles about popular products and Web sites, but it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia to popularize them. 
This page meets the following criteria:
:Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. If a page has previously gone through a deletion process and was not deleted, it should not be speedily deleted under this criterion. 
In the archive, Jade Knight recommended that the article be nominated for deletion and I have done so.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.182.3.237 (talk • contribs) 
:I did not recommend that it be nominated for deletion; rather, I stated that if someone found such a problem with it, that person could nominate it himself.  That said, it seems that well-meaning users are taking your nomination as vandalism.  I suggest you register a username so that there is no confusion that you are not simply trying to vandalize the page.  The Jade Knight 06:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ARMA article is not advertisement.  The history of the modern reconstruction of Western Martial Arts simply cannot be described in Wikipedia without an article giving a clear description of the largest and most significant organization in WMA.  Since the mid-1990s ARMA has been the primary driving force in the reconstruction of Western Martial Arts and it's scholars have produced more books and articles than another other organization.  Should those contributions be completely overlooked just because you and a few other people who like to hide in the shadows don't like the director of ARMA? Wikipedia is about providing the truth to the public, to not acknowledge ARMA's role in the reconstruction of Western Martial Arts is simply nothing less than a lie.  The ARMA's advertisement is it's world wide reputation for hard-core martial arts and the ARMA Web Site, which is the largest and most predominant WMA web site on the Internet.  ARMA currently has an acceptance rate of less than 50% for new applcations, which greatly suggest that ARMA does not need more advertisement.Ranp 15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated for Deletion 

message: While we are changing things about, would anyone be opposed to the removal of the ARMA InTheatre section? I don't really see it's contribution to the article itself and it seems to be a rather unnecessary element as it was only around for a short period of time and is no longer a part of the ARMA. Comments? --Xiliquiern 00:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should probably be mention of it, at least.  I would not oppose to it being truncated and included in another section, however.  The Jade Knight 00:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, perhaps mention both the ARMA Youth and the ARMA InTheatre sections in the curriculum area? --Xiliquiern 00:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARMA InTheatre