Talk:Association for Renaissance Martial Arts/Archive 1

message: Jaerom, I don't wish to get involved in this controversy, and I have no position on the matter, let me just say that you may need to realize that you are not neutral yourself. regarding this edit, I find neither version (neither the one you reverted, nor yours) to be neutral. To say that the ARMA is "ridiculed" and attacked for "dispelling myths" is not so much a neutral description of a dispute but rather a partisan defence of ARMA. Try to "write for the enemy", phrase the criticism as it is forwarded, and then quote ARMA's response. dab (ᛏ) 14:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: This article is not for discussing personal opinions of ARMA's Director. Even if it were, you've obviously never met him and are basing your attacks on hearsay. I have met him, and have had many occassions to interact with him, and I know him to be an honest man (highly opinionated and frequently abrasive, but honest and dedicated to his craft). Most of the information on "ARMA-Truth.com" is either exagerrated or made up, according to several eye-whitnesses I have contacted. The alleged incidents of people being injured during John Clements' demonstrations are both easily explained (you can't expect to learn the killing arts without occasionally taking minor injuries, which is the most that ever really happens) and insignificant compared to injuries taken under less skilled instruction (like the man who was stabbed in the eye with a live dagger in the Chicago Swordplay Guild).
John Clements is not ARMA, and your commentaries on him are not appropriate anywhere, and particularly not in this article. This is for discussing an organization that constitutes the cutting edge of WMA studies, and has since its inception over a decade ago. Revert the article to your slanderous version again and I'll report you to the administration. Jaerom Darkwind (Talk) 22:18, 17 November 2005 (MST)
:A correction:  The article is not for discussing anything.  It's for outlining and describing, but not for discussing.  The talk page (here) is for discussion.  The Jade Knight 03:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaint

message: Not one single other Martial arts organisation has a "Criticism" or "Controversy" section on Wikipedia.  I feel that it is unnecessary, even undesireable, here.  [Wikipedia is NOT] a place to publish critical reviews, original research (as much of the controversy section appears to be), or to evaluate topics much as one would do on a public forum.  I feel that the criticism section is out of line with Official Wikipedia Policy; this article should be focused on describing what ARMA is, not analyzing whether or not this is "controversial" or "effective".  As such, I am deleting the section.  The Jade Knight 03:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: What I find most amusing is the inconsistency of this revision process.  
Initially Jaerom Darkwind (the original author) was removing my edits in favor of his own and then we tentatively held the peace at a separate section for criticism while I refrained from editing the remainder of the article.  Now, you're insisting that criticisms be restored to the article and the criticism section be removed.  Much of the criticism section's language that you have changed was written by Mr. Darkwind.  "ARMA has never been shy about..." was one example I thought was particularly amusing.
Fine, you want it in the article then it will go in the article.  If you go away and Jaerom comes back, we'll probably put it back the way that it was.  I don't particularly care so long as this article doesn't end up being little more than propaganda.
:While this may indeed be amusing, many of the expressions used in the article (including "never been shy about") are hardly the sort of language you should expect to find in an encyclopedia.  While I could just tag the article for cleanup for this, I have taken it upon myself to clean up the language to both be more NPOV and to also fit closer the tone expected of an Encyclopedia.  I hope that my changes of the language of the article are acceptable without reserve, for this reason.
:When it comes to having a separate critisicm section, I just don't think context (or precedence) warrants it.  I also think that it is better for us to try to work together here, rather than just saying "that's your territory and this is mine".  Besides, I'm hardly "on either side" in the ARMA debate.  I just want to see this article (on a topic—Historical Martial Arts—that I'm intersted in) receive proper treatment.  The Jade Knight 03:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism within article or section debate

message: This article includes paraphrases of material copyright John Clements. Used with permission.
I wonder, what does this permission look like? Has John Clements accepted GFDL, i.e. that the text can be spread outside of wikipedia? // Habj 20:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Used with permission" 

message: It looks like John Clements of ARMA is incorrectly linked to John Clements .
--Lorkpoin 19:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be correct.  It would not hurt to create a new page for ARMA's John Clements and link to that.  Perhaps John Clements (Martial Artist)?  The Jade Knight 23:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Clements is a Commander of the British Empire? 

message: This terminological aberration of "true" rapiers is not generally accepted among serious hoplologists.  It is a dogmatic contention of ARMA that there is some kind of rationalization for using the terminology, even though such terminology was never used by the actual users of the weapon.  ARMA might like to alledge that it uses the original sources as its touchstone, but the original sources do not use the term "true rapier".  It is idiosyncratic, aberrant, and not indicative of generally-accepted terminology.Dogface 14:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that the use of the term "'true' rapier" was used in the intention of differentiating from what is commonly thought as a rapier today - the whippy flexible swords seen in movies and the sport fencing - and the historical rapiers which were quite different. I also feel that the use of quotation marks designates the term "true" as both emphasized and unofficial, much in the way that one may describe something as "old school", denoting it as something different and perhaps even foreign to common use. I understand the existence of the term, but find it difficult to agree with your point - even though serious hoplologists know what a rapier is, especially in comparison to sport fencing equipment, most people don't. It also follows that the terminology was not used by the 'actual users of the weapon' because, from my understanding, Classical Fencing and the use of the sport 'foil, epee, and saber' did not arise until the early 1900s, while the historical use of the rapier faded out in the 1700s due to the increasing popularity of the smallsword. Therefore, the users of rapiers would have never seen Classical (sport)Fencing, and would have no need to differentiate between the two. Today, however, a vast majority of the people think 'foil' is aluminum foil in their kitchen and that all rapiers and rapier like swords behave more or less like sport fencing foils. Perhaps a stronger emphasis on designating the term 'rapier' earlier in the article via an inter-wiki link would solve the problem, though many people would likely not click on it, still knowing the rapier as a fencing foil.
Also, if I remember correctly, the term 'rapier' is used historically by several authors as an extremely broad term including small cut and thrust swords and other swords which have now been categorized differently. The term "true" rapier then, lends to the modern definition of a "relatively slender, sharply pointed sword, used mainly for thrusting attacks" (from wikipedia for quick reference). However, historically, the term could mean many things, hence the separation. Xiliquiern 14:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged "True" Rapiers

message: I know that there are strong feelings about this but criticism and controversy needs documentation.  I have removed two sections.  The ARMA-truth site is no longer active and therefore lacks a reference.  Without a reference, I don't see how it can stay.  The ARMA name change is just plain hearsay and not appropriate.
:The ARMA name change was re-inserted by user 72.145.132.138 with no explaination.  I guess they like hearsay.  I removed it again.
:Ran Pleasant 1:40 pm, 22 August 2006
That being said, Mr. Pleasant, you are mucking with the Criticism section and unnecssarily bloating it with what is basically a counterargument.  That is not appropriate to the criticism section.  My recommendation is that you add this kind of content to the rest of the article and only intervene when you believe the criticism is factually incorrect.
For example, you have started adding positive reviews of Mr. Clements book in the criticism section.  That's not really appropriate.  I recommend that you move the other reviews down to the list of published works.
:"However, ARMA's director claims in his bio that he has written for Dragon Magazine which is a popular roleplaying game magazine focused on Dungeons and Dragons[19]." 
:Clements occasionally presents demonstrations and writes articles for Role-Playing and "Theatre" groups (he will be doing so at DragonCon, I do believe) on how to incorporate a more historically accurate understanding of swords and armour into their worlds (D&D, theatre, movies, whathave you). I don't think this is viable criticism for the point above, as well as it would be somewhat like discrediting a NASA scientist for writing in a New Age Magazine about alignments or discovery of new celestial objects. The Scientest is only bestowing portions of his 'expert knowledge' on what could be considered a mis-informed, un-educated, or simply ignorant (of no fault of their own) group of individuals. Clements is treated as an expert on the subject by many, even outside ARMA, and, like the NASA scientist, is free (and probably more than welcome) to provide information of expertise to other parties in related fields. I have deleted the quotation per above. Xiliquiern 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism should be documentable and concise

message: The article is about ARMA.  However, almost all of the criticism is about John Clements.  Although John Clements is the director of ARMA he is not the organization itself.  A few individuals do have a problem comprehending the distinction but should that be a problem for Wikipedia?  What is the justification for including a criticism section about the individual John Clements in an article about the ARMA organization?  Ran Pleasant 12:0 pm, 22 August 2006
:Also, remember that all poorly-sourced criticisms of living persons should be immediately removed (WP:LIVING).  The Jade Knight 04:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the subject of the criticism? Is it ARMA or is it Clements? 

message: I see that the ARMA "true" rapier definition has popped up again.  Let's stick to provable facts.  Many different rapier authors recommend cuts.  ARMA's rules indicate that they "shall not be considered incapacitating."  Are you saying that the ARMA rules for sparring account for a cutting blow to the head with a rapier?  The citation seem to indicate the contrary.  Unless you can find a citation that states specifically that cuts with a rapier is part of ARMA sparring, the criticism should stand.
:It appears that you are so bias against ARMA that you are not able to comprehend even simple statements.  The quote about cuts with true rapiers not being considered incapacitating is clearly indicating such cuts can be used in sparring!:Ran Pleasant 10:25 pm, 24 August 2006
ARMA can define "true" rapiers internally however they wish, but outside of ARMA "factual" rapiers do have edges and it is documentable.  Removing the documentation from the article looks, at best, biased.  At worst, it smacks of a lack of academic integrity.  
:Again it appears that you are not able to comprehend what you read.  Where did you get the idea that John Clements or any other ARMA member ever said that rapiers don't have edges?  In his many years of research John Clements has handled a large number of antique rapiers in collections in the United States and in Europe, he clearly knows that true rapiers have edges.  What Clements calls a true rapier are those long, slender rapiers with edges formed at a steep angle.  Regardless of how sharp the actual edge is the steep angle of the edges prevent the blade from easily passing through large amounts of flesh and bone, plus the blades lack the mass to make an effective cut, thus you cannot make incapacitating cuts!  In light of your difficulty comprehend what you read I will restate the explanation in more simplier terms: Regardless of how sharp the edge, even if it is razor sharp, if the edges of a blade are at a steep angle to each other then the blade is too fat to easily pass through the cut it is making.  Basic physics!  Seek enlighten with some test cutting to see if you can cut off the leg of a dead pig.  And you want to question Clements' academic integrity?  How silly of you.:Ran Pleasant 10:25 pm, 24 August 2006
Likewise calling other groups RPG poseurs is something that ARMA repeatedly does in their published texts and online articles.  Noting that ARMA members have written for an RPG magazine is relevant and points to a certain amount of hypocrisy.  That might make ARMA members uncomfortable, but it is documentable and the citation was provided.  Check the citation if you think there is an error, but don't remove a factual statement.
:Why is writing articles for a RPG magazine an issue?  Writing is not the same thing as martial arts practice!  I think that there are actually a few ARMA members who do belong to role playing organizations.  However, all ARMA members know the difference and they keep those activities separate from the martial arts they practice in ARMA.  Although I have not read the articles in question I would guess that they are an attempt to educate the readers of the magazine, after all in addition to being a martial art organization ARMA is also an educational organization.  Again your lack of comprehension shows.:Ran Pleasant 10:25 pm, 24 August 2006
Finally, rebuttals don't belong in the criticism section.  It leads to a bloated article.  If the criticism section had rebuttals, it would cease being criticism and would become an online debate and not an encyclopedia.  If you strongly feel the need to mention the sparring rules, create a new section in the main body of the article.
Aug 24, 2006
:One other thing, if you feel so much passion about the criticism then why don't you use your real name instead of hiding anonymously.  All most all of the flaming and stalking of ARMA over the years has been by anonymous people unwilling to stand behind their words.:Ran Pleasant 10:25 pm, 24 August 2006
----
User 71.143.10.43 - Why did you delete my comments to your statements? All were valid, non confrontational, polite reasonings for the edits. Isn't deleting another users contribution to the talk page a serious offense? 
Also, people keep reverting my edits, which are a logical, cited, and documented explanation of criticism. I would like to know why they feel it necessary to look past a valid explanation and revert to an illogical argument. Xiliquiern 15:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Revisions with Bias 

message: I find it interesting that when I was removing uncited criticism, I was 'neutral' and now that I am shoring up the criticism section with citable and documented criticism I'm 'biased'.  It is pretty clear that there are at least two editors out there with an agenda wanting to squash the criticism section and portray ARMA in glowing language.  That would make a great advertisement, but it is not what Wikipedia is about.
I've seen a mixed message between the two editors about the 'ignoring sharp edges' criticism and I still feel it is valid.  If you continue to censor the section, I'll continue to restore it and if it becomes a problem we can get Wikipedia's staff involved.  Creating an ARMA vanity article is questionable at best, but removing factual information is a big no-no.
:Stating that ARMA ignores the edges on a bladed weapon with sharpened edges is preposterous. Nowhere does it state, as I have pointed out before in my comments on the talk page that were so kindly removed without reason (I'm still waiting for that reason), that the ARMA believes that rapiers did not have blades. Nowhere does it state that they cannot cut. Nowhere does it state (except on this wikipedia entry) that cuts should be simply "ignored". Nowhere does it state that cuts cannot hurt or be painful in combat. The source I cited in my comments on this talk page and on the article page, from the official ARMA website, holds that earlier rapiers, which were close to cut and thrust swords from which they evolved, were capable of cutting and that an unedged or barely edged version of the rapier (a true rapier by ARMA definition) was developed during the 17th century. This weapon would have produced little effect (as also noted on a non-ARMA affiliated website) when used to cut because it did not have sharp enough edges. 
::From www.salvatorfabris.com : "While it is true that some rapiers (especially in the mid-to-late 17th Century) featured a blade-geometry not conducive to taking an edge, these are more the exception than the rule in the age of Fabris."  Some of the rapiers ('especially') during the 'mid-to-late 17th Century' with the obtuse blade-geometry simply would not take a viable cutting edge. Trials with historical antique weapons from the 17th century have yielded this result on more than one occassion. 
:I do not want to 'squash criticism', I want to remove criticism that is based off of a misconception: That ARMA believes that rapiers cannot cut. I have no issue with condemnation of John Clements' actions, criticism of the ARMA method or matrialism, etc etc. I do have an issue with using a misinterpretated viewpoint as a basis of criticism. I also wonder why, continually, after citation multiple times, people continue to hold that ARMA 'ignores the edges on rapiers'. This is absolutely not the case...if the rapier has an effective cutting edge, it will be utlized. If it doesn't, it won't. Some rapiers (indeed, most up until the mid 17th century) had cutting edges. Others, both before (though rare) and after the 17th century did not have effective cutting edges because the geometry was simply too obtuse. I cannot understand the persistance to ignore that ARMA differentiates between these two sorts of rapiers with two different abilities, nor can I understand the ignorant desire to continue in the mindset that ARMA simply 'ignores' the edges on all rapiers despite ample proof otherwise. Xiliquiern 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fencing guidelines state that edge blows with "true rapiers" (used by ARMA to differentiate the rapiers without viable cutting edges as explained above) should not be treated as a lethal blow. Surely you do not that that hitting someone with the edge of a 17th century rapier that lacks a sharpened edge once or twice would kill them. That is the same point. Also, in a fight to the death, not to blood or as a duel, I believe that the ARMA takes the stance that drawing blood or wounding the opponent is not enough. Someone could slit my scalp open now and it would be some time before I died. It would be incredibly painful, but I, or anyone else, would still have the ability to move and, in a life or death situation, attempt to further defend themself. I believe that to consider the first draw of blood a victory in a fight to the death is inappropriate - the goal is to kill, and not wound. Therefore, after such a laceration, the individual must be wounded further (made easier by his already compromised condition) in order to ensure death (thrusting, at this, is far more capable). I believe this action, landing a final killing blow to an already wounded person or creature, is known as a Coup de grâce and would be practiced after the opponent was wounded but continued to fight (though poorly, and in much pain). Again, from a non-ARMA affiliated site: "The cut is actually utilized in most period rapier texts, although the thrust is preferred as more lethal and tactically superior".Xiliquiern 18:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To support this argument I present a portion of the 'Private Duels' section from the Arte of Defense, William E. Wilson 2003. The text provides example of a "duel of fighting seconds" and shows that even disfiguring wounds are not totally debilitating and not always lethal (in the following days). "Schomberg cut off half of Livarot's cheeck, but Livarot ran him through, killing him on the spot." The text continues detailing the fate of others, before arriving at Livarot's own continuation: "Livarot, horribly disfigured, was no longer of interest to the King (Livarot was the second to Quelus, who died a month later from multiple dagger wounds sustained in the same fight - his attacker, d'Entragues, fled france with "only a scratch on his arm"). He was killed in a duel over a woman two years later" (likely due to fault of not providing his own second, as cited in the text) (pp 11-12). Xiliquiern 19:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now I am biased? 

message: My criteria for including something in the criticism section is:
* 1 Does the criticism exist?
* 2 Can we demonstrate it?
* 3 Is the point of contention debatable?
The answer to all of these questions is 'yes' and therefore it bears mentioning.  Maybe ARMA doesn't like it, but the discussion occurs regularly with members of other organizations.  Here are two examples and a quote:
* Netsword discussion
* SwordForum discussion
"Saying that a rapier is a thrusting-only sword that can't cut and than using that as proof that a rapier can't cut is a bit of circular logic. And I wonder what the period rapier masters who all taught the cut would say about that."
August 25, 2006 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.77.174.126 (talk • contribs).
I agree fully. After reading several texts on rapier, almost all struggle with a proper definition due to its almost constant evolution (much like the term longsword). Because the term is so broad, many different varieties existed - broad, thin, long, short, sharpened-edge, un-sharpened (or unsharpenable) edge. In fact, according to two of the texts, no rapier blade typology exists: Oakeshotts applying primarily to the hilt and guard styles. I am assuming that we have come to these agreements, in part because of the change from 'ignore', and from this discussion. The rapier is, almost by definition, undefinable is a specific sense because its use was so long and so broad in geographical usage. Indeed, Tom Leoni has changed his definition of the rapier recently: "My new definition of a rapier is that it is a single-handed, straight-bladed sword used predominantly in the 16th and 17th Centuries and optimized for the defense." . This definition appears just as faulty as every other, though, as it would include a number of other straight-bladed, single-handed swords generally considered of the 'cut-and-thrust' variety and even includes the smallsword. I would certainly like to research this topic further, as it appears that much work has been given on how to train with one of these weapons, though little time has been spent providing an accurate way to assess and differentiate them. This is important, of course, because swords of different design, even slight, could bear a slightly different form of use.
I also agree that the method of ARMA teaching may be brought under criticism, as should any organization - it is criticism, research, and exploration, after all, that removes the impurities from teaching. I think at this point though, we have come to the agreement that ARMA believes that some rapiers could cut, and others could not. I believe that we are now in agreement as well that the rapiers that could cut, due to their lower profile and more accute edges, would not land a blow severe enough (as with a longsword or arming sword) to be fatal (under most circumstances; a proper slice to the throat or neck could prove problematic than to another less critical area), but instead would act a definite wounding action which could be used dangersouly in combination with the thrust, wherein lies the early rapiers versatility. As such, I feel that the citations from Giganti, Cappo Ferro, et all can be removed, as the use of cutting is no longer in question, though I believe the references to their works should remain. Xiliquiern 21:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria