Talk:Association for Renaissance Martial Arts

message: Currently, the article does not contain a single third-party source for any of its statements which are about ARMA or its history.  According to some, this may be grounds for deletion.  However, I believe that a great many Wikipedia articles which are deleted due to lack of sources can still serve a useful purpose if they are kept.  However, when there is a lack of (reliable third-party) sources on a topic, care needs to be taken to ensure that our treatment of that topic is:
* Neutral, avoiding peacock terms, and ensuring that it is not biased for or against ARMA
* Careful to adhere to Wikipedia policies, especially BLP
* Careful to remove material whose factuality is challenged or likely to be challenged
So long as we all act in honesty and in good faith, we should be able to provide a helpful and useful article which is agreeable to all.  If we cannot, this article will probably eventually make its way to deletion in the absence of reliable third-party sources.  Ironically, I know of a single peer-reviewed third-party source specifically about the "Rosetta Stone" curriculum which I have chosen not to introduce to the article (it's the only peer-reviewed third-party source I've ever seen mentioning ARMA).  However, this source is biased and its reliability may only be marginally better than the first-party sources currently used by this article.  The Jade Knight (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Jade, if the ARMA article goes due to a lack of third-party source then surely the HEMA Alliance must also go for the same reason.  You keep talking about "in good faith" yet beyound all doubt the only reason you are pushing this "Schism" thing is so that you can promote the HEMA Alliance on the ARMA article.  You also keep adding the statement that people who left ARMA in early 2009 did so "as a direct result" of people being expelled from ARMA in late 2008 - that is a lie.  Also, what is your issue in stating that ARMA expelled people in late 2008 for breaking its code of conduct?  Are you suggesting that there was some other reason?  Does insulting the entire ARMA membrship, threating the ARMA diretor and his family not consitutes breaking the code of conduct?  You also keep re-writing the section so as to suggest that these people being expelled and leaving had some kind of great negative impact upon ARMA - it absolutely did not.  These people leaving ARMA is not unlike people leaving a job - one day they are there and the next day it is like they were never there, life goes on.Ranp (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ranp, we're discussing this article, not any others.  Concerning the HEMA Alliance article, however, you'll notice that it contains 2 reliable third-party sources.  That's 2 more reliable sources than the ARMA article currently has, and it's a shorter and newer article.  I am not personally interested in promotion; I am not a member of the HEMA Alliance GC or BoD, and I personally stand to gain absolutely nothing via promotion of one HEMA group over another (apart from promoting my own personal school, which does not have a Wikipedia page).  I have a longstanding history of editing with neutrality in this article (going back many years).  If the "mass exodus" of several study groups who left ARMA in 2008/2009, some of which have stated that they have left "out of solidarity" with those who were expelled, why did they leave?  "Are you suggesting that there was some other reason?"  I have been told that individuals have been expelled for arguing with John Clements, or for practicing another martial art concurrently, among several other reasons.  The fact of the matter is that you haven't provided a single source, reliable or not, supporting your assertion that it was for breaking the ARMA code of conduct.  Not even an official ARMA publication on the event.  I do not know what kind of impact this movement had on ARMA, Ranp, and unless you have access to ARMA's official membership rolls and finance sheets, I somewhat doubt you fully know yourself.  Obviously, if the individuals who left weren't part of your study group, it would have a minimal impact on your personal study.  However, whether or not this event had a profound impact on ARMA, it definitely had a profound impact on the North American HEMA community (by its causing the HEMA Alliance).  For that reason alone it is notable and worth including.  The Jade Knight (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

text: that's cool. Now it just remains for us to remove all the content that goes beyond these five references and simply treats this page as an extension of ARMA's website. Also, sources shouldn't be hand-picked to be favourable. Any neutral article on ARMA will state that it is a pioneer group in HEMA, but that it is also highly problematic and virtually isolated in the community today. Instead, this page goes on about the etymology of arma and the group's "credo". This isn't encyclopedic, it is PR. I believe that there is can be no doubt on Ranp's WP:COI. It is Wikipedia's "credo" that such users step down and let others decide on questions of relevance and ecyclopedicity. They are still welcome to advise and to point out factual errors. --dab (𒁳) 08:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ranp seems to be systematically editing the page to remove content he disagrees with, and to (to a lesser extent) restore the removal of content he thinks should remain.  Consider the following series of revisions he did: diff.  Notice what Ranp considers 'unimportant information'.  The Jade Knight (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Problem of Sources 

message: This is a suggestion as to how this article could lose the  and  issues that have been plaguing it for years (and which were actively defended by WP:COI editors).
I suppose the ARMA is notable enough as an organisation to merit a standalone article. But the article must be encyclopedic. 
It only serves to ridicule the group if the article is written in a grandiose, self-conceited tone. 
I removed literary, ahem, gems, such as 
:In the same way that the Rosetta Stone provided the key to the modern understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs the new ARMA Rosetta Stone curriculum and longsword interpretations has provided a key to more fully understand the teaching of the historical master on other weapons.  The ARMA Rosetta Stone is basically serving as a grand unified theory in the recreation of the Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe.
I did keep trivial stuff like
:The uniform worn by members of the ARMA consists of a red T-shirt and black sweatpants
why such random detail is relevant for an encyclopedia article about the group is questionable, but at least it is phrased as a statement of fact instead of descending into an essay about the meaning of the colours red an d blue in Renaissance art and the Roman army. 
--dab (𒁳) 14:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Trying to fix this