Talk:SCA Rapier Combat

message: 12/12/2005 - Authored a major revision of this article.  It is not my intention to censor or edit anyone else writing, but to expand and organize the information currently available.  I have made an effort to explain fencing to a non-SCA fencer for those readers that wish to contrast SCA fencing with other types of fencing.
* The article looks OK to me, I think you did a good job. -- Markspace 01:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: I'm not a reenactor of any sort, SCA or not, so I'm not 100% sure, but it appears the first reference in the "Criticism" section is directed more at SCA heavy fighting, rather than fencing.  It criticizes the SCA for forbidding strikes to the lower leg, which doesn't match the description of SCA fencing using the same targeting rules as sport epee. 71.192.119.21 (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like that part was edited out at some point.  However I too have concerns about the criticism section, and this has parallels on the main SCA article.  One is about Historical Accuracy.  The claim that the rules don't make it accurate or realistic enough rings hollow if you ask me.  Less accurate or realistic than what?  Olympic Fencing aka "one-on-one tag with a stick?"  If any fencing system were completely realistic what you would have there is actual bloodsport.  Even in the olden times these sword arts were actually used for fighting, they still had to practice them using safe equipment and rules.  I'm going to remove these criticisms, because they are at the very least unsourced and possibly WP:OR.128.231.63.96 (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like I was reverted, yet no one responded here.  Can we talk about this?  Just because I don't feel like signing up for a username doesn't mean I'm a troll.128.231.63.96 (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism is out there, and adequately referenced.  The fact that you (and, for that matter, I) don't agree with it is neither here nor there.  Beastiepaws (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's the thing, it's not referenced.  I am looking at the Criticism section right now and I only see one source.  And clicking through to that source, it makes no mention of the SCA whatsoever.  It's just about falling to a knee or sitting down to represent leg injuries, something not exclusive to the SCA.  It would be WP:Synthesis to use that as a source for this criticism.  The rest of the Criticism section contains no sourcing at all.  You and I both think the assertions are uncalled for, so I say WP:PROVEIT or cut it.128.231.63.96 (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism not warranted

message: While I had a hand in doing a fair bit of rewriting of this article, it occurs to me that this article seems way too long and mirrors the Manual it is derived from far too closely to make for a good encyclopedia article.  It's basically a rephrasing of the rulebook.  Are their any objections to a condensing and shortening this article to give better summary and overview?NicoloSt (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Condense the article?

message: The part about the marshal's intervening in the case of extreme rhino hiding is false. A marshal can ask something like 'my lord was that blow to the X not strong enough?' but cannot remove someone from a fight. There is only one kingdom in the SCA that allows active marshaling where a marshal can call a blow.(76.200.120.182 (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have adjusted the language to make this matter more clear.NicoloSt (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Marshals and Rhino-hiding

message: Someone who knows more about it than I do should add a section on the new peerage in the SCA for "fencing". 155.213.224.59 (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New peerage