Talk:Rapier

message: This article gives information on the length and breadth of a rapier, but how much does an average rapier weigh? Marksman45 07:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the source for the weights given in the article?  _Arms and Armour_ by Fliegel includes rapiers weighing as much as 1.5 kg (though some are much lighter).  There was certainly some variation.  The Jade Knight (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  weight? 

message: I came to this page whilst tying to find information on the UK Rapier surface to air missile (Rapier_missile).  Maybe some sort of "could also refer to" is needed?
Brainz42 08:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation? 

message: Although this might be more for the Capo Ferro page here on wikipedia, the most credible spellings that i can find and know all agree on the Capo Ferro spelling. 
Scans of Capo Ferro's original text I see no reason to dispute how he spelled his own name.
The Capo Ferro Translation Project
The recently published Italian Rapier Combat: Ridolfo Capo Ferro
While Capoferro may be a modern translation of his name, it would be more correct and returns the most correct results on google, to use Capo Ferro in the beginning of the article as it is used in the rest of the article and in the reference materials also linked to in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vectorb (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Capo Ferro is the 'modern' transcription of his name. Again, look here: http://www.viahup.com/index.php?title=Ridolfo_Capoferro
He spelled his own name as one word, as is apparent from Latinizations of his name, and references by other masters of the time. It wouldn't be more correct to spell it as two words, doing that just perpetuates an error made years ago by part of the English-speaking (and more importantly, Italian-ignorant) WMA community. Don't quote the title of a poor modern translation:
Italian Rapier Combat: Ridolfo Capo Ferro
Clearly the translator of that book had only the crudest of Italian skills--his translations are clunky at best and often times plain wrong. Yet, you'll take that over Jacopo Gelli's spelling? That is Gelli, who was a fencing historian and bibliographer who also happened to be a native Italian speaker? Do you read Italian well enough to make that judgement? Others who do side with Gelli.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marozzo (talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I dont call a reference to another questionable wiki page a strong reference, I don't deny that it could be either one. The main point is that this page reflect the best information. We should not have his name spelled two different ways on the same page. We can not change the reference books including his own original text. I see that you have added the name confusion to his wiki page and that makes sense and where the difference should be noted, however on this page I think that it should be listed to match the reference material that we can link to. Alternately I dont see any reason to discuss Capo Ferro's opinion of the rapier over any of the other masters anyway and we could just rewrite without him. How would you best reconcile the difference? It should not stay as it is. Vectorb 22:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the matter of his own original text, on the front page his name seems to be spelled as two words. However, is that a purposeful space, a mistake by the typesetter, or just "drift" of the characters? However if you look at his portrait, you see his name in Latin: Rodulphus Capoferrus. If his name was two words, the declension rules of Latin would mandate (I think) Rodulphus Caput Ferrus that is, there would have to be agreement of the case endings (even if 'caput' is not correct, 'capo' is clearly not correct in this case). Now disregarding Jared Kirby's translation and unpublished, amateur translations, we're left with Castle's spelling "Capo Ferro" and Gelli's spelling "Capoferro". In this case, I would have to side with Gelli since 1. he was a native Italian and 2. his book is far more complete in terms of a fencing bibliography. Now the only other books I can think of that might match these in terms of completeness are Thimm's fencing bibliography (of which I don't have a copy yet) and Sydney Anglo's The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe. However, Dr. Anglo also spells it as one word. Also, the original copies that the Library of Congress owns (they own three different editions) are listed as 'Capoferro' being the author. Finally, the modern spelling of the surname (it still exists in Italy) is 'Capoferro'.Marozzo 01:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capo Ferro vs Capoferro 

message: User 68.237.193.195 please stop saying that there are unbroken rapier traditions.  Although there have been a number of claims, not a single living person has ever produces a clear line back to one of the rapier masters.
Ranp 14:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, based on Jacopo Gelli, it appears that there is an unbroken line back to the Marcelli dynasty of the 1400s, which leads up to the program at SJSU, although this would have to be verified in other sources. However, even if it is true (and it does seem very likely that it is), it really doesn't mean that any of the techniques have survived intact (as any graduate of the program will admit)--certainly the program doesn't teach anything about the systems of swordsmanship used in the 1400 or 1500s. You can start to see the seeds of classical technique and pedagogy in the treatise of the late 1600s (especially Marcelli), but that is a far cry from legitimacy that some other schools claim to have. Clearly no "living rapier system" has existed for a few generations at best.Marozzo 16:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern practitioners

message: I relocated the image of the rapier from the first section to the opening, for better formatting. I hope nobody minds --DFRussia 04:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relocated image 

message: On the history page of this article the User 68.237.193.195 stated that "...an internet editorial by John Clements is not citable evidence. This looks to be free advertising for ARMA."  I want to point out that this article currently has two other references to Internet articles.  Plus, there is even a reference to a class hand-out by Tom Leoni.  Citing the article by John Clements is cleary within the standards used throughout this article.
User 68.237.193.195, you appear to have a personal issue with both John Clements and ARMA.  That's OK.  However, it is not ok to delete a section of an article just because you don't like the message or the messager.  By the way, who are you?
Ranp 19:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The internet essay that you link to cites absolutely no evidence, and as such represents the opinion of one man. This is fine for a forum or op-ed section--but it has no business being in an encyclopedia article. Your statement in the Modern Practioners section violates all three Wikipedia article policies: "No original research;" "Neutral point of view;" and "Verifiability." I do not care about the other links/references you mention, as they are not cited within the actual body of the article--only at the end under "External Links." Feel free to delete them or do whatever else you wish, if you think they violate Wikipedia policy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.193.195 (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As is clearly seen in the history of the article and in this discussion page your real issue is that you wanted to state that there are unbroken rapier traditions.  When you were called on this false claim you made a Staw Man out of the reference that was provided, using it as justification for deleting the whole section.  I have once again re-inserted the section but without the reference. There is no justification now for you to delete the section.  Please note that the statement "there are no unbroken traditions reaching back to the time when these arts were put into martial practice" is a negative, thus it does not require a reference.  If you want to state that there are unbroken rapier traditions then you MUST provide a clear reference to clear evidence.Ranp 21:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be looking at removing the other Internet references.  Since such references are a real issue for you, please feel free to help removing them.Ranp 21:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree about the unbroken rapier tradition. We can state this pretty clearly: let's say, for the sake of argument, that the lineage of the Marcelli line actually continues uninterrupted to the San Jose State University fencing program. Now this actually appears to be likely based on an entry for Marcelli in Jacopo Gelli's fencing bibliography. Even if this is true, it doesn't mean that anyone alive--even if he attains the Maestro certification from the SJSU program--has any direct technical knowledge of how to use the rapier (and pre-rapier, the Marcelli line goes all the way back to 1500). After all, the U.S. Marine Corps has a lineage over 200 years old, but there certainly is no unbroken tradition on using a muzzleloader or cutlass.Marozzo 00:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Given that the user Oglach98 (another nameless person) has not made a single contribution to Wikipedia I find it completely ridiculous for him/her to suggest that this article be deleted.  If I was to take a wild guess I would say that this is related to the "unbroken tradition" issue.  In any case, I am removing the Nominated for Deletion tag.  A Nominated for Deletion tag should only be added by someone with real authority on Wikipedia or someone who has at least made significant contributions to Wikipedia.  Ranp 17:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See guidelines in the deletion tag: "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oglach98 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oglach98, why don't you start by letting us know who you really are.  Why hide behind a an account that has made no contributions to Wikipedia?  Are you the same person as User 68.237.193.195?  Please tell us specifically why this article should be deleted? Ranp 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This nomination for deletion is completely bogus. Both sides of the issue (or multiple views) can be presented. However, the base position, that there is an unbroken tradition of rapier techniques is the one that needs to be supported with evidence--something that has never been presented. If those who claim that would provide some reasonable evidence, most of the community would be reasonably open-minded. The problem is that [b]no evidence[/b] has been presented other than the circular kind: "I'm a rapier master and I say the tradition exists and you have to believe me because I'm a rapier master." Even in the most extreme case, all references to living rapier traditions, pro and con, could be removed rather than just deleting the whole article.Marozzo 22:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominated for Deletion

message: This article was subject to an AfD debate. The result was speedy keep. J Milburn 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD notice 

message: The user Dingleberry1117 deleted very valid and important inforamtion from the article without explaining his actions.  That information has been re-inserted.  Given that Dingleberry1117 has not edited a single other article in Wikipedia it appears that his actions were nothing but another simple case of vandalism in which any reference to or by John Clements or ARMA are deleted without reason.Ranp (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism: Deletion of Information 

message: I've removed some critique of the description from the Description section.  I thought the comments were valid, but the way to fix the problem is to fix the problem with appropriate re-writes-- not to throw in some criticism mid-section. Beastiepaws (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Description

message: I noticed that "rapier" was misspelled as "raper" in most instances in this article.  This looked like obvious vandalism to me.  (Ha ha, raper, very funny... not.)  Just to be thorough, I checked with Google to see if "rapier" is ever commonly spelled "raper" and didn't find any evidence.  Also, the edit seems to have been made by an anonymous person who left no comment or explanation for the edit.  So I reverted "raper" back to "rapier".  I didn't change the word "raper" in a block of Latin text; I think that is correct.
Changing "rapier" to "raper" seems like the sort of vandalism that may be repeated.  Watch out for it in future. Steveha (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Raper" vs. "Rapier"

message: I removed L'Abbat from the list of rapier schools, as he's normally regarded as a smallsword master.87.210.0.196 (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  L'Abbat 

message: I purchased a cup rapier from the estate of a collector. Unfortunently all his wife new about the one I got was that he brought it back from Europe probably 50 years ago. The only marking I can find on it is at the base of the hilt just under the cup engraved into the sword is the forearm of a man holding up a christian gothic style cross in its fist. Is anyone familiar with this makers mark?
thx Cooper552012 11-8-12  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooper552012 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  rapier cup style sword 

message: This is blatantly false. Conventional metal armour persisted until the 19th century, as it was more than adequate against firearms until the advent of the conical bullet and even then was sufficient against small arms. During the renaissance it did get substantially lighter due to a change in tactics, and more often than not armour was reduced to just a helmet and cuirass, but it still persisted. The complete lack of truth behind this combined with the lack of citation makes me suspect this was just snuck in by somebody with no knowledge in the matter who wanted to insert their bullet-worshipping nonsense into an article that couldn't possibly justify it. 50.123.104.96 (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a common belief. I think it would be more accurate to say the rapier was a civilian sidearm, and would not normally be used against armor. I'll need to find a citation for this, though, unless editors are willing to replace an implausible, uncited statement, with a more plausible but still uncited statement?--Triskele Jim 15:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done away with medieval armour? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Rapier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928060939/http://www.salvatorfabris.com/BologneseIntroduction.pdf to http://www.salvatorfabris.com/BologneseIntroduction.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100330045310/http://www.chicagoswordplayguild.com:80/c/theTradition/bologneseswordsmanship.asp to http://www.chicagoswordplayguild.com/c/theTradition/BologneseSwordsmanship.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article needs to reference Bronze Age rapiers. Any mention of them is entirely omitted.
https://finds.org.uk/guides/bronzeage/objects/rapiers-and-dirks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.183.141 (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bronze age rapiers 

message: Does anyone actually use the term "espada ropera" in English?  I've never seen it used outside of discussions of the origin of the name, and I teach rapier fencing professionally.  The Jade Knight (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Espada Ropera 

message: Sword signed Madrid Hallmark looks like boar & 150 and tests for silver. Also personalized. 64.138.210.101 (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antique Spanish sword.