Talk:Association for Renaissance Martial Arts/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

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)

Archive

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)

Controversy and Criticism

Since this was a rather hot topic in the past, I will personally start making note of any edits I do to this section, along with explanation of intent.

Today, frequent article editor 69.180.43.255 reinserted portions of text from a prior revision of this section. I edited them in an attempt to remove some NPOV and bias. Of course, I have my own bias, but believe that I did a fairly good job at leaving the intent of the statements intact - to show past events - while removing some of the overtly negative connotation and leaving behind simply the facts (some citations to prove they are facts wouldn't hurt). -- Xiliquiern 18:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the previous discussions have been archived I add the following so other readers will have some context of these discussions and some of the editing. Frequent article editor 69.180.43.255 is a young man from Atlanta who is faily new to Western Martial Arts (WMA) and who was was expelled from ARMA after only one week due to his bad behavior. Since being expelled from ARMA the young man has gone from one Internet fourm to another stalking and flaming ARMA, ARMA Director John Clements, and other ARMA members. All of the rumors, gossip, and lies which this young man likes to spread around actually originated several years before he even heard of WMA or ARMA. -- Ranp October 2, 2006 5:30 pm.

Sorry Mr. Pleasant, but you are out of line. Unless you can provide proof that backs up your assertions about the identity and the character of the poster, you are just spreading gossip to discredit criticism. Since gossip is exactly what you are complaining about, I would recommend that you provide better evidence for what you are saying or risk being called a hypocrite. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.180.221.45 (talk) .

The young man's identity was established in earlier disucssions. Look at the archived discussions and do a search for "Napoleon D.", which is how the young man is referred to within ARMA. By the way, who are you?Ranp October 6, 2006 5:00 pm.

I would like to second Ranp's desire for you to sign your posts. Please do so using the tilde key (~) four times in a row after your post. Also, if you think you may be making multiple contributions to Wikipedia, please register with a username- there's no reason not to join the community. -- Xiliquiern 03:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Why was the line "However, ARMA actually has an excellent safety record" removed? This is a true statement. As was stated in earlier discussions, citations cannot be provided because this is a neative - there are no medical records of people not getting hurt! -- Ranp October 2, 2006 5:30 pm.

"Excellent" is a value judgment and not provably factual. I personally witnessed J. Clements injure himself and one of his students after talking about the necessity for safety and control. Provide a factual claim rather than a value-based judgement and you may get more traction. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.180.221.45 (talk) .

John Clements' minor cut on his leg is again used to suggest that he and ARMA are unsafe. Yet, the statement truthfully says that it was a minor cut! What swordsmen has handles sharp swords for 25 years, as had John Clements, and not experienced a minor cut? How does this compare to the head instructor of the Chicago Swordplay Guild beaking his neck? How does this compare to a member of the Chicago Swordplay Guild almost losing an eye during dagger training because he was not wearing eye protection? How does this compare to an instructor of the Stoccata School of Defence sticking another instructor in the head with a sharp rapier? -- Ranp October 2, 2006 5:30 pm.

Mr. Clements has been repeatedly involved in injuring his students. In most of the other cases, the injuries happened in a student-to-student injury or a student-to-teacher injury. When a teacher repeatedly injures students, that is a cause for concern and worth noting. It certainly doesn't speak well of the teacher. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.180.221.45 (talk) .

Is there a published list of these injuries somewhere? A source citation is necessary, otherwise the claim is not verifiable. -- Xiliquiern 03:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally there is the statement, "...attempting to thrust his thumb into the eye of a man he had repeatedly failed to grapple at a seminar." This is actually a new version of a very old rumor. Notice that user 69.180.43.255 did not provide a citation for this statement. As we move forward with the editing of this article let us remember that regardless of how much we edit and clean up gossip, rumors, and lies it is still just gossip, rumors, and lies - and unfit for Wikipedia. -- Ranp October 2, 2006 5:30 pm.

It isn't a rumor if you witnessed it. Likewise, see your gossip comments above, apply them to your comments about 69.180.43.255, and take your own advice. They aren't appropriate to Wikipedia. Counter the argument itself and you'll have my attention. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.180.221.45 (talk) .

I understand that an entire "class" witnessed the event, and I assume you were a member of it. Are there links to any discussions of this event or was it published in any written journals or mentioned in any books? Also, what "class" was this - what organization or group, or was it a public demonstration? Name, date, time, and location would also help tracking down a citation. Without a source citation, the information is not verifiable. -- Xiliquiern 03:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Today, I edited a section of the criticism portion of the article to comply with Wikipedia regulations on biographies of living persons. Most importantly, "All unsourced and poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately."[1] Also, WP:BLP requires verifiability, using "high quality references". Under no circumstance should any information about Mr. Clements (or any other individual) be inserted into the article without simultaneous citation. Given the controversial nature of this topic, I and others are freed of the 3RR rule per WP:BLP in order to remove uncited "controversial material". -- Xiliquiern 02:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This morning user 68.219.3.61 reverted the changes made to the article back to the "old" one, totally neglecting my request for discussion or even provision of a reason. (S)he also reinserted the uncited text on Mr. Clements that was removed per Wikipedia guidelines. I have returned the text to the most recent version upon which greater consensus was reached. --Xiliquiern 12:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Today I removed the section about the Edge-on-Flat temporarily. There was no citation of criticism (its good to show who thinks this, and not simply state that someone does) in the section, and only citation of ARMA beliefs. There is also some discussion of the intent of this section, as seen below in the Update: Oct 18 section. When this is discussed and consensus is met, the section will be reinserted with proper criticism. This is being done to prevent the spread of misinformation of misintent. The text removed is below for archiving purposes. -- Xiliquiern 18:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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.[2] ARMA-affiliated sword expert Hank Reinhardt argues that archaeological evidence supporting edge-on-edge parries (concerning longswords and arming swords, primarily) is virtually nonexistent, and other historical manuscripts on swordplay instruction specifically warn against parrying edge-on-edge. [3]

This morning, the entire criticism section was reverted to the "old" version by an anonymous editor with no edit summary or discussion on the talk page. I have sent them a message via user talk and invited them to discuss any grievances here on the talk page and explained why I changed the article back to the most recent version. --Xiliquiern 18:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Table of Contents of Criticism

Current Structure: Oct 14

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)

Suggested New Structure: Oct 14

Here is my suggestion for a new structure of the criticism section. You may compare it to the one above. I have tried to retain as much relevant information as possible, but have removed several redundant items, or items that were contradictory without necessarily providing a point-counterpoint dialogue. Similarly, the list of discussions about edge-on-edge blocking has been removed - perhaps it should be it's own article someday, but I don't think a collection of links fit in context here.

--This information has been removed by the author to reduce the page size. Please see below for an updated version.--

There are a few clarifying questions I would like to ask:

• Have any of the individuals who claim a living lineage shown verifiable proof of such? If not, what proof do they give?
• The statement that ARMA "regularly" publishes articles attacking other schools may be a bit biased. One of the pages cited is undated, but old, according to ARMA affiliates, and the other is dated in 2000. Can a more recent succession of articles be provided? If not, I would say the word "regularly" is unfit and should be changed to reflect the apparrent irregular publication of these articles, or the criticism removed altogether as unverifiable.
• Is there a compiled list of injuries of ARMA members to be compared to a similar list of other martial arts organizations? If not, it may be difficult to verify the claim that ARMA members are injured more often than members of other martial arts organizations.
• One of the "criticisms" of Clements work includes this quote:

  "Despite these two weaknesses, I think the book is a valuable addition to any swordsman's library. The living history student should be braced for undiluted venom, but would also be well served to ignore the barbs and look at the technique itself, which is well presented and reasonably complete. This book is the first in what I hope will be more exhaustive studies of the medieval fechtbuchs. Presented in clear, concise English with easy-to-digest diagrams, anyone wanting to become a more skilled swordsman will benefit by studying this book."

  That certainly doesn't seem like criticism to me, and I wonder if this general praise should also be noted in the article?
• How much of the "edge-on-edge" and "rapiers can/can't cut" debate comes from a misunderstanding (or ignorance?) of the ARMA terms used: "cut-and-thrust sword" and "true rapier"? Everyone seems to understand that some rapiers could cut relatively well, and others couldn't, the different appears to be primarily in nomenclature. With no standard typology (the situation of rapier blade development appears to be so mired as to prevent such a system), ARMA appears to have developed its own rough form, incorporating "cut-and-thrust sword" and "true rapier" to distinguish between the two forms of swords (those that both cut and thrust, and those that only thrust with affect) that others collectively call "rapiers". Is this difference in nomenclature the cause for so much misunderstanding, debate, and criticism?
• Most importantly, how much rebuttle should be included? If the criticism is simply a list of criticism without any explanation, I think that it would certainly be POV, as it would be out of context. Similarly, I think if everything is simply blown off as a misconception, I also think that the section would be POV. I think a careful balance is necessary, and that proper citation of every allegation and rebuttle is necessary. If any claim is not verifiable, it should not be in the article.

Please respond. If there are no requests for a change, this new model will be adopted (I'm trying to be bold without stepping on too many peoples toes) on the 18th of October. I think that's enough time for any very interested parties to have their say. -- Xiliquiern 04:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Popping in; I'm keeping busy. I wish I had time to work on this article (I improved it so much, and then people went reverting all the improvements. Sigh). Anyway, your proposed structure looks much better than what we have, and you've been making some good points. Make sure you keep in mind WP:BLP, particularly the part on "biased or malicious content".

I think most of your objections look very valid, and need to be addressed or the article changed accordingly. Concerning rapiers, I quote what I said in the Archive:

I also find the criticism of ARMA's "position on rapiers" to be erroneous. From the ARMA website itself: "The various historical terms for rapier referred to a slender cut-and-thrust sword capable of limited slashing and slicing blows and equally suited to military or civilian use." Also: "As with any long bladed weapon, rapiers could always be used to strike a blow with the 'edge.'" It seems some straw men are being promulgated here.

And:

Having just looked over the ARMA article on Rapiers, John Clements makes a distinction between types of rapiers. What he defines as "true rapier" (in your quote) is the later rapier with a minimal blade that was, largely, an ineffective cutting weapon. Earlier rapiers, and rapiers designed with wider blades, were cutting weapons. I do not remember what Clements called these, but it was a term different than "true rapier". Clearly, this quote on the ARMA website is intended to be taken in context of the terminology it employs. As such, any argument against ARMA sparring rules involving "the rapier" in general would indeed appear to be straw man arguments here. Really, that ARMA would be criticized for its sparring conventions, particularly when they make sense given their assumed context, and particulraly within the ARMA method, hardly merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Furthermore, ARMA hardly emphasizes the rapier in training.

Also relevant but unrelated:

Generally, links to book reviews are inappropriate within a Wikipedia article in general, but particularly when the article in question isn't about a book.

I agree with you about the necessity of citations. I think we should remove anything that is controversial that lacks citation, personally. And I really think we should try to avoid citing message boards.

Thanks for working on this. Sorry I don't have time. Really, I wish they hadn't reverted in this spat so many of the things I worked on; many of your objections were my own… The Jade Knight 04:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

See also, and stick with WP:V as much as is possible. However, I think that anything that is uncontroversial can be left without a citation. The Jade Knight 05:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

First Text Draft: Oct 14

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.[4][5]

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)

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)

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)

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)

Per information on citations: "All unsourced and poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately." I am going to follow through with this and remove all unsourced notes of John Clements from my posts on this page. This will be reflected primarily in the outlines posted above. Similarly, any unsourced statements will be removed from the article. --Xiliquiern 02:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Second Text Draft: Oct 16

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

Relationship With Other Organizations ARMA has publicly provided evidence against "myths and misconceptions" held by some in the sport and historical fencing field[6][7], 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".[8] 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.[9] They designate fencing maestros who claim to teach a living Renaissance or Medieval martial tradition as "frauds and deceivers"[10][11]. 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.[12] 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 [13]. 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." [14] 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".[15] Some of this criticism has come in the form of harsh reviews of his published books by Maestros[16], instructors[17], 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) ISBN 1-891448-35-8, 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.[18]" (Medieval Swordsmanship) and "The most thorough work on historical European swordsmanship ever undertaken.[19]" (Renaissance swordsmanship). These claims have been criticized as "self-serving and egotistical"[20] 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."[21]

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)

Article Update: Oct 18

I have proceeded, as planned, to incorporate this revised text in place of the previous criticism section. During a final read-through I made a couple of minor copy-edit changes, most dealing with the addition of a single word or moving a line for clarity. I will provide an outline like the others here as a "First Published Draft". This incorporation took place shortly after 24:00 UCT (Coordinated Universal Time) October 18th. It is apparent that the criticism section is still very much in need of work, as there are many places noted as needing citation, and the whole section could do with a prose overhaul. And now, a question.

• Is there a standard length of time that something goes uncited (assuming it is tagged with a request) before it can simply be removed from a page as "uncitable"?

I would ask anyone to review and edit the new section, but I do ask that it not be reverted to the old version, or that new (old?) criticism is replaced without citations. Significant time was spent providing a more logical and rational section, and I would welcome comments here so that a discussion of any suggested changes could occur before another edit war starts up. A good deal of time was given for general "agreement" or "disagreement" to be expressed here on the talk page, though I understand some people may have simply missed it. I would ask that you please express discontent here without editing the main page. I gave you the courtesy of expressing yourself without immediately revising the article, and would ask the same respect in return, at least in regards to the criticism section. --Xiliquiern 00:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The edge-on-edge issue is not the result of "misunderstanding" between ARMA and other groups & organizations. It is the direct result of very different interpretations of historical manuals and documents and extreamely different applications of the interpretations. In other word, it is more than just ARMA saying edge-on-edge is bad and not histoical and other groups saying it is ok and histocial. It also has to do with the application of techniques, especially in how cuts are performed. The best way this can describe this is: Edge-on-edge is not just something ARMA does not do, rather it is something that just does not happen. Likewise, edge-on-edge is not just something other group do, rather it is something that just happens a lot. I hope that makes sense.Ranp 16:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This was a concern when I rewrote that section and I'm glad that you may be able to address it. Multiple editors provided a variety of unsourced statements criticizing and rebuttal-ling, so it was hard for me to know what's what. The way I meant 'misunderstanding' is that (supposedly) other organizations criticize ARMA for not thinking edge-on-edge parries existed with any weapon ever at any time. An example would be a classical fencing organization oriented entirely on rapier play thinking the ARMA method (for longsword/arming sword) was meant to apply to their rapier fencing as well. (This assumption was based on two statements included in the article listed below.) I understand that many different organizations have different interpretations of the fechtbucher, and that ARMA (and all the works I have ever read on swordsmanship) do not promote edge-to edge blocks with longsword (and like bladed weapons) at all. The inclusion of rapiers and other swords, as in these statements, confuses the issue somewhat:

• "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.

I didn't add either of those statements (I believe I did edit them lightly in the recent revision of the section), so I don't know what truth is held in them. Does ARMA believe (based on historic fact, etc) that edge-on-edge blocking was used with under these conditions? I really don't know, hence the fact templates. If you could answer this, I would more than happily rephrase the section to include something more to the note that:

• "The heated and lengthy debate on the use of edges in blocking has involved ARMA, as well as a number of other fencing organizations. ARMA, along with [other edge-to-flat organizations], currently does not find edge-to-edge blocking historical and instead finds edge-to-flat a proper manner of defense. ARMA claims this position on edge-to-flat matches the techniques described by the historical masters.(citation) ARMA-affiliated sword expert Hank Reinhardt argues that archaeological evidence supporting edge-on-edge parries (concerning longswords and arming swords, primarily) is virtually nonexistent, and other historical manuscripts on swordplay instruction specifically warn against parrying edge-on-edge.(citation) [Names of other organizations], however, refute this fact and purport that edge-to-edge is the historically correct geometry for blocking a blade."

Is this a more suitable explanation of the position of ARMA in the debate? Would it be worth the detail to provide ARMA views on rapier/falchion/backsword/broadsword/smallsword blocking if said position differs from their edge-to-flat for longsword? This may be a section that you would be particularly qualified to rewrite yourself, if you have time. If not, I'd be happy to work with you to get it right. I really don't know the whole situation of the debate, only the ARMA angle on longswords and similarly bladed swords, and am in the dark on what other organizations believe and any 'exceptions' that ARMA has for the general e-o-f rule. --Xiliquiern 16:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there is currently no citation of criticism of this portion of the article, I think it is fit to be temporarily removed. Again, the only citation in this portion is ARMA articles, and there is no citation of criticism from outside organizations. I would like to get the intent of the section correct, and gather more facts before providing misinformation or relying the wrong information about the same topic.--Xiliquiern 18:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Might be good to paste deleted text here, or in a subheader here on the talk page. Not that I disagree with your deletions. The Jade Knight 00:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it was copied into the Content and Criticism section above (I post any changes I make there "for the record") either moments before or moments after I made the deletion. Thanks for the heads-up though! --Xiliquiern 01:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You were correct to remove the section on the edge-on-edge issue. The edge-on-edge issue is not a criticism of ARMA, rather it is criticism by ARMA of other groups and organizations.Ranp 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

archiving

This page had grown over the recommended WP page length and was last archived on November 1, 2006. xiliquiern^talk 16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Content and Criticism

Citation Specifics: Nov 1

I will be adding an editor's note to each {{fact}} tag today, pointing to what I think needs to be cited. Hopefully this will point us in the right direction for getting the sources cited quickly or, if they are found to be unsubstantiated, removed. I will post a list here shortly, for "the record". -- xiliquiern^talk 15:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the list. Article fragments will be shown in bold, the editors note will be below it and indented. Feel free to discuss he validity of these notes, and, of course, add the citations to the page.

1. The ARMA’s focus on martialism (seen as more historical by ARMA practitioners) has been criticized by some other practitioners of Renaissance martial arts.

• This criticism needs a source. Please cite an article from a group or organization criticizing the martial element of ARMA.

2. Their criticism rests on a supposedly increased rate of injury among ARMA members in relation to other martial arts organizations.

• This criticism needs a source. Cite an article showing these statistics.

3. However, some instructors from other organizations...

• This criticism needs a source. Please cite an article from a group or organization criticizing the interpretation of rapier cut effectiveness of ARMA.

4. ... are critical of ARMA for not considering rapier cuts more incapacitating or lethal in its sparring rules claim that this introduces unrealistic artifacts to sparring, ultimately resulting in more grappling than might actually be reflected in a historic encounter.

• This criticism needs a source. Please cite an article from a group or organization explaining the effects of previously cited (#3) ARMA interpretation.

5. ARMA's position on the relative ineffective killing power of rapier cuts is partially based upon the fact that there is not a single historical record of anyone ever being killed by rapier cut!

• This explanation needs a source. Please provide an article showing that no deaths have been attributed solely to a rapier cut. (An article summarizing historical records would contain such information, I think.)

• A reference was added. See myth number 24, "True rapiers could make lethal or debilitating edge cuts".Ranp 16:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Your efforts are appreciated. - xiliquiern^talk 16:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Some of this criticism has come in the form of harsh reviews of his published books by Maestros[22], instructors[23], and researchers...

• This criticism needs citation. Please cite multiple examples from separate individuals for each: Maestros, instructors, and researchers.

• Should this sentence read some more like "...reviews of his published books by a Maestro and one of his students...".Ranp 09:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• It is certainly leaning in that direction. I've spent some serious time scouring the web via google and other search engine looking for published criticism, but can't seem to find anything outside what we already have for this specific statement. If no further citation can be found, I believe it should indeed be changed as you have suggested. It may also be removed altogether, as it would become redundant with the criticism from Maestro Martinez and Ken Mondschein (the Maestro and student I believe you reference) in the Literature section. - xiliquiern^talk 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I hope that the reviews are removed altogether. If not, since the ARMA Member-Published Literature section is not a sub-section of the Criticism section the reviews should be moved to the Criticism section. The Literature section should just list the books written by members of ARMA.Ranp 21:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• An interesting proposition, to be sure. The reviews are, after all, not really criticism of ARMA, nor are they really criticism of Mr. Clements as a representative of the group. Instead, they criticize two pieces of literature written by him and used by a variety of individuals. (As on criticism states: "...anyone wanting to become a more skilled swordsman will benefit by studying this book.") Since neither book has its own article, I don't know whether or not this is POV or properly relevant to this page. I hadn't ever thought of it like that. I think I'll browse around to see if any precedents have been set in similar situations. Anyone else have thoughts on the subject? -- xiliquiern^talk 22:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think they should be removed, as well. They may be appropriate as citations supporting some other argument, but should not be listed as "book review of…" A single book could possibly have hundreds of different reviews, and as this article isn't even about a book, no reviews should be listed (positive of negative). The Jade Knight 02:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, these are still (definitely) up for discussion as to their necessity and their specificity (I don't want to be pointing someone in the wrong direction for a source). Similarly, if we (or others) simply can't find sources of these, I think it fitting to at least discuss removing some of the criticism per WP:V. Thanks! --xiliquiern^talk 16:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So, just to check in. Has anyone found any citation for any of this criticism and simply forgot to add it to the article? I've continued to try, but haven't come up with much. - xiliquiern^Talk 16:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Citing out of existence

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. - xiliquiern^talk 00:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

This was precisely my reason for requesting the citation, but I think you explained it better than I. Thanks. - xiliquiern^talk 13:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• 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). - xiliquiern^talk 00:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Don't bother with the Fanbrat, it's obvious he's not coming back here again for fear of being proven wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.123.147 (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation Specifics Nov 6

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)

• 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. - xiliquiern^talk 13:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As for the citation that none of the Maestro's have shown a geneology, I have yet to see one anywhere publicly available, and, from my understanding, none have been given upon request to prospective students. That alone is not enough to cite the source, obviously. It is especially difficult to cite negatives, it seems. Does anyone know of a better way to phrase the statement in question so that citation may be made more possible?

Thanks for your time! - xiliquiern^talk 00:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

• 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. -xiliquiern^talk 03:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• 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. - xiliquiern^talk 03:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• 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. - xiliquiern^Talk 15:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

Uncited Criticism Removal Proposal

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. -xiliquiern^Talk 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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. -xiliquiern^Talk 00:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy section

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)

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)

Well. Let's look at it and see what we want done. Your point that this is an encyclopedia is important. Currently, we basically have:

• ARMA made claims against myths and misconceptions in the field, and received negative criticism, especially from those most targeted.
• ARMA made claims that no living lineage exists.
• ARMA called those who make the claims "frauds and deceivers".
• At least two modern schools claim to have such a lineage to Masaniello Parise, a 19th Century fencer, and, through him, back to an 18th Century man.
• John Clements takes some flak for his statements.
• His books are criticized by some in the community.

Now. How much of this is really worthy citeable criticism of the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts? I'd argue that non of it is Criticism. How much of it is worth mentioning? After taking a break from WP for quite some time - very little of it. The crux of the first portion hangs on a larger level: the living-lineage debate and is, in my opinion, not really a worthwhile addition to the article. IMHO, there are many pieces of this article that could be removed to make it more poignant. What do you all think? --xiliquiern^Talk 23:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

References

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)

Anonymous edits

Several of us have worked hard to improve this article—the changes that were made to the criticism section were discussed in particular, and most of us agreed that the article was significantly improved. If you want to include potentially defamatory material, you're going to have to discuss it here, and I highly recommend you register a username at Wikipedia. The Jade Knight 18:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

---

None of the information presented is defamation or more correctly libel.

[Mirriam-Webster] Libel: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

Stating that classical fencing masters have no living tradition is provably false and could be considered libel. I'm confused as to why it's acceptable to attack one group without factual basis, but providing quotes from cited reviews of books that clarify the criticism of the organization and author is considered "libel". The reviews and the opinions of the authors are factually presented even if the review itself is purely an opinion. (In other words, we can demonstrate factually that these people hold these opinions regardless of whether the opinions themselves are valid.)

The issue you have is with the opinions of the reviewers. These reviews express the opinion of the respective authors and their reviews of the ARMA texts are not libel anymore than Siskel and Ebert's movie reviews would be libel. If ARMA wants to be critical of others, then that opens them to the same criticism from others and demonstrating that is not inappropriate.

---

I should have expected as much when this article is little more than free advertisment space for ARMA. It's been noted above the citations have been through a process of erosion and removal and this looks par for the course. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.182.3.237 (talk • contribs).

Also, you may notice, that the individual that made that claim did not back it up. The only information that was removed was information found to be, by agreement of more than a pair of editors or by no response, on the issue unsuitable content (irrelevant, unnecessarily detailed, or personal attacks without citation), sources that were not reputable or verifiable (as required by WP guidelines), and information that was not even on the topic (related, but not really an important element and not 'encyclopedic' - the edge on flat debate, for instance).

As a part of wikipedia, this article should be reviewed and changed over time. And it was. If it was changed in an incorrect or unsuitable manner, bring up specifics (as was done during the prior change) and garner support for your opinion. If you make reasonable supported arguments for the inclusion of anything, there is no reason at all it shouldn't be in the article. You may not that, "above", a similar invitation was given to the individual who claimed that the article was being "cited out of existence", but there was no response.

As others have said, please register a WP username. This lets us identify you amongst others, while numbers are easily confused. And please, sign your edits on the talk page by typing 4 tildes (~) in a row without spaces. This will let everyone know what you have contributed.

-xiliquiern^Talk 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The uncited sentence you mention claiming that the other maestros have no lineage, is, I agree, troublesome—as it does not mention any individual in particular, it is not libelous, however. That said, if a citation cannot be found for it, I think it should be removed.

Agreeing with Xiliquiern, however, you need to understand that Amazon reviews are not considered acceptable sources in an encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information on the kinds of sources that are considered reliable. The Jade Knight 00:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And, FYI, the 18th century (1700s) is not part of the Renaissance. The Jade Knight 00:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Jade Knight, I just want to be clear. It's your position that the Italian fencing tradition that started with Fiore, continued through Vadi, Manciolino, Marrozzo, Agrippa, Di Grassi, Fabris, Giganti, and Alfieri is completely unrelated to Parise unless a master-to-master lineage is demonstratable? Is that correct? That's your position even though all factual evidence points to the contrary?

Maybe aliens showed up in Naples and taught them fencing that was strangely similar to all the fencing used before, with the same terminology, but was actually in no way related! Maybe it's Intelligent Design applied to fencing? God made them fence that way?

It's your belief that the classical Italian tradition appeared out of nowhere? It's your position that classical Italian fencing is in no way a part of the living tradition of Italian swordplay? Because at the point you admit that it **might** be, your argument collapses.

Even then, the motivation for making such a statement is entirely suspect. It's a weak and self-serving argument and you know it. It is a convenient straw man argument to divert attention away from the documentable fact that Clements has no instruction within the Italian tradition. He's at best an amateur passing himself off as a guru without any teaching credentials and trying to raise his own status by casting doubt on people with legitmate certification. There are plenty of talented amateur instructors out there teaching great fencing, but none of them employs the same forms of venomous personal attacks that Clements has become known for.

The real issue is the need to drag down others to prop-up Clements. It's a damn shame because if ARMA had a few less monkeys at the top of the tree, they might be taken seriously as an organization. There are plenty of ARMA practitioners that are good people, but until ARMA regains the confidence of the rest of the community, they will continue to be pariahs. When Clements (and his attitude, and his safety record) is gone, that may happen.

Xiliq, What I see is you and two other ARMA members writing an advertisement for the organization. Maybe that's not what your intention is, but don't even try to paint a picture of neutral consensus. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.182.3.237 (talk • contribs).

Please stop using so many hard rules—it clutters up the talk page.

And it's fascinating that you're digging up all these straw men and saying they're "my" argument—I've made no such arguments.

Furthermore, I am not an ARMA member (though I believe Ranp and Xiliquiern are). Anyway, if you have something documented with reliable sources that is relevant and improves the article, feel free to contribute it. And please register a username. The Jade Knight 21:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting off topic but I feel I must respond. Given that ARMA is the largest organization in the world focused upon the reconstruction of Medieval and Renaissance fighting arts as true martial arts it is silly of you to suggest that ARMA should be seeking the confidence of those groups who members are still running around in milti-colored stocking engaging in role-playing, sword-tag, and edge-hacking. What ARMA does as an organization is completely different from what those other groups do - ARMA does not seek their confidence! If you are interested in safety records I would suggest talking to those organizations who's members have suffered a broken neck, a practice daggers in the eye, a hit in the head with a rapier, rather than wasting you time with ARMA, which has probably the best safety record in WMA. Will these silly flames never end? Ranp 16:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for Deletion

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)

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)

Citations needed for subjective statements

I disagree with the proposal to delete the page entirely, as ARMA has contributed to the WMA community in its own particular way.

However, as currently worded, large sections of the page read more like an advertisement for the club than as a factual representation of the organization. I have added "citation needed" to those statements (or paragraphs) most in need of such clarification. If, in a month's time, those statements have been neither supported nor made more objective, I will remove or reword the statements. Mondnacht 01:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)— Mondnacht (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think the "citation needed" tags currently do nothing but clutter the page. While references do need to be provided, the label at the top of the page covers this. Instead of flagging everything, I encourage you to go out and attempt to find the necessary citations, modifying statements where necessary. The Jade Knight 02:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what's good for the goose is good for the gander Jade Knight. The ARMA guys have been pulling "uncited" criticism from the article religiously. It's only fair that the rest of the article be likewise subjected to xiliquiern's suggestion. Senior_Montante 3 March 2007 — Senior_Montante (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Interesting opinion. I'm starting to worry that there's some sock puppetry going on here. The Jade Knight 06:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If either of you who have recently taken interest in this article are truly interested in improving it, I highly recommend you search out some reliable sources with information on ARMA that could replace the text here. If certain things simply need to be rephrased to be more neutral, be bold and make the changes yourselves. As it is, all the {{fact}} tags seem somewhat silly—it's doubtful that ARMA grew quickly, for example? I would recommend using a {{not verified}} tag on sections you thing are particularly dubious, than all the fact tags. The Jade Knight 07:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Even more interesting considering that you've been asking anonymous posters to register usernames. When you actually succeed, you cry foul. Relax, just as you notified xiliquiern on his talk page that someone edited the ARMA page, word has gotten out about this "encylopedia article". Other people are taking an intereset. You've been pretty happy leaving all the propaganda in there. How do I know that you xiliquiern, and Randall Pleasant aren't all the same person? Senior_Montante 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you User:204.182.3.237, then? Please remember to assume good faith—I just found the sudden appearance of two brand new user accounts to support the views of this anonymous user somewhat surprising (suspicious) after consensus had been reached with established users in other ways. Perhaps it would have been less suspicious if you had mentioned that you were said anonymous user? It also might help if you (assuming you are said user) declared that your account is a sockpuppet of 204.182.3.237's other account—if you're not doing anything suspicious, transparency is generally the best policy. The Jade Knight 09:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to reemphasize what I said about you improving the article yourself. If you would like to decline to, I'll replace the {{fact}} tags with the more appropriate (in this case) {{not verified}} tag shortly. The Jade Knight 09:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I left Wikipedia was because of stuff like this. Minor, petty accusations (or nearly that) and arguments over little tiny relatively inconsequential details. It's also important to remember - this is just Wikipedia. We aren't writing the ultimate record of mankind's knowledge, news, and activities - at least not until significant changes are made to the system, anyway.

Now, as we all know, there are some rules to wikipedia, some of which are spoken more than others. For instance, WP articles are ideally to be cited thoroughly. Statements should simply be supported with information so that they are not blind claims. That applies to this article as well, as far as I'm concerned. The "citation war" on the criticism section began for just that reason, and occurred there first as it was a form of attack on the organization - individuals had posted un-cited and un-citeable information for the sole purpose of discrediting the group. And that's not what Wikipedia is about.

As the criticism section stands, I still think elements of it are somewhat...outside the realm of the article. However, they will be left in until there is standing consensus to remove them.

Also, it should be said, as Jade Knight recommended, that those of you posting the citation requests in the article in an effort to improve its accuracy and credibility should take some time to look for the information. When I posted citation requests in the criticism section, I spent hours reading through websites and forums looking for a respectable source that could be cited. All I found were indirect "I heard from a friend's friend's brother..." stories and criticism of the books by Clements- the first not suitable for citing a source on here, and the second already present and cited. I also asked others, I believe, to do the same, but no-one could come up with much. So, as I've asked individuals before, let's work together on this. Let's not alienate ourselves from one another, call each other names, or teeter on the edge of accusation and personal attack. Let's go about this is a real and factual manner, meaning that we should all be serious about citing sources and discussing edits when necessary. --Xiliquiern 16:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Over the past couple of days I've added a fair number of citations and reworded sections of the article for specificity. Hopefully, others will pitch in to help things along. Specifically, I'm not familiar with the HACA and those goings-on. If someone more acquainted with the data would step in and cite the sections in that portion, I think we'd all be grateful! -Xiliquiern 03:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You've done some great work on this article, Xiliquiern. I really appreciate your contributions. The Jade Knight 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is my first post to any Wikipedia article. I was looking up "Martial arts Europe" and found the wiki-article. The bottom of the article mentioned the "ARMA" organization, and I clicked on it. After looking through the ARMA article, I find that the article is under contention and from the various postings in here, it would appear that people involved in the organization are editing the article. It is my belief that this article has been poisoned by the members of ARMA, and the haters of ARMA, and should therefore be deleted. I do not care about what someone's opinion is. I just want facts. The article should say this:

The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts (ARMA), is an international organization dedicated to the study and practice of historical fencing. It also focuses on the promotion of information about the European Martial Heritage and the European fighting arts, arms, and armor of the 14th to 17th centuries.

This is all that needs to be said. From that statement, I know the basic idea of the organization. If one wants more information, they can visit the official site. I am not a hater of ARMA, or a supporter of them. I am a hater of idiots bitching about the truthiness of the "opinions" on a wikipedia article. I am a hater of people pushing their own agenda. Put facts pertinent about the organization as a whole, not just about one guy, and be done with it. You could say it who it was founded by, unless that is in contention as well. I will second the deletion of the article. I think that all the bitching should end. Delete the current ARMA article, and re-create it with the organization's mission, put a link to their site and be done with it. No advertisements, no opinions, just truth.

I can't believe that I cared enough to create an account, just so I could play parent to a bunch of people writing/editing an article that I could care less about. Bryan.Brake 22:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Bryan. I think substantial portions of this article should probably deleted if citations cannot be found, but not so much as you seem to suggest. I recommend you try to make helpful edits where you can, but one of the aims of Wikipedia is to provide as much relevant information as possible, and you're likely to upset a lot of people if you go around removing 90% of the content in articles. I applaud your self-control in having avoided doing so here. The Jade Knight 00:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ARMA InTheatre

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)

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)

Indeed, perhaps mention both the ARMA Youth and the ARMA InTheatre sections in the curriculum area? --Xiliquiern 00:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation Clarification

I am unsure about the following citation request:

• "The ARMA Study Approach consists of researching period fighting manuals, literature and iconography combined with comparative analysis from hands-on experience using accurate[citation needed] replica arms and armor."

Is the request asking for citation/source that the replica arms and armor are accurate, or that the ARMA uses them? -Xiliquiern 20:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, citations belong at the end of the sentences. So anything that can verify the sentence as a whole is good. The Jade Knight 02:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think in this case, the problem is the word "accurate" which is debatable. See the "true" rapier discussion previously. - Parry_4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parry_4 (talk • contribs)

Well, the ARMA uses 'stock' training weapons from companies like New Stirling Arms (wasters), Albion Swords (blunts and sharps), and Arms and Armour as well as other vendors for their weaponry. As far as I know, these sort of vendors are also used by just about every other HEMA organization, so there is nothing inherently more inaccurate about the ARMA's choice of weaponry than any other organization. It's not as if ARMA has smiths within the organization custom making strange weapon forms just for ARMA use. As noted in the "true" rapier debate, however, ARMA has decided to subdivide rapier training into two primary regions - the rapiers that are well-edged and prone to capable cuts, and those that are less edged and less capable in cutting action, both of which existed historically and undoubtedly coexisted.

If there is still a desire to bring about criticism of the ARMA technique in teaching rapier combat rather than the actual equipment used, which is, as I stated, essentially the 'industry standard' that many other groups use, that information should go in the criticism section with a cited source. This phrase, however, deals with either the state of the replica arms and armour as accurate (in which case we can only the designers of the weaponry such as Paul Champagne or Peter Johnsson), or the use of replica arms and armour. -Xiliquiern 17:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Try to avoid picking a fight where none exists. You asked a direct question and got a direct answer. The word "accurate" is a subjective and qualitative term and by your own admission, ARMA uses the same tools everyone else uses. If you drop the word "accurate" you eliminate a value judgment and the issue goes away. - Parry_4 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parry 4 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC).— Parry_4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I apologize for any perceived ill intent - there was none meant at all. Please note that I did not say 'everyone'. There are a few organizations that use training tools that many other organizations, often including ARMA, deem unsuitable. An example includes the Japanese shinai which is too short, too light, and unbalanced, in comparison to a longsword. It is also unedged, making edge alignment difficult to interpret. Despite these notions, some groups use shinai in longsword fencing. All the statement concludes is that ARMA puts importance on accuracy, which the cited reference (and many other references on the ARMA site) confirms. It does not say that others don't work in an accurate manner or that others are wrong in their pursuits, so I struggle to see the issue. Perhaps the term should be operationally defined? -Xiliquiern 20:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If the word "accurate" is going to be used, you need to support that with evidence. Who says that your weapon simulators are acccurate? What evidence do you have that shows this? (The writer's old maxim: "Don't tell me. Show me.") Keep in mind, I'm not trying to push your buttons, but if you have a citation or an alternative phrasing, you should use it.

• "The ARMA Study Approach consists of researching period fighting manuals, literature and iconography combined with comparative analysis from hands-on experience using replica arms and armor."

This revised sentence eliminates the problem. - Parry_4 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.182.3.237 (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Please keep in mind that John Clements is one of the leading sword experts in the world! For the last twenty years Clements has researched swords and arms in 10 countries. Clements has probably held and examine more historical swords than all of the other WMA instructors put together. Plus, Clements consults with other leading sword experts around the world. John Clements knows as well as any other person in the world if a weapon simulator is acccurate! Ranp 23:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense, and was what I had asked originally. We are looking for sources noting the authenticity and accuracy of WMA training gear. In that case, I can think of a few possible sources.

1) MyArmoury is an online collectors and, to some extent, WMA "hangout" that reviews a wide number of available products giving honest and earnest opinions. Of course, with the hundreds of different tools in use, it would be difficult, using this method, to pin down the accuracy of the weapons in general, but would allow more in depth notes on them.

2) The manufacturers themselves. Often the manufacturers claim historical accuracy and research. Some talk more about it than others (Albion Swords, for instance, has a number of pages detailing the process of measuring originals, the handling of originals, and then the construction based strongly on these originals).

3) Individual reviews - a number of individuals, some training in WMA and others not, make note of some brands and provide public feedback like this. As you can see, a few individuals from MA organizations approve of the product as being, essentially, accurate.

4) Expert consultations. There are a number of reviews and editorials (of sorts) on the ARMA page wherein a leading authority on swords (mostly Smiths, I believe, including Paul Champagne and Peter Johnsson, and (I believe) the late Ewart Oakeshott) that provide information about 'what a sword was', what is accurate, what isn't, etc.

5) It may also be of note, though indirectly, that ARMA has started group "sword fund" for the purpose of purchasing original weapons so that contributors may be able to handle the 'real deal'. It doesn't get much more accurate than that, but again, this would not be a widely used training device.

I think we must keep the word "accurate" in the sentence because it makes clear that ARMA uses arms that are very close to what was used historically. Removing the word "accurate" could leave readers to believe that ARMA uses round sticks like the SCA or heavy rebated swords like stage actors. One only has to compare an Albion sword to a Starfire sword to understand why it is important to say ARMA uses only "accurate" arms. Removing the word ""accurate" changes the accuracy of the sentence. Ranp 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think any of those, or a combination of the above, would be beneficial in citing this? I don't think dropping the word is wise - accuracy is an integral part not only of ARMA, but of other WMA groups. To leave it out altogether, I think, would be quite an error. -Xiliquiern 22:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that as far as I know ARMA doesn't regulate it's training weapons. Last I saw, they were using padded swords in some cases, wasters in others, sometimes schlagers, and other times del tins, or anything else. While some of those are more accurate than a fencing foil or a shinai, I wouldn't call a schlager, waster, or padded sword demonstratably "accurate". (That's another discussion entirely.) You might be able to argue that **some** of the tools "are accurate according to these sources". You could argue that evidence exists that similar tools were used for training by the original practitioners, but even a blunted steel longsword isn't completely accurate. Afterall, it's blunt. - Parry_4 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.182.3.237 (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

That is like saying that a short sword is not completely accurate because it's short. If one is trying to replicate blunted weapons, one must use blunted weapons. There are also the legal rammifications of using bladed weapons in sparring. The Jade Knight 02:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Then you should make a distinction between replica training weapons and replica weapons.

"The ARMA Study Approach consists of researching period fighting manuals, literature and iconography combined with comparative analysis from hands-on experience using replica training weapons and armor."

If you have documentation for the replicas you might restate like this:

"The ARMA Study Approach consists of researching period fighting manuals, literature and iconography combined with comparative analysis from hands-on experience using documented replica training weapons and armor."

You can show your documentation and let the reader decide what is "accurate". That should be fair. On a side note, Mr. Pleasant, you do more to hurt your own argument than anyone I've ever met. Neither you nor your organization will ever get any academic respect by stomping your foot and demanding it. That might work within your own hierarchy (I honestly don't know), but out in the real world, you need to support your statements with proof. There's no such thing as papal infallibility in the world of martial arts. -Parry_4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.182.3.237 (talk • contribs)

Really? Although way off topic I again feel I need to reply to this silliness. It is enlightening to learn that ARMA's respect in the academic world, and I guess the rest of the world too, depends upon your opinion? Since you haven't noticed I need to point out to you that ARMA's respect in the academic world is reflected in its list of consultants, which includes Dr. Sydney Anglo. As for ARMA's respect in the real world (is that different from the academic world?) I should point out that people like Matt Larsen, the Director U.S. Army Combatives Program and the author of FM 3-25.150, consults with John Clements, which suggest that Larsen has some respect for ARMA (Larsen is about as real world as one can get). I would also think that teaching classes in 10+ countries of the world also indicates some respect in the real world. Ranp 20:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think both of you need to calm down a little—Parry_4, there's no need for personal attacks, and Ranp, try not to get too worked up over this issue. Let's work on improving the article, and set personal differences aside—it is clear that neither of you are going to see eye to eye on the significance or historicity of ARMA. The Jade Knight 22:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the sentence slightly so as to make it a direct quote and corrected the reference. The quote is what ARMA says about itself. Using this quote in an article about ARMA does not in any way bring up an issue about how accurate those arms really are. But just in case there is still any confusion, the quote means that ARMA uses wasters rather than the round sticks like the SCA, it means that ARMA uses blunts from Albion rather than the heavy thick rebatted swords from vendors such as Starfire, and it means that ARMA uses sharps from Albion whenever possible. Ranp 20:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

The following portions of the article need attention

The Weasel Words tag has been added to the article.

• Some scholars feel that the HACA’s contribution to the Medieval and Renaissance martials arts was significant and its influence notable.

(Who are the scholars who say it?)

• Many of its innovations have also become standard for enthusiasts and practitioners. Throughout the 1990s, the HACA was one of the leading organisations in the revival of Medieval and Renaissance fighting skills.

(According to whom?)

• Along with other advances in this subject, Dr. Anglo's research, which itself has been influenced from the HACA’s efforts, has, some have argued, changed the face of the emerging field of historical fencing studies and had a profound impact on the subject.[citation needed]

(Who are the people who say it?)

Are you suggesting that Dr. Anglo's research has not had a profound impact? If that is the case then please start reading, you have a lot of catching up to do! Anyway, I have cited two reviews noting the impact of Anglo's book. One review is by John Clements and the other review is by Greg Mele, both of these men are highly respected researchers and instructors of Medieval and Renaissance swordsmenship.Ranp 15:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Where many organizations emphasize the differences between each master’s writings, the ARMA focuses more holistically on the similarities, using the differences in description to illuminate subtleties in the techniques.

(What organizations are you referring to? This looks like a vague ad hominem attack without any support.)

ad hominem? How can it be "ad hominem" when no one has been named? Pointing out a difference between ARMA and other groups is not an attack on those other groups or their members. All most all other groups are focused on either Fiore or Liechtenauer, but not both.Ranp 18:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• ARMA has publicly provided evidence against "myths and misconceptions" held by some in the sport and historical fencing fields[11][12], 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".[13]

(Who are these "some in the sport and historical fencing field" who hold "myths and misconceptions"? This appears to be a vague ad hominem attack without any supporting evidence.)

Two articles are cited! Try reading the article!Ranp 15:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Randall, the problem with the cited articles is that they don't actually name any groups or individuals, or provide any actual examples of the said myths. Now I assume that the leg wounds article is mostly addressing the SCA, who are known for fighting from their knees and not targeting the lower legs, but how is the ordinary reader supposed to know that? All they get from the link is vague intimations that somebody, somewhere thinks fighting from the knees is realistic. The other cited article is even less specific.

Ideally, to cite a myth/misconception you should link to an actual case of someone stating that myth - e.g. an article stating that swords weighed 30 lbs - and then to a rebuttal article, or to an article that gives the source of the misconception as well as a rebuttal. Otherwise the reader has no way of knowing that the articles are actually addressing a real argument, rather than knocking down straw men. Megalophias 17:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with ARMA talking about themselves, but that doesn't extend to weasel words and ad hominem attacks. Keep the rants on the ARMA site and away from the encyclopedia.

~Parry_4 May 1, 2007

Once again we have another shadow editor who has come to set things right in the ARMA. Like so many others, you don't use your real name. I note that so far you have only edited an SCA article and the ARMA article. Might we assume that you are/were a member of the SCA? Anyway, I edited one of the sentences you were having problems with and removed the weasel tag. I also removed from cite requests since there is nothing that can be cite - there are no history books on the reconstruction of WMA! If anything that history is being writting here on Wikipedia! We could handle the second weasel tag in the Controversy and Criticism section just by removing that section. Good idea?Ranp 18:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

An effort should be made to eliminate the weasel words and replace them with more specific information. Also, remember to avoid original research on Wikipedia; you may find many citations about ARMA methods and practices on the ARMA website, itself. The Jade Knight 12:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Jade Knight, the requested cites have been added to the ARMA article and some sentences have been re-worded so as to be completely clear. Please look over the changes I have made and remove the weasel tag as there is no longer any justification for it.Ranp 15:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)