Image talk:Daggers.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• The image in the dagger article is very nice! Could you inform me of its source? I'm interested because I'm considering to use it in a project and want to make sure the license is valid. 213.112.213.228 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

=> This image is a compilation of different public domain (non copyrighted) dagger images on the web. Each image has been resized, rotated to face in the same direction and changed in color and lighting. This makes the collection an original piece of art which I have released into public domain. Iancarter 18:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Wonderful, great work! I'll be sure to credit you if I use it. Thanks for taking the time to answer. 213.112.213.228 20:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC

• Picture Deleted It was just aweful--it's a picture taken out of a fantasy wall-hanger website. None of the daggers shown is historical or functional.

• Picture Restored This may be your opinion but not a fact. The picture shows a variety of blades and shafts - if you have something equivalent or better please post it, otherwise refrain from deleting things that prevailed many revisions without discussion. If you have proof of your "fantasy wall-hanger website" theory - I would like to see that - it is my compilation and work. (and please be so polite as to log in next time) Thank you.

Also: most of them are in fact historical (bronze age, roman, arabic, ceremonial, german, army ...). I admit there are also quite a few decorative daggers - but that still makes them daggers.

If more people comment on this, I can always modify and update the graphic (take out or add). Iancarter

This is not an opinion, really. Find the webpage of a museum and look at the daggers section. None of the daggers in the image deleted is periodical or functional.

If you would have the expertise you claim to have you would: (a) log in (b) be able to spot the historic ones (c) accept the fact that some daggers are indeed decorative. Iancarter 23:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked into the pictures again, and still can't see how do you derive your conclusion that most of them are in fact historical. I can see the first three, plus the two modern knives with black grips immediately after, as functional pieces, but too many others are outright suspect. To give a few concrete examples, there is a kukris. One of the problem is the classification of the weapon. Then, even for a knife sized specimen the curve and broadness of the blade are still weird. After that there are the three daggers in the center of the upper roll, which are suspect because the grips' are either too short or have strange protrusions in mid length, making them awkward to grasp. The 4th dagger at the upper roll from the left is also wierd, b/c I have never seen a handguard and hilt like that on a European piece. The Jambya's blade is also alittle odd, since historical examples have a longer and relatively straight blade that comes to a radical curve nearing the point. The ones that are very curved throughout usually has a much broader blade. The lower roll is the more problmeatic. The most glaring wallhanger is the 8th from the right at the center. It has an pummel seen only on Irish long swords and a hefty handguard, but a tiny blade. The lower second from the left also has strange handguard and pummel. There are plenty of medieval SWORDS have curved handguards, but none at this particular fashion. The pummel is even stranger. As far as I know none of this design has ever been recorded before. The third one also is a wallhanger, because it has a leaf blade, an impossibily awakward grip, and steel construction. I have never heard a leaf blade design is used on anything other than short swords. The same could be said about #5. I have never seen a handguard like that out of a wallhanger piece. #10, the stilleto, has a grip that is purely decorative. There are many engraved specimen, but I haven't seen one so dramatic a grip. It looks like tear drops linked togther. How is one supposed to even hold this thing? A stilleto is also supposed to have a needle like blade that tappers sharply. This one's tappering angle is instead very blunt and in fact is thickest at its mid section, unconductive for stabbing to say the least. The stilleto also should have typically a diamond or triangular cross section. This one has two blades, inspite of its neglegible mass in cutting. If #11 is a dirk, then it gets the dirk wrong, since dirks don't have saw teeth. #12, the parrying dagger, again, have overly dramatic curvature in its handguard, which, preisting along the entire length of the handgaurd, turns into the grip's direction. Real parrying dagger's handguards are rounded out ninety degrees turns. #13, the Japanese off hand sword, is strangely porportioned. #14 also looks like a wallhanger to me. The wavy pattern blade seems an unfaithful copy of the ceremonial kris, a Polynesian design I believe, married to a European hilt and guard. Such a blade can neither cut or stabb. Without the slightest intention to offend, I must question you where did you get this photograph? Can you proof the possitive that they are 'in fact' faithful reproductions of historical exmpals? It's a million subtle differences with real pieces that is ticking me off. To illustrate my point, http://www.armor.com/daggers.html

although you did not log in again - I believe there is no doubt that you have some expertise. All I did was collect non-copyrighted web images titled "dagger" assuming they were labeled correctly. My main point as an amateur on daggers is that this article/picture does not claim to be restricted to functional daggers. If however you spot SHORT-SWORDS or other subtle details that are not obvious to non-experts please tell me the exact #'s of the items that annoy you most and I will update the image. Iancarter 19:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Lol, expertise is an overstatement. Lower #4, 9, 10 are most problematic. Thanks for listening.

updated it based on your input. --Iancarter 23:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about reviving an old discussion, but I have to repeat the anonymous poster's objections. I assume that the image I'm viewing (as of 04/12/2006) is already updated as you, Iancarter, say. There are however still many problem matic daggers in the picture, including some already mentioned by the anonymous poster. To name a few:

-#1 top-left: this is clearly a stone age stone tool. By definition it does not hold a real edge and cannot be called a dagger. It also looks suspiciously like a spearhead rather than a short tool.

-#10-#13 top row: I can't find any historical daggers like these highly ornate ones. They look much more like fantastical modern recreations rather.

-#17&#18 top row: these daggers' pummel look very suspect. They both look too substantial to be dagger pummels; they look more like sword pummels. The blades are problematic as well: #17 is strangely coloured, especially comparing to the shiny grip. Whereas #18's blade has a strange oval shaped blade that I have not seen anywhere.

-#21 top, rightmost: You can spot a swastika on the hilt of this dagger, but reversed. Either that means you reversed the image yourself in your editing or it was made that way to circumvent some countries' censorship. If the latter, that makes the image inauthentic anyway. And in any case I haven't seen any Nazi knives similar to the design shown here.

-#1&#2,#4-#6,#8 bottom row: these are obviously grips and hilts of swords (such as arming sword, claymore, etc.) These combination of sword hilts and short blade is not only unhistorical, they would also make very unwieldy daggers.

-#10&#11 bottom row: aside from the fact that I have not seen designs like these, I have also not seen anything like these. Both of these daggers' blades are highly unusual. #10 seems to have a semi-cylindrical wasp form toward the chappe. #11 has only one side of the foible sharpened, and in a very drastic form that looks very modern. It also looks like it has a serrated edge on the backside, although that could be a graphic artifact. The grip of both of these daggers are troublesome as well. #10's hilt is blue-tinted; either it's a photographic artifact or it's a modern material. The grip of #11 is also very strange and I have never seen anything close.

-#13 bottom row is clearly a design based loosely on the Japanese kodachi or tanto, and highly inauthentic one as that. Please see their articles for detail.

-#9 top and #14 bottom: these are creative reinterpretation of the Javanese kris. As the anonymous poster mentioned, they are a inaccurate combination of European and Polynesian designs.

I don't claim to be an expert either, but I have seen many, many real, functional and historical daggers. And these daggers immediately strike me as very suspect, and I think they would look even more so to the eyes of an expert. Yes, it's true that the image does not claim to feature only "functional" daggers, but images shown in the article should help demonstrate and clarify the content of the article. And having a collection of peculiar dagger does NOT. Again, I have absolutely no intention to offend, but I do think we're better off without this picture altogether. I know you made this image yourself and I appreciate your effort, but I suggest you redo the picture from scratch. This time, provide the source for each of the dagger so that we can all investigate their authenticity -- make this a collaborative effort. One thing very important, though: in your new picture, you should *NOT* resize the daggers. The size is an important characteristics to a dagger, resizing them and laying them next to each other destroys the sense of proportion. I am tempted to delete this image first, but I will wait for your response. 86.212.101.220 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)