Talk:Society for Creative Anachronism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

This page has a number of problems...

This article, which concerns a highly personal topic for Wikipedia's core editorial group (i.e., know-it-all sci-fi/fantasy geeks such as myself), is a fascinating example of what is wrong with this project. The improvement of such articles would be a benchmark for the improvement of Wikipedia as a whole; until then, the academic community (i.e., college instructors such as myself) can not take Wikipedia seriously.

Though the SCA is a fascinating phenomenon and a wonderful activity for many people, this page has a number of problems. To begin with, it reads as an "introduction to the SCA" and not an encyclopedia article on this group/(sub)culture. Secondly, it is woefully uninformed from any point of view save for that of an uncritical member of the SCA. "Knights represent the epitome of combat arts and chivalry" (to cite one instance) is a rather biased and vague statement. Are these medieval European knights or SCA knights (the two are not the same thing)? Do they represent the epitome of the SCA's idea of chivalry, or what Huizinga spoke of in "The Waning of the Middle Ages" or what Ramon Lull wrote about? And do they represent the "epitome" (or merely skill at) all martial arts or merely the SCA's combat sports?

Amongst the first questions that should be addressed in this article is how did this group form and grow? This should be at the head of the article. Also at the top should be its scope and how it differs from other reenactment/recreation groups. Only after that should come some insight into what sort of people are attracted to it and what its activities are. That SCA fencers are called "wire weenies" and discussions of the group's internal politics do not belong in an encyclopedia article. (The first sentence of the fencing subsection doesn't even approach accuracy, drawing some sort of dichotomy between "Olympic" fencing, which a tiny number of elite athletes participate in, and FIE-sanctioned fencing, which is meant.)

Also needed is some sort of sociological insight from authorities. Why is this group in existence? What need did it meet in the mid-twentieth century American psyche?

I also think this article should be locked, as the page's history shows that whenever a point not concordant with the general tone of the article as it now stands is introduced, said point is edited out.

KCM

I can't make an informed judgment on either the opinion of Olympic fencers about SCA fencers or the overall quality of SCA fencing as a whole, but at any rate I thought POV discussion about it was inappropriate, so I deleted it as best I could.

I have created a page for historical reenactment and living history (same page for now, though the could be split in the future). They could use some more content. Especially on

  • history of historical reenactment
  • reenactment groups
  • living history groups
  • differences between living history, reenactment, recreation, drama
  • references to PBS content: Frontier House, 1940s House, ...
    • What is it the participants were doing? (Livining history, I think)
    • What is it that PBS was doing? (Creating historical entertainment, I think)

Happy editing! Jeff 21:15 Nov 13, 2002 (UTC)

Can someone supply some numbers for SCA? Number of chapters worldwide? In the U.S.? (I'm assuming the majority of the membership is U.S., but perhaps not.) Ditto for total number of persons involved and their distribution? ---Michael K. Smith 21:16, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

These numbers are hard to come by, because there's no membership requirement for participation in SCA events. SCA.org says "over 30,000 members," but I have no idea where this number comes from (and if they actually mean paid members, there are probably several active non-members for each offical member). ---Jeffhos 21:18, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

http://www.sca.org/docs/scafaq.pdf lists membership as just shy of 30,000 members worldwide. Jake 00:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many of these problems could be solved, methinks, by changing the order of some of the sections - might begin with the history of the SCA and the broad view, then go for the specific stuff.

(I'd offer to do it, but I have not done that sort of large scale editing and may stuff it up!) Mfgreen 02:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I edited the first paragraph because as a long time, old time SCA person the term 'historical re-enactment' riled my dander even though I no longer belong. I'm using the Corporate bylaws to describe what the corporation wants to say. That way we are talking about facts not what it is like in your area of the world. (no offense intended). My goal is to get the wipedia reservations off this page as I did with the Clout Fantasy write up I did so that we can get it as a straight factual, no opininated article. (Much smaller but I had to do it from scratch). I'm not sure how the sign your posts thing works so forgive me please if I don't do it right. Jirel 20:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest the entire article should be reduced to a stub that is sourced from secondary references. Addhoc


After reading the article I felt as if I may as well have been reading some sort of super market tabloid because the Wikipedia SCA page mainly addresses what is pretended by many people involved with the SCA rather than facts. In the first section of the article "Weasel words" have been used to define what the SCA is. The terms "re-creation" and "historical" contradict one another in the way in which they are used by the SCA as an organization and also by the person who created the Wikipedia article on the SCA. I see no point in creating an entire article on the SCA when they have not yet defined what they are talking about. The term "re-create" is a fantasy term meaning to make anew in the imagination. This definition of the word "re-create" can be verified by looking in most any college dictionary. When one studies a certain time period and dresses up in costumes it does not create some sort of time warp where the past is somehow started over. When people come on wikipedia.org to read about the SCA they want to know what the SCA actually is and what they do instead of what they pretend to do. The so called "kingdoms" which this article claims have been created by the SCA are not recognized by people outside of their organization so clearly there is a biased view point being made in that regard. The wording about the SCA's so called kingdoms is intentionally misleading because it does not make clear that they are talking about pretend kingdoms. Clearly the use of the phrase "historical re-creation" is indeed an example of "weasel wording". According to Wikipedia's own definition of terms "weasel words" are deliberately misleading or ambiguous language used to avoid making a straightforward statement while giving the appearance that such has been made." In my opinion the use of the word "re-creation" as used by the person who wrote the introductory section about what the SCA fits the description perfectly of the use of "Weasel Wording". Midiman Alex (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Urban Legends and "Freaking the Mundanes" Lore

There are a number of amusing urban legends surrounding the SCA, from the "SCA vs the Hell's Angels" to "Butterfly and 'Blood for Odin!'" to "The Burglars and the Broadsword ('Broke into the wrong goddam rec room, din't ya?')" to "'Are you in the SCA?' 'No, I'm in a play.'" It'd be great to collect them somwhere. Would it be appropriate to add a section to this article? Brendano

I'd say Cunnan is the place for that. Actually, can we put the little "asides" in Cunnan too? We can't explain everything at the same time. Let it wait until it's section, link to the section if you need.
The article is getting to a size where it needs to break into pieces. I'm not sure we should document the whole of the SCA experience in an encyclopedia so I'm suggesting the SCA wiki, Cunnan. Otherwise, we're going to need pages in wikipedia for 'Kingdom of the East (SCA)', 'Heavy Weapons Fighting' and 'Cooking (SCA)' to name a few. TomCerul 14:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The SCA as a tribe

To 68.42.167.77 — I think it's probably a bit misleading to call the SCA a tribe. It's certainly true that, in a very general sense, the SCA tends to lean more to the left than society as a whole, and that SCAdians tend to feel a lot of comraderie with each other, but it's far from a homogeneous group. I've met everyone from born-again Christians to pagans & atheists in the SCA, and people with a wide range of views on different issues. It might perhaps be valid to call some of the households in the SCA tribes, but I think it's a mischaracterization of the Society as a whole. ---Jeffhos 16:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

68.42.167.77 — To which "guidelines" are you referring? Jeffhos 05:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anno Societas

What is "anno societas" supposed to say, exactly? From the way it is used I assume it should be "anno societatis" (or societate maybe)...in 39 years, has no one ever noticed this? (It's a creative use of the language, I guess :)) Adam Bishop 20:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've actually seen it spelled (and pronounced) both as "anno societas" and "anno societatis" (and Google searches for both will turn up plenty of SCA pages). But I looked it up in the Known World Handbook, and it, in fact, "Anno Societatis". My mistake. Jeffhos 05:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, okay...I found a bunch of results for societas on Google, but I didn't think to look up the proper spelling. Sorry :) Adam Bishop 07:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Latin is likely wrong as applied, but we use it for "Year of the Society," and date the "A.S." from the year of our founding. 31 Jan 2006

The anno is correct, I think, but I would have to check the genetive of society to be sure of the total translation.85.20.106.187 19:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Societatis" is, I believe, the correct genitive of "societas". And "anno societatis" is the only form I've ever heard the phrase used in in my 8 years in the SCA. For once, the SCA got its Latin right. :) --71.246.183.235 01:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent anon edits

All the edits by the anon user at 12.221.102.20 seem to be ripping the Society. Even if some of these things are true, it seems they could be phrased better, less POV. -- Logotu 17:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The first word in the organization's name is "Society" - it's a collection of people, for better and worse. Some folks have not had happy experiences.Brendano 21:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"world's largest non-militant army"

But is it true? I'd like to see some documentation, myself. "SCA Heavy Weapons Fighters also practice many-on-many engagements called melees or wars, and make up the world's largest non-militant army, according to an unofficial FBI source." Very interesting, if true. And, at the risk of a stupid question, what is a "non-militant army?"

--cuiusquemodi 00:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've been a member since 1980, and back then the story was that the FBI investigated the SCA in the late 60's or early 70's. The final report (which I have never laid eyes on) reportedly describes the organization as "a bunch of harmless monarchists." Brendano 21:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to find the source of this. It's a neat-sounding "fact," but is sounds anecdotal/apocryphal, and I couldn't find anything substantial. If anyone can find a verifiable reference source, please add link to the source. Otherwise, this should be deleted, or altered so it is not reported as fact. The closest thing I've been able to find is a somewhat anecdotal account, [[1]]. The account, supposedly from a member of the SCA, mentions he asked for documentation from the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act in the 80's. The upshot of the somewhat underwhelming response was a few papers that assessed "that the SCA was a nonprofit educational association." Durty Willy
I'm not the member cited above, but I did such a Freedom of Information Act request around 1990 and got the same results. Most of the documents were related to individuals (whose names were blacked out) applying for security clearances; I didn't see the famous phrase "a harmless group of pseudo-monarchists" (which is the way I first heard the legend in the early 1980's). -- SBloch 7 July 2007.
As far as "non-militant," it probably refers to the fact that this particular "military" force does not intentionally kill or injure combatants, but is organized like an army. This could be better described as "paramilitant,", used for any group that is organized like an army; combat is not relevant, it's how it's organized that's important to this definition. Boy Scouts of America, Hitler Youth, and US Civil Air Patrol are all non-combat paramilitary organizations, for example. Private security forces and mercenary groups, revolutionary and guerilla forces, and the fictional Fight Club are examples of combatant paramilitary. Durty Willy 02:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I doubt the SCA is bigger than the Salvation Army. From the SA article "Its membership includes more than 17,000 active and more than 8,700 retired officers, around 100,000 other employees and more than 4.5 million volunteers." Applejuicefool 17:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
For future reference, the "world's largest non-militant army" thing is an urban legend. It was even debunked on Snopes. There is no official military training, no modern training at all, and it would take a grand feat of imagination to turn a mock army with rattan sticks into an effective modern fighting force (or even a paramilitary group).Digital Oni 15:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Although The Onion did a nice job on that hypothetical scenario; see http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29464

-- SBloch, 7 July 2007.

Reputation?

From my experience (well, roughly a year) as a medieval combat reenactor in Germany and especially in South England, the SCA is generally regarded as a joke, probably due to the rule system and the fantasy flair.

Elitist, much? --NRen2k5 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In Germany OTOH the American SCA rules seem to have been the basis for the somewhat flawed Codex Belli ruleset (a very beaurocratic system relying on safety "licenses" which ironically tends to result in very aritificial and dangerous maneuvers because the legal hit areas were restricted to the torso and upper extremities for safety reasons) which is held high as the quasi "standard" by a fraction of the German combat reenactors -- once again resulting in a negative view of the SCA by those who oppose Codex Belli.

Is this a local reputation or a general one? --Ashmodai 12:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

For the most part, re-enactors look down on the SCA who looks down on the Ren Faire and so on ad nausium. The main thing is that each organization does things differently and for different reasons. The biases you saw are norally directed at the SCA due to the fact it tends to be quite laid back in areas they believe need to emphasised. That is perhaps what makes the SCA what it is thought, for most members are using the Society as an escape and don't see why they have to push their standards up like that. The SCA has its faults, and yes the combat rules and styles have created some unrealistic fighting styles, but the SCA operates in its own world and could care less what many outside the group say. And most SCA members try not to look down at the other similar groups. Donovan Ravenhull 14:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Aye. So it's really less about reenactment and more about creative extrapolation?
As I said I'm doing medieval combat reenactment by a ruleset pretty similar to the semi-contact ruleset of the Early Medieval Alliance, which is a larger group (incidentally there don't seem to be "good" large groups at all, just larger and smaller ones) in Southern England. That is, we have a stronger focus on safe fun fighting which looks authentic from a few meters away.
We try to look and act somewhat authentic (no smoking on the battlefield, no truely offensive insults -- especially too-modern ones that are not directly derived from Monty Python sketches), but we don't try to emulate historical languages or restrict the materials our clothes and weapons are made of to those that have been around at the time we are reenacting (unlike many true reenactment groups in Germany). But the "looks authentic from a distance" rule rules (heh) out stuff like plastic weapons and the like, which seem to be okay for the SCA (although we DO restrict training with children under 16 to LARP swords for legal reasons, but they don't participate in battles, displays or similar events for the same reasons and the fact they can't fight with LARP swords at such an event).
I suppose it's because the SCA's rules are so loose that they are frequently thrown into the same bin of disrespect as LARPers. The odd combat rules may add to that. --Ashmodai 19:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm still learning wiki, apologies if I do this wrong *g*
(ashmodai said) "Aye. So it's really less about reenactment and more about creative extrapolation?"
Yeah, thats fair. I've heard it described as a "medievally themed social club", which about sums it up. You get everything from folks who like to dress up in funny clothes and drink alot, to weekend warriors, some folks are leading scholars in their fields, and some just wanna have fun. The SCA is very open like that, something for everybody. The SCA gets bagged on alot by folks that like to look down on us... I don't know why, I don't think we're trying to pretend to be anything that we're not (in general, anyway *g*).
(ashmodai said)"... rules (heh) out stuff like plastic weapons and the like ..."
I can't think of a single allowable "plastic" weapon in SCA combat. The armored folks use rattan and sometimes fiberglass or shaped rubber(for poll-arms), the rapier folks use commercially available sword simulators made of steel (see www.darkwoodarmory.com, for one example). Some folks will use plastic "armor" as protective gear, but they're encouraged to hide it. *g* Rapier42 29 June 2005 02:38 (UTC)

One other factor to add to the consideration is that the SCA, while being there for fun and for "recreation", highly values the sharing of knowledge and education on historical times. With a membership and diversity of location as large as this, the reputation and quality of the group is based on a "local division of" the SCA. Human experience and bias make it difficult to get clear-cut views. While this will impact the SCA on the whole, it is not neccesarily indicative of the mandates and spirit of the SCA and its ongoing pursuit of recreating medieval times. --24.71.223.140 00:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as Reputation goes I would agree that most SCA people don't care how they are perceived by reenactment groups and most also would not care if their combative techniques are seen as authentic or not. The focus of most of the fighters within the SCA is to win whatever tournament or SCA "war" they are going to next participate in and the authenticity of the techniques used would be considered irrelevant. There are a few people who fight at SCA practices or events however that are more interested in supplementing or further refining their martial arts skills such as some people involved in the FMA. If one reads FMA forums they will see evidence of this. Speaking for myself I fought for many years at SCA practices and events and never once cared if any of the technique I was using was authentic or not. In my opinion authentic technique is not necessarily more effective in actual combat. For example I once had to use an SCA "Wrap" strike against a much larger person who was trying to kill me at the time and despite what these so called reenactors are saying, the strike worked as intended. Members of the WMA seem to mainly advocate striking with the pommel or quillion of ones weapon in a close in fight. I don't agree that The WMA's teachers advise is that good since striking at an opponent with a pommel or quillion is more likely to provide the person one is fighting with any easy opportunity to do a disarm since the back of most weapons is almost always the easier part of a weapon to grab and hold on to. I have also seen WMA groups sparring with their blunted steel weapons and found their strikes simply are not as vigorous as those typical of SCA rattan sparring. In my opinion sparring with blunted steel mainly takes away from simulating sword combat rather than adds to it simply because the blows are not delivered of a force that would have been used against armored opponents in real battles. I have seen one so called arming sword tournament put on by the WMA and I did not find the fighting or weapon weights to be particularly authentic. Apparently the technique they had learned in the WMA groups was not that useful in their sparring since throughout their entire tournament I didn't see points being awarded for the use of authentic fighting technique even though they were trying to award points for doing so.Midiman Alex (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Youth Combat and Minimum Ages

When we are editing the sections on Youth Combat, let's make sure we don't set in stone information that only pertains to one region. Currently the rules for Youth Combat do vary greatly from Kingdom to Kingdom, and some blanket statements don't apply. For example, here in Meridies (where I've participated in organizing YC since nearly the very beginning) we don't use golf tubes, and do allow experimental use of shaved rattan in place of pvc pipes (still padded, but the rattan doesn't break with those nasty sharp edges like pvc, but is harder to find).

Also, I haven't had a chance to check, but what is the BoD's rules on minimum age for participation in full adult combat? I know in Meridies, we require everyone to be 18 or over, but are flirting with allowing some 16-17yo YC prodigies to participate. Donovan Ravenhull 29 June 2005 11:24 (UTC)

Here in the East Kingdom it would seem that under-18s are allowed to participate in activities only with parent's permission and with a chosen guardian present. This applies not only to combat but to target archery as well. --NRen2k5 15:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Number Consistency

In the 'Combat Events' section, it mentions wars can have more than 5,000 armored combatants. In the 'Wars' section, it drops down to 200+. In the 'Heavy Weapons' section, we jump back up to 1,500. It would be nice if someone could put more accurate numbers in here. Unfortunately, I don't have them, though I'm pretty sure that 5,000 combatants (or about half the people that show up) is a bit high for Pennsic (the only war I make it to). SKA Virgil or PerlKnitter 18:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Out of context bits

I'm pulling material out if it doesn't fit where it is and dumping it here. Put it where you think it belongs if you want. TomCerul 15:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

  • (In SCA jargon, this era is called "Period", although some insist that "Period" only legitimately refers to the millennium of A.D. 600–1600. According to the founding documents of the SCA, Inc., there is no back date; however, they do state "Middle Ages" in one place, and simply "pre-17th-Century" in another. As a result, there is a large contingent of Roman Legionaries, and smaller groups of such cultures as Ptolemaic Egyptians.)
  • A blow to the head or body is considered a "killing blow", and the fighter so struck acknowledges the fact that s/he has lost the fight by falling to the ground. Fighters who refuse to call good blows quickly develop a reputation as "rhino hides" or "immortals". Consistently unchivalrous fighters may find themselves unable to find opponents who are willing to face them.


  • Fencers will also mime the effects of hits. Fencing combatants are considered to be wearing street clothes and leather gloves so draw cuts and slashes are considered effective. Fencing garb consists of fencing masks with hoods and full-body coverings that can be demonstrated to resist four hard thrusts with a broken foil blade.
  • The minimum age for participation in armed combat varies from area to area. Some Kingdoms, such as Meridies, require all be 18 and over, while other Kingdoms allow those 16 and older to participate in "heavy", or armored, combat, and youth as young as 14 to participate in "light", or rapier, combat. More strict guidelines have been debated in the Board of Directors.
  • Recently, though, a trend has emerged to begin Youth Combat activities. Typically, armor requirements are stricter and the weapons are padded golf tubes or PVC pipe rather than taped rattan. The standards and practices do vary widely between Kingdoms, but as various experiments are found to be successes or failures, interkingdom communication has begun to create de facto standards across the table. The SCA has been around long enough - 40 years - that some members now have grandchildren of legal age who have grown up handling swords and shields.

textile arts

Could we get a write up on the amazing stuff you crazy spinners, weavers, embroiderers and tailors do? I'm renaming the current textile arts to 'Garb/Costume' because it has no mention of the study and effort that some people contribute. I'm imagining something more like "Some members raise sheep, card and spin wool thread to weave fabric" ie something focused on the Activity of the textile arts. TomCerul 15:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Fencing in the round & fencing in general

Can someone support this? "It is important to note that fencing in the round is in fact not characteristic of this period of fencing," I'd believe that schools weren't teaching fencing in the round but would be surprised to hear that it wasn't happening in the streets. And we're simulating the streets, not the schools as far as I know. (I'm 10th C Rus and fight heavy so what do I know?) TomCerul 15:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted this as it is NOT accurate. If the SCA is portraying pre-1600 then fencing in the round WAS, to an extent, the norm. I think the way the article is worded is a bit inacurate as fencers may circle while looking for an opening, but most attacks and most defensive actions are linear.

The purely linear fencing used today did not come into the fore until the advent of the small sword - late 17th Century and the idea of limited footwork and lanes until the birth of the foil in the 18th Century. Rapier combat in the 1500's was a very different operation. Period fencing texts - I will cite Ridolfo Capoferro for one, Agrippa for another, all cite sideways movements as part of attack and defense - the Girata, for example, involves a side-step in conjuction with an attack to the opponent's side. Capoferro DID discourage sideways movement, but his text did teach the footwork for it. Interestingly enough, most period texts teach cutting as well as thrusting - the thrust is primary, but cuts were part of the repertoire of the weapon.

Anyone who's fenced using a rapier or an accurate rapier simulator knows they're heavy! If you try to use modern fencing moves you will get hit. Trying a parry/ripost with a 2.5 pound weapon with a 43" blade well illustrates why most defensive actions of period combat were done with an off-hand weapon or through body voids.

If you want modern confirmation then see the book By The Sword by Richard Cohen - but please read the period texts if you have a real interest in this subject. --Lepeu1999 14:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I made a minor edit to fencing changing Atlantia is experimenting with sidesword to 'some of the kingdoms are...' as East at minimum is doing so as well. --Lepeu1999 00:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone(s) who wasn't logged in did a really nice job cleaning up the grammer and syntax of this section and making it vastly more readable. Thank you. --Lepeu1999 20:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Made a couple of edits - one for tense and the rest for 'accuracy'. I know the SCA fencers tend to refer to all non-foil/epee bladed weapons as 'schlaegers' but that isn't the case. A schlaeger is a particular weapon all its own, used in Mensur fencing. What the SCA uses is an unsharpened schlaeger blade in a period style hilt. I changed the reference to refer to 'schlaeger blade'. I know the authorization is for Schlaeger, but non SCA members/fencers may become confused if we don't use the conventional terminology for it.

Also on 'sidesword' as far as I know from the new East Kingdom rules schlaeger blades are NOT on the authorized list of blades so I've modified that section to read 'blades suitable for cut-and-thrust style fencing - which is what sidesword is. that should cover any particular rule variations. --Lepeu1999 19:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

For you SCA member editors

there is a new category to populate... Category:Wikipedia SCAdians feel free to add this category to your user pages...  ALKIVAR™ 06:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's Category:Wikipedians in the Society for Creative Anachronism Lord Inali of Tanasi, GDH Orange Mike 03:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

American?

I assume the SCA is an American society? If so, the article should say so. (There are no doubt similar societies in other countries, but not called the SCA as far as I know.) Ben Finn 08:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is an international society born in America. We have groups throughout Europe and Australia, enough that they have their own active kingdoms there. Also, there are local groups throughout the rest of the world, though admittedly most are centered on american military bases. So, I would not call it an American only group, though it is highly americanized. Donovan Ravenhull 11:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I am an American, but I am also formerly Seneschal of Drachenwald -- Europe (including Scandinavia, Iceland, UK and Ireland, Austria, Greece, Spain, and Romania), Middle East (local branch in Israel, formerly a branch in Turkey, but individuals throughout), and Africa (two branches in South Africa). Most members/participants in those areas are natives and events/meetings are normally held in their native languages. There is another SCA "Kingdom" for Australia and New Zealand as well. CsikosLo (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


And of course Canada has a fairly large population too, being Canadian and in the SCA myself--Corvyn 04:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Me too —NRen2k5 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
'Nother Canadian SCAdian here - out west, in An Tir. Jackytar 18:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Martial Art

This bit: "...This "Heavy Weapons Fighting" is a full-contact sport, not a martial art, although our members will try to convince people otherwise..." needs fixing.

  1. The "our members" is 1st person or close to it
  2. Its not clear (to me at least) what this contrast between a "full-contact sport" and a "martial art" is all about. I'd be inclined to remove it completly.
You're right about the first person perspective -- that sentence was probably written by an SCA member who wanted to criticize his/her comrades' views regarding the practice, i.e.: strongly POV.
AFAIK the difference between a full contact sport and a martial art is that the full contact sport permits physical contact to reach the goal of the sport (IIRC American Football is a full-contact sport, whereas European Football ("Soccer") is a semi-contact (or non-contact? I've never been much of a ball sports person) sport -- just compare the maneuvers permitted/used in order to retrieve the ball from an opponent) and the martial art requires it.
i.e. in a martial art the goal is usually to "disable" your opponent in one way or another, in a full-contact sport the goal is usually not in the physical contact itself, this is usually only a means to archieve a different goal (e.g. "disable" the ball carrier in order to get the ball).
I could be wrong, though -- I'm not sure whether all combat sports are categorized as martial arts (modern sports fencing is usually not regarded as a martial art, although it originates from one).
I'd rather define SCA Heavy Weapons Fighting as a full-contact combat sport, which is true for several sports usually regarded as martial arts as well (Olympic fencing OTOH is definitely a semi-contact combat sport). This avoids the problem that not all martial arts are also practiced as sports (most martial arts practiced as competitive sport rely on a fixed subset of the actual martial art, thus excluding moves that would incapicate, permanently injure, or kill the opponent, martial arts that consist nearly entirely of such moves CANNOT be practiced as a sport in most countries).
Since it's a sport with a fixed ruleset and is based on two (or more) people hitting each other with weapon-like objects, it qualifies as a combat sport, which sounds a bit more serious than just "full-contact sport" (which may be a fitting description for several variations of the basic sport nevertheless -- Battle of the Flags (mostly identical to the Capture the Flags seen in some computer games) for example).
From what I've heard and read SCA Heavy Weapons Fighting tends to be a more abstracted than normal re-enactment combat (in regards to authentiticy, anyway) and the rules about non-lethal hits (jumping on one leg, etc) tend to make it look a bit ridiculous, but "not looking ridiculous" is not a requirement for qualifying as a combat sport as far as I know. In my opinion Olympic fencing looks just as ridiculous, but that's only my personal opinion -- Ashmodai 22:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The SCA does not make any official statement that defines what they think their heavy weapons or Rattan sparring is. If you don't believe me simply go to their main web-site and read everything. One foolish statement on their page even claims that the reason people in the SCA spar with rattan is "to feel what it like to get hit while wearing armor." I did sparring in the SCA for many years and never once heard anyone say that "wanting to know what it was like to be struck" was one of their motivations for wanting to learn the fighting technique. Midiman Alex (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

branches of branches

Most of the Kingdoms began as principalities within other kingdoms, and I'd like to mention that in the list, though I can't find a concise wording that pleases me. Perhaps they could be listed as a tree:

  • West
    • Atenveldt
      • Meridies
        • Trimaris
        • Gleann Abhann
      • Ansteorra
      • Outlands
        • Artemisia
    • Caid
    • An Tir
    • Lochac
  • East
    • Middle
      • Calontir
      • Northshield
    • Drachenwald
    • Æthelmearc
    • Ealdormere

Anton Sherwood 00:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer a seperate article about the history of the SCA. This one's getting big and needs to be broken into pieces soon. I don't think the average, uninformed user is going to be looking for the family tree of the kingdoms. TomCerul 19:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The tree is also in error. Artemisia was a Principality of Atenveldt rather then the Outlands. A member 4 Jan 2006
"Artemisia" was a sparsely populated area technically within the Principality of Outlands, Kingdom of Atendveldt until AS 21 (1986). When Outlands got Kingdom status, Artemisia stayed with Atenveldt, and became the Principality of Artemisia in AS 22. Rapier42 23:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Another correction: Ealdormere is a "child" Kingdom of the Middle, and is not descended directly from the East. Arianna 23:48, 30 Jan 2007
The tree is missing Atlantia, which came from the East Kingdom. 12.76.136.145 03:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The tree also needs to have all the other kingdoms except the West nudged over another level of indentation, too. YiS --Drieux 08:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

chop and tidy

Just did a big tidy-up on combat. The A&S section could do with similar trim of some of user:will-i-am's material, anyone keen? Snori

connection to sf fandom

It seems to me that the comments about the politicking and backbiting in the SCA having been carried over from science fiction fandom are either undeveloped in the article or unnecessary. I'm a para-member of both groups (moreso fandom, I think) so perhaps this is a common opinion in the SCA, but it sounds rather petty and is a poor way to dismiss a point of criticism. How could that passage be improved? --Cantara 20:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's the next section in my sights for a hack and chop. Snori

I think this has been generally addressed. I think it is a valid part of SCA culture, but needed to be labelled as such - or more properly, labelled as as sore point in SCA culture. Generally I think we're doing that. 192.18.101.5 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been in the SCA for around 30 years and over that time I have only seen a few times where people act as described. I believe that normal group dynamics are at work in the SCA and Scifi culture has nothing or little to do with how the SCA functions. In other words, the SCA does not need any help from SF people to screw things up, we can do it fine on our own just like other social groups. if this is the case, then we should stop blaming others for our actions and admit we are just like everyone else and address it in the article.Septagram 17:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It's small group dynamics and has nothing to do with the fannish roots of the SCA. --Orange Mike 18:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (Inali of Tanasi, GDH)

Criticism

I've just rv'd "Will-I-Am"s changes for the second time. The tone and position of them was wrong, and they're generally covered in the "Criticism" section. Have added the 'killing head shots are inauthentic' point though. --Snori 06:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

SCA head shots are considered fatal, as the presumed armor worn by every combatant is chainmaille over a padded gambeson and an open faced iron helm with a nasal. SCA combatants are not considered to be wearing the armor they actually have on, but a standardized set of armor as defined by the Marshallate. Therefore, striking someone on the side of the head with a shortsword may very well be fatal. Ref: http://www.sca.org/officers/marshal/combat/armored/rules_of_the_list.pdf Please reconsider your rv. Kemkerj 16:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Known World A&S Directory" site listed under the "Arts and Sciences" header is not officially tied to the SCA and should probably not be listed here. --NRen2k5 16:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

I'd like to invite SCA Wikipedians to upload images of their replica arms and armor. I've been expanding coverage of the subject for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Middle Ages task force. Wikimedia commons has a fairly good collection of images, much of which I've already looted for new and existing stubs. You can see the current state of things at Category:Medieval weapons and Category:Medieval armor. I'm particularly interested in specific components from different eras and geographic locations - my new article spangenhelm recently got highlighted on Wikipedia's main page. If you'd like to put your photographs on the Web, knowing it's all for the good of human knowledge, here's your chance. Cheers, Durova 02:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Queens by their own hands?

Forgive me if this looks screwed up - first time I've ever tried to communicate via wiki's interface.

At any rate, I was under the impression there were more Queens and Princesses who won their own crowns by right of arms by 2005. I know for certain Duchess Sir Rowan did so at least once in Ansteorra prior to 2000. Was she really the only one? We've had over 35 years of women in heavy combat in the SCA, and iirc, all the kingdoms have at least 2 crowns a year. Given the timeline history, I think there's been upwards of... 500 crown tournaments total (aggregating across all kingdoms) in 40 years or so? And only one Queen/Princess by her own hand? I don't expect a lot of ladies to have accomplished the deed, but 1 out of 500 seems a little low to me. If the article author was thinking of someone other than Duchess Sir Rowan, than we know there's been at least 2...

Otoh, I'm also not sure where I'd go to get confirmation on the crown winners in a reasonable time period.

Boogieshoes 19:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)brigid

I believe that Her Grace is the only Queen. There has been at least one Princess (other than Crown Princess). I would have to look it up on the West Kingdom history, but if my memory is any good, it was HE Malean (of the Mists), when she won a Principality Pentathalon (SP?), that included other competitions than just fighting. This was circa 1977...TTFN Ralg
I believe the east has never had a queen by right of arms. --Lelek 13:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
There have been several princesses (according to [2]:
  • Maythen Gervaise, Princess (sovereign) of the Mists: 1981/05/09-1981/11/21
  • Gwenllian Rhiannon of Dragon Keep, Princess (sovereign) of Drachenwald: 1988/01/??-1988/06/18
  • Sir Elizabeth Mortimer, Princess (sovereign) of Ealdormere: 1996/09/21-1997/04/12
  • Viresse de Lighthaven, Princess (sovereign) of Oertha: 1997/01/19-1997/07/20
  • Bryne McClellan, Princess (sovereign) of the Mists: 2002/11/16-2003/05/10
  • Richenza von Augsberg, Princess (sovereign) of Oertha: 1998/07/19-1999/01/17 and 2003/07/20-2004/01/18
but I cannot find any other references to Queens by right of arms. I guess it will just take time. -- nae'blis 19:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Slight correction to the above, in that Maythen is a KSCA, unless she resigned the Peerage since I saw her last. YiS--Drieux 08:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thrown weapons

Clearly steel weapons onto targets doesn't belong under "Armed combat" section. Probably belongs with non-combat archery - but there isn't any reference to this. Javelins as used in wars are "thrown weapons", but as I understand are not referred to as such. Someone more knowledgable like to clarify? --Snori 16:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Clean up needed on Ext Links~*

Greetings one and all,

The External links are a mess! They need to be alphabetised and categorised at this point:

Alternative Societies & Resources:

SCA Photo Galleries:

SCA Sites:

War:

The uniformity can only enhance this section. Waes Haeil, AR~*

Done - 3/29/07 - Guy 192.18.101.5 16:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement

The graphic of the "shield" being used is a copyrighted image and is being used in violation of the use statement on http://www.sca.org/sca.copy.html. More information can also be found on the talk page for the image.

Robin gallowglass 19:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy-editting other peoples talk page entries?

We just had an anon user go through and do some copy-editting. Thing is, they did it here on the talk page. I'm sorry, but that does not seem to be a polite corse of action. It seem sto me that the talk pages are for thoughts, not for exacting grammer and such. Donovan Ravenhull 17:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur: you typed it, it's yours for good. The pages are historical records (which is why I am irritated when somebody deletes anything that's put on his/her talk page).--Orange Mike 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (Inali of Tanasi, GDH)

clean up links

I removed some links that we more appropriate for other pages or didn't seem to back up the content on this page. Unless a link adds something it shouldn't be here. We wouldn't want this to just grow into a list of links to every household, merchant, branch, annual event, .... If I was too heavy handed, perhaps a better comment that explained the relevance to this article would help. Cheers. --Jake 18:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Political Correctness Amok

"Knighted men are addressed as Sir, and Knighted women as Sir or Dame (as the Knight chooses)." Wow, I would have thought the SCA would be more politically correct than this. Why can't men choose to be addressed as "Dame"? Applejuicefool 17:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they could if they choose too. There is no 'law' saying that they can't. As it is, no male has decided to be 'Dame,' but a number (I believe a majority) of women knights prefer 'Sir.' In all, I don't see this as any way of being an example of 'Political Correctness Amok'. Donovan Ravenhull 19:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I replied on your user talk page - this isn't the right place for an ongoing discussion about this Applejuicefool 20:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Length and Mass

This page is huge. As Per Wikipedia:Article size I'm splitting it up into a few sub articles linked to this one. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 22:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding redirects

Should there be redirect pages for each of the kingdoms to the SCA article? I haven't yet checked all the kingdom names, but I know An Tir, for instance, just comes back as a failed search. On the other hand, An Tir has its own Wiki; maybe there should be an An Tir page redirecting to it instead. Thoughts? Uilliam, aka Jackytar 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Be bold - if you think a particular redirect would be helpful to some readers, just go ahead and make one. (Redirects are cheap and easy to make.) Jonathunder 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
(Hmm... left this a while, didn't I?) Anyway, I went through and created/added a bunch of redirection links. Pretty much any search of the form <name of kingdom> or "Kingdom of <name of kingdom>" should either redirect here or have a redirecting link on a disambiguation page (East, West, Middle, and for some reason, Outlands and Atlantia). Note that Calontir, Outlands and Lochac all have their own Wiki entries and most of the content there seems to be stuff that is oriented toward those already in the Society. Maybe these pages should have their content merged/moved to the main article and their pages become redirects? Thoughts? Uilliam, aka Jackytar 06:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Next question

Why do we want a map at the top of the talk page? I could see a map in the article page, though. Uilliam, aka Jackytar 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This one would probably be best; but rights would have to be negotiated. --Orange Mike 05:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC) (Inali of Tanasi, GDH)
Or This one --SBloch 7 July 2007

We can have it all

I have tried to reorganize the page as follows: - SCA History (generally factual and from an outsider's POV) - SCA Culture (things the SCA does that an outsider might see that are not strictly historical but are quasi-historic, like fighting for the crown, etc. ) - SCA Criticism (again, from an outsider's POV, what they might see SCA members fussing about: Authenticity vs. Fun, Cat vs Dog, etc. etc.).

I think we can include many of the interesting musings, cultural observations etc, but remember this is a reference of worldwide scope. If it isn't useful info to people outside the SCA it doesn't belong here (post it to your kingdom list, if you must). 71.237.79.102 05:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I find serendipity and quirky bits of information are interesting. A trivia section would be a nice catchall for the odd tidbits floating around.Septagram 00:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but that's an example of WP:INTERESTING! Just because it's interesting, doesn't mean it's encyclopedic! --Orange Mike 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (Inali of Tanasi, GDH, playing since A.S. VI)

Can we move to taking the NPOV problem tag off this article?

I dont think the article is a writeoff and by the NPOV guidelines seem to leave it up to us to make any needed changes (without getting into a revert war). I won't remove it right away, but if no one cares I may try to and see who squawks. Of course, a reasonable discussion would be better. Structurally I think the changes to differentiate between SCA being a historic organization and SCA being a cultural group are going down that road, but can people help drive this by adding to both sections. Of course, as an encyclopedia, I think the history of this conflict within the SCA might be useful to highlight (but it is a sore subject in the SCA to be sure, so it may start a war on this page). GuyWeknow 07:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV tag on the article is not because the tagger thought the article favored any faction within the SCA, but rather that the article is written by members (or at least fans) of the group, and lacks impartiality towards the group and what we do. (Yup, "we"; I've been in it since 1971.) --Orange Mike 23:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC) (Inali of Tanasi, GDH)

I fully agree that the overall article is not written from a Neutral point of view. A neutral article would be Administerd by neutral persons who are not members of The SCA. The main definition given in the article does not match what is stated on their official Home page. <http://www.sca.org/sca-intro.html> "The Society for Creative Anachronism, or SCA, is an international organization dedicated to researching and re-creating the arts, skills, and traditions of pre-17th-century Europe." Note that the SCA's own description doesn't claim to be a "living history group". Also they don't specifically say they are a " historical re-creation group". Since the term "re-create" refers to what is imagined as opposed to what is actually done the only thing that the SCA is being clear about is that they research "arts, skills, and traditions of pre-17th-century Europe." Anything else saying what the SCA is in the article should be considered original research or opinions.Midiman Alex (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I did a search for academic books and papers on the sca and found precious few (which I cite below, perhaps here). I'd suspect that mostly members will have to write about our group (I've been in since 1980 - Louis-Philippe Mitouard). Here are articles, mostly about other things but mention the SCA, sometimes just in passing. I hope this gets you thinking about 'outsiders' view of the SCA. GuyWeknow 02:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Knights Next Door: Everyday People Living Middle Ages Dreams By Patrick O'Donnell, Published 2004 ISBN 0595325300 [3]

Postmodern Medievalism: A Sociological Study of the Society for Creative Anachronism by Cary John Lenehan BA Department of Sociology University of Tasmania November 1994 [4]

SOCIAL IDENTITIES WITHIN THE SOCIETY FOR CREATIVE ANACHRONISM, A Thesis by ZANE GARDNER LEE [5]

ANTI MODERN PERFORMANCE IN THE SOCIETY FOR CREATIVE ANACHRONISM by Andrew Rodwell, Department of Anthropology Faculty of Graduate Studies The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, August 1998[6]

The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age By Allucqúaere Rosanne Stone Published 1995 MIT Press ISBN 0262691892 [7]

Shakespeare Survey: An Annual Survey of Shakespeare Studies and Production edited by Peter Holland, Jonathan Bate, Margreta de Grazia, Michael Dobson, Inga-Stina Ewbank, R A Foakes, Andrew Gurr Published 2004 Cambridge University Press ISBN 0521841208 [8]

Investigating the Afterlife Concepts of the Norse Heathen: A Reconstructionist’s Approach Bil Linzie 20th December 2005 [9]

Hecate Does Harvard: Notes on Academic Criticism of Wiccan Practice P. Aaron Potter [10]

TRUST NO ONE: PARANOIA, CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND ALIEN INVASIONS Judith Grant Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Women's Studies Program Ohio University -

Games as Exchange: module 4 of RE:PLAY: Game Design + Game Culture AMY SCHOLDER & ERIC ZIMMERMAN (Eds) Eyebeam [11]

“Children of a Different Tribe - UU Young Adult Developmental Issues” by Sharon Hwang Colligan http://www.circlemaker.org/cdt/ChildrenOfaDifferentTribe.pdf]

Faking literature By K. K. Ruthven Cambridge University Press ISBN 0521669650 [12]

"True to Middle Earth Cultures": Creating Fighting Styles - an interview with Tony Wolf. Journal of Theatrical Combatives June 2002 Copyright 2002 Deborah Klens-Bigman, Ph.D. [13]

Reading by Starlight: Postmodern Science Fiction By Damien Broderick Published 1995 Routledge ISBN 0415097886 [14]

Religion Online: Finding Faith on the Internet By Lorne &. Dawson, Douglas E. Cowan Published 2004 Routledge ISBN 0415970210 [15]

The Baby Train and Other Lusty Urban Legends By Jan Harold Brunvand Published 1993 W. W. Norton & Company 367 pages ISBN 0393312089 [16]

"Heavy" Combat

What's heavy combat? And if there's such a thing as heavy combat, does this group also have something called "light" combat?

Heavy fighters usually refer to those using the full ratan and padded weapons and full armor requirements therin. While not usually refered to as such, rapier fighters are often considered 'light fighters'. --Donovan Ravenhull 20:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, it is a 'term of art' which should be excised (or properly defined) on the page. I'd prefer to say 'Armored combat' vs 'Rapier combat' Generally that captures it. If anyone can come up with a better term, please suggest it. 192.18.101.5 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Ansteorra routed to SCA main?

There are other Kingdoms in the SCA that have their own page (Outlands, Calontir, etc...). However the Kingdom of Ansteorra is automatically routed to the main SCA page (others may do so as well). There should be a standard. All should route to the SCA page, or each should be allowed to have its own. (I would recommend the latter) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BobTheMad (talk • contribs) 00:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

If there is no article for a given realm, then it should redirect to the main SCA page until one is created. --Orange Mike 22:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC) (Inali of Tanasi, GDH, playing since A.S. VII)
Should kingdoms have their own Wiki pages, though? Seems to me it would be more appropriate to have links to the kingdoms' websites or their own wiki (An Tir has one, f'rinstance), or the Cunan wiki. Uilliam, aka Jackytar 06:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
My bad; I meant that if they didn't have their own homepage, then link to the SCA main page. I don't think the Kingdoms meet WP:NN. --Orange Mike 16:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Postmodern Medievalism

An interesting thought; but a B.A. thesis is not straightforwardly described as an academic paper, exactly; and this one is by a Scadian peer; whether Master of Arms or of the Laurel is not clear. This therefore has the problems of any self-referential source. An external link, perhaps; but not helpful to the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that the number of non-SCA sources on the SCA is rather small (see the list I constructed). I think that a great amount of perspective on the SCA must necessarily come from in-SCA sources. Indeed, the current article relies, from what I can tell, entirely on SCA members' material, some not just from an official SCA document. If what you mean is that the thesis I referenced is not 'objective', please say so directly. GuyWeknow 02:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an internal opinion, without any real peer-review. It's an interesting idea, and if it catches on, even within the SCA, we should include it. But for now, an external link at most. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Hello I am interested in SCA, but I've got several questions that needs answering...

1. What's the minimum age range for teenager to join the training to be a warrior thing?

2. If you are really short not interested in time and also don't like those renting thing, and want to own my own armor/costume. How much would these armors be...? Any good sites I could buy these armor from? Nothing outragous but also reliable. I'd really love to buy armor even without SCA activity, seeing I'm one of those medieval fans from fictional medieval areas to nonfiction.

3. I've researched, and found the Kingdom of Caid as the closest place, in southern California. Does Caid have a different range in age for minimum requirement for at least the training?... I'd really like to get into the combat, but seeing I'm under 18 there's not much exceptions I guess.

That's all for now, but I truely hope there's going to be a very good answer so I can decide on whether on playing or not.

71.107.17.164 09:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Argoth'as the Impaling Knight

The best answer is to go to www.sca.org, follow the link to the kingdom of caid, thence to the link for the city nearest you. They will probably be able to answer questions for the specifics. In general, you can train before age 18 and you can buy armor from suppliers for $500 or thereabouts. 192.18.101.5 17:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ripping the disputed sections

Guys, I don't see a lot of choice. It's time to rip the sections with attribution problems. If someone wants to rebuild them with some attribution later, groovy. Otherwise this page will never be up to snuff. GuyWeknow 17:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Map of kingdoms?

Should someone make one?--Dark Green 16:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There are existing maps located at http://misfit-robots.com/sca/map/index.html and http://www.skaldic.com/Pages/mapindividual.htm as well as kingdom maps to be found on the kingdoms' respective web sites. Since the former is a single, comprehensive "world map" of the SCA, it might be a good candidate for inclusion under external links. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Micro Kingdoms

Have just chopped this addition. Not suitable for this article (should be an article of its own) and not in wiki format. Snori 10:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - not suitable for this page. People keep trying to add it, though. GuyWeknow 00:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Results of AFD

Okay, the article was kept. I've deleted the AFD template from the main page. Reliable third party references must be added to establish Verifiability and Notability. Third party sources include (but aren't limited to): newspapers, magazines, books, quality news websites, etc. Please note that just adding more sources from SCA websites won't satisfy this requirement per WP:V. Cheers. The Parsnip! 20:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Other sources would be welcome. How about you supply some, Parsnip? 2) WP:V doesn't say anything about whether SCA websites are acceptable or not. Reliable is reliable. For instance, the SCA governing documents are on a website. They're as factual as can be. No problem there. Guy Weknow 22:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't really want to write about SCA or find the references, I have other articles I like to work on. It seems like those who want to keep the SCA article and improve it would be the most likely candidates to fulfill the Verifiability and Notability requirements. As for your second comment, actually, WP:V does touch upon this subject, and WP:N gives specific instructions. They don't say that the SCA website is not acceptable, but they do clearly state that reliable third-party sources, secondary sources (in other words, sources independent of the subject itself) are necessary. For more information, see WP:N#General_notability_guideline and WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. Cheers. The Parsnip! 18:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves, does touch on the subject of the acceptabilty of the SCA web pages in an article on the SCA and would indicate that the SCA web pages would be perfectly acceptable in articles about the SCA, especially for basic information on subjects such as the organization and activities of the SCA. WP:N#General_notability_guideline, does not address the issue of referencing in an article at all. It addresses the notability of topics, not articles. An article on a notable topic meets WP:N, even if it does not currently contain a single reference. Dsmdgold 20:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand. I'm not arguing whether you can use the SCA website as a source. I'm saying that you can't establish notability or verifiability with only a single self-published source (the SCA website). If you could, then any old rube with Dreamweaver could make up an organization (let's call it the "Grand Association of Turtle Racers"), build a website, write an articles of incorporation and governing documents, and then create an article on Wikipedia about it. What I'm trying to do here is help you keep your article by telling you that unless you can provide reliable secondary sources, this article won't satisfy the guidelines. If you don't believe me, ask someone on the administrator's noticeboard. The Parsnip! 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to ask someone on the admin's noticeboard, I am an admin. It's not "my" article, I've never edited it. You can verify certain statements with self published material, a point you seemed to be missing. Before your first edit on this article the reference section contained "Erisman, Wendy. Forward Into The Past. University of Texas: Austin, 1996.", which in about three minutes of research I determined is a PhD dissertation from the University of Texas. This seems to be a "reliable secondary source", and is not a source "from the organization itself", as you claimed at AfD. I am curious; did you actually have doubts about the existence of this group or the article's claims that would clearly establish notability (over 40 years old, 30,000 members, membership on at least four continents, notable science fiction authors as a founding memebers, etc.)? Dsmdgold 22:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what I think, it matters whether the article fulfills the guidelines. No, I've never heard of the group. An article can't establish notability by itself based on an organization's claims and I can't believe an administrator actually thinks it can. Why didn't you mention the Erisman dissertation straight away instead of trying to argue semantics about the Notability guideline? Do you really think that an article, created under my scenario above, fulfills the guidelines? Anyway, I think we need to get some other people involved in this because it seems to be going nowhere. The Parsnip! 22:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, you've never heard of the group. The Erisman dissertation was there for you to notice all along, I should not have to point it out to you, as you were the one making the claim that the article had no secondary sources. I don't believe that an article can established notability for its topic by solely citing documents from that entitity, and I haven't said that. I have said that certain statements that a group makes about itself can be used to verify information about itself. To give a specific example, the SCA is divided into regional groups called "Kingdoms", this statement can be verified by using documents, such as web pages published by the SCA. I am not "trying to argue semantics" in reference to WP:N. I am presenting an alternate interpretation that I believe is more strongly supported by the actual text of the guideline. To quote the guideline "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (emphasis added). The guideline does not state that an article must cite sources. In my reading of this, if an article topic can be shown to notable, it meets WP:N, even if the article does not cite sources. Dsmdgold 00:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I asked another admin and he/she seems to agree with me [17], [18]. The way I see it, "topic" and "article" are one and the same. The topic of this article is the SCA. Anyway, it looks like folks are working on improving the article so let's see what happens. I really don't want any more of this [19] The Parsnip! 02:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I truly don't know how you happened on this subject, as it seems to interest you little, nor do you seem to have done much research, but as has been stated, the SCA is a much bigger place than you give it credit for. A site that refers to the SCA is not ipso facto an 'SCA site', any more than a site that refers to the ASPCA is an ASPCA site. And, yes the references, although ill organized, do support the article. You might note that I am not some SCA partisan, although I am an SCA member. Earlier in the Discussion page I listed an entire page of outside references to the SCA, many of them quite critical of the group, which I'd like to see incorporated in this document to provide needed balance. Guy Weknow 03:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Topic" and "article" are one and the same." From my understanding of the universe, this is so profoundly wrong, that I can't begin to address it. As Chris Croy argued, notability is an attribute of the topic, not the article. For what is worth, EliminatorJR is not on Wikipedia:List of administrators. Dsmdgold 12:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)