Talk:Society for Creative Anachronism

Picture diversity

There are three images in the article with heraldy visible, all three being the arms of Northshield. From the discussion above, this has obviously led to the mistaken assumption that the arms of Northshield are the arms of the SCA. The only images I've found at Commons are of Northshield. It would be a good thing if we could get images showing heraldry other than Northshield's into the article. Dsmdgold (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not so long ago, the article had no photos. I have been working hard to get good illustrations of various aspects of the Society. I've added all the ones currently in the article, but as I live in Northshield, that does give some imbalance. I may be able to contribute some photos from Calontir soon. But I would love to see quality photos from elsewhere in the known world. If you have some, by all means donate them. Jonathunder (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If I had some I would upload them. I guess we can consider this a plea for any editors with SCA photos to uload some. Dsmdgold (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish we could get the Society arms displayed on this page again. Please see the image's deletion log and the WP policies and fair use templates in the above comment. Does anybody still have the Sca.svg file? Does anyone with a better understanding of the nuances of Fair Use (or with special knowledge of this case) know if restoring this image is permissable? Wilhelm meis (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo permissions

Pictures used in this public forum may need to be vetted with the persons in the photograph and/or official legal representative of the entity pictured. There is such a thing as model's rights. IE you can not publicly display pictures of people taken at private affairs. The SCA is a membership organization and all such events of the SCA are to my knowledge considered private. As such you _may_ need permission from all persons identifiable in the photographs before being able to use them in this very public forum. For example I can identify exactly who all persons are in the photograph a knight receiving her shield. Also the arms of the Kingdom are entirely visible. Has the legal representative's permission been given to release a picture of said arms to the public forum? I'm not saying you _must_ do this. I am saying you _may_ need to do this.Dave (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all the images which were taken inside private events and for which there was not a release from the subjects. (They should NOT be re-added.) The ones which remain were either taken in an area open to the public or there has been consent by the subjects. Jonathunder (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As it should have been

There was some discussion of whether the www.sca.org site states that the SCA '... describes itself as a group devoted to the study of the Middle Ages, "as they ought to have been."[1], citing the source below:

http://www.sca.org/sca-intro.html "You will frequently hear SCA participants describe the SCA as recreating the Middle Ages "as they ought to have been." In some ways this is true – we choose to use indoor plumbing, heated halls, and sewing machines. In the dead of winter we have more to eat than King's venison, salt pork and dried tubers. However, a better description is that we selectively recreate the culture, choosing elements of the culture that interest and attract us.

The source states that 'frequently ... SCA participants describe', but it then goes on in the next sentences to rebut this 'In some ways this is true ... However, a better description is ...'

Any fair reading of the actual source shows that to make bold in the introduction and say that the SCA describes itself as ..., when the SCA (its official website, anyway) rebuts, not supports the statement, is at least an overstatement of the facts.

To make this as a basic introduction to the SCA is unsupported at best. In fact, this issue is treated later in the Wikipedia page in the form of a 'controversy', which is more fairly how the SCA source deals with it. Read the sources.

Guy Weknow (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Authenticity Some people criticize the SCA because it does not require its members to adhere to as high a standard of authenticity as other living-history or reenactment groups. Other SCA members stipulate the fact that they are not 100% authentic in their recreations and merely add that this is the reason they have the word "creative" in their name. This attitude has created the unofficial motto: "The Middle Ages not as they were, but as they should have been." This tension is highlighted by David Friedman in his articles "A Dying Dream" [16] and "Concerning the C in SCA".[17]

I will only quibble that the full phrase should be "Recreating the Middle Ages: not as they were, but as they should have been." The deleted language falsely stated that SCA studies the Middle Ages etc.! Since I joined back in 1971 (A.S. VI) and learned that phrase, there has always been a strict separation between what we study and what we do with our recreational time. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (Lord Inali of Tanasi, GDH)

I don't think it's entirely inappropriate for the phrase to appear in the article - or even in the lead. Perhaps it would be deemed more acceptable for the lead to read something like:

Society for Creative Anachronism (usually shortened to SCA) is a historical re-creation and living history group founded in 1966 in California, which studies and attempts to recreate pre-17th century Western European history and culture. Members describe the SCA as a group devoted to the recreation of the Middle Ages "as they ought to have been," choosing to "selectively recreate the culture, choosing elements of the culture that interest and attract us."[1] As of December 2007, the Society has over 30,000 paying members.[2]

Orange Mike, We can't attribute "the whole phrase" to that source, because "as they ought to have been" is all that is there. Is that "whole phrase" from Friedman's "A Dying Dream"? If you've got the source, we can quote it. Wilhelm meis (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's entirely inappropriate for the phrase to appear in the article - or even in the lead. Perhaps it would be deemed more acceptable for the lead to read something like:

Society for Creative Anachronism (usually shortened to SCA) is a historical re-creation and living history group founded in 1966 in California, which studies and attempts to recreate pre-17th century Western European history and culture. Members describe the SCA as a group devoted to the recreation of the Middle Ages "as they ought to have been," choosing to "selectively recreate the culture, choosing elements of the culture that interest and attract us."[1] As of December 2007, the Society has over 30,000 paying members.[2]

Orange Mike, We can't attribute "the whole phrase" to that source, because "as they ought to have been" is all that is there. Is that "whole phrase" from Friedman's "A Dying Dream"? If you've got the source, we can quote it. Wilhelm meis (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry that the SCA even acknowledges 'as they ought to have been' on its official site. It really isn't even close in my mind to 'selectively recreating'. How could they be? 'As they ought to have been' is a necessarily subjective, personal, judgement, so is not the sort of statement that a rulesmaking body like the Board of Directors would traffic in anyway. 'Selective re-creation' is more of a concession to the reality that we aren't a re-creation group like the Civil War groups.

Personally, I think re-creation and living history both fail to describe the SCA, but that's a different subject. Guy Weknow (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I think the SCA is different from many of the Civil War groups and many of the European groups in that the SCA does not really recreate an event, but cultivates an atmosphere reminiscent of the Middle Ages while at the same time remaining oddly relevant to its own time (i.e. "the current Middle Ages"). There is a whole living, breathing subculture in the SCA, and I don't think the SCA's essence can be summed up in "studying and selectively recreating pre-17th century Europe." It's not all sitting around in libraries or handstitching leather shoes - it's how we play together within the culture of the group. I don't think saying the SCA recreated the Middle Ages "as they ought to have been" is an unfair assessment, and in my mind, neither is it a derogatory statement. It suggests that the SCA does not get itself so caught up in pedantic historical accuracies as to recreate every misery that afflicted the medieval human condition, but also that accuracy is sometimes overlooked in favor of something more convenient or desirable (which is not an unfair criticism of the SCA). I'm really not trying to be obstinate on this point. I think the statement is very relevant, and I really don't think it's too POV (and if it were such a scathing criticism, would it be on the SCA's own web site?). Is there some common ground here? Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's false or derogatory; the real things omitted from recreation, when I came, famously included The Plague and peasant wars. I don't have a cite for the phrase as I learned it, so the other is fine. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

banned Personae

I've shifted the link from Elizabeth Tudor to her niece Good Queen Bess, but "someone" might want to check out Henry Plantagenet, I'd have thought Henry V was more famous, and Henry VIII both recognisable and famous. Is it really Henry II they meant to link to? Jonathan Cardy (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Facts about "The Society for Creative Anachronism" versus biased opinions

The opening statement in the Article seems to be an attempt to confuse the readers into thinking that they are being provided with a definition or explanation as to what "The Society for Creative Anachronism" is. The wording used in the opening statement uses ambiguous language and provides only opinions rather than facts. My reasons for saying this are provided below.

The use of the Phrase " Historical Re-creation" in the definition is inappropriate since the phrase is intentionally ambiguous. The word "re-creation" for example typically means, "to make or form anew in the imagination". The use of the word "Re-create" in a definition of real world physical activities is not appropriate since it is not typically used to describe activities other than what is imagined in ones mind. In other words talking about what someone or a certain group imagines to be doing is completely different than talking about what they actually do or have done and the article makes no attempt to clarify this.

In addition the use of the word "Historical" is inappropriate since "The Society for creative Anachronism " is not focused on historical accuracy in many, or perhaps even most of their activities.

The use of the phrase "living history" is a term that contradicts itself since the word "history" refers to the past and the word "living " refers to the present. In other words there is no proof that anyone involved with "The Society for create Anachronism" has caused the past to recur, therefore the term "living history" must have been intended to confuse the readers and is an attempt at weasel wording.

I therefore submit that the entire article is an attempt to confuse the readers and should be removed since the person or persons who created it have refused to explain what "The society for creative Anachronism " is, in a way that is logical and understandable.

Midiman Alex (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Beastiepaws (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the people who created this SCA article believe they can remove legitimate edits on the article simply because they don't happen to like those edits and also they write nothing to show that what I have written is incorrect. Midiman Alex (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

All you seem to be doing is complaining that you don't like the phrases Historical reenactment and Living history. The terms are well understood and uncontroversial, and even have their own Wikipedia pages. A quick Google of each of those terms gets ~91,000 and ~ 1.8 million hits respectively. You can't make widely-used terms you don't like go away by complaining about them in a tangentially-related Wikipedia article. Additionally, the SCA is historically-based. It may not be as accurate as some groups (or as inaccurate as some others), but that's beside the point. Now, please desist from disruptive editing. Beastiepaws (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And, incidentally, inserting your complaints into the article is not "legitimate editing". Beastiepaws (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to be civil and to stay on the topic of this talk page, which is on improving the associated article. Jonathunder (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sage advice from Jonathunder. With respect to Midiman Alex's comments, I've done some copyediting of the lead. If we stick to the one link on Historical reenactment, and the words of the society, we should be on solid ground. I've also simplified the wording somewhat. Sunray (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ " Beastiepaws", Pointing out valid flaws in the statements in the article are indeed legitimate edits and also simply because the phrases "Living history" and "historical re-creation" are being used on other Wikipedia pages does not mean that those pages belong on wikipedia either or that those terms are explained in a way that makes sense. In other words two wrongs do not make a right. The phrase "historical re-creation" means nothing except that which is imagined and Wikipedia is supposed to be about stating facts instead of personal opinions of members of "The Society for Creative Anachronism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midiman Alex (talk • contribs) 22:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia didn't make up the terms; they're widely used and understood. You're just re-stating that you don't like them.

Pointing out flaws is legitimate in the talk page-- within the article, it's no substitute for improvement. Beastiepaws (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Midiman Alex: This is an encyclopedia and statements about particular topics must be verifiable. Here's what the SCA says about itself in its governing documents: "As a living history group, the Society provides an environment in which members can recreate various aspects of the culture and technology of the period, as well as doing more traditional historical research." [1]. So mentioning historical re-creation is valid, as are links to living history and historical reenactment (though we likely do not need both these links in the lead).

As to the validity of those two pages, there is a process for review and justification of articles called Articles for Deletion. Anyone who thinks that an article should not exist is welcome to initiate an AfD review. Sunray (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

About the beginning section of the Society for Creative Anachronism page

First of all “The Society for Creative Anachronism” is not “ a historical re-enactment group” and also there is no specific restriction within the group to study only cultures from “ western Europe”.

The Society for Creative anachronism’s own web page makes no such claim as to being a Historical Re-enactment group.

Here is an example of one SCA website that specifically says that the SCA is not a Historical Re-enactment group.

< http://www.hellsgate-sca.org/>

I believe if one were to go to an event and take a poll asking the participants if they thought The SCA was a historical re-enactment group they would be likely to find only a small percentage of people in agreement with the statement and that most of the people who did agree would be non adults.

All Historical Re-enactment groups emphasize historical authenticity and the Society for creative Anachronism members seem to have no problem with people making things up as they go. For example their members are free to wear armor or clothing that is not intended to be historically authentic in appearance. Also members are free to bring modern items such as cell phones, video recorders and digital watches to their events without even attempting to keep them from sight.

Historical re-enactment groups make an attempt to have all their participants look as if they are from the same over all time period and region of the world while SCA participants are free to dress as if they are attempting to be from any region of the world and any time period that precedes the 17th century.

The combative techniques used at SCA events are not restricted to techniques that can be verified to being historically authentic. I have also asked the SCA’s own head marshal if it would be permitted for me to study Fiore technique at one of their fight practices and his answer was no. Not only can one say SCA members are not concerned about historical authenticity but it is true that they may specifically ban those studies even when specific measures are taken for safety.

The SCA does not discourage participants from attempting to dress or act as if they were from medieval china, Japan or Eastern Europe. I found that most SCA events that I went to had participants attempting to dress as if they were from Eastern Europe and sometimes there were a few people looking as though they were attempting to look as if they were from medieval China or Japan.

The people participating in the talk page on Historical Re-Enactment on Wikipedia seem to be mainly in agreement that The Society for Creative Anachronism is not a historical re-enactment group with the exception of only one person.

When you say “A quip often used within the SCA” in your description of the group you seem to make a statement as to what people pretend to be doing as apposed to what people are actually doing physically. In my opinion the readers of this page are far more interested in what people involved in the group actually do as apposed to what they pretend to do. For example you talk about the different “kingdoms” within the Society for Creative Anachronism as if they were real kingdoms instead make believe kingdoms. If fact these so called kingdoms are not recognized as being real by any other groups. Making up so called kingdoms like something from a fantasy novel cannot possibly be said to be a devoted historical study of anything.

Since most of the things done within the Society for Creative anachronism are only influenced by things of a medieval nature it would not be accurate to describe the group as being “devoted” to the study of pre-17th century Western European cultures and their histories.

Midiman Alex (talk)

Feel free to suggest improvements to the article. Beastiepaws (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Video content (or links)

What do we think about linking up a few video clips from YouTube, demonstrating some typical SCA activities? (I mean videos like these, for instance: Estrella battle, or using a spring lathe or even music and dancing.) I see that according to m:Talk:Video policy#Public domain, linking to YouTube videos is an acceptable practice. Is this something that anyone else has talked about or tried out? More to the point, is there consensus to link to a few videos? Of course, like anything, it should be understood that we aren't going to link to every backyard trebuchet or fireside belly dancer, but only a few of those video clips that offer a glimpse of typical activities of the SCA in general. What do you all think? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Robin Hood

"Nor is one allowed to take on the persona of a sufficiently familiar fictional character (e.g. Robin of Locksley or Robin Hood"

Minor point - Robin Hood was actually a real person, not a fictional character. Certain irony in having to point that out on an article about fantasy, but there you go! AndrewRT(Talk) 00:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, he wasn’t exactly a real person. The legend was very likely based on a real person or real people, but historians have not identified him. About the best they’ve done is made guesses based on surviving records. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 09:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Women in the SCA

There is an article on SCAtoday.net that contains some interesting information about the history/role of women in the SCA, if anyone is interested in incorporating such information into the article. I think it is interesting to note that a significant number of women have been knighted in the Society, and some (at least one) have even ruled "by right of arms." Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 12:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... does SCAtoday.net qualify as a reliable source? --Lord Inali of Tanasi, G.D.H., m/k/a Orange Mike | Talk 00:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. Would it be considered a self-published source like a newsletter? If so WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves would indicate that within this context it can be considered a reliable source, so long as the article does not rely mainly on such sources. I think as long as we read it for what it is, SCAtoday.net is a credible source in limited contexts such as this. What are your thoughts? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Critiques and criticism: Religion

Critiques and criticism says: "Another element of the Society is a ban on public religious ceremonies or proselytizing, in stark contrast to the real Middle Ages, and overt displays of religion are discouraged in many areas."

This is a bad distortion of reality. I am a member of the Theologians' house & the Umbrella house of religious houses within the SCA. The way this section is worded, a neophyte would get the impression that religion is discouraged. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Many people have religious persona; including priests or other clergy, nuns, monks, etc. Religious activities, even public ones, are permitted, but attendance can't be required. Nor should any activity be so large as to be unavoidable (this would of course include religious activities).

The use of the word proselytizing is also misleading, because someone with the persona of a religious person is expected to discuss religion, or even to preach. Some with religious persona (especially those in the Theologians' house) are clerics in real life, and can perform real services such as weddings, funerals, baptism, or take confession for members. --LanceHaverkamp 14:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Group officers are not allowed to advertise or endorse religious activities, but wedding, religious rituals, and discussion of religion (both past and present) occur frequently at gatherings. These things are neither discouraged nor prohibited.

In addition, at no point would anyone fight an American Indian. That's just silly and entirely out of place for this group. Attempts at pre-17th century clothing are required for events, and American Indian dress simply wouldn't cut it.

Last, most area groups (usually centered around a city) are required to host at least one demonstration a year. These demos happen at schools, hospitals, festivals, and so on. Saying that a non-profit organized for education is only slightly education is a gross misrepresentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.44.227 (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but in real life a number of American Indians made it to Europe between the unfortunate event of 1492 and 1650, the terminus date for the S.C.A. Ever hear of Pocahontas, a/k/a Rebecca Rolfe; died 1617? See my note below. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the religion issue specifically, that was actually dealt with already. The passage in question has been removed as both untrue and because its sole source was grossly misused in this regard. The source was a just pamphlet for parents of teens who want to join the SCA and it contained a single paragraph that simply was assuring parents that the SCA is neither a "cult" nor a religious organization that would try to convert their kids. I amazed and rather irritated that such a thing remained in this article for so long.NicoloSt (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

OrangeMike, there are many medieval references to fairies and dragons in period, as well, but I couldn't generally dress up as one at an event, because the 'attempt' is subject to the autocrat's discretion, and the consensus is currently against that. Probably not many autocrats have seen your sources (they'd only matter until about 1600, but the meaning of 'pre-16th century' is a whole 'nother conversation, lol), hence the likelihood of them letting someone walk around in Native American garb from that time period is low. (Also, I doubt that any Native Americans who made it to Europe wore their native clothing over, but again, different conversation.) Anyway, I believe your anecdote about dressing as an American Indian, but it's similar to when my friend's daughter wore fairy wings to an event over Halloween weekend, in that they are true anecdotes, but not usual, relevant, or independently verifiable. :) Rose M. Welch 09:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Citation for symbol sent to space

I found this citation for the Trimaris kingdom sending it's symbol to space, but don't know how to add it.

http://www.voxmagazine.com/stories/2010/03/04/medieval-times/

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.104.31 (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked the article linked. A Missouri newspaper reporter visited a local SCA group, where a fighter repeated the claim that a symbol went "up with one of the astronauts" but gives no more detail. It does not help verify the underlying claim. Try finding a NASA manifest or a quote from an astronaut. Jonathunder (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Material/Original Research Cleaned from Criticsm Section

Diff

This material had been tagged for years. Please feel free to re-add any of the removed material with proper sourcing. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

American Indians?

The article currently states:

"Theoretically, it would be possible in a tournament for a Roman combatant to fight a 15th-century knight, then a Viking, then a Japanese warrior, then an American Indian, or any other culture in contact with SCA period Europe."

It then cites a book called The Past is a Foreign Country by David Lowenthal (ISBN: 0521294800 | page = 363 | url = http://books.google.com/?id=jMqsAQZmv5IC&pg=PA363&dq=%22Society+for+Creative+Anachronism%22). The book itself was published in 1985 and is not exactly what I'd call a good reference for anything, but especially not for the SCA, which is barely mentioned. Regardless of the book's complete worthiness, the actual page cited says nothing about the kinds of people that you may encounter in a tournament, but merely has a single sentence suggesting that the SCA is 'mock-medieval' but going into no further detail. This single sentence is based on yet another reference from a book published in 1979, which still says nothing about whom you may encounter in a tournament, but instead discusses the author of that book's personal experiences in the first five years of the SCA's existence. It's been 36 years since then; we've gotten a little better, folks. :P

I am suggesting that this sentence be removed, the bit about the Indians taken out, or get some new citations for the idea that someone dressed as an American Indian might be able to fight in an SCA tournament. (Or, indeed, attend the event at all.) Thanks! Rose M. Welch 07:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There's Sir Ixtlilxochtl, who's an Aztec, and holds six other awards in addition to his knighthood; and heck, I've been involved in the SCA on and off since 1971, and my persona has been a Cherokee (born 1530) all that time. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There are native american persona (though fairly uncommon compared to European) as Orange Mike proves, but the quotation the anon user takes issue makes me a bit uneasy too. For one, the tone is a tad mean-spirited, as it implies (intended or not) that the SCA's educational goal is somehow defective for allowing such things. It also seems to be a sourcing issue, since as the anon user points out, the sources do not support this assertion. The quote seems to be WP:Synthesis.NicoloSt (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So update the citations for this bit, as I suggested above. :) Rose M. Welch 07:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably a better way to put that would be to ask if the source you mentioned could be used as a citation. If so, that would make the sentence better. However, is it possible to add information about the rarity of that occurence? Or would that violate the NPOV? (Apologies for my newness. I am slogging through all of the guideline/policy pages.) Rose M. Welch 07:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Critiques and criticism: LGBT issues.

Another area that receives frequent criticism is that they do not currently allow anyone other than a cis-gendered male and a cis-gendered female to reign. This is a position of considerable power (one of the highest offices available), but people of the same gender, or of non-binary gender, cannot take that office, or even run for that office. There have been Change.org petitions, talk of lawsuits in Canada (where this policy may or may not be illegal), etc. It's a contentious issue. I'm new to this whole Wikipedia thing, so I'm unsure if this is something that qualifies as worthy to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.44.227 (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have two concerns with mentioning this. To start with, despite being a SCAdian myself, I have never heard of such a policy. Is this actually written down as a policy somewhere? That is surprising to me because as a rapier fighter, I know female fencers routinely dress in male attire for competition.

Second are issues of priority and balance in a criticism section. The relevant policies of wikipedia are WP:UNDUE and WP:CRIT. In brief, to save you more reading, when a criticism is added, a criticism not only must have a reliable outside source proving it is true, but it has to have a source proving if it is a big enough deal to be worth mentioning. Generally, criticism sections should be as small as possible, to avoid an overall abusive tone in an article.NicoloSt (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It most certainly is in policy. PDF here, page 10 of Corpora, under Royalty, B1. - "Each competitor in a Royal Lists must be fighting for a prospective consort of the opposite gender." In the past couple of years this has become somewhat of a button. I'm admittedly biased, having started an LJ community to discuss this and other issues of equality within the society, but the statement is part of the official documentation.

As to whether it's received significant third-party notice; I can't speak to that one, but I'd certainly be interested to find out. Doniago (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well that's interesting. Even without looking into it further I can imagine in my mind the sorts of arguments going both ways.

At the very least, the society has made some big decisions on the matter as recently as 5 months ago: [2]

But, I feel this does not deserve mention just yet. We would need a reliable, professionally published source showing significant third-party notice.NicoloSt (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Doniago (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)