Talk:SCA Rapier Combat

Fencing Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fencing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to fencing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FencingWikipedia:WikiProject FencingTemplate:WikiProject FencingFencing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

12/12/2005 - Authored a major revision of this article. It is not my intention to censor or edit anyone else writing, but to expand and organize the information currently available. I have made an effort to explain fencing to a non-SCA fencer for those readers that wish to contrast SCA fencing with other types of fencing.

The article looks OK to me, I think you did a good job. -- Markspace 01:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism not warranted

I'm not a reenactor of any sort, SCA or not, so I'm not 100% sure, but it appears the first reference in the "Criticism" section is directed more at SCA heavy fighting, rather than fencing. It criticizes the SCA for forbidding strikes to the lower leg, which doesn't match the description of SCA fencing using the same targeting rules as sport epee. 71.192.119.21 (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that part was edited out at some point. However I too have concerns about the criticism section, and this has parallels on the main SCA article. One is about Historical Accuracy. The claim that the rules don't make it accurate or realistic enough rings hollow if you ask me. Less accurate or realistic than what? Olympic Fencing aka "one-on-one tag with a stick?" If any fencing system were completely realistic what you would have there is actual bloodsport. Even in the olden times these sword arts were actually used for fighting, they still had to practice them using safe equipment and rules. I'm going to remove these criticisms, because they are at the very least unsourced and possibly WP:OR.128.231.63.96 (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I was reverted, yet no one responded here. Can we talk about this? Just because I don't feel like signing up for a username doesn't mean I'm a troll.128.231.63.96 (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism is out there, and adequately referenced. The fact that you (and, for that matter, I) don't agree with it is neither here nor there. Beastiepaws (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the thing, it's not referenced. I am looking at the Criticism section right now and I only see one source. And clicking through to that source, it makes no mention of the SCA whatsoever. It's just about falling to a knee or sitting down to represent leg injuries, something not exclusive to the SCA. It would be WP:Synthesis to use that as a source for this criticism. The rest of the Criticism source contains no sourcing at all. You and I both think the assertions are uncalled for, so I say WP:PROVEIT or cut it.128.231.63.96 (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]