Talk:The Sealed Knot (reenactment)
|This page was nominated for deletion on 27 November 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.|
|WikiProject Reenactment||(Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)|
Up front information: I am a member of The Sealed Knot, so my views can possibly be viewed as a little biassed.
In my opinion the last revision to this article, ie "However in terms of historical accuracy...", is editorialising - at least in the absence of a citable source.
--Hikariuk 17:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Criticism/bashing or hyping of this historical society is purely point-of-view and should be speedily deleted. Someone keeps sniping at this page for some reason. I thought I would support the recent editors towards consensus on the removal of the POV bits.Sandwich Eater 14:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The comments regarding the accuracy of the Sealed Knot's display are verifiable by observation. With regard to costume, the Sealed Knot still allows its' members to enter the field wearing aluminium helmets, welding gloves, hiking boots, army boots, face piercings, multi-coloured hair-do's, modern belt buckles, brooches pinned to hats, black and other coloured shirts, lace, large collars permanently attached to shirts, women wearing only a shift (the equivalent in modern terms of a girl walking down the street wearing only a bra and knickers), and numerous other gaffs. Virtually no other UK based re-enactment society would allow this behaviour. Verification of several of the above is obtainable from the Sealed Knot's own publicity photgraphs. With regard to fighting methods. The Sealed Knot insists on putting on battles devoid of casualties to gun fire, etc., pike who ignore the point and continue to bump into each other in defiance of both common sense and history, shot units that constantly melee in hand to hand fighting (a practice avoided except as a last resort or in the final assault as it destroyed the cohesion of the unit). Again some of the above can be verified by the Sealed Knot's own publicity material. Whilst what the Sealed Knot does is entertaining and looks like fun, it is well below the standards in re-enactment set by the likes of the Ermine Street Guard, etc. Therefore the entry is accurate.
best wishes and without malice
I would disagree. I am another member of the Sealed Knot.
You say: "In particular much of its costume and depictions of period fighting methods no longer stand up to examination."
You say: "The comments regarding the accuracy of the Sealed Knot's display are verifiable by observation. With regard to costume, the Sealed Knot still allows its' members to enter the field wearing ...(snip)....and numerous other gaffs. Virtually no other UK based re-enactment society would allow this behaviour."
Individual examples, however specific, do not verify "much". Unless one bad apple spoils the barrel and "much of its costume" is meant to mean that most of the time somebody, somewhere is wearing something wrong.
"Virtually no" is another interesting quantity. Is that a virtual reality in which dress regulations are enforced?
You say: "The Sealed Knot insists on putting on battles devoid of casualties to gun fire, etc., pike who ignore the point and continue to bump into each other in defiance of both common sense and history, shot units that constantly melee in hand to hand fighting (a practice avoided except as a last resort or in the final assault as it destroyed the cohesion of the unit)."
The Sealed Knot does not insist on putting on battles devoid of casualties. That absurd statement betrays your personal bias.
For all the problems of Sealed Knot battles, exactly which re-enactment society is being cited as having a better approach to reflecting period fighting? For example if melee is a last resort then presumably pre-gunpowder re-enactment societies only make one charge? Perhaps a fairer comment would be that, like all other re-enactment societies, Sealed Knot battles do not accuractely reflect historically reality.
You say: "Therefore the entry is accurate."
Thank you for entering this discussion. To say that the Sealed Knot is let down by individuals is a fair point, but would you agree that these gaffs are still allowed on the battlefield? Would you agree that these and many more have been conceded many times on the societies own website? Would you agree that the Sealed Knot has dress regulations but these are not enforced from on high (when was the last time someone dressed in such a fashion was ordered off?) Would you agree the traders allowed to sell on a Sealed Knot campsite are not regulated and so can continue to sell equipment that is not acceptable and that this is a problem that the society does not seem willing to address? With regard to melee, I accept you viewpoint as valid even though I do not believe it to be accurate. The purpose of a unit armed with firearms is to fire. Would you agree that the units in the Sealed Knot are meant to represent units of many hundreds of men? Would also agree that once such a unit engages in melee it ceases to be a disciplined body and is very difficult to extricate, reform or respond to changing tactical considerations and so is of far less use that a formed body? Concerning other re-enactment societies. Would you say that these standards are allowed by Roman groups, or Dark Age (Regia Angelorum, etc), or the various Medieval, or the Napoleonic Association, or Southern Skirmish, or the various WWII groups? I think not. This is not to mention all the smaller groups covering Colonial, WWI, etc, etc. To get a little perspective. I added four sentences to the article. Two were complimentary. Two critical. Are you implying that the Sealed Knot can not take criticism and is beyond reproach? Would you also agree that it is unacceptable to delete or vandalise an article just because two sentence are uncomfortable as has happened in this case?
Thank you for your reply.
I am not implying that the Sealed Knot cannot take criticism or that it is beyond reproach. However your comment referred to "much of its costume". This is simply not true. The Sealed Knot has more people with authentic or authentic-looking apparel than any other reenactment society in the UK. I do not dispute your point about the presence of individual inauthentic items or appearance (as seen on the web-site), but that was not the point you made when you decided to present your perspective of the Sealed Knot to the world.
As for the issue of re-enactment of combat, I stand by my comment that I have not seen a better portrayal of combat by any of your list "Roman groups, or Dark Age (Regia Angelorum, etc), or the various Medieval, or the Napoleonic Association, or Southern Skirmish, or the various WWII groups? I think not. This is not to mention all the smaller groups covering Colonial, WWI, etc, etc." Many of them sensibly stop at drill.
"With regard to melee, I accept you viewpoint as valid even though I do not believe it to be accurate." I could not agree more. You say: "The purpose of a unit armed with firearms is to fire. (snip) Would also agree that once such a unit engages in melee it ceases to be a disciplined body and is very difficult to extricate, reform or respond to changing tactical considerations and so is of far less use that a formed body?" Yes and yet there are repeated examples of long running combats (hours) during the English Civil War with musketeers taking lines of hedgerows. In summary, they blaze away, the enemy's fire slackens, they charge, take the hedge or wall line, re-group and blaze away again. So you are right, melee leads to disorganisation. But there are numerous occasions where troops having gained an objective or been thrown back are rallied, reformed and led forward again. You might think this is a strange thing to do with a firearms unit, you might be right. However, if you are re-enacting English Civil War battles then that it what, on ocasions, one should do.
New Section on 'The Sealed Knot (reenactment)
I too am a Member of this society, and the issues discussed above are appropriate. I have just posted the information from the Sealed Knot Site about our society. This information is correct.
- It's largely inaccurate, and completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. For example, take part of the first sentence:
- ...offering you the unique chance to experience at first hand the trials of a nation at war with itself.
- Objections that spring to mind are: this experience is not unique (as there are other opportunities to be involved in a civil war); and the trials are not those of a real war, but a recreation of such. I'm sure that there are dozens of other similar problems with the rest of the text you took from the society's official website. To put it bluntly: it's advertising material, rather than being strictly informative.
- In addition, the material from the website is copyrighted. Unless you can persuade the webmaster to release it under the GNU Free Documentation Licence (or equivalent), we need to write the article ourselves (using facts from the official site as necessary). I've removed the additional material and slightly modified the rest, incorporating a few data from the official site. There's still plenty to be done, but unfortunately we can't simply copy and paste the society's material. --Khajja 06:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I entirely agree with that. It is, as you correctly state, advertising bumf.
- Also, you don't need the webmaster's permission (that's me, incidently), you need the directors' permission - though any requests directed to me will just be passed on to them anyway, so it comes to the same thing in the long run.
- If you're pulling information from the Knowlege Base on the site you need permission from whoever wrote the article in the first place.
- I think in general statements compariving the relative worth of re-enactment groups have no place in an encyclopedia, it's personal opinion. The only really objective statement you could make is that there are various competing organisation who compete party on the grounds of quality, without stating an opinion as to which is best. --Hikari 15:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Sk.jpg
Image:Sk.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
"With its large membership and high profile the Sealed Knot is the largest and most well known of all the many re-enactment and historical groups and societies in the UK" Rather self-congratulatory and unsupported I think.Captain McVitie (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a huge social aspect to this organisation. Walking around the campsite it is possible to stop just about at every other tent to have a chat to old friends that you haven't seen since the last muster (Re-enactment). After a hard days fighting, and maybe a few miles walking in full armour, most of the people gather to the beer tent, aptly named for the selling of beer amongst other beverages, and they socialise until they can't take any more and usually roll into the tents, caravans or campervans in the early morning. Many members have met their life partners in the Sealed Knot and some of the first generation Knotters are having their own children now. There is a great sense of belonging in the Sealed Knot, as everybody looks out for each other. Parents let their children go out and play with the other children around because they know if another Knotter saw a person in normal clothes coming over to children dressed in period costume they would intervene and make sure the children are safe, so the children have the best of both worlds - protection and the ability to run free.
The children can also take part in learning to fight with the Apprentices, where they learn all the different weapons and arms within the Sealed knot.
Exxolon 01:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect Link to "Peter Young"
It looks as though the Peter Young linked to from this page is the wrong British Army officer. Quick checks with the website of the Sealed Knot reveal a different name for his wife, just as an intial indicator. Also, I understood that the Peter Young who founded the Sealed Knot was also a Commando officer, in WW2, rather than in airborne forces. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I dont think that this page should be deleted, I just think it needs some work to bring it up to wikipedia standards. This will include more references and links in the article. If there is anyone reading this please help me make this page better! JMRH6 (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Best to raise this at the AfD page first.
- I'd note that the same editor has also AfDed what looks like every UK reenactment group's article today, most bizarrely the big names like the Sealed Knot, English Civil War Society and Regia Anglorum even before we get to the smaller groups. I guess they just don't like "beardy weirdies", as they described them. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the lists both here and there. The list here was uncited (I assume it could have been cited to the SK's website) and the list there was cited only to the ECWS website. In both cases, I think such a list probably violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We do list the official website as an external link, and we don't need to duplicate all the content they have. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)