Talk:Society for Creative Anachronism/Archive 3

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 and WP:V. Cheers. The Parsnip! 18:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that Verifiability, 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, 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, . 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 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 List of administrators. Dsmdgold 12:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and authenticity -- varies from region to region.
While at Purdue, I considered joining but was annoyed when, after crafting an interesting persona that was perfectly feasible, I was informed that I wouldn't be able to use it.

The persona was effectively a crazy person (there were, after all, nutters back in the day, too) who, because he was born with a minor birth defect in the form of pointy ears (also really happens from time to time) and being persecuted through childhood about it, came to the conclusion that he was not really human but a changeling placed by the fair folk (still don't see anything unreasonable about this... such a person's *parents* might have even made such an accusation, if not directly told thie child he had the devil in him).

Sounded perfectly reasonable to me and totally feasible -- and far more understandable then seeing a samurai from the Genpo wars dueling with a Legionnaire of the Eleventh. Besides, I thought it would be pretty fun.

Yet the local group denied it because it was 'too absurd and too much like I was claiming to be an elf' (mind you, I wasn't--the *persona* was) and that I didn't take it seriously enough.

So I gave up, basically deriding the group as what the article calls 'period nazis,' and stupid ones at that to not grasp the idea that a person could have been a bit off his rocker in the supposed period represented as well.

When I moved out to California, I met some other SCA members who said quite clearly that not only would there be no problem with this, but that they knew people who claimed their personae *were* elves and this was accepted.

Thus the balance between authenticity, fun, and creativity all seem to vary from locale to locale, at least in the areas I've encountered.208.54.15.187 17:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't state the specific shires involved nor their IRL city names, but I do remember when I lived in one city, many of my friends who were members of the SCA tended to dislike their local shire, and would instead go do things with members one city away from us. The leadership and many of the members in our local shire were seen as "Period Nazi's", the other city's Barony were seem as much more lax, much more willing to just enjoy themselves, and much more willing to help new members without being instantly critical or shooting down ideas just because they didn't fit our local shire's concept of "Period". Anyway, I guess my point is that what you encountered can often happen even between two cities very close to each other, each with it's own SCA group. As an aside, your persona concept is very unique, not sure I had ever seen anyone try to pull off what you decided to develop. Having said that, I was active in the mid 90's, I haven't been to an event in about 10 or 11 years now. 76.178.105.2 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I have not been in the SCA long enough to have first-hand knowledge of this.) I have heard that in the early days of the SCA, people took names in the languages of JRR Tolkien. Eventually the heralds decided that this was not suitable, so no more were permitted, but existing personae with such names were kept. These may have been the people referred to above as being elves. Such personae are not now permitted to be created. I am not sure about the character above, but I think it would be preferable to have a bit more authenticity than is described, in the form of a well-accepted name, perhaps some skills, and anything that would show a good knowledge of the time and place he was born.

The variation by region is likely because of a few people in power, who, whether consciously or not, lead their branch of the society in ways not upheld by the society as a whole. Thalawest (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Combat to determine a 'king' is inauthentic
This heading doesn't seem to belong. It smacks of POV, and the subsequent paragraph reads like it was written by someone making this criticism, rather than by someone objectively recounting the criticism. Also, the SCA's basis for the custom should be presented in response to the criticism in order to maintain overall balance in the article. I'm thinking about changing the heading to "Authenticity of Determining 'King' by Combat". Wilhelm meis (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Organization
I'm thinking about putting the groups in the "Organization" paragraph into outline format, to give clarifying visual cues. It would look something like this: In typical order from generally most to least populous:

The following definitions come from the SCA Corpora, p.6, (except added notes):


 * Kingdom: area ruled by a King and Queen (typically covering several U.S. states or Canadian provinces, and can be as large as countries or collections of countries)
 * Principality: area within a kingdom ruled by Prince and Princess (large area sometimes comprising entire states)
 * Barony: area administered by a Baron and/or Baroness, the ceremonial representative(s) of the Crown (small chapter typically occurring in an urban area)
 * Canton: local branch reporting through a barony (local chapter, which may be on the way to becoming a shire)
 * Province: equivalent of barony without ceremonial representative
 * Riding: local branch reporting through a province
 * Shire: local branch reporting directly to a kingdom or principality (local chapter typically occurring in rural areas)
 * College: institutional branch based at a school, research facility, etc. (often occurring within a Barony)
 * Stronghold: institutional branch based at a military installation
 * Port: institutional branch based at a military installation in situations where groups of members will be detached for long periods, as with ships at sea

Wilhelm meis (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the comments (not supported in any SCA document I have seen) that baronies typically are urban and shires are rural. That certainly does not match my experience in the SCA, but that's only 32 years so what do I know?  138.162.128.52 (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As stated above, the comments italicized in parentheses are my own comments, and I was putting them here first for just such a review. As for baronies tending to occur in more urban areas and shires in more rural areas, this has been my experience in Calontir, Ansteorra, and Gleann Abhann, but I don't know, maybe it works differently in other areas. Can you tell me where there are rural baronies and/or urban shires? If that sounds snotty, I don't mean it to. I'd really like to know. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Corpora specifies the requirements to become a barony, and there's no official statement about baronies being urban, rural or whatnot. In practice, baronies come in all flavors. East Kingdom Example: New Hampshire and Rhode Island are each a single barony. Connecticut is made up of two baronies and their associated cantons. - Meister Ulric, Freiherr von der Insel, and a herald nerd. LTC David J. Cormier (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Worth noting also that the whole nation of Finland is a single barony, as was Sweden before it advaned to principality. CsikosLo (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Antarctica
Is this a joke? We have posted a somewhat dicey website as evidence of an "incipient barony" (we typically call these "shires" in the SCA and the kingdom website doesn't list it (v http://www.trimaris.org/index.php?q=localcontacts-grouplist) . At best, this is a lonely SCAdian far from home with champagne dreams.   138.162.128.54 (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the Trimaris claims in Antarctica. To the best of my knowledge, Antarctica is claimed by Lochac, and I have heard that there is indeed a lonely SCAdian there much of the year. I wonder if he has internet access... Wilhelm_meis (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes years ago Trimaris was granted Antarctica, I would have to look through years of OLD BoD minutes to find the exact date, for the discussion area it isn't worth it... But, it happened some 20 years ago, when some number (more then one) US Service member, from Trimaris, was stationed in Little America. But it was certainly more of a joke then.--N7bsn (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a reasonably good summary at http://cunnan.sca.org.au/wiki/Antarctica, but the long and the short is that Lochac has a present claim to parts of Antarctica that goes back to the early 80s, while Trimaris has no present claim. [Kingdoms of the SCA] Beastiepaws (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

To those who critize...
This section is not constructive to those who wish to learn about the SCA and lacks the chivalry those in the SCA are supposed to be emulating. If I do not receive a note to the contrary I shall be deleting this in seven days.Dave (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's against Wikipedia Guidelines for Talk Pages to delet other's comments.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

While I understand that rattan weapons and the armor worn by the fighting members may not be authentic, would you like to climb into a ring with me wearing a complete suit of chain or even ring armor with me and a blunted metal sword? I weigh 220 lbs. and am just over 6 foot, with only a hint of a gut. Oh and we'll take off your plastic rimmed glasses so you can't see, because your to busy to make yourself some wood frames. Of course we should probably both bring our lawyers and sign completely legal and binding releases so that after I hit you on the first swing and break one of your limbs you can't sue me, nor I you.

The SCA is for fun and study. While not necessarily totally authentic show me one modern day reenactment group that is in every single way.

Be constructive not nonconstructive, that's the whole point of Wikipedia. I'm off to the next article where people are bashing as opposed to being constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.51.126 (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already sparred against other SCA fighters larger than 6 foot and 220 pounds and still won many of those matches so I feel like I have every right to criticize the SCA on their sparring rules, which are clearly biased in favor of sword and board fighters. I also criticize the way fighters who are not part of their upper hierarchy are prevented from having a say in their sparring rules. The SCA as an organization has a habit of being ambiguous in the way they explain things in order to avoid logical criticisms. Midiman Alex (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The section "Tradeoffs - safety vs authenticity" has no cites and is incorrect. The correctness can be argued, of course, but the lack of cites is doubtless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.2.195 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the SCA is about isn't relevant. It isn't a wikipedia article if it isn't verifiable. 76.120.40.131 (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Undid deletions by User:GuyWeknow
User GuyWeknow deleted big chunks of the text. No comment on this page explaining what is wrong with these or how the problems could be fixed except to comment that a NPOV tag had been on one para for a while and the para had not been fixed.

As the deleted sections contained information on the operation of this organisation and noone has claimed this information is false therefore I have restored it.

If the info is written slightly from an SCA point of view this is not fatal for this type of detail since the information is not controversial and it is describing how the SCA works. All of this means that a copyedit to improve the style and some additional citations are required. It does not justify deleting big chunks with no replacement. I took the NPOV tag off in case it was misinterpreted this way again.Filceolaire (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted for NPOV it was deleted for lack of citations, i.e. independent research. 76.120.40.131 (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Authenticity vs. Racism vs. Eurocentrism?
While reading this article, and looking at the related websites and images, It dawned on me that aside from the obvious safety reasons why total authenticity for a registered non-profit org like this SCA group cannot ever be fully "authentic", as discrimination issues exist as well. The more "authentic" they should become, yes, they may become more "anachronistic" in this time, but also they would become more discriminatory.

There were not very many people of non-European descent in Europe yet at the time they focus on, and I'm not even sure how story told by the fellow above about a Samurai-character taking part fit into their "Known World", as it says on their site: "The SCA is an international organization dedicated to researching and re-creating the arts and skills of pre-17th-century Europe." They say nothing about pre-17th century Asia, Africa, or the Americas.

While I do notice that all* of the people pictured here are of fair skin tone and most likely of European descent; To be truly 'authentic', they would have to officially* disallow certain people from joining based on Race or, possibly, gender (as non-royalty women had very little rights in that time period-and were often held as servants). I don't think this would be allowed for a registered non-profit org?

Which brings up the question--should it be included in the article that this a Eurocentric organization? I'm not calling them "veiled Nazis", "racists" or even "Period Nazis", but it does seem that the underlying point of this group is to have a revival of EUROPEAN Middle Ages culture, not of Middle Ages culture of the world in general...Plus their symbol does incorporate something that appears to based on the Celtic Cross, which is nto inherently racist, but of-used to represent Euro-Nationalism.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_cross#Political_symbol

??--71.194.236.53 (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you on about? 1) There were non-whites in Medieval Europe; there are certainly a number of them in the SCA (my own persona is Cherokee, thank you), and not just in the Great Dark Horde. 2) The organization is about the "Middle Ages", which is a European concept; that's not the same as being Eurocentric in any pejorative sense. 3)The symbol of the Kingdom of Northshield is based on a compass rose, not a Celtic cross. 3a) To associate the Celtic cross with racist morons is to accept their lies as meaningful. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC) (a/k/a Lord Inali of Tanasi, GDH)

Certainly agreed that the Middle Ages is a European concept, which applies nearly exclusively to Europe (the term was coined in reference to the time "between" the blossoming Greek and Roman cultures and the later "Renaissance" - or rebirth of the arts and sciences that had been suppressed throughout Christendom during the ascetic period in between). I think the above user has a problematic misunderstanding of medieval history, and probably way too much time and not enough sleep. Many cultures from outside Europe penetrated or at least influenced Europe before, during, and after the Middle Ages. The Huns came from central Asia and penetrated deep into Europe. The Turks, Persians, and Moors certainly had an influence in European societies and were therefor part of "The Known World", even if they weren't in Europe (which they were). The Moors pretty much owned southern Spain for most of the Middle Ages. Also, as Orangemike said, the SCA compass rose is not in any way connected to a Celtic cross (not that the Celtic cross is per se racist anyway). Wilhelm meis (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the whole 'Celtic Cross' issue is caused by the use of a Northshield court picture at the top of the page. Unfortunatley, attempts to add the SCA arms to this page have been activley blocked by some parties, and so to those not familiar with the SCA, they might think the Northshield devices pictured are represenative of the SCA in general.  For those who are not familiar with the SCA's device, it is a green laurel wreath on a gold field, as can be seen here: [www.sca.org] I am going to inquire on the Meridian herald's list on who 'owns' the SCA device and see if I can get an explict permission to use it on this page. --Donovan Ravenhull (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it should be acceptable under fair use policy, provided that a proper fair use rationale is stated here on the talk page as well as the image page. You might also look at WP:LOGO, Template:Non-free symbol, and Template:Withpermission. One other thing. When we had it before, it was on WikiMedia, but was deleted for possible copyvio (it also lacked the requisite fair use rationale. You might try uploading it to Wikipedia instead, but be sure to use the proper licensing and fair use rationale. Hope that helps! Wilhelm meis (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Oh, and by the way, the Northshield symbol is based on a compass rose, not a Celtic cross. Wilhelm meis (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Official logo can be used under the fair use guideline. Actually, that's the only was it can be used. It was deleted from Commons because it was uploaded under a public domain or GFDL license, which is virtually impossible for an organizational logo. GFDL and PD allow for commercial reuse, which I doubt SCA would like. Therefore, logos are almost always uploaded directly to Wikipedia with a "fair use logo" license, and then given a thorough fair use rationale. If you need help with this, let me know on my talk page. I've uploaded a fair number of logos. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)