Talk:Society for Creative Anachronism/Archive 4

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  &#x007C;   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." . 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, 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  &#x007C;   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 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)

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)

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:
 * 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)

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.
 * 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)

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  &#x007C;  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)
 * I kind of liked the sentence since it showed the diversity of personas at an event. Maybe it can be put elsewhere as a positive comment? Septagram (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved down from above unrelated thread
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 &#x007C;  Talk  01:49, 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)


 * You seem either incredibly obtuse (and ignorant of how the SCA works), or determined for some inexplicable reason to insult me, Madam. I will not rise to your bait, but will simply remind you that neither of the Kings of the Midrealm who granted my Cherokee persona an Award of Arms (see the reference below) considered Inali's presence in the SCA at all remarkable. Certainly you don't seem to understand the meaning of simple phrases like "before 1650". -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I've offended you. That certainly wasn't my intent, and I'm not quite sure which section insulted you. There's no 'bait' there, or even any negative personal references. Contrary to your statements (which I am taking in good faith), I do understand how the SCA works, which is why I understand who would be responsible for determining what qualifies as an 'attempt at pre-17th century'. This topic has been brought up repeatedly on this Talk page, which is why I responded. For future reference, this information can be found in Section II: B, D, & E of Corpora, which are the SCA's governing documents. (http://www.sca.org/docs/pdf/govdocs.pdf) Again, my point is that it is very, very unlikely that a participant would see someone garbed as an American Indian at an event. There are many reasons for this, including a lack of the American-Indian-in-Europe knowledge on the part of the those charged with enforcing the policy references above and the fact that even an American Indian in Europe is unlikely to be clothed as one. (The article you mentioned shows Rebecca Rolfe in a lovely European outfit, circa 1616.)


 * As for Society awards, the name written on them isn't relevant to the topic at all. It's certainly not a statement of approval for anyone's name or persona, since the names written on awards aren't vetted at all. (Except generally for spelling, and boy, sometimes not even then, lol.) A participant can have a name that's been completely rejected at every level and still receive an award with that name. Participants can use their mundane names, or a completely mundane nickname. At every level, the scribe in charge of writing the names will simply write what they think is the 'current name in use' of the award recipient. (Or more commonly, what the person whom recommended the recipient for that award thinks is their name.) This is the same with membership cards. Now, if a participant registered an American Indian name, specifically with instructions to make it period as an American Indian, that could certainly be seen as an endorsement of an American Indian name and persona. Do you know of any American Indian names that have been registered? If so, that information would be online, and would probably work as a reference.


 * Oh, also, the terminus date of the SCA is generally considered to be the year 1600, not 1650. This is based on the phrase 'pre-17th century' which is repeatedly mentioned in the organization's governing documents, which is generally defined as pre-1601 in the Gregorian calendar. Now, there's some argument about whether or not 1600 itself is alright, or whether or not December 31st of 1600 would be the cutoff date, since the 'new year' began in March in some European cultures, but again, that's another conversation, none of which has anything to do with the year 1650.


 * Let me be clear that I have no opinion about your persona, OrangeMike, and that this information is not directed at you. I am simply adding responding to a topic that has been mentioned repeatedly in the article and the Talk page. This is not a conversation about you, but about the article. :)

Native American Persona
As mentioned above, Native Americans were in contact with European society during the period. (Whether you end the period sometime in 1600 or sometime in 1650.) My understanding is "if it was done by one person during the period, then it is a legitimate period persona." This is, I believe, the justification for women fighters, using Joan d'Arc as the example, and Japanese personas, using the small amount of commerce between Portugal and Japan. Since there is more than one example of contact between Europeans and Native Americans during the 16th century, a Native American persona is legitimate.

If the concern is for the culture clash then the autocrat should equally have a problem with a Viking in a non-Viking court. Or even a 12th-century, English monk attending an event with an Elizabethan King and Queen.

Native American Garb
(The article on Pocahontas, displays the "Sedgeford portrait." It is dated in the early 1600's and it was painted in England. While who is in this portrait is in dispute, it is unquestionably some woman in Native American dress with a boy in European dress. While some may question whether this was during the period, it does show that not all Native Americans dressed as Europeans while in Europe, at least not all of the time.)

Not everyone in the SCA plays the part of a noble person. If someone's persona were a peasant, craftsman, a wench or a slattern, they would dress to suit their persona. Certainly, these people would not normally appear in a medieval court but they are at SCA events. They do not necessarily dress differently for the feast or activities with a court. It would not make sense for them to do so.

A SCAdian with a Native American persona should be able to wear whatever was found to be worn by Native Americans during the period. In this manner, a Native American persona, could appear in Native American garb dressing as he or she would "back home" in America.

It has been awhile since I have been to an SCA event but I do remember several personas dressed in Native American period costumes. They were not ousted by the Autocrat.

Therefore, there should be no problem with adding a 16th-century Native American to a list of who you might see at an SCA event. Mellie107 (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been in the S.C.A. since AS VI (that's 1971-72 to you mundanes). I've never had problems with my Cherokee persona wearing garb (properly authenticated). -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Lord Inali of Tanas, G.D.H.

The problem a buddy of mine ran into when he wanted to do American Indian in the Society was there was absolutely now way to make an authentic fightable persona and still meet armor minimums in the Marshal's Handbook. No North American tribe fought armored to Society safety standards. And as we used to say, "it's all fun and games until you take a stick to the face."WiseguyThreeOne (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all of us have fighter personae. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Could everyone please remember that the purpose of this page is to improve the article, and not to chat about what we think is right or wrong with the SCA.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  00:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom Links
What's the purpose of the kingdom links? I tested several and they all came back to his page. Seems kinda pointless when I'm already on this page, doesn't it? 155.213.224.59 (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps those pages could be created? The Kingdom of the West has it's own page, but nothing else. Linking to their main webpage and including information on territory, history, royalty and activities would at least get these articles going if created. I may look into making those pages, any thoughts on it? Englecp (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether there's enough coverage of them in reliable (and ideally third-party) sources to merit building articles, and might recommend trying to dig up sources first. But otherwise, I don't see why not. DonIago (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Having 19 poorly sourced little stubs should be avoided, but if you have enough material for a particular kingdom to make a decent start, go for it. Jonathunder (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Kingdoms
This section of the article desperately needs sourcing. It presently has minimal references and was tagged over 4 years ago. I encourage anyone interested in preserving this section to provide citations at their earliest opportunity. DonIago (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Armoured vs. armored
The linked article is SCA armoured combat; there is some discussion at the Talk page there regarding the correct form, but my feeling (willing to be overruled, but I'd like to see some discussion) is that it makes more sense to directly link to the article than to include an essentially pointless redirect just for the sake of English variants. DonIago (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally disagreed with the spelling "armoured" at all. The user who changed the name of the armored combat article claimed  that because the organization is international and lacks "strong ties" to the US, the article must be Standard English (armoured) instead of US English (armored) spelling.  Though strangely I see that the user that reverted you here is claiming that this article is written in US English.  We need to have some kind of consistency here.
 * For my own part, I feel the US spelling should be used in both places, on the grounds that even though the organization is international, it was founded and is most popular in the US, and the US-based corporate office/Board of Directors still is the supreme authority on matters in the organization, even in other countries, with some exceptions. All non-US branches still link to this US-based central set of rules for fighting which uses US spelling.  At the time of the discussion, no one else chimed in so I let the matter drop, fearing maybe I was missing something due to my inexperience with wikipedia.NicoloSt (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Personae
As per my comment, apologies for simply barging into an ongoing edit tussle - but surely it's simplest to refer to the key online resources. Snori (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Very good. Septagram (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Description
Can someone explain to me how SCA is not a very detailed form of LARPing? Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * --Ambre P (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)I would not add to this except that I was at an event a couple of weeks ago and there were larpers there who wanted to move into what we do. I am a SCA member, SCA A&S Champion, minor local officer, and a former larper. In the SCA we are expected to do some level of research for what we do and it is not uncommon to write research papers comparable to what I wrote in college for my B.A Degree. When LARPing you are at best reading a pamphlet or being educated by fellow players to play in a fictional world, even its it's a historical fiction, it makes no attempt at history. The SCA used to encourage developing a persone but its too limiting so no one really bothers anymore, because then you would have to change your name again, submit more research and pay another filing fee. In LARPing like tabletop depending on the system used you develop a fictional character based on the rules of the system. SCA is called a reenactment group in part because there is little European history in North America in the time period of the society, and we would all get bored playing elizabethian spanish, portugeese, english and russian personae. There is a current push to open up the societies mandate to other cultures and areas, but the problem is in part the availability of research of other cultures like some of the highly advanced Africian and Native American group, and the worry of cultural insensitivity. Its is part of the old problem that we are a "creative" interpreter of history, in part because we allow you to participate even if your gear is not perfect, like you are wearing modern versions of historical shoes (especially for combatants who must wear steel toed shoes for safety, or medical reasons like a cast for broken bones and modern crutches),or using antural fabrics like cotton when they would have worn linen, wool or silk because you live in the desert USA like me (and they are too expensive for most people when compared to other period but less common materials). SCA is also MUCH more concerned with safety as compaired to any LARPing group. It also has an elected board of directors and a educational mandate, and opposed to a storyteller or author who just wrote a larp. It is still a problem that some LARPs in order to attract new members (and get money) pretend to be the SCA. And average SCA event attempts to at least break even where a LARP is a profitmaking enterprise. As members we pay to volunteer, as opposed to a LARP where you pay to attend and play or are payed to act as a participant (like at storyteller or a special NPC sort of character according to the dictated of the storyteller).

--Ambre P (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There are others that might be able to give a much better explanation, but I'll have a go since no one has yet and I feel I have enough knowledge to address this, having done both.
 * In general applying the label of "LARP" to the SCA is painting with far too broad a brush. There are specific activities within the organization that would be considered LARPing, but there are a great many that clearly bear no resemblance.  Bowing to the King or Queen, referring to a baroness as "your excellency," the conduct during "court" where a herald does very stylized speeches.  These are very "LARPy."  However, most of the combat-related activities are not, because they are tests of actual physical skill and strength.  For example, Armored Combat more closely resembles a martial art or a sport;  that guy that beat you didn't do so because he has extra "Hit Points", has better armor or because he has more levels than you.  He won because he is better at the game and trained hard to get good at it through physical exercise and weekly-to-daily practice.  Target archery is even less like a LARP, because other than wearing the clothes and calling each other pseudonyms, it's just people shooting targets.  The arrows are sharp, and would be lethal if fired at a human or animal.  No magic bows, no bonuses for "levels;" you either hit that target with your historically accurate bow and arrows or you missed. The craft-related activities also fall outside the meaning;  I'm not rolling a die to see if I made a good imaginary lamb stew, I'm actually putting real lamb into a real cast iron pot over a wood fire (and eating it if I did it right).
 * The term LARP itself is loaded language, particularly in the United States. It's been stereotyped through media and pop culture as something to be sneered at.   Bespectacled "dorks" talking in weird fantasy inspired accents, with elf ears and wearing plastic helmets and hitting each other with sword-shaped couch cushions or throwing bean-bags at each other and calling them "lightning bolts."  When you compare to that image, you might understand why most within the SCA consider being label LARPers to be a frankly insulting.  Many would even call it a form of bullying (like sneering "Nerd!" at someone), and way for the label-er to pretend they are better than them.
 * NicoloSt (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your claim that LARP is loaded language or "insulting" or even "bullying" is in obvious tension with the long, detailed and hardly insulting Wikipedia page all about LARPing. That page, incidentally, includes a link to this one in its "See Also" section and that would be appropriate here. Clearly some SCA activities and "live action role-playing" games are closely related, similar social phenomena. That's factual, not insulting. But I do agree that SCA broadly is not properly described as a form of LARPing. 2600:1000:B007:D288:E0A2:C07E:6145:DDFF (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought I was being clear I was describing a stereotype of LARP, not reality, nor is it my personal view. I've LARPed too.NicoloSt (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

negative/controversial info in the Critiques and criticism of the SCA, can we modify or remove it?
--Ambre P (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Tensions regarding the desirable degree of authenticity at SCA functions are highlighted by David Friedman in his articles "A Dying Dream"[53] and "Concerning the C in SCA".[54]"

David Friedman wrote a book and some articles because he was not getting the awards and recognition he felt he deserved as a long time royal/peer. He felt the SCA is being watered down because we allow people to participate even they do not have the collection of equipment he had as a long time member, as well as for anyone to get into the peerage they need to have bee able to afford the thousands of dollars for the quality of equipment he expected. He wanted us to be more like a living history group but where the members entirely funded it, and you couldn't participate unless you met this exacting perfect standard for ALL equipment. I find this attitude rude, not uncommon in older members especially is they are in the peerage. You do not find this sort of thing on the main page for any other page about a group at wikipedia.

Could it be on a separate page? No one would bother with ren faire who have payed employees and participants, and we are just a volunteer organization trying to encourage some level of historical interest and education n. This whole section is full of bias and prejudice, so it taints the whole page. If it was a separate page linked to this one it would be a bit better, because that bias is there. If you do not think bias is here, then I will tell you within the last month I had my disability counselor request a psych evaluation for me because I " play in a little group where you pretend, and wear costumes." Who knows what if I was still LARPing or gaming actively. So I might be being a bit hypersensitive, but we are having prospective members refer to the criticisms in the Wikipedia article as part of why they were leery of even finding out more about the SCA. Ambre P (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support providing sourced contrary views, or sourcing that establishes that the motivations for his critique may be suspect, but right now it appears that you're claiming bias without providing any sources to support that yourself. DonIago (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia actually has policy on criticism sections, at WP:CRIT. This article is fairly old and not maintained regularly, so I suspect it was around before this policy was created.  If I'm reading it right, sections of this nature are allowed but must be treated with care, especially with living persons and active organizations where it has the potential to damage their reputation.  Any items placed in it must not only have reliable sources, but must not give undue weight to items that painted a skewed image, or represent WP:FRINGE opinions.  Friedman is one person in a group comprised of 30,000+, and it seems to me a might unfair to give his opinion such priority merely because he is a somewhat famous economist and physicist (which have nothing to do with the SCA).  Actually I just checked something:  His critical article was published in 1986!  32 years ago!  And it also appears to have been self-published, making it not very reliable.  The WP:CRIT article also says that for organizations, there has to be sources "other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms."
 * I checked the other sources for the section, and they are similar either very dated, or are actually not sources but rather inappropriate use of SCA's own documents for synthesis. This is where someone takes a neutral source and make personal inferences from it, rather than actual evidence.  Based on that, I feel the section does not need to be there.NicoloSt (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on that information I'd be willing to retract my concerns, provided nothing more recent and authoritative has been published to reinforce Friedman's take on matters. DonIago (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We can address those if someone finds them. For now, I'm going to do some edits.  I'm not going to just blanket erase the section, but instead try to weave some of the material into the rest of the article.NicoloSt (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I was not clear. Thanks for listening. I am not good at explaining, I was trying to explain that the source was not neutral, and was concerned by the bias in source. I want the truest form of info I can get, not info I like or approve of, but as a member of the SCA I wanted someone without my bias to look at this. Thank you for your time and effort. Its a opinion of a biased person (like myself). I will attempt to find out more info, but its not the kind of thing reliable, unbiased sources write about one way or another. Ambre P (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Controversies
I'm concerned by the lack of attention paid to well-publicized controversies within the SCA, some of which link to the well-known propensity of extreme right-wing/fascist groups to infiltrate medieval recreation (not just SCA, also HEMA, etc). There have been, for example, serious child abuse problems --some time ago, yes, but they prompted large-scale changes in how minors are supervised, and how those who supervise are vetted and supervised. There's also the much more recent controversy over swastikas.

I feel it is important to include things like this, as currently the entire page reads like it was written out of the head office. Links provided for someone else to write in a NPOV way. (Disclosure: am not exactly a member but not exactly not a member). Sebthepleb (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah there's a few problems with that. First, the child abuse incident is already in the article.  That tells me you didn't really read it.  This is fairly common these days when readers come to an article with prejudices or an agenda.  Second, this is an active organization so the WP:CRIT policy has to be followed.  There is no obligation to put every single controversy or bad thing that ever happens in an article about a thing, especially unsanctioned, isolated matters by individuals that are expression prohibited and were punished.  Doing so would create undue weight considering the size and geography of the organization.  It is also definitely not appropriate to put in material suggesting things that have no actual documentation substantiating them (i.e. that the group is being infiltrated by fascists, which Dr. Ken Mondschein debunked in his recent article).NicoloSt (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay... it would be really cool if you adjusted your tone. My 'agenda' is literally nothing more than ensuring that coverage in the article is representative of facts, which means warts and all. As it currently reads, the article is indistinguishable from a press release. My understanding is that is Not Done on Wikipedia. One might notice, for example, that criticizing whether or not I've read the article (I have) while clearly missing where I said "...not just SCA, also HEMA, etc" is perhaps to call out the actions of others while performing the same actions themselves. One might also point out: The Alt Right is Taking Over Renaissance Fairs, Quebec Neo-Fascists are teaching school kids about Vikings in Quebec, Racism, Medievalism, and the White Supremacists of Charlottesville.


 * The swastika incident, for example, resulted in a fair bit of external coverage from reliable sources (which is how I became aware of it). That's pretty unusual for the internal doings of a fringe organization (fringe in the sense that approximately 0.01% of people in North America are members, not fringe as in weird or extreme).


 * I'm not trying to start a fight here. Your words suggest that you have made some assumptions, and I would ask you politely to please check those assumptions and assume that I am operating in good faith. Thank you. Sebthepleb (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I will admit to not assuming good faith, but point out that policy has limits. I have had the good faith assumption explode in my face more times than I can count, leaving me rather jaded about the policy.  And you will have to admit how things look.  You account is brand new and yet you demonstrate clear knowledge of Wikipedia policy and editing practices.  And you are suggesting adding material to an article that is highly inflammatory and potentially could do actual harm to an organization.  Furthermore, I have personally known and watched individuals who, as a result of not getting awards they felt they deserved or being angry at a specific individual over a personal dispute, sought to go around slandering the organization by means of these exact examples in an act of petty revenge.
 * But let me walk this back and try to start over, addressing the issues just from the perspective of good article policy, namely reliable sources and undue weight.
 * The child abuse lawsuit is already in the article, with sources. So I don't think anything further needs to be said.
 * Yes the swastika incident happened. However it would be undue weight to include due to it being a single, isolated example, even if it did get external coverage (especially since the coverage entirely due to the social media "going viral" effect).  For one, the external coverage tends to be limited and in some cases gets facts wrong or leaves them out, i.e. that the behavior was explicitly unsanctioned and that the perpetrator faced numerous negative consequences including being forced to resign their position.  Further, it seems prejudicial to put this incident in and leave out numerous positive mainstream news coverage stories, where members organized charity work, used their martial skills to defend others against real violence, or went to schools to teach children about the middle ages.  Remember that modern news still very much follows "if it bleeds, it leads," and Wikipedia works very hard not to follow that pattern.
 * The white supremacist matter is an inference, not something that has been clearly demonstrated. None of the sources you provided actually name the SCA.  Claiming that they are getting into reenactment groups and the SCA is an reenactment group is WP:SYNTHESIS, especially when the SCA has written policies prohibiting such things.
 * NicoloSt (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In order:
 * Yes, AGF has limits. Those limits kick in after bad faith has been demonstrated.
 * I used to edit Wikipedia a few years ago (not in depth, as a dilettante, can't even remember my old username)
 * I'm unconcerned about 'doing harm to an organization;' I am highly concerned about dispassionate recitation of facts
 * I dispute that the swastika incident hit the news because of viral/social media effect. Even if it did, that's irrelevant; multiple orgs carried it independently of each other, thus notable
 * I see absolutely no reason not to include e.g. charity work and defending others if they reach notability thresholds. None whatsoever!
 * Not naming the SCA specifically is not the same as an inference. The SCA is a reenactment group, ergo referring to reenactment groups is referring to the SCA
 * Honestly this very much feels like ownership and that is obviously problematic
 * Sebthepleb (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding: my final point there was in regards to the fact that you have about ten edits in the past 18 months, which suggests a degree of protection/ownership of this page that would run afoul of policy, unless WP:OWN has changed drastically in the past few years. Sebthepleb (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Negative occurrences in perspective
I observed recently that an anonymous user tried to remove the paragraph regarding the lawsuit incident. While this was improper to do without discussion (per edit descriptions), it has caused me to consider the matter again. So, Wikipedia has policies on including of material, even if sourced, that is unfairly prejudicial. Namely I'm thinking of WP:RECENT and WP:PROPORTION. The "recentism" rule refers to how events that were part of recent news coverage tend to be be given too much coverage. And the "undue weight" rule refers giving too much article space, or given space at all, to small or trivia matters or viewpoints. As an example, the ARCO article makes no mention of the 1990 plant explosion that killed 17 people. I felt ARCO was a good example because it was founded in 1966 just like the SCA. Why is the plant explosion not mentioned in that article? Because in 53 years, this is a singular event and even mentioning it would be unjustly prejudicial in light of the company's size and operations.NicoloSt (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ARCO has been rated a start-class article - just because the information about that explosion isn't on the page, doesn't mean that it's necessarily been deemed irrelevant. Now that you've brought it up, I'd actually argue it should be there.
 * As for the coverage of the SCA lawsuit - I don't think it's unfairly prejudicial at all. It's one small paragraph, neatly and neutrally written, at the bottom of the History section. It covers a pretty substantial lawsuit that happened within this decade, and it rounds off by mentioning the SCA's improvements of having background checks, having not had any at the time of the lawsuit. I don't feel covering a $1.3m lawsuit on child sexual abuse is "unfairly prejudicial" at all, and I wouldn't support having it taken off the article. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy
I added a sentence describing the SCA as not enforcing historical accuracy of equipment compared to reenactment. This is clearly demonstrated by pictures in wikipedia showing modern glasses being worn or the gallery of the SCA official web site showing all sorts of equipment that never existed at all or is not of the period covered by the SCA. This sentence was deleted as factually incorrect but it is absolutely and demonstrably factually correct. If historically accurate equipment was enforced, period glasses would be worn for example.

I'd like to hear the view of whoever deleted my sentence why they consider that fact not a actual fact.I'm simply here trying to inform the reader of the different approaches between SCA and reenactment, not making a judgement of value of any approach.

Pictures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Creative_Anachronism#/media/File:SCA50DLP.jpg

Count the number of modern glasses on these: https://www.sca.org/about/photo-gallery/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetardd (talk • contribs) 20:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm afraid that what you're doing is called original research. Wikipedia articles should summarize what is said about a subject in reliable sources. Editors should not add their own views, opinions, or conclusions based on their personal knowledge or experience. Find a reliable source that discusses the SCA's enforcement (or lack of) of historical accuracy and a summary of that source can be added. Schazjmd   (talk)  20:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Here we go, a quote from the guide (https://www.sca.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/NewcomersGuide2021.pdf): As you pick items, always remember to try not to make them "obtrusively modern"

Hence if they are modern but nor too obvious, they are OK, hence they don't enforce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetardd (talk • contribs)
 * Well, let's look at what you tried to add to the article: First off, it's unsourced. Second, contrary to reenactment groups is vague (which reenactment groups enforce 100% historical accuracy?). Third, the context of your quote above is from a newcomer's guide about "Attending Your First Event", so is not necessarily reflective of the practices of the organization as a whole. Fourth, if it was a significant aspect that should be mentioned, it would be mentioned by reliable independent sources, so all you need to do is find one that discusses SCA's approach to historical (in)accuracy, and then you can summarize it for the article. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you've added it anyway, I removed the reference to other types of groups; you have no source supporting any claim that those groups are more accurate or comparing them to the SCA. I removed the emphasis you added to the direct quote because it isn't in the source. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I should have linked to the Wikipedia article on reenactment and closer attention to historical accuracy in clothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reenactment#Clothing_and_equipment

So I have source supporting my claim directly from Wikipedia. Your statement is factually incorrect: I have source, I did not include it, it's different. Maybe commenting on one's edition would need to be followed by care not to make mistakes themselves. Good day to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetardd (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not only are Wikipedia articles not a reliable source, the article in question cites no sources for its claims about accuracy.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  21:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)