Talk:Association for Renaissance Martial Arts

Untitled

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasteofhumanlife (talk • contribs)

dubious criticism

The reviewer who said that Clements' work was "beating everything that has ever been written about medieval European fencing literature in regard to sheer misinformation and overall muddledness" directly contradicts Maestro Martínez' statement that "The recently published book by Mr. John Clements, Renaissance Swordsmanship: The Illustrated Use of Rapiers and Cut and Thrust Swords has been received by those of the fencing community with historical interest with some fanfare and accolades. This is understandable and well-deserved by Mr. Clements. He has done a great service in bringing more attention to the western martial tradition and history." Is Clements work really the worst that has ever been written about medieval "fencing" literature? The phrase seems to clearly be an example of hyperbole, and hyperbole is hardly appropriate for an encyclopedia. The Jade Knight 02:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your point. We are not endorsing either criticism, we are reporting them. Obviously, this wouldn't be suitable tone in Wikipedia's voice, nobody suggested such a thing. dab (𒁳) 07:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hyperbole is non-factual. In other words, it is inaccurate. Intentional inaccuracy does not belong in an encyclopedia. It is not a matter of "endorsement". The citation is a book review, and presents clearly incorrect information. Is there any reason an inaccurate book review needs to be quoted in the article on ARMA? I generally find that book reviews are not scholarly sources (they are certainly not peer reviewed), and should be avoided in most cases. Quoting a non-factual book review in an article like this may only serve to confuse the reader. The Jade Knight 07:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A few quotes:

(from WP:RS:) "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." (this source is clearly not accurate)

(from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources:) "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article

"Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject."

Also, please remember that this article is not about the writing of John Clements. The article is about ARMA. The Jade Knight 07:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but you seem to be applying double standards. This review is among the most solid references in this article at present. Besides that, we're pretty much just citing self-descriptions from thearma.org. Per WP:ORG, this article should be throughly cleaned up, discussing ARMA based on sources

such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations1 except for [...] Press releases; autobiographies; advertising [...] and other works where the [...] organization talks about itself.

I'll be happy to take out all such sources, including the criticism of Clements (as off-topic), and build this article entirely based on outsiders' accounts of ARMA. dab (𒁳) 07:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The article, though it's seen a lot of work (much of the work I put in was sadly reverted by ARMA critics), could definitely use further clean-up. Self-published sources may actually be appropriate in certain circumstances, thus:

"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

it is relevant to their notability;

it is not contentious;

it is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;

the article is not based primarily on such sources."

You're welcome to edit the article to improve its treatment of sources. However, unreliable sources are particularly a problem when they have the potential to be libelous—Wikipedia policy is clear on this. But they are, however, undesirable in general. I would recommend, however, that you discuss changes on the talk pages before introducing drastic reforms—this will help avoid revert wars if people feel your edits are unjustified and undiscussed.

That said, biographical content (such as that about Clements) is a special case:

"Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles" (from WP:BLP). I've tried to be a little more tolerant, but I'm going to go ahead and remove the unsourced/poorly sourced biographical content. The Jade Knight 07:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you plan on removing unsourced non-biographical information from the article, it may be better to cut it and paste it here, so that future contributors can look for relevant sources. The Jade Knight 08:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that self-published information may be used in the way you set out. We just have to make perfectly clear what is our source for each statement. The points that apply here would be "not unduly self-serving" and "the article is not based primarily on such sources". Regarding criticism of Clements work, I am afraid I disagree. If you publish a book, you are inviting criticism. If your book is criticised harshly for shoddy scholarship, this has nothing to do with libel, and doesn't qualify as "biographical". There is simply no way to argue that we should keep Clements' "amusing personal insults" retort without also giving examples of what he is reacting to. Sources cited must be 'notable' with respect to the subject. Of course we won't quote random internet chatter, but articles appearing in historical fencing publications are perfectly notable here.

It is extremely misleading to say Martinez' review "includes both praise and criticism" when the criticism is as devastating as it is. Neither Martinez nor Amberger count as "a few gurus among historical role-playing societies" (you seem to have no issue with that quote in terms of 'contentious' or 'unduly self-serving'). Martinez is a fencing master who published his ciriticism in on classicalfencing.com - precisely the sort of outside peer review required by WP:ORG. Amberger is the author of a respected book on historical fencing (in turn peer-reviewed favourably[1]), and published his harsh criticism of both ARMA and Clements in a fencing magazine. I do hope we can find other reviews that cast a more positive light on Clements' scholarship, but this is really the sort of reference this article needs to be based on.

Looking around, it appears that discussion of Clements is in no way offtopic to this article, since the organization is strongly dependent on him. From [http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=77598&highlight=ARMA this discussion] it transpires that Clements is highly respected in the historical fencing community, but at the same time well known for his problematic personality, which of course affects the group. This is not an uncommon situation of martial arts groups led by strong individuals, they often develop a sectarian 'who is not for us is against us' mentality.

I might add that I have no personal stakes at all in this. I am European. I have no first hand experience with ARMA. I do agree that the group is highly notable and respectable as a pioneer in historical martial arts. I must say I am surprised to learn of this criticism of Clements' scholarship, since from hearsay I had assumed him to be very competent. At the same time, I must note you clearly seem to have a conflict of interest, and the reason I am getting involved here is my impression that this article seems to be "owned" by ARMA members trying to hush up legitimate criticism. dab (𒁳) 08:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not an ARMA member (nor ever have been), nor do I belong to any fencing or historical reconstruction society, so I would seem to have no more conflict of interest than you do. I am an American with a degree in History (specializing in the Middle Ages), and a general interest in historical warfare. If anything in the article specifically calls Martínez or Amberger "a few gurus among historical role-playing societies" (to my knowledge, nothing does), it should be immediately removed. I am not at all opposed to culling the criticism section more. As it stands, I see nothing which specifically talks about living persons apart from that which John Clements has stated about himself. Unfortunately, most of the third-party material about John Clements seems to come from discussion boards, which are not remotely reliable sources. I certainly think the Martínez review is more reliable than the Amberger review (which strikes me as distinctly unreliable). When properly cited, the Martínez review, however, is likely worth including. While the Martínez review largely focuses on the negative, it also includes (brief) significant praise, and refers to other extensive praise. It is not a unilateral "condemnation" of John Clement's work, as it had been synthesized to suggest. The Jade Knight 08:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

while different in temper, I take both of the Amberger and the Martinez review to take the position that Clements is a great swordsman, but that his published scholarship is amateurish to say the least. Such criticism is perfectly permissible, you severely misunderstand WP:BLP if you take it to imply that criticism of published material is off-limits. The criterion is notability, and I am afraid that if we reject Amberger as unnotable, this article will be left with virtually no quotable sources. dab (𒁳) 08:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have used my best judgement in cleaning up the article as gently as I could. I agree that criticism of Clements' scholarship is not directly relevant here, but then neither are his various boasts. For this reason I have reduced the "Criticism" section to a bare minimum. Further material added there should be from notable fencing publications, and concern ARMA as a group, not Clements' character. dab (𒁳) 09:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I further note that the harsh criticism of Clements' scholarship concerns his 1997 book and is thus fully 10 years old. This issue seems really stale. Unless a more recent controversy can be referenced, I am doubtful this deserves a full "Criticism" section, and I find it a bit strange that people still seem to be harping on this. dab (𒁳) 09:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

here are other enlightening threads [http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=77582&highlight=Clements][http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=66275&highlight=Clements]. Gregory Mele diplomatically puts it as follows,

Suffice it to say that there are a number of disagreements on both sides of the story about the early history of the WMA community, crediting of other's research, study approach, recruiting methods, etc., and that you are correct that many (which I should stress does not mean unilateral) of the other researcher-instructors find themselves on the side of the argument opposite of Mr. Clements. Conversely, some have no position at all and some are ARMA members. (and gives a more detailed account {{code|[http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=66275&page=2 here]).

we don't need to cover this. For our purposes, it is sufficient to state that ARMA is a somewhat controversial organization, and exists in a sort of self-chosen isolation from other USian HEMA groups. Stephen Hand stated (in 2006),

There are hundreds of WMA groups around the world that co-operate perfectly and attend each other's events. By contrast, one group, ARMA chooses to isolate itself from the rest of the WMA community which seems to suit everyone just fine.

that's not saying ARMA is good, or ARMA is bad, merely that they elect to remain separate. dab (𒁳) 09:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

You have entirely ignored my request that you paste large chunks of deleted material on the talk page. Not very friendly of you, forcing me to go through and clean up after you. Here are some chunks I feel should go back in if a reliable source can be found:

After this, the HACA grew quickly. Some scholars feel that the HACA’s contribution to the Medieval and Renaissance martials arts was significant and its influence notable. Many of its innovations have also become standard for enthusiasts and practitioners. Throughout the 1990s, the HACA was one of the leading organisations in the revival of Medieval and Renaissance fighting skills.

As the HACA grew and developed, its leadership came to the conclusion that the subject was richer and more involved than they had previously believed, and in conjunction with perceived changes in the emerging historical fencing community itself, the HACA’s leadership decided that a change was in order. HACA has crusaded for serious treatment of historical arms and armor and recognition of the historical manuals as legitimate sources of study and believes it has been extremely successful in this endeavor. [I don't see how most of this is controversial. It probably is fine in the article with a +fact tag.]

As an official advisor of the ARMA, Dr. Anglo was instrumental in retooling its understanding of historical fencing. Along with other advances in this subject, Dr. Anglo's research, which itself has been influenced from the HACA’s efforts, has changed the face of the emerging field of historical fencing studies and had a profound impact on the subject. [This one just needs non-review references.]

Are you (or have you been) a member of any historical fencing groups? The Jade Knight 03:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but why should I clutter the talkpage when Wikipedia has this useful "diff" algorithm? If you can rephrase the above in neutral tone, and link it to some source (even the ARMA webpage), I have no problem with it. dab (𒁳) 07:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's actually considered courteous to other editors—you cut things right and left, and moved a lot of material around, over a period of several edits. It is very difficult for someone to tell without spending a lot of time trying to hunt down differences, whether you moved something, or cut it entirely. Having it collected here in one spot makes it so much easier to see what was cut but could be worked on and re-included. The Jade Knight 07:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I also specifically asked for it multiple times, and it would have been an act of good faith on your part. The Jade Knight 07:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

look, this article was plastered with cleanup tags for ages. I have done it a great favour by finally cleaning it up, in best faith and from a position of complete neutrality. You can look at the diff and see what I did at a single glance. I really don't see the problem. I have reduced the glowing self-praise copied from the ARMA website, but I have not introduced further criticism; I have rather reduced the criticism section to a bare minimum, since there is no sourceable criticism of ARMA as a group (as opposed to criticism of Clements' scholarship, which is of questionable relevance here). If you have any constructive additions, you are most welcome to add them. thanks, dab (𒁳) 08:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I did use the diff tag, and my reviewing your edits took the better part of several hours, cleaning up various things here and there, but mostly figuring out what you cut and what you didn't, and placing (except for a few very POV-sounding sentences) major cut portions here. Using the diff tag to notice differences on an article this big with changes that drastic is not simple, or quick. The Jade Knight 09:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

More cuts you made:

The ARMA curriculum is based on the theory that the martial arts of Renaissance Europe were not fragmented or subdivided—that, on the contrary, they formed a unified discipline that was largely unchanged for a period of centuries. With this in mind, ARMA scholars view all of the source texts as describing what are largely the same principles and concepts. Where many organizations emphasize the differences between each master’s writings, the ARMA focuses more holistically on the similarities, using the differences in description to illuminate subtleties in the techniques… The ideal is that in order to understand how one portion differs from another; you must first understand the whole and how things are alike.

Other weapons and skills follow from these. The goal of each focused course is to advance the student’s comprehension of the real nature of long-bladed combat and actual weapon handling. These are intense focused workshops in the ARMA Study Approach for serious practitioners, both the novice and the experienced, that closely cover much more material than larger group Seminars. The NTP is under constant appraisal and revision; curricula for other weapons, such as the short staff, are still being devised.

To this some members add high red socks to gather their sweatpants at the knee, to allow more freedom of movement and as a better approximation of historical fighting clothing… Red and black, being the predominant colors used in the manuals ARMA members study, are considered by the ARMA to be symbolic of scholarship in historical fencing; this color scheme is used in most official materials.

The ARMA likewise criticizes any Medieval or Renaissance martial arts instructor using the title of “Master” for this reason.

This program [ARMA Youth] is still in its infancy, and still lacks a great deal of structure and development.

While the ARMA is not about stage combat, ARMA InTheatre was, and in a historically valid and martially sound manner. Though its focus has never been on choreographed theatrical fighting or stunt combat, the ARMA has long perceived a need for a martially sound and historically accurate program of fight choreography instruction and certification. The ARMA Professional Stage Combat Certification Program was designed to fill this need.

ARMA InTheatre was a series of workshop classes as an alternative to more familiar and less realistic efforts. Designed and headed by a noted expert on stage combat, Keith Duklin, ARMA InTheatre was a complete system of weapon forms, allowing students to train from basic to advanced levels.

This program was disbanded shortly after its creation.

The Jade Knight 09:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Jade Knight, what is your point? Why is the diff link not enough? You are just cluttering this talkpage now. Feel free to re-insert sourced information, phrased in your own words, but please refrain from restoring the canned text copied "with permission" from the arma site. dab (𒁳) 09:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't restored the text—I've copied it here to the talk page. And I've explained why the diff link is not enough above. There are other places in the WP: namespaces that list why it may be a good idea to do this with removed content, but I seem to have forgotten which pages they were. The Jade Knight 09:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

do what you must, then. dab (𒁳) 11:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

The Criticism section of the article now consist of only two references by two classical fencers who didn't like something in the writtings of the ARMA director John Clements. I must again ask what does this have to do with an article on the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts? It is absolutely silly to have this in the article.Ranp 16:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Both are be relevant if John Clements is in a position to set policy for the organization. Divorcing the group's leader and his academic ability from the organization doesn't make sense when the scholarship in question is precisely the focus of the group he leads. I think it is appropriate. Parry_4 16:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Parry_4 is correct. Clements is the charismatic leader figure of the ARMA. John Clements (disambiguation) points back here. We should neither hide the criticism, nor should we harp on it. We should state it, such as it is, and move on. The actual criticism directed at the group itself is to the effect that they are secluded from the remaining HEMA organisations. This is more difficult to verify, since such criticism isn't necessarily voiced in peer-review. But the effect is, of course, due to a structure centered on a charismatic founder. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, either. We are talking of 'criticism', not 'dissing'. --dab (𒁳) 11:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the Wikipedia standard for adding a criticism section to an article? Does a couple of negative reviews of a book written by the leader of a group fit the Wikipedia standard for justifying adding a criticism section? Or is this a standard being imposed only on this article? Please note that not a single item in the criticism section is directed at the ARMA organization! Also note that ARMA is not secluded to itself, nor is this an item in the criticism section. There are a number of orgainzations who choose not to associated with ARMA. ARMA both chooses not to associated with a number of orgainzations and choose to interact with a number of other orgainzations. As the largest orgainzation involved in the recreation of the HEMA on a purely martial arts level (no dress-up, no re-enactment, no stage stuff, etc.) it is a extremely silly to suggest that ARMA is somehow secluded.Ranp 20:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

criticism needs to satisfy WP:NOTE, viz., its notability should be adequate relative to the notability of the subject matter. Rejecting such criticism as we have, the question will arise, on what grounds do we claim notability of ARMA sufficient for a dedicated Wikipedia article? According to the applicable guideline, an organization is notable,

if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.

that is, we need to base this article on sources independent of ARMA. As it turns out, the only independent sources used in this article are the reviews in question. I obviously agree that if any HEMA group will have a dedicated article, it will probably be ARMA. But, as the article stands at present, it fails to establish notability of the group as required by Wikipedia guidelines. This should be addressed sometime soon. dab (𒁳) 18:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been my position from the beginning that this article was little more than a self-cited and self-serving advertisement and platform for ARMA's dogmatic positions. The "fencing master lineage" and "true rapier" rants are typical of what we can expect in which factual evidence exists to the contrary and the only cited sources that disagree are strangely... the ARMA web site. That's a stunning bit of "true scholarship". I still feel this page is little more than a vanity article attempting to pass itself off as factual and notable and I still recommend deletion. Parry 4 (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

deletion is out of the question. Our options are "keep, cleanup" (feel free to have a go), or "redirect to Historical_European_martial_arts#Reconstruction" (where they can and should be at least briefly mentioned). dab (𒁳) 14:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, we are open to any "true scholarship" you want to provide. If you can provide a clear lineage from some living person to a historical fencing master of the Renaissance or Medieval period then please do so. All that we ask is for clear proof. Such a claim must be support by clear evidence from historical documents that are available to the public. So far, not a single person has provide such proof for such claims. As Maestro d'armi Sean Hayes recently stated, "...claims of living tradition in "historical" weapons require that the burden of proof be on the claimant. When someone claims to have been taught a complete survival of an historical weapon, that's an extraordinary claim, and it requires extraordinary proof" {{code|(http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=84299). By the way Parry_4, who are you? Why hide under a false name, walk out into the sun light and tell us who you really are.Ranp (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ranp, we are debating the merits of this article, not of the organization. I don't know what your asking Parry4 to provide "lineage" connecting a living person to Renaissance masters has got to do with anything? Parry4 points out that this article has problems in the {{vanity}} department. This isn't a judgement on ARMA, nor is it a claim of a superior "lineage". Any Wikipedia editor could come up with the same assessment, even without knowing the first thing about fencing. What we require at this point is not "proof of lineage", but proof that ARMA can be documented relying on independently published, third party sources per WP:ORG. dab (𒁳) 17:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The "lineage" issue is actually from the Rapier article which Parry4 also suggest should be deleted because he did not like that we ask that he provide proof of living lineages. I fully agree that all that should be discussed is this article. However, Parry4 issue is with John Clements and the ARMA organization. Given that this is the second article dealing with ARMA that Parry4 wants deleted I don't think you should look at him as neutural. To fully understand some of what is going on you have to look at the pattern of edits by users such as Parry4, Dingleberry1117, etc.Ranp (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In regard to third party sources, there are none on ARMA or any other organization dealing with the same subject. The recreation of European Martial Arts is basically in its birth, there are not books discribing the history of the recreation of European Martial Arts. The history of the recreation of European Martial Arts is being written here on Wikipedia! Delete this article and history of the recreation of European Martial Arts, as written on Wikipedia, will become totally false. In other words, if this article is deleted then Wikipedia will be providing the public with a lie.Ranp (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

look, it may be that Parry4 has issues with ARMA, but then so do you: issues of WP:COI. The history of HEMA is written at Historical European Martial Arts. ARMA certainly deserves to be mentioned there. The question is, does it merit its own dedicated article? The answer, positive or negative, needs to be based on the Wikipedia guidelines at WP:ORG, which say that the answer is no unless the article can be based on independently published sources. There are independent reviews of ARMA published literature. It's just that they appear to be mostly devastating, and you yourself have opposed their inclusion. dab (𒁳) 09:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If the article stays, it needs to be rewritten so that it isn't an advertisement and it needs some independent sources. Right now it is a not-so-thinly veiled sock puppet for ARMA's often questionable positions on Western Martial Arts. All the footnotes and citations in the world won't count for anything if they represent nothing more than an echo chamber of shoddy research. Independent citations are what is required here.

With regard to the question of lineage I have always thought this was a convenient fight to pick on ARMA's behalf because their leadership has no classical or modern WMA experience from the fencing community. It's patently ridiculous to infer that Italian fencing is completely unrelated to historical rapier, sidesword, and even longsword when all evidence indicates the contrary. By attacking the legitimacy of certified instructors, ARMA somehow sees this as bolstering their own arguments. The unspoken assertion is that if legitimate fencing instructors are unqualified to teach historical fencing then any fool off the streets is equally qualified. Even better, John Clements is somehow more qualified than an instructor from a living tradition.

It's a logical fallacy. We cannot prove the shape is a square, therefore, the shape is not a square. In the event that a square is required, all shapes will function equally well.

Try that logic when fitting a window pane and see where it gets you. Parry 4 (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Parry 4, your criticism of the article re WP:COI ({{advert}}) is justified: please help fixing it. Your criticism re lineage etc. is not appropriate in this forum, you would need to attribute the argument to a reliable source. It is a truism of martial arts that some people are evidently qualified not because of lineage, but because of talent and training. Whatever material we host in the article evaluating the qualities of ARMA, positive or negative, needs to come from independent third party sources. That's really all there is to it. We have references to reviews saying that Clements is a lousy scholar, which were removed on grounds that this is the article on ARMA, not Clements. It is easily possible for someone to be a lousy scholar and at the same time a great martial artist (or vice versa), so the references casting doubt on Clements' scholarly qualities are no prejudice on the quality of his curriculum. dab (𒁳) 15:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Evaluating the teacher, the organization, and the curriculum based on the quality of the scholarship isn't only appropriate, it is absolutely necessary. Your argument seems to indicate that scholarship and accuracy don't matter. Based on ARMA's inference that fencing experience doesn't matter, scholarship and research becomes even more important because the entire re-created martial art is based on the scholarship in question. No matter how well the instructor moves or whatever in the situation described, bad scholarship = bad Budo Parry 4 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

no, my argument is that this all needs to be based on independent sources. Debating it here is pointless. Cite sources and I will support your edits. Even the claim "bad scholarship = bad Budo" with which I do not agree at all personally. dab (𒁳) 08:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Recent Reverts

Anonymous editor, your claims are incorrect, my recent alterations are taken (verbatem, per the quotes) from the source already provided, and are, as I have stated, more accurate. Regardless of what used to be in this article, currently only one review is cited. As such, the article is only accurate if we state "a review" until further citations are provided. I am also not an "ARMA Affiliate", if by "ARMA Affiliate" you mean someone has a) been an ARMA member at any point during their life, or b) paid, at any point in their life, ARMA fees or purchased ARMA merchandise or lessons/workshop admittance, or c) practices the ARMA method with others. Not one of those three criteria apply to me. As such, my edits stand… and if you expect to be taken seriously in editing this slightly controversial article, I strongly encourage you to register a username at Wikipedia. The Jade Knight (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP address of the anonymonus editor is from the Atlanta, GA area. I'm guessing that this anonymonus editor is the Napoleon Dynamite of WMA, George Hill, who have vandalized this article many times.Ranp (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Said user has clearly ignored (and not attempted) to discuss their changes and build consensus on the talk page. So long as they continue to revert belligerently without attempting to improve the article, we evidently must continue to simply edit their reverts. The Jade Knight (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the concern that quite obviously WP:COI plays a major role in this article cannot be denied. It is true that "Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly advise that editors do not directly edit articles on topics where they have a close personal or business connection." This article is evidently the product of editors who have just that. The COI tag had been added in February, and was removed on 6 May by Jade Knight (talk · contribs) [2]. I think it is irrelevant whether the tag is kept, since the {{self-published}} issue, regardless of COI proper, remains unaddressed. The article has been so tagged since August 2007, and nobody appears to be making an effort of addressing it. If ARMA really cannot be discussed in terms of independent third party sources, the justification of this article is in question, per WP:ORG:

A[n] organization [...] is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.

If after the best part of a year, this still cannot be provided, I am afraid we will need to put the article up for deletion (although I predict the AfD outcome will be merge, into the list at HEMA#Organizations_and_Schools). --dab (𒁳) 06:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to propose deletion. However, there is certainly no COI on my account, though the anonymous editor or Ranp may be different stories. I removed the tag because the editor who had originally added it gave no reason for including it, and was anonymous. The Jade Knight (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am reluctant to propose deletion when my own opinion is that it should be merged, not deleted. But the wider community attention brought about by a deletion debate may be conductive to finally resolving this. dab (𒁳) 09:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please make ensure that any community debate about the ARMA article includes be more than the few anonymous ARMA stalkers who have vandalized articles across Wikipedia (and the Internet) whenever they see the word ARMA. I also ask that you take a look at the SCA article, if there is reason for keeping the SCA article then there should be as much reason for keeping the ARMA article.Ranp (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Schism

I remove the "Schism" section since it does noting to describe ARMA. Just as with all other organizations, many members have come and gone over the years. Ranp 10/12/2010

As far as I am aware, never before in the History of ARMA (or any unified modern HEMA organization) have several entire study groups and senior members left all at once. It is significant for ARMA as it represents a sudden drop in members, especially high-ranking members (which is most certainly unusual for ARMA), and it's significant for the history of HEMA in general as it provided a significant portion of the impetus for the HEMA Alliance, which is now one of the largest North American HEMA organizations. As such, I am restoring it. While there certainly seem to have been specific reasons as to why it occurred, I have specifically avoided including them, to try to ensure the account remain as neutral as possible. The Jade Knight (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Jade, we both know this is total BS. People leave groups all the time and people are booted. The article describes an organization. This has absolutely nothing to do with describing the ARMA organization. Please take your BS else where. Ranp 11/15/2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranp (talk • contribs) 22:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't both know that, and I will ask you to assume good faith. If people "leave [HEMA] groups all the time", please name a single modern HEMA organization which has lost half of its senior ranking members within a year's span? Or can you name a single other HEMA organization that has had several study groups break away from it as part of a combined movement? Or can you name a single other HEMA organization that had its deputy director leave and then get elected to lead a large new organization? All of these things happened during the ARMA schism. And the HEMA Alliance (which would currently appear to contain something like 25 North American study groups) would probably not exist if it were not for the Schism (at least 3, and maybe all 5, of the HEMA Alliance's Board of Directors left ARMA during this period). There should be no question in anyone's mind that this was a particularly significant event in the North American HEMA community. The Jade Knight (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Jade, why should I assume good faith on your part? You are now in close association with the very people who either were booted out of ARMA or who choose to leave ARMA. The open hostility of these disgruntled ex-members towards ARMA can clearly be seen on numerous public forums. I can only assume that you share they hostility. It is clear beyond all doubt that you are not a neutral party. Moreover, it appears that you are doing this just so you can add a link on the ARMA article to the HEMA Alliance page. By the way, the "deputy director" you spoke of was actually an "ex-deputy director", he was replaced months before he left. Aaron Pynenberg was the ARMA Deputy Director when these people were booted or left and Aaron is still in that position. Also note that "Senior Free Scholar" is nothing more than a rank given to those who played their Prize, ie. it is only a fighting skill ranking, the rank never implied any type of administrative position within ARMA. If you keep adding this BS to the ARMA article the surely you will understand if add more detail to the Schism section to make clear what really happened and if I edit the HEMA Alliance article to note that much of its leadership students of John Clements. What goes round can come around. Do we need to play such a silly game? Ranp 11-15-2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranp (talk • contribs) 01:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You should assume good faith because it is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. The relevant policy is linked to in my previous comment. Please read it. By way of answer to your groundless claims, however: I have no hostility to ARMA; my own edits in this article should make that obvious enough.

• You say: "I can only assume that you share they [sic] hostility."
  • Why can't you assume good faith? I speak only for myself, as someone who has never been part of ARMA nor been hostile to it. Want proof? Look at my previous edits to this article, which clearly have been neither pro- nor anti-ARMA, though everyone else seems to insist on taking one side or another. You might notice that I have not even mentioned that the criticism section of this article should be restored. If my goal was to attack ARMA, I almost certainly would have done so.
• You say: "It is clear beyond all doubt that you are not a neutral party."
  • What makes that clear to you? I have given you good reason to show that I am acting in a neutral manner in this article.
  • You, Randall Pleasant, are a member of ARMA with a clear history of one-sided editing in this article; you're essentially the pot calling the kettle black in this case. In the Alliance, one cannot be expelled for criticizing the leadership; the same is not true of ARMA.
• You say: "Moreover, it appears that you are doing this just so you can add a link on the ARMA article to the HEMA Alliance page."
  • Why does it appear so? Please explain yourself.

It really is immaterial that Norwood was no longer the deputy director at the time of the schism. The point is that a great many people who had held very high positions within ARMA, both in terms of rank as well as administrative function, exited ARMA as part of a single movement (even if some of the administrators had been replaced "months before [they] left"). This movement, sometimes called the "exodus" or "purge" (I find that "schism" is a somewhat more neutral term), was a historic event for ARMA and the community at large. There's no question it was important to the founding of the HEMA Alliance. There should also be no question that it is significant to ARMA. I personally would have no problem with you adding relevant details to the Schism section and the Alliance article, so long as you a) remain neutral, and b) stick to objective facts. The Jade Knight (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate: I hold no hard feelings against your or ARMA; I am simply trying to improve the article with a significant chunk of history. Perhaps you could help me to do so in a way that is distinctly neutral and free of accusation? The Jade Knight (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jade (Michael), you seem to have been told a fairly tale. All of the members who were expelled from ARMA during the so-called "Schism" were booted for insulting other members, making threats against other ARMA members, and failing to follow the very clear ARMA code of conduct. Not a single member was expelled for criticizing the ARMA leadership. The expulsion of those members were supported by the entire ARMA membership, including those members who later left of their own choice. Ranp 11-17-2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranp (talk • contribs)

Because of the Wikipedia policy of WP:BLP, any content which is considered contentious about living persons must be reliably sourced; if your explanations for the reasons given is correct, a reliable source must be found, or they cannot be placed within the article itself. The Jade Knight (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Because half your text was explaining that those ex-members founded the HEMA Alliance, which has absolutely nothing to do with ARMA! Ranp 11-17-2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranp (talk • contribs)

I would love to include more uncontroversial details about the schism itself! Do you have any? The Jade Knight (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

To make clear: The expulsion of members who fail to have the personal character to follow the ARMA code of conduct is not of any significant event in the history of ARMA. Like any organization ARMA sometimes has to clean out bad apples. The lost of the study groups lead by those who were expelled was likewise not a significant event. The lose of the members who left later was also not a significant event to ARMA. The day after they left ARMA functioned just as it did the day before. Some of the people who left did hold the rank of Senior Free Scholar. However, none of those members were "high ranking" in regard to the administraction of the organization, a few were study group leaders but that is not a position of any read significance (I know, I'm one). Ranp 11-17-2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranp (talk • contribs)

As far as I am aware, at least a full 20% of the ARMA's study groups in the US left as a result of this Schism. I know True Edge Academy (currently 2 study groups), the Meyer Freifechter Guild (currently 9 study groups), and Kron Martial Arts (1 group) did. I believe there are other groups which have left, as well. Like I said, I don't have the details, but I would love to include them. The Jade Knight (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the sentence saying that some ex-members founded the HEMA Alliance because what those ex-members did after leaving ARMA has absolutely nothing to do with ARMA! Ranp 11-17-2010

Regarding your recent edits: Please remember to remain neutral, and it is absolutely non-negotiable that any claims which impugn the character of any individuals be reliably sourced. So, if you wish to keep your claims that individuals were "insulting others and making threats", please provide a reliable source which asserts that this was so. And I would absolutely love a reliable source (or, honestly, even a less reliable one, so long as it's not so unreliable as a forum) which can back up your claim about ARMA membership numbers. As far as I am aware, ARMA membership numbers have never been available to the public. Has that changed? One thing we could do to add more relevant details is specify which study groups left ARMA. It is also true (to my knowledge) that the leadership of some groups left ARMA while the groups themselves did not (I believe this is the case for ARMA Las Vegas?) Unfortunately, I don't have those details. The Jade Knight (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jade, why is it that you want the Schism to be listed in the history of ARMA yet you don't want any details? I gave the reason why the first part of the Schism occurred. Are you suggesting that no one was expelled from ARMA in 2008? Or are you suggesting that those people were expelled from ARMA for following the rules, being nice, etc.? The sources you are asking for would be the numerous emails sent and received by the ARMA membership and the numerous messages posted on the ARMA EList. Is Wikipedia really interest in those kinds of ugly details? Like it or not, the expulsion happened for the reasons I listed. If you talk about the Schism then you have to talk about why it happened. That some left of their own free will is just half the story. You wanted your pie, now eat it. Ranp 11-17-2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranp (talk • contribs)

Ranp, I want details. I just want details that don't violate Wikipedia's policies. Can you help me to provide details that are not controversial and/or have reliable sources? Before you make another edit, please read WP:BLP to learn more about what is required when disparaging marks about living people are included in Wikipedia articles. So, again, if you can provide reliable sources, you're welcome to re-add this material. If you can't, I am obligated (by WP:BLP) to remove the offending material. The Jade Knight (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

And while we're at it, I probably ought to remind you that original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. The Jade Knight (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jade, I removed the text referring to these ex-members as "high ranking members" since it implies that they were in actual decision making positions within ARMA. They were not. The only "high level" positions within ARMA is the Director, John Clements, and the Deputy Director, Aaron Pynenberg. At most some of the Senior Free Scholars who left were study group leaders, nothing more. So stop making out that the ex-members were more than what they were! A Senior Free Scholars can conduct select classes and give advice to other members. However, a Senior Free Scholars has absolutely no administrative authoriy within the organziation. Regardless of your intent and effort to be neutral any time you refer to the ex-members as "high ranking" you are spreading a lie. Please stop! Ranp 11-17-2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranp (talk • contribs) 01:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we're starting to understand eachother better. I'm going to go ahead and try to improve the article taking this point of view into account. The Jade Knight (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Jade, the members who left ARMA in early 2009 did not leave as a "direct result" of the expulsion in late 2008, rather they actually supported the expulsion! In other words, the 2008 expulsion and the members leaving in 2009 are totally unrelated. I am once again removing the comments about those members forming the the HEMA Alliance because this article is about the ARMA, the section is about the history of ARMA, it is not about the history of the HEMA Alliance. Please put any history of the HEMA Alliance in the HEMA Alliance article. You ask that I assume you are working from a neutral point of view and acting in good faith yet your actions are strongly suggesting that you are neither neutral or acting in good faith. Please stop trying to promote the HEMA Alliance in the ARMA article. Ranp 11-18-2010— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranp (talk • contribs)

It is quite normal when discussing something to also discuss its aftermath or effects. In fact, it would be quite unusual not to. And, in a case like this where the result is so strongly and obviously tied to this event, it may seem biased or deceptive not to do so! Finally, I would like to remind you that I have a very long history of editing with a neutral perspective in this article (though neither you nor the anti-ARMA people seem to be entirely happy with my insistence on neutrality in the article), and I'm simply trying to create a better article. Remember that it is Wikipedia policy to assume good faith (though it's something we ought to do even if it weren't policy)! The Jade Knight (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Jade, you are wrong, it is not normal. Look at the Wikipedia article on Apple Inc. and you'll see that Steve Jobs is discussed only within the context of his activities at Apple. The Apple Inc. article does not talk about what Steve Jobs did between the time of his resignation in 1985 and his return in 1996. Why? Because what Steve Jobs did while away from Apple has absolutely nothing to do with Apple! What people do after they give up or lose their membership in ARMA has absolutely nothing to do with ARMA. Also, you keep making things I write as needing a citation yet you are not doing that for what you write. You are clearly holding me to a double standard? Regardless of your long history of editing from a neutural perspective you are clearly not doing so at this time. It is very hypocritical of you to suggest that you are not attempting to promote the HEMA Alliance in the ARMA article when you write how these ex-members founded then HEMA Alliance and their significant to the WMA community. You are not neutural!Ranp (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ranp, Wikipedia requires that you WP:AGF. You are continually accusing me of acting out of some nefarious purpose which I do not have. I challenge you to follow this policy and assume good faith. Do you refuse? Regarding the History of Apple (a topic you chose), you are absolutely incorrect. If you read the article, you'll notice that it says that Jobs went on to found both Pixar and NeXT after he left Apple, even though Pixar has nothing to do with Apple other than the important fact that someone left Apple and then founded it: a parallel perfectly apropos to the current discussion. So, Wikipedia clearly has a precedent of mentioning "after leaving this group, so-and-so went on to found this other group". And you picked the example here. The Jade Knight (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

guys, before you take this any further, ask yourselves, what parts of the article are referenced to reliable independent third party sources. Then blank all content that isn't. If this "schism" can be referenced properly, of course it is relevant to the topic. If it is not, it needs to go along with everything else that cannot be verified. --dab (𒁳) 10:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There is not a single part of this current article talking about ARMA which references reliable independent third party sources. The Jade Knight (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that only material which is not common knowledge (in other words, anything which is likely to be challenged) should be removed if a reliable independent third party source cannot be found. The schism and its aftermath are common knowledge to the HEMA community (the only thing currently in the article which isn't common knowledge is the assertion made by Ranp that ARMA membership has fully recovered since the Schism). The Jade Knight (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Jade, you want me to provide citation for everything, yet you have provided none for your stuff. Please note that I have added a "citation needed" request for all for which you have not provided a citation. For example, you wrote "...the movement was significant to the North American HEMA community at large...". Well where is the significant? Keep in mind this has to be more than you opinion that the the HEMA Alliance is the best thing since mom's apple pie. Something "significant" has to be a lot more than just a bunch of people agreeing to be best buds and train together. Personally I don't remember North America shaking with "significant". You must play the same rules!Ranp (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ranp, you seem to have neglected to read the very statement you appear to be responding to! I said, and I will repeat: "I am of the opinion that only material which is not common knowledge (in other words, anything which is likely to be challenged) should be removed if a reliable independent third party source cannot be found." In other words, if something is common knowledge, I am of the opinion that a citation is not strictly necessary for it, though having a citation can only improve the article, and because of that I am not removing your {{citation needed}} tags. However, citations are absolutely necessary for anything which is likely to be challenged. Consider, Ranp, that the HEMA Alliance, within the first year since its founding, now has roughly 200 members and over 25 North American study groups among its memberships. Considering that there are only 1328 known practitioners and 125 known study groups in all of North America[3], I think we can call the event which brought it into existence "significant". That said, I would not be opposed to removing the sentence which includes the "significant" expression. The Jade Knight (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Jade, I removed the phase "of their own free will". The obvious does not need to be stated.Ranp (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not perfectly clear, given the context of the paragraph. However, I'll rephrase it to "by choice" for you. The Jade Knight (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Problem of Sources

Currently, the article does not contain a single third-party source for any of its statements which are about ARMA or its history. According to some, this may be grounds for deletion. However, I believe that a great many Wikipedia articles which are deleted due to lack of sources can still serve a useful purpose if they are kept. However, when there is a lack of (reliable third-party) sources on a topic, care needs to be taken to ensure that our treatment of that topic is:

• Neutral, avoiding peacock terms, and ensuring that it is not biased for or against ARMA
• Careful to adhere to Wikipedia policies, especially BLP
• Careful to remove material whose factuality is challenged or likely to be challenged

So long as we all act in honesty and in good faith, we should be able to provide a helpful and useful article which is agreeable to all. If we cannot, this article will probably eventually make its way to deletion in the absence of reliable third-party sources. Ironically, I know of a single peer-reviewed third-party source specifically about the "Rosetta Stone" curriculum which I have chosen not to introduce to the article (it's the only peer-reviewed third-party source I've ever seen mentioning ARMA). However, this source is biased and its reliability may only be marginally better than the first-party sources currently used by this article. The Jade Knight (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Jade, if the ARMA article goes due to a lack of third-party source then surely the HEMA Alliance must also go for the same reason. You keep talking about "in good faith" yet beyound all doubt the only reason you are pushing this "Schism" thing is so that you can promote the HEMA Alliance on the ARMA article. You also keep adding the statement that people who left ARMA in early 2009 did so "as a direct result" of people being expelled from ARMA in late 2008 - that is a lie. Also, what is your issue in stating that ARMA expelled people in late 2008 for breaking its code of conduct? Are you suggesting that there was some other reason? Does insulting the entire ARMA membrship, threating the ARMA diretor and his family not consitutes breaking the code of conduct? You also keep re-writing the section so as to suggest that these people being expelled and leaving had some kind of great negative impact upon ARMA - it absolutely did not. These people leaving ARMA is not unlike people leaving a job - one day they are there and the next day it is like they were never there, life goes on.Ranp (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ranp, we're discussing this article, not any others. Concerning the HEMA Alliance article, however, you'll notice that it contains 2 reliable third-party sources. That's 2 more reliable sources than the ARMA article currently has, and it's a shorter and newer article. I am not personally interested in promotion; I am not a member of the HEMA Alliance GC or BoD, and I personally stand to gain absolutely nothing via promotion of one HEMA group over another (apart from promoting my own personal school, which does not have a Wikipedia page). I have a longstanding history of editing with neutrality in this article (going back many years). If the "mass exodus" of several study groups who left ARMA in 2008/2009, some of which have stated that they have left "out of solidarity" with those who were expelled, why did they leave? "Are you suggesting that there was some other reason?" I have been told that individuals have been expelled for arguing with John Clements, or for practicing another martial art concurrently, among several other reasons. The fact of the matter is that you haven't provided a single source, reliable or not, supporting your assertion that it was for breaking the ARMA code of conduct. Not even an official ARMA publication on the event. I do not know what kind of impact this movement had on ARMA, Ranp, and unless you have access to ARMA's official membership rolls and finance sheets, I somewhat doubt you fully know yourself. Obviously, if the individuals who left weren't part of your study group, it would have a minimal impact on your personal study. However, whether or not this event had a profound impact on ARMA, it definitely had a profound impact on the North American HEMA community (by its causing the HEMA Alliance). For that reason alone it is notable and worth including. The Jade Knight (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Jade, the link I added works absolutely fine in Microsoft IE, Firefox, and Goolge Chrome. There is absolutely no reason for you to screw with the link. Your actions are nothing less than vadalism. Every time I add or update something you are coming right behind me and screwing with it. That is vandalsim! Please stop that silliness.Ranp (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The article now contains five (5) third-party sources.Ranp (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

that's cool. Now it just remains for us to remove all the content that goes beyond these five references and simply treats this page as an extension of ARMA's website. Also, sources shouldn't be hand-picked to be favourable. Any neutral article on ARMA will state that it is a pioneer group in HEMA, but that it is also highly problematic and virtually isolated in the community today. Instead, this page goes on about the etymology of arma and the group's "credo". This isn't encyclopedic, it is PR. I believe that there is can be no doubt on Ranp's WP:COI. It is Wikipedia's "credo" that such users step down and let others decide on questions of relevance and ecyclopedicity. They are still welcome to advise and to point out factual errors. --dab (𒁳) 08:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ranp seems to be systematically editing the page to remove content he disagrees with, and to (to a lesser extent) restore the removal of content he thinks should remain. Consider the following series of revisions he did: diff. Notice what Ranp considers 'unimportant information'. The Jade Knight (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

At least we have to hand it to Ranp inasmuch as he fully declares his tight association with the article topic and consequent conflict of interest. The question is just why he still keeps editing the article at all. He should go and find some topic of interest where he is not hampered by a conflict of interest and work on that. All he is acheiving here is making his group look bad for trying to doctor their Wikipedia article into an advert. Here is a suggestion, Ranp should edit New Chronology (Rohl), and David Rohl (talk · contribs) should edit Association for Renaissance Martial Arts. Or at least each should review the other's edits to see just how much of a fool their behaviour makes them look to the outside observer. --dab (𒁳) 11:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Trying to fix this

This is a suggestion as to how this article could lose the {{advert}} and {{tone}} issues that have been plaguing it for years (and which were actively defended by WP:COI editors). I suppose the ARMA is notable enough as an organisation to merit a standalone article. But the article must be encyclopedic. It only serves to ridicule the group if the article is written in a grandiose, self-conceited tone. I removed literary, ahem, gems, such as

In the same way that the Rosetta Stone provided the key to the modern understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs the new ARMA Rosetta Stone curriculum and longsword interpretations has provided a key to more fully understand the teaching of the historical master on other weapons. The ARMA Rosetta Stone is basically serving as a grand unified theory in the recreation of the Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe.

I did keep trivial stuff like

The uniform worn by members of the ARMA consists of a red T-shirt and black sweatpants

why such random detail is relevant for an encyclopedia article about the group is questionable, but at least it is phrased as a statement of fact instead of descending into an essay about the meaning of the colours red an d blue in Renaissance art and the Roman army. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)