Talk:Fencing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fencing article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	To-do list for Fencing:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Decide whether Commonwealth or American spelling should be used, and ensure that the article uses the chosen spellings Make article less technical so that non-fencers can understand: suggest cleaning up foil, epee, and sabre sections by moving reference to electronics to a more technical section. Eliminate occasional POV that creeps in between the weapons "Saber is better", etc... Use care with POV regarding fencing styles -- Possibly another reason to make article less technical. Possibly create section on changes in the sport. Increase cited references.

WikiProject Echo has identified Fencing as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew language Wikipedia.

Fencing is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

	This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial Arts Project. Please help ensure that it follows those guidelines as much as is reasonable; if you do not agree with those guidelines, please help us improve them!	Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Picture 2 Wow. 3 Links 4 Spelling standard 5 Where is Cuba 6 Fencing WikiProject? 7 Notable fencers 8 Changes to Philosophies section 9 Reverted edits by 195.179.14.236 (talk) to last version by The Fish 10 External Links 11 Film about fencing 12 Historical Inaccuracies in Épée 13 Suggested Move 14 List of national governing bodies 15 Article Revisions, FA Push 16 Suppliers 17 High School 18 US Title 10 19 Move of Fencing/Featured article overhaul to Talk:Fencing (sport)/Featured article overhaul 20 Inaccurate Depiction of Target Areas for Sabre 21 Unsourced Statement

[edit] Picture

Could anyone find a more revelant picture than the one the graces the begining of this article? There are far better pictures then a woman on poster not wearing her equipment for a tournament more than 100 years ago.--24.13.240.36 03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow.

2 things: 1. Even as a fencer myself, this page is incredibly boring and full of trivial and overly technical information. Poorly written as a whole. It really needs a complete and utter do-over. In saying that, I understand that most fencing information you find on the web is similar: badly written, and aimed at parents who want to know what the hell is going on. Or new fencers who want to know what the hell is going on. Lots of numbers, explanations, attempts to clear up what are some of the most ridiculously ambiguous and ever-changing rules of any modern sport. This article, however, shouldn't be modelled after anything like that. It's cool that you have the exact lockout times, but is it needed? 2. Lots of subtle jabs at the way foil's going. And generally, all the mentions of how fencing's rules change frequently are scattered throughout the article in their specific little catagories. Maybe make one, distinct header discussing the state of flux the sport is in?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiliquiern (talk • contribs) 19:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Links

Is it just me or does it seem like the link to National Fencing Academy is advertising? RECblue8 18:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The following web-page provides a very nice introduction to the sport, which may serve as a template for editing. The illustration of the referee's hand-signals would likely be useful. http://www.usfencing.org/do/contentItem?contentId=13 Rhydderch69 04:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling standard

I reverted the change from "maneuver" to "manoeuvre" because the former was not incorrect; it's standard American spelling. Looking over the article, there appears to be an unsystematic hodge-podge of American and British spelling conventions. (For instance, "penalize" and "penalise" are both used, a large majority being the former.)

Personally I don't care which one is used, but one should be selected and adhered to. Absent that, correcting spelling "errors" that are really differences in convention is pointless. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard seems to be to use the spelling appropriate to the nationality of the subject of the article (e.g. United States would use American spelling, and United Kingdom would use commonwealth.) WP:MOS says that "[if] there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used." Looking back, RjLesch appears to have been the first significant contributor (as far as I can tell) and he was American, so I think that American spellings should be used, because of what the MOS says. If there isn't any significant opposition to this, I'll see about switching the article over in a week or so.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The official rules for sport fencing from the FIE are written in French. The authorised translated rules for English are provided by the British Fencing Association. Any usage and teminology in the article should be consistent with the official rules. -- Whpq 15:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Much as I love the Queen's English, my impression is that the governing body of the sport in the United States translates the FIE rules itself. Certainly the "official language" used in international competition is French, (or the language of the host country) with no special status granted to English of any flavor. I suspect this brings us back to the MOS.Rhydderch69 05:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite correct. The FIE website provides PDFs for the French laguage rules and a link to the British Fencing Association who do the English translation. The USFA provides a set of rules which govern fencing in the US, and can be different from the FIE rules. And as stated in the editor's note This current edition is based, in large part on the British translation of the FIE Rules. -- Whpq 10:00, 7 August 2006(UTC)

Fair enough, my impression is incorrect. Do you think it's wise to revert to British spellings? Either way, counter-conventional spellings will leak in (not to mention contributions from SCA enthusiasts). It would seem that the best solution is one that minimizes this leakage.Rhydderch69 14:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where is Cuba

In the Notable Fencers section I did not see Cuba represented. Are there no Cubans who should be listed here? Cubans used a different style that often confounded opponents not familiar with that style. For example, a parry would be made where the point of the foil was still pointed at the opponent's torso -- often the opponent would then just walk onto the tip and lose that point. --SafeLibraries 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, feel free to write a section on Cuban fencers, personally, I had never heard about this style, and I don't think many others have, judging from the lack of such a section in the article. --digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It might well be of interest to begin a section on the history of sport fencing and the competing styles: one could mention the original French, Italian, and Hungarian styles, but more relevant to the character of modern fencing would be the "utilitarian" styles introduced by the "sports machines" -- Cuba being one of them, but the USSR, China, and to a lesser extent Germany all built a very new game: the "flick" in epee can be traced to a Soviet, as can the intensive focus on footwork.Rhydderch69 05:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fencing WikiProject?

I have noticed that the topic of fencing has quite a few related pages now, and I think that it would benefit from having a WikiProject to organize writing of articles and such. If you're interested in this idea, leave a message here, and if the idea gains enough support, I'll get this started.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'd participate in such a project. Twisted86 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes as would I Patar knight 18:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable fencers

Split it off, into, say, list of fencers or something along those lines? Isopropyl 16:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The article would certainly benefit from splitting off the notable fencers. Instead of a list, I would suggest a category. If the fencers are truly notable, then they should have their own article. Then each of articles can have the appropriate category tagged to it, and you essentially have a self-maintaining list. As it is, most of the entries have a large assortment of details that would either make for a reasonable small article, or at least a decent stub. -- Whpq 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure most notable fencers have enough information about them to make a whole article, though--I mean, their only claim to fame could very well be "won X many awards" with little other information. In any case, I definitely agree with splitting off the section into a List of notable fencers article. --authraw 19:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow, that's not a red link! In that case, I think it's pretty clear that the contents of that section should be merged into List of notable fencers. --authraw 19:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the list was part of Linuxbeak's effort to improve the fencing article that didn't move forward. I would hazard a guess that there are entries from the fencing article that aren't in the list article and vice versa, so some form of merge will need to take place if we go with a list. I'm still not convinced that is the best idea. I don't dispute that there will be entries with scant information, but that's what a stub is for. Let's use that as a seed for others to contribute and expand the articles on the individual notable fencers. -- Whpq 12:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Whpq here, this should be a category, and as he said, there will be stubs, but all great articles start as stubs. --digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 18:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done the merge, and I'm going ahead with a category to simplify things; I'm thinking Category:Notable fencers. --digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 21:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Make sure it's a subcat of the main fencing cat. Isopropyl 21:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I did that. I think I got most of them... if I missed any, please add them. --digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 15:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Philosophies section

I have been bold.

Specifically, in the Philosophies section, I:

• Defined modern fencing. Some may quibble about the use of the word modern. However, that is how this branch of fencing refers to itself, and it is, in fact, the product of the modern era (as opposed to Olympic fencing, which belongs to the postmodern era). This is an emerging branch of fencing with a new national organization. As the president of said organization, I do not feel comfortable writing a WP article about the organization, but I certainly feel okay about writing about the sport. More to come on modern fencing.

• Removed what I felt to be a non-NPOV statement about Olympic fencing regarding frequent changes in the rules. Aside from NPOV, is such a statement appropriate in a summary paragraph that is primarily targeted (presumably) at non-fencers? I would suggest/request that where there is a need to differentiate, the term Olympic fencing be used instead of sport fencing, as modern fencing is also definitely a sport.

• Rewrote the classical fencing paragraph to remove some non-NPOV-ish language, but mostly to differentiate it from modern fencing.

• Edited the paragraph on wheelchair fencing. Previously, the implication was that wheelchair fencing required the ability to move the torso, which is not correct, as there are three different mobility classes, including one for no torso movement at all.

I hope that classifying the content into Olympic and modern (as well as the other forms) will help prevent future edit wars over definitions of terminology and fencing philosophy. With some luck, these two particular different forms of fencing can each recognize other and stop trying to force the other into being something other than what it is, just as many other sports have managed -- they are two different games.

I would appreciate feedback on my edits here on this talk page. Twisted86 08:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The concept of Olympic Fencing as a "postmodern" era activity is a view only held, as far as I can tell, by proponents of "modern fencing". Certainly as a national referee I have reconstructed actions, but I've never deconstructed them, or referred to Foucalt or Derrida. I am afraid that with the vast difference in scope between the American Fencing League and the USFA claiming "modern fencing" belongs to the AFL is hard to support. Kd5mdk 23:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. With all respect due to a national referee, I would point out that FIE/USFA fencing does meet several definitions of postmodernism, including the very fluidity of its concept of fencing. However, no insult to USFA/FIE fencing is intended by using the term postmodern. It is simply descriptive (the concept of modern/postmodern fencing is not mine, by the way, but that of Maestro Charles Selberg, author of The Revised Foil). Just as FIE/USFA fencing is simply not my cup of tea, AFL fencing is unlikely to be your cup of tea. There have been far too many trees and electrons sacrificed in the personal Pygmalion projects of proponents of both AFL-style fencing and FIE-style fencing (not to mention the 19th-century classical folks). Instead of continuing to fight, these two groups need to accept that fencing underwent an "evolutionary fork" in the 1980s (concept taken from Mitch Kief at Salle Auriol Seattle) and each let the other group be. So, in that spirit, that brings us to the following questions:

• What do you mean by "the vast difference in scope"? Size of organization? Philosophy? Something else?
• What would you propose instead of using the term postmodern?

Again, thanks for the feedback. Twisted86 06:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

When I refer to "vast difference in scope", I'm referring both to the fact that the USFA membership dwarfs that of the AFL by probably an order of magnitude. Also, the USFA is the official National Governing Body of fencing in the United States, and the member of the FIE, which is as far as I know the only international fencing organization (if you discount the SCA). As far as what I would describe FIE/USFA fencing as, "sport fencing" or "Olympic fencing" would be the closest ideas I have, if simple "fencing" is insufficient. As it is, because the USFA dominates the fencing arena in the US, and the FIE and its affiliates dominate it internationally, I feel they have the best claim to "fencing" as a generic activity term. As Postmodernism indicates, postmodern is explicitly and intentionally set up in opposition to "modernism", which was a clear and preexisting concept, whereas I wouldn't say that current fencing practice was set up "in opposition" to anything. Kd5mdk 03:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your thoughtful response and clarification. I disagree with the statement that current FIE/USFA fencing practice was not set up in opposition to anything. It is an explicit reaction to the problems of hyper-competitiveness and sports nationalism — especially at high levels of competition — which led to notoriously biased juries. Electrification of the scoring process was supposed to largely eliminate bias and make fencing less subjective.

I think, however, that that is probably a question best left to the philosopher kings, as it sounds like we have reached consensus to use the terms "Olympic fencing" to refer to FIE/USFA-style fencing. How about if we use the term "standard fencing" to refer to AFL-style fencing? Obviously, when there is no need to differentiate between the two, "fencing" will suffice for both. Thoughts? Twisted86 19:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Standard fencing" implies that Olympic/FIE fencing is somehow "non-standard", which is untrue, and if anything, FIE/Olympic fencing is standard. I think we should call AFL fencing just that—AFL fencing.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 04:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Overall, good edits in the philosophies section. With due respect, though "postmodern" fencing seems rather too creative a description for a sport governed by a bunch of elderly Western Europeans and increasingly dominated by Eurasians. I've edited "Olympic Fencing" to be simply Olympic fencing... The idea of opposing Postmodern and Modern fencing seems nice in theory, but somewhat curious in practice. As to AFL fencing, I'm not sure that it doesn't represent, as the "A" suggests, a purely national POV, but I'll accept that that may be a purely personal concern on my part.162.84.166.243 23:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... The last two comments bring up good points, especially with regard to a national POV, which at this point (and for the foreseeable future) is certainly where the AFL falls.

I would also point out, however, that standard fencing is not a neologism. It's use goes back to at least 1940 (in the old AFLA rules) to differentiate the two scoring systems. The term is also used in both editions of Charles Selberg's Foil. I think with some digging, I could probably find more references. Standard fencing does have a specific meaning -- non-electrical fencing.

However, it is also not accurate to apply standard fencing exclusively to AFL fencing, but not to classical or historical fencing. So, I am comfortable with Olympic fencing and AFL fencing.

Thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion. It has helped me clarify my own thinking. The names of things, after all, are quite important. Twisted86 17:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I did some more copyediting and incorporated the suggestions from the above discussion. I also reformatted the section to use subheadings instead of bullets. Comments (and edits!) welcome, as always! Twisted86 07:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, very nice edit there, Twisted.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 18:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edits by 195.179.14.236 (talk) to last version by The Fish

An IP edit was made today and reverted by User:Obli. The revert was marked as a minor edit.

While I do not agree with all of the edits made by the IP user, I also do not agree with the revert — especially when it is marked minor and no reason is given in the edit summary. 195.179.14.236 went to considerable trouble to try to pare the article down to some more manageable size. I'd be interested to hear Obli's reasons for his/her reversion. Twisted86 06:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I must have mistaken it for a blanking, which is also why I used to admin rollback, which automatically marks the edit as minor. Since this issue is 2 months old (sorry for not spotting this discussion earlier :)) I assume it's been dealt with. -Obli (Talk)^? 16:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 16:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film about fencing

I am working on the List of sports films and I remember a film a while back about fencing. First blood rings a bell but I know that can't be right. Does anyone remember--Moonlight Mile 07:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

By the Sword, perhaps? (No Wikipedia article about it; the article of that name is about an unrelated novel by Mercedes Lackey.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sunshine is a must-add. Rhydderch69 03:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Inaccuracies in Épée

I have noted a few historical inaccuracies within the introduction to this section, most dealing with statements about other topics that are not presented as factually as I think possible.

• "It seems that épée fencing was started at the beginning of the 16th century. After the two-handed broadsword..."

According to the broadsword page (which is actually wikilinked) and a great many reference material, the period use of the term broadsword applied only to single-edged one-handed weapons like the schiavona and the single-handed Claymore (not the Two-Hander - the term was applied to two weapons). I believe that the user meant longsword, not broadsword.

• "...was abandoned..."

According to the longsword page, and historical works from the 16th and 17th centuries, the longsword had not been at all "abandoned" by the early 1500's. It was not until the early 1600's that their use was almost completely removed from the battlefield.

• "...and the complete suit of armour was outdated..."

Looking at plate armour, one can find ample evidence that armour (indeed, plate armour) existed in relatively common in use after the early 1500's, through not always as a "full suit". The current usage suggests that the complete suit, including all parts, was outdated and no longer used, which is not the case. Instead, I think it may be better to say that use of a complete suit had greatly decreased, and most troops wore only component pieces.

I think it is also important to recognize the evolution of the broadsword into the rapier, if the weapons history is to be presented. I do not have my sources with me now (I am away from my primary domicile), but it has been proposed multiple times, and I feel relatively sure in saying "accepted" by many in the community, that broadswords developed into the rapier over a period of some years, becoming thinner, longer (in some cases), and eventually almost entirely losing their cutting potential during the later years. The rapier (and hence the Épée) were not battlefield weapons were not well suited to the battlefield, but were occasionally tested with poor results. The weapon, however, did not replace the use of sabres and other backswords during wartime (as the article currently suggests, but does not state - one way or the other), but acted primarily as a weapon of un-armoured civilian defense and dueling.

Because this topic (of fencing) is obviously one of much debate, evidenced by two archives of talk pages, I did not want to simply edit the article without providing information behind my disagreements. If there are any individuals who find fault with my statements, please say so below. This is not a challenge, but an effort to provide more correct information and I realize that, while what I say is correct to the best of my knowledge, many individuals have "better knowledge". -- Xiliquiern 15:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is not incorrect when it comes to the complete set of armor. After the late 1500s it was seen mainly in tournaments, while those were still being held. It was usual for a cuirass to be worn by field officers long after the rest of the panoply fell out of use though.

Believe it or not, the French did attempt to use the rapier as a battlefield weapon at one point; sometime in the 17th century IIRC. It didn't work out well. But by then the sword was becoming less important anyway.

I agree with all your other specifics, but unfortunately I have no sources at all -- this is mostly history I've picked up from working at Living History events and so forth. TCC (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. I believe I made mention of confusion created by the use of the phrasing "complete". It could be inferred to mean that the entire suit was no longer worn as a unit (what I understand to be the case of history), or that the entire suit, including all individual components, were completely abandoned and plate armour was totally out of use by the 16th century (certainly not the case). What you said concerning the use of the cuirass is congruent with my thoughts on the subject. The use of the rapier as a battlefield weapon is something I haven't heard of - I'll certainly look into that. I do know that some officers carried rapiers and smallswords into battle, not really expecting for them to see much use aside from signaling a charge or the like (this was during the American Revolution, from my understanding). The French battle is something I will put into a quick bit of research - if it's true, I certainly pity those soldiers, especially against a pike square. -- Xiliquiern 16:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, I have found that, indeed, rapiers were taken into battle on occassion and supposedly used, though to ill effect. Perhaps it is for this reason that I (and many others) understand that rapiers are not 'battlefield weapons' and then interpret that to mean they were never used on a battlefield. Several websites support this claim, most about classical fencing. The subject is probably most completely covered in an essay by John Clements on the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts page. So, my newfound knowledge is that the rapier was primarily a weapon for self-defense, but was tested with poor results on the battlefield on more than one occasion. -- Xiliquiern 16:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Move

I think it might make sense to move this article over to Fencing (sport) or Sport Fencing and leave the Fencing page behind as a redirect page, or redirect it to swordsmanship. I've been finding a lot of articles lately that link here, but don't mean to reference sport fencing, instead meaning general swordplay with which this article does not concern itself. I don't imagine support for this to be all to solid, though I think many of you may understand my reasoning: there are many types of fencing out there today (sport, classical, historical, kenjutsu, etc) and even more in the past. Wouldn't it be right to have this general article redirect to or directly discuss the general subject of fencing than focus on only one portion of it? - xiliquiern^talk 20:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fencing (sport) sounds good to me. I too have encountered pages before that link here, but actually want something like swordplay. Perhaps a disambiguation page should be made. --authraw 20:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support Fencing as a disambiguation page, pointing to the different styles, over to swordsmanship, sword, and a few other strongly related terms. - xiliquiern^talk 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a comment? - xiliquiern^talk 18:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If not, I'm going to go ahead with the move later today, its been a week. - xiliquiern^talk 14:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. the current fencing article is not about one thing that is known as fencing, but multiple things that earlier swordplay has spawned. Providing different articles to adress these with a fencing disambig page would help a lot in article quality. -- Whpq 14:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this move should be reverted, because one of the primary reasons cited for the move (people looking for swordplay) is irelevant, because swordplay redirects to fencing. I think that if people are looking for fencing, they should get fencing. Fencing is first and foremost a sport, with everything else secondary. If people are looking for football, they get football, as they should, not American football. I dunno, I'm probably just feeling tired and grumpy, but maybe someone can articulate this better than I can? I think I'll go and get some sleep now.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 05:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of going through every (yes, every) article that referenced fencing. Some of them (about 1/3) mean fencing as in "general swordplay", not modern sport fencing. The other 2/3 mean exclusively modern sport fencing. The articles pointing to modern sport fencing are having the wikilink changed to a direct link, and those that aren't are being left at fencing. Eventually, fencing will become a WP:SS style disambiguation page. I planned on putting a 'This article is about fencing as swordplay, if you are looking for the sport, see fencing (sport).' bit at the top, as well as a section on modern sport fencing and associated events (olympics, clubs, major university teams). In this manner, those who search for fencing can easily (and quickly) find an article about sport fencing that discusses only sport fencing and is not muddled by attempts to include other historical forms. Does this plan seem reasonable? - xiliquiern^talk 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking closer at your analogy, that is exactly what I (and I think others) had in mind when I suggested and they supported the move. For a direct comparison fencing will become like football, an article that shows a variety of activities and, if fitting, evolution over time. Fencing (sport) will be like American Football, a specific subset of the same general idea. Sport fencing is only single type of fencing, just as American Football is only a single type of football. - xiliquiern^talk 05:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this issue still in question? If not, I will continue to work with the wikilinks and start the fencing article. - xiliquiern^talk 16:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the move, so for me, it's not in question.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 21:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of national governing bodies

I'm removing the growing list of national governing bodies, these are my arguments:

1. It's a directory, we don't like those, it's not very versatile either, it's just stating "In Country, the sport of fencing is governed by the Country fencing federation.
2. If someone would want to figure out the governing body of a country, they'd go to the article on the corresponding wikipedia language and figure it out (this is why the governing bodies of English-speaking countries are kept, in the external links section, though)

-Obli (Talk)^? 23:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Revisions, FA Push

I've only been fencing for a year or so now, but I feel like I want to try and help Fencing to become a featured article. Considering the Article length, and the shortness of some of the related articles, I feel that it is neccessary to make some major edits to some sections. What's the best way to do this without creating a lot of hooplah? FreakBurrito 13:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is part of the reason I moved this article from Fencing to Fencing (sport). Now that there is a page (Fencing) dedicated to providing all the information about the general types of fencing, this page can remove information about the other types and focus purely on the sport (shorten over all length, but still allow information expansion about the specific topic). First though, there seems to be a call for the move to be reverted (see two sections up on this talk page). If that can be settled, I'll finish up doing page redirects and then let the article to its real purpose - sport fencing. Sound good? - xiliquiern^talk 14:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody calls it "sport fencing", though. I've never heard someone distinguish fencing from other types of fencing by callng it something else, it's always stage, historical, mensur and whatnot you distinguish by calling it something other than fencing. Fencing is just plain fencing. -Obli (Talk)^? 08:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree with you, that nobody calls it anything else. A google search supports the idea that the term "sport fencing" is used quite a bit. In fact, Triplette (from my understanding a popular supplier of sport fencing equipment) has a page header that reads: "Sport Fencing Equipment, Sport Fencing Supplies..." The words "sport fencing" also appear in context in this article three times, none of which were added by me. In fact, on at least almost every ocassion I've talked to a sport fencer, they identified their activity as "fencing, like the sport", or "sport fencing". On only one occasion have I ever been told simply "fencing". Afterwards, I clarified: "Sport fencing?" and they said "Yeah, sport fencing". Sport fencing is simply a more descriptive and more accurate term which is (from my understanding) easily related be everyone to the modern sport of fencing. I would also say that the reason "fencing" may be referred to as "fencing" is the relative obscurity of other types of fencing - there aren't too many classical fencing duels shown in the Olympics. Few people know of "historical fencing", "classical fencing", or "mensur". And, when they are exposed to the words, they immediately think it is the modern sport of fencing. I think the use of the words "historical fencing, "classical fencing, etc" are not used to differentiate them from the sport of fencing, but rather to show that they are a subcategory of the larger global activity of "using a sword", fencing.

That is only one aspect of the point, though. The fact that many Wikipedia pages reference "fencing" as a general term for "swordplay" or, in some cases, older schools of fence, shows that not everyone finds the concept of fencing synonymous with any single type of fencing, be it sport, Japanese, etc. That was the biggest reasoning for the split - the word "fencing" encompasses more than the modern sport. Similarities and history connect the modern sport to other types of fencing in purpose, technique, and weaponry.

As I said above, making the differentiation from a broad state: fencing, to a more specific one: fencing (sport), allows this article the opportunity to cast off a considerable deal of "other information" that appears feverishly added to try and "cover all the bases". Instead of trying to explain other forms of fencing and their relations in a few hurried sentences, the article can now focus more diligently and in more detail about the specifics of sport fencing, two elements I would consider desirable if not necessary in an FA. This move was not made to try to rename the sport, or cast it aside as somehow less important. It was made to allow the word "fencing" to be displayed in its true broad context. Again, you may be assured, that the link to sport fencing, and information about sport fencing, will head the article as it is undoubtedly among the most popular (if not the most popular) forms of fencing today. - xiliquiern^Talk 15:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suppliers

It seems to me that suppliers, while interesting to fencers looking for equipment, are not an appropriate category for an encyclopedia page. Especially since there are MANY suppliers around the world, and "Wikipedia is not a directory/search-engine/link-listing/shopping-site". Other sites and search engines can and do have listings of suppliers. I propose wholesale deleting the section, which in my mind will improve the article for future FA status. jesup 02:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree/Support/Vote of Confidence Makes sense to me. This day in age I don't think anyone requires a direct link to get to a site that sells sport fencing equipment - a simple google search will provide the answer. -xiliquiern^Talk 03:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you, there's no Google search term that would bring up a list of fencing suppliers (fencing poles/mesh, anyone?), so how about just this link? -Obli (Talk)^? 07:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats probably ok. good by me. jesup 12:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - that doesn't answer "Wikipedia is not a directory/search-engine/link-listing/shopping-site". Whymust fencing supplier web sites be accessible from Wikipedia. Furthermore, "fencing supplies", amended with your weapon of choice does a spectacular job of finding suppliers of fencing sports equipment. -- Whpq 13:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No it didn't. Considering fencing equipment isn't something you'd find at your local sports store I think it's important to link to a directory, at least we're not being the directory itself, which is what WP:NOT aims at preventing if you ask me. -Obli (Talk)^? 13:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a better External Link would be a general link to dmoz like this. From there they can find whatever they want (forums, suppliers, clubs, organizations, etc). We're not a link-listing service, but they are. From External Links: Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) which is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics. jesup 13:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that this is an encyclopedia article, I refer you to Wikipedia:External links, and specifically, under "Links normally to be avoided", there is point 4 which states "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." which is what all suppliers sites are. Indirectly referring to it via DMOZ link still violates the spirit of the guideline. -- Whpq 13:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's why I removed the suppliers. Indirectly via DMOZ (especially if we just add an EL to [http://dmoz.org/Sports/Fencing/ Directory of fencing links]) is fine by WP:EL. jesup 14:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, considering they're all probably listed there, I don't see how one supplier is benefited more than the other by this. -Obli (Talk)^? 14:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's incorrect. Le Touche of Class went under years ago and H.O.M. Fencing Supply is not listed at all...the list is not up to date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84bdsop (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

So tell the editor there or become one yourself.  :-) — jesup 20:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Because I AM H.O.M. Fencing Supply...it would seem inappropriate to publicise myself.

[edit] High School

I rewrote the High School section; it needed it badly. It's still not good and poorly sourced, and I'm not all that in touch with what has been happening in HS fencing. Some of what I put in is more guess than verifiable fact. Please feel free to take a whack at it. jesup 14:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Title 10

I removed this bit from the High School fencing section, because I'm not quite sure what was meant by it: "and a need comply with US Title X" Looking up United States Code, Title 10, I can't really see anything in there that would be related to fencing, as the title seems mostly related to the Armed Forces. Could someone perhaps explain this perplexing reference?--digital_me 17:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that was a typo, with the correct wording being US Title IX a law that requires an equal number of male and female sporting participations in the name of shaking down gender bias in government sponsored (i.e. public school) sporting teams. How this in particular relates to fencing, I'm not sure, as I thought teams were composed of both sexes, but I may be misinformed. Similarly, it could have been misinterpreted, with the intended meaning that: In public highschools, fencing is required to comply by Title IX. If the author would share some words on intent, it might clear things up. -xiliquiern^Talk 20:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a typo - I was already making an edit and had to walk away (and got distracted editing the Title IX page). Teams may be mens or womens in NCAA. Often when the men's team is eliminated the women's is too, and perhaps another women's team is expanded (often cheaper than just keeping a women's fencing team alone). However, Title IX doesn't often apply to high schools, though it does apply to some, such as those that have students on federal financial aid (such as some non-sectarian private schools). It's possible it should be eliminated from High School, and only be referred to in college. jesup 20:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that there needs to be this much detail, especially as this controversy/problem applies across the board to NCAA sports. It should be covered by Title IX. -- Whpq 21:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move of Fencing/Featured article overhaul to Talk:Fencing (sport)/Featured article overhaul

I discussed my reasons on the old talk page Talk:Fencing/Featured_article_overhaul. Briefly, I moved it to comply with Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses. I will leave the redirect for a few days so that anyone who wants may object, then I'll probably delete that subpage, as well. -sthomson06 (Talk)

[edit] Inaccurate Depiction of Target Areas for Sabre

The picture shown for sabre target areas does not have the hands in red, despite the fact that they are valid targets. This should be rectified. --Savant13 14:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The hands were removed from the sabre target a few years ago. See the current FIE technical rules at http://www.fie.ch/download/rules/fr/RTECHN.pdf (page 29). Mark Oakley 15:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - to the frustration of an epeeist who always goes for the nearest target area possible (and is not fast enough to take points most of the time otherwise) <g> --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, but I wouldn't know it from looking at that webiste. I don't speak French. --Savant13 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced Statement

What is the source for the statement in the leader which says that any non-projectile weapons can be used for fencing? --Savant13 13:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)