Talk:Society of Ancients

Untitled

I've recreated the page, following deletion, apparently for "Blatant Advertising". I used a cache of the original content as the base (from answers.com).

The SoA is a non-profit organisation, funded by member subscription. The Slingshot magazine does not include paid-for contributions. I'm not entirely sure how to describe the society in a way which can't be construed as advertising ... However, I have checked the entry for the BBC and while obviously far shorter, the attributes disclosed in this stub entry are similar to those given for the BBC (in terms of their nature, not their magnitude).

Shady18n (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Added some minor edits, and removed the comment about the Society claiming membership of 1200 based upon the SoA website, as the website is not considered an authoritative source.

Doug Me (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

self published??

I've removed the "self published" banner - indeed the only source for any statements are internal information, but there will be be many such organisations whose history is mainly known to the organisation. And a reference in the article to the organisations website is not self publishing - if refers readers to the source of the material Andrewshobley (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed , the important thing is that it should not be written as PR - and it isn't. There are are a couple of wargames books that probably could be used as alternativ sources but they tend to be a little out of date and not easy to get hold of.Dejvid (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No - the orgnization fails notability if references to it can not be found outside the organization and its originators. I'll give you some time to fix this. Without such a fix, I will nominate this article for deletion. If the self-reference tag is removed again without correcting the problem, I will immediately make the nomination. Rklawton (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The tag complains about the refs being self-publishing. Self publishing means vanity publishing or someone writing something and placing it on their home page. The Slingshot has an editor elected by a membership of about a thousand. It is not self publishing. You do have a point but it is not the one the tag is making. What you are asking for, correct me if I'm wrong, is more than a single ref to demonstrate notability. I responded to that by adding the ref that I found in my local library. I feel I've done my bit. I'm sure if others went down to their local library they will each find at least one different ref. But others won't do their bit unless you make clear what your problem with this page is. So please find the appropriate tag.Dejvid (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The description within the tag makes the problem pretty clear. I suggest you worry about the tag less and more about finding reliable sources that aren't related to this organization. Without such sources, this article would not survive an AfD. Rklawton (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are getting at because of what you have written on Charles Grant page. For other users not familiar with the AfD process or even what AfD stands for it is highly likely that they won't. Asking for an appropriate tag is not unreasonable. The self publishing tag is incorrect and in any case a red herring. Your valid point is that more than one source is needed and if that is clear people will respond. Dejvid (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether useful cross references on the web, to denote notability, are likely to be found. Since the SoA is probably the primary worldwide society for ancients wargaming (though others do exist), it's difficult to find a superior organisation which can confer notability on it. However, it is mentioned in many printed wargames rules - for example Games Workshop's Warhammer Ancients and Neil Thomas' Ancient and Medieval Warfare (the latter being a commercially published book, not a private or vanity publication) spring to mind, probably DBMM and FoG also mention it. I don't have any of them to hand right now, but presumably citations can be found there. As for the self reference "... to the editor", though I'm not sure how useful the trivia about Tony Bath's original printing process is, the article doesn't mention the current editor, and Tony Bath has passed away. 89.174.244.27 (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement for sources to be web-based, just reliable. Rklawton (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please replace the current tag with one that is correct. I don't understand why you find that unreasonable.Dejvid (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was unreasonable. And I never said you couldn't do it yourself. I do suggest you fix the article - if you're concerned. Rklawton (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am fixing the article but I would like the page to be correctly tagged so others will understand the problem and help. Others will have access to different sources. You earlier said you would propose deletion if anyone deleted the current tag. If you say something like that you are taking on the responsibility to find a correct tag and replace it.Dejvid (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And yes, you are right, you never said my request was unreasonable. When you didn't react to my previous comment I assumed you had ignored it and took that as an answer. If, as is likely, you simply didn't see it then I apologize.Dejvid (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Rklawton, I think what we're struggling with is, firstly, you're threat of nominating the article for deletion immediately if the tag is removed, as opposed to "giving ... time to fix this"; and secondly, since your implication is that it needs to be fixed in your eyes, otherwise you will nominate after a longer period of time. So, does the current state of the article, in your opinion, warrant the removal of the tag, or replacement with some other tag to invite further contributions (per Dejvid's request). At the bottom of this, we're asking for an opinion, based on your expertise, as to whether the article would currently survive an AfD if nominated. Shady18n (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Notes on Notability

On notability, I have made an initial sweep of a few books on wargaming, which include references to the SoA. I say “initial”, I assume there is a reference in the DBMM rules, and in Neil Thomas’ Ancient & Medieval Warfare; I need to work out where I put my copies (the Field of Glory rule books only mention other Osprey and Slytherine titles). Anyhow, I've set this out here so it can be used as source material for the main article.

• De Bellis Multitudinis , by Phil Barker , page 27 (version 3.0, published by Wargames Research Group, 2000) - “a long established world-wide society for all interested in ancient and medieval warfare”. Note Mr Barker is one of three honorary life VPs of the SoA, so may not be considered independent.

• De Bellis Antiquitatis , by Phil Barker , page 52 (version 2.2, published by Wargames Research Group, 2004) - See above on independence.

• Introduction to Battle Gaming, by Terence Wise , page 157 (published by Model and Allied Publications Ltd., 1969).

• Ancient Wargaming, by Phil Barker, page 64 (Patrick Stephens Ltd./Airfix, 1975) - “All ancient wargamers benefit by belonging to the Society of Ancients, who publish the bi-monthly journal Slingshot, which is essential reading”. See above on independence, although I believe this reference pre-dates his election.

• The Ancient War Game, by Charles Grant , devotes an entire Appendix to the SoA, starting on page 151 (published by Adam and Charles Black, 1974) - “No book concerning itself with ancient wargaming could be complete without a reference to the Society of Ancients, the organisation which concerns itself with the study of military history in the ancient and medieval periods and with wargaming in the same epochs”. Again, the late Mr Grant was at one point editor of Slingshot. However, I’d argue this is a seminal work. Jeff Jonas, author of the Warhammer Alexander the Great supplement, and never an officer of the society, references it in his bibliography as “this is what started it for me” (p 126).

• Wargames Through the Ages, 3000BC to 1500AD, by Donald Featherstone , page 17 (Stanley Paul, 1972): “the Society of Ancients … are the most enthusiastic and well-informed body of international wargamers specialising in the Ancient and Medieval periods. Membership of this Society should be a top priority for any wargamer interested in the period”.

• Warhammer Ancient Battles (WAB), by Jervis Johnson , Rick Priestley , Alan Perry , Michael Perry , page 144 (latest edition published by [ Games Workshop ] 2005, from which this reference is taken; originally published 1998). The SoA is mentioned alongside the Lance and Longbow Society : “If you’re seriously into ancient and medieval wargaming then you really should be a member of these two societies. Their respective bi-monthly publications, Slingshot and Hobilar are gold mines of ideas and inspiration!”.

• Other WAB supplements which use similar references, all published by Games Workshop, include: Alexander the Great, by Jeff Jonas (p. 127, 2003); Siege and Conquest, by Guy Bowers (p. 144, 2007); The Age of Arthur, by Steve Jones and James Morris (p 144, 2007); The Art of War, by John Kersey (p. 144, 2007); Hannibal and the Punic Wars, by Allen E. Curtis (p. 112, 2005); Spartacus, by Simon Brown (p. 47, 2004); Fall of the West, by John Lambshead and Leslie Newsom (p. 80, 2002); Byzantium: Beyond the Golden Gate, by Heine Baekkelund (p. 128, 2005); El Cid, by James Morris (p. 64, 2003).

• I'd also note that the page on DBA (De Bellis Antiquitatis ) manages to studiously avoid mentioning or providing a link for the SoA, despite the fact that the game's origin was in a shorter ruleset named after the society (De Bellis Societas Antiquorum), demonstrated at the SoA conferences in 1988 and 1989 (reference: DBA, by Phil Barker, page 1). I'd suggest this page also be modified.

• The list of professional historians who have written for Slingshot should also include (probably amongst others) Philip Sabin, Nigel Tallis, Matthew Bennett. Many other contributors have become published authors, either before, or subsequently to their contributions.

• On the games side, notable wargames rules authors who have written for Slingshot include Phil Barker, Nigel Thomas, Rick Priestley, Jervis Johnson, Richard Bodley Scott, Neil Thomas (etc).

Shady18n (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those are the sorts of sources and references would make a vast improvement to the article. The current article only sites its own publications and members, and that's not sufficient. By posting a tag regarding self-referencing sources, I've given editors time to make improvements without the stress of a Prod or AfD countdown. Rklawton (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks for giving the authors of this article some room to manoeuvre. I've put the references in the article. I regard this as a starting point rather than a finished work, but would appreciate guidance on whether it would now be appropriate to remove the tag (yes, back to the tag!). Thanks. Shady18n (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled about the reference formatting, but the tag clearly no longer applies. Some of the material in the references should be moved up into the article - as it helps explain the orgnaization's significance to the gaming world. Rklawton (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert ... many thanks. I will have a further edit over the weekend, once I can find the additional references, and will bring more of the content back into the article. A big part of this comes down to guidance as to what is the "right thing", so I'm grateful for that. Shady18n (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)