Talk:Duel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Western focus

The first line adds a Western slant to the nature of dueling which isn't really there. For example, duels were so endemic in Japan that they had to be banned in the 16th century to stem the steady loss of trained warriors (see: 47 ronin). Vendettas were actually government-sanctioned in Japan before and after this period, where a warrior seeking redress would have to apply for permission to hunt down and duel an opponent.

Either way, I think the beginning needs to be reworked. Also, I agree with "Origins" below, the concept of the duel is a supremely ancient one, and I think attributing it to a particular branch of Western practice is a little silly. 18.251.7.144 (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

George Washington Duel

The information included about George Washington and his sensei dueling is pretty neat. Any way to back that up? Backpackadam (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious?

I found this while reading the article, right above the contents... "Necessity

Make sure you are nice and a christian. Go on www.bible.com to find out more."

To whomever put that there, if someone wants to be a christian, they'll find their own way, you dont need to spam wikipedia to convert them.137.142.177.211 (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)ashley

Yeah, really, what the hell? Can someone remove this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.81.29 (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the objectivity of this entry

"Despite the romanticism of dueling in some literature, dueling is an extremely dangerous practice..."

dueling is extremely dangerous ?

give me one good example.

Dueling is a gentlemen’s game and I would appreciate it if you did not disparage it. Your anti-dueling bias reduces this article to nothing more than contrived drivel.

(sound of me slapping you in the face with my glove)

I hereby challenge you to a duel good sir. Do you accept?

I do. Wet noodles at 10 paces. TREKphiler 14:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Beware

Challenging another to a duel may be a criminal offense. From your IP address, I believe you reside in Florida, good sir, in which case you should be safe, as the dueling statute (Fla. Stat. 783) was repealed in 1972 and dueling is now covered in the Assault & Battery statute. However, you may also be presented with problems in the future. For instance, if your challenge to duel was with a person in Kentucky, you may be barred from holding public office there. takethemud 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)takethemud

who ever is putting this spam about christianity on here god is for the weak minded go spam your religious views with people as weak minded as yourself noone wants to read about that trash — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.32.235 (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Street Racing

Is street road racing a duel of honour?

I don't know, but please don't confuse street racing and road racing. - Coneslayer

nope and Duel me

Depends on whether the racers are honorable men (or women). (Trust but verify no nitrous.) TREKphiler 14:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Trust

In the rules section it is mentioned that having a set distance, as opposed to a certain number of steps, reduces the chances of cheating; my question is: why? Surely if a guy is dishonourable enough to turn before the required number of steps he will also do so before the the pre-agreed distance. Rje 19:25, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Because they can take baby steps. -KM

To make baby steps wouldn´t help you, because the effect is this: you are closer to you enemy. This gives you better chances to hit the opponent, but he gets those better chances to hit you, too. --91.65.48.162 (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriousness of the article

Is it just me, or does the "replacements for duelling" section a bit unencyclopedic? Comparing a card game of Magic The Gathering to duelling doesn't sound quite right for me. My humble opinion calls for a trimming down of, or perhaps a deleltion of, the section in question. Before acting, I will, of course, leave this space open for suggestions and different points of view. FLafaire 23:10, 5 January, 2005 (UTC)

• I would go beyond that and delete the references to paintball, laser tag, and Airsoft since those are generally simulations of guerrilla and urban warfare, not watered-down dueling. The only entry in this category I'm certain should stay is Fencing because that IS a direct descendant of ealier dueling. My 2 cents... CenozoicEra 04:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

-- The page is uneditable for some reason. If possible, could someone add a fact tag to the line "It is seen as cowardly and primitive by most modern societies. ", because that definitely needs a citation. Sorry for muddling the talk page, but I've never heard anyone refer to duelists as "cowardly" and such a statement is a huge moral judgment without reference. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.184.137 (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Jackson?

I was wondering about the accuracy of the statement concerning Jackson's participation in a duel, how he "shot an opponent after the duel had technically ended". That's not how I uderstood it; the duel was not over until both parties fired thier guns. In Jackson's 1806 duel, his opponent had shot Jackson before he had the chance to fire his pistol. Jackson could still fire his own pistol if he was able, and he was. That's how I understand the duel went. If that is how it happened, then I think that passage in the article needs to be changed, since Jackson did nothing against duel protocol, and thus did not commit murder (unless you consider dueling to be a form of attempted murder, of course).

Proposal

To reduce wiki-stress, we should bring back duelling as a solution to edit disputes. — Gulliver ✉ 09:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We need then to identify a locale where dueling is legal, but I like your thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.41.50.6 (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

US Centricism

I agree that this article needs substantial work. It is wholly US centric, and there is very little mention of the history of European duelling, which is considerable. Similarly almost no mention of duelling in any non western culture. Note also that "dueling" is a US only spelling, this should also be included as "duelling" for speakers of non US English.

Indeed. Consdering the fact that Duelling has a rich and complex history in Europe, but hardly any in the US, the overiding focus of this article needs to be thoroughly redressed. Is it really neccessary to list the various state laws forbidding duelling, while Medieval Judicial duelling and the practices of Rennaissance duelling are bare touched on at all. In fact, the article barely mentions duelling with swords at all, despite the fact it was by far the most important convention through out much of the history of Duelling. Also, there is very little mention of the actual social signficance of Duelling in Europe - for example, surely the fact that the French Kings banned duelling as nearly half the men of the upper classes were dying to it is worthy of some mention... 84.92.80.169 14:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement that dueling in the US lacks a "rich and complex history". Apparently it was fairly common in the frontier days, and makes up quite a bit of Wild West folklore. Afalbrig (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Major Aspects Missing

From my point of view the article is absolutely insufficient because major aspects are missing. A duel in the early modern period is not a combat in which the opponents have the objective to kill or injur the other. The objective of a duel is to take/give satisfaction. This means: If any member of the upper class (in principle aristocrats, in many cases also people in related leadership functions like military officers, students, academicians in general) is insulted by another member of that class, he is not allowed to tolerate that. Based on very old European traditions, members of the upper class are expected to come along on their own - without asking for help from any authority (because it was them who represented authority). The insulted one is forced to ask for satisfaction, otherwise he cannot be seen as a member of that class anymore. This satisfaction would bring him back to his class. The offender has to give that satisfation (if he wants to remain a member of that class as well) and has got several options to do so. The easiest one is to excuse himself. If this is not possible for him, he can accept the challenge for a duel. The only reason for such a duel is that repair of the social structure. --Rabe! 10:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In former centuries sometimes appearing and preparing for a duel was enough to give satisfaction. When the challenged opponent arrived and was seriously prepared, the insulted one said that this is enough for him and that he accepts satisfaction. Then everything was over. --Rabe! 11:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Another aspect which is not covered is what we call in German Ehrengericht ("honour trial"). Some duel guidelines demanded that such a honour trial had to take place before a duel was fought. Regularly three "judges" from the same social level of the opponents had to decide if the case was serious enough for a duel or if the conditions and/or weapons fit to the case. These guidelines said that without such a trial no duel could take place at all. I can say this for military officers and students in Germany. And I am convinced that this applies to other countries as well. Maybe we should collect information before updating the article.--Rabe! 11:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Duties of Seconds

My understanding is that the initial duty of the Seconds is to act as negotiators, avoiding the duel if possible by finding a settlement or compromise acceptable to both sides. The principals cannot back down without losing face, so direct negotiations are out of the question. It is a chance to let "cooler heads prevail". Only when one or both parties are so aggrieved that no acceptable solution can be found does the actual preparation for combat commence.

I do not have a reference, but assuming this is true, I think it is important not to lose this aspect of the dueling process.

Modern duels

From the article: Dueling still continues to occur, albeit not with regularity.

• It is uncommon, though not unheard of, for members of the same US college fraternity, who finding themselves in a fairly serious disagreement, to fight a duel via fisticuffs. Especially in the South, there are informal arrangements whereby the two brothers meet in a specified place and "fight it out", with seconds. Such an event was documented in the Louisiana Tech student newspaper in the early 1990s.

I see someone has already pointed out that the article is US-centric, but the above statement is parochial to the point of solipsism. Hakluyt bean 14:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This aspect of the article really stinks. An example relevant case of modern duel, in case someone ever decides to write a better article on duel: In 2000 the last legally recognized duel in the Netherlands (Dutch) was fought over a woman in Best, with seconds as witnesses, starting with bare hands and escalating to the killing of one of the participants by the second of the other. In 2006 duel lost the legal status of being a lesser crime than homicide, in response to this case, so no new legally recognized duels will occur. I'm sure many other legitimate cases of duel have occurred in the recent past, besides the Latin American, French, and Japanese ones in section 7 (?) which seem seriously misplaced. Normally, when I go the English language Wikipedia I expect to find extra information on a subject. Not so this time. 145.18.192.124 (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Pistol Duelling

It seems to be a popular misconception amongst Americans (probably exacerbated by Hollywood) that pistol duelling was invariably performed using the back to back method. It was more common for the combatants to already be standing at some predetermined distance, face to face. Jm butler 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the "quick-draw" style duel is much more prominent in "Hollywood". 66.167.145.10 04:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Added:Trivia

Couldn't resist dueling in the arts, so I added a Trivia section. 65.255.130.104 09:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)IHouse

Duelling in Paraguay - please fit this in

Can somebody fit this in: It's legal to duel in Paraguay so long as Duels can only take place between two people, there has to be medical staff on hand and participants must be registered blood donors.

Maybe in "Modern dueling" Rfwoolf 15:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Germany etc

This has many errors; I corrected two - the definition and the Flos Duellatorum, which was a fencing treatise, not a code duello. The article should include something about the origins in Germanic law.

This is why I would NOT let my students use Wikipedia as a source!

-Ken Mondschein (mondschein@fordham.edu)

Added link to Mensur = Academic Fencing - it's not really duelling any more - just done for fun & personal development !

Hence not in Duel#Modern_duels section. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Germany and the later Austria were THE duelling-countries from their earliest constitution until 1945! There was the ius manuarium in feud-laws ("Faustrecht", in some parts given until 1900), official combat-spots for so called "fighting-rights" ("Kolbenrecht") and a decentralised political constitution with widespread local-customs, whose allowed the people to struggle for their - maybe not deserved - aims. During the last decades of the 17th century, duelling became more and more prohibited in german territories, with developing exceptions for military officers, noblemen and students. A code of honor - derived from earlier reception of that duel-matter - existed and urged the men-of-honor to take every fight/challenge in so-called "Ehrensachen" (cases of honor). The 19th century splitted the german duel-society and weakened the student-fights ("Paukerei")but maintained pistol- and swordduelling of army-members. One-single-combat ("Zweikampf") became a very juristical delict and is now forbidden but a very german crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.30.24.106 (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Truel - Game Theory - US-centricity

This is very historical and US-centric. The duel is a key concept in game theory - the Cold War and mutual assured destruction for instance can be modelled as an extended duel. There is also the three-way duel, the truel. These abstractions are of more current interest than the history. Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds has some interesting information [1], search for "duel" to find it.

---

Can I respectfully recommend that the game theory section being taken out of the main article?

The example illuminates some aspects of game theory, and perhaps belongs in such an article. But everything else in this article deals with the history of formal dueling, so a hypothetical case about an ahistorical, 3-way encounter (not even, technically, a duel) seems totally out of place.

I agree. although the example is very interesting to read, it is about game theory not duelling. In particular, the article makes no reference to three way turn-based combat. Duels were simultaneous move games involving only two participants. If we are going to include a game theory section, it should be on that basis (although there is no point because the solution is trivial). Spoofer25 18:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Also, the history is bluntly stuck in the USA. Lord Wellington also forbade his officers to fight duels, on pain of death. It was a common rule in military formations of that period especially as armies began to include more draftees and clueless officers who had bought their rank (especially in France, UK and Spain).

I moved the example to Truel and added links in 'See Also' section. See above for more non-US links.

Game Theory doesn't mention either truel or duel ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Legality

Why would the laws concerning duelling be challenged in court? Who would have standing? The duellists would probably want to duel. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Despite the romanticism of dueling in some literature, dueling is an extremely dangerous practice, often resulting in the death of one or both participants. Ummm, can you duhhh???? 69.58.249.133 14:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

---

It is not possible in common law to be able to give permission to another to kill or permanently injure oneself. Even with permission of the vitim the perpertrator will be prosecuted. Most legal systems are the same in this regard. Thus I see it as logical that dueling would be illegel even with the consent of both parties. --Robertbrockway 04"33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

It could be claimed as self-defense since technically the other person was armed and trying to kill you. Plus, you could not be accused of escalating the fight because you had identical weapons. User:monkeysocks2

Laws are somewhat locality-dependent - this isn't us.wikipedia.org !
Personally when I gave a statement to UK police as a victim of assault this year, they insisted that I must add "No-one has my permission to hit me" to cover the legal defence of martial arts as sport etc !
I suppost you mean 'assisted suicide' etc ? What about surgeons' consent forms ? IANAL ! --(talk) 05:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

---

This statement from the article is something I often see on this subject: "Dueling is now illegal in all but a few countries around the world.". Yet, I've not yet seen anyone actually specify a country where it is legal. I suggest that that line should either be removed or backed up with facts and a list of nations that allow duels. 88.131.91.2 (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

---

It appears that the District of Columbia prohibition on duelling was repealed in 2004. Dan ad nauseam (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Legality in California

I've been trying to find the exact statute in the California Penal Code dealing with duels, but my search has been less than successful. All I have in my house to work with is an old copy of the California code from 1970, which lists Title 8, chapter 7 (which is sections 225-232, added in 1872) in the penal code as the section dealing with "duels and challenges", just as is listed on this page. However, none of the online code searches find any listings for duels, the only one I found that I could browse went straight from Title 8, Chapter 6 to Title 8, Chapter 8, leaving out the dueling section all together, and I found reference to an amendment from the '90s which seemed to delete the entire chapter. Does anyone have a more modern source on the legality of duels in California? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.247.107 (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Code of honor

I simply cannot believe this doesn't fall under a Code of Honor WikiProject... It could included Bushido, chivalry, dueling... TREKphiler 15:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Single combat redirects here

If someone types in single combat, they are referred here. Yet if this is the single combat entry, there definitely should be mention of the single-combat tradition of the Iliadic-Homeric warriors, David's intertribal duel with Goliath, etc. Someone should integrate that info into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

For Males only?

Was there ever an instance of females duelling? David T Tokyo (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yhis website claims there have been a few according to Robert Baldick in his book "The Duel" (Spring Books) ISBN 0 600 32837 6. I don't know how reliable either the website or the book are. -- SiobhanHansa 22:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I recall a story about two Madams in Colorado "dueling" and after they fired their shots and missed, they went after each other with knives. Probably qualifies more as a good 'ole western gunfight, though.Ismaelbobo (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course women duelled, and not just with each other. But it was more common for men. I've quite a reliable and interesting reference on the subject of duelling in general. I'd plump out this article if I had time.OzoneO (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Origins

As far as regarding origins, the article says it is practiced since the 11th century, but aren't duels depicted in Homer's Iliad? (I read the text recently, hence its coming to my mind. I also consider, that there may be much older origins...) I can recall, at least, one istance in wich there seems to be a duel:

- between the King of Troy (Priam, wich is pleading old age is replaced by Hector, I think) and an Achaean hero (Diomedes? Ajax?);
- between Achiles and Hector;
- I dont know if it counts, but in the funeral games of Patroclus are held fighting games.

Duels originate in sexual reproduction. Jim Bowery (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC).

Asian vs Western single combats

As depicted in American movies like Troy and others, it seems that western warriors would typically dismount for single combats. However, as written in Romance of the Three Kingdoms, single combats right on horseback are very popular in China. Also in Romance of the Three Kingdoms, sometimes there are more than one single combats at the same time, sometimes one general alone was fighting several enemy generals at the same time. So:

First, is it true, or could anyone find some sources to prove, that western knights also fight on horseback as a critical opening for the main battle?

Second, what are the precise terms to describe those other types of single combats I mentioned above? Any suggestions? Sophisticate20 (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Uniformity in spelling

The article right now uses a mishmash of British and American spellings. Dueling has no strong national tie to Britain or America; it has roots in both countries, and others as well. The first major contributor to the article evidently used British spelling, so per the MOS that should be the style used. I'm not British, but I'll do my Yankee best to make it uniform. Pirate Dan (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

'Dueling' has crept back in so I will go through and standardise. 81.156.124.135 (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

In March 2010, this article was tagged as a potential copyright violation of The Lancet, July 20, 1839. While copyright is a serious concern and we appreciate contributors who keep an eye out for these issues, no copyright violation can occur as a result of text copied from a source of that age, as all content published before 1909 anywhere in the world is quite firmly public domain in the United States, the laws of which govern Wikipedia. (For almost all content, 1923 is the cut-off. See Wikipedia:Public domain.) Since there can be no copyright violation, I have removed the copyright problem tag. However, if content has been copied from that 1839 source without clear annotation of same, please correct this in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Michigan Law about to be repealed

Senate Bills 763-67 and House Bills 6135-6137 are heading to the Governor to be signed repealing the crime of dueling. http://www.freep.com/article/20100613/NEWS06/6130444/1001/NEWS/Michigan-news-briefs-Dueling-prizefighting-decriminalized Dom316 (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Western movies

Hi, why is there no reference to western movies? I mean, aren´t duels the typical element from wild west movies? Greetz --Stabacs (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Major re-vamp planned

Dear All

As part of the backlog elimination drive I am looking at the current Duel article, and decided to tackle the section on "Russia" flagged for copy editing. Then I noticed that there were other flags, and then that there were so many apparent deficiencies that the entire article actually deserved to be looked at in toto.

After having spent all night (literally, from 22:30 until 05:40 local time) tidying up very little copy and chasing far too few references, I'm wondering whether I'm just pissing in the wind. It was me who decided the article carried too many unreferenced assertions that needed citations. It was me who decided that some of the language outside the flagged Russia section could do with grammatical and stylistic amendment. It's me, somewhat bleary-eyed, who is now convinced that this article should be thoroughly re-written from start to finish, and not as a hasty exercise either, but as a project spanning days or weeks (however long it takes).

I seek your feedback on whether what I'm doing is a) worthwhile, and b) enough of an improvement to warrant the effort. If you have the time, please have a look at the intro, history and Russia sections of my draft (still unfinished, but indicative of what I'm aiming at), and see my comments in the talk section on my reasoning (if you need to).

I haven't even begun to contemplate internationalizing the focus of duelling, but I note an anonymous commentator writing about notorious German/Austrian duelling that I knbow about but can't reference. Anyone who's got some references, please help.

If you were to leave any comment on my talk page, or the talk page of the draft, I would be indebted.

Regards --Peter S Strempel (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Split

When I tried to rework the grammar and reorganise the content of the Russia section somewhat, I noticed the mash-up in the article of duels and a specific form of single combat. Now just so that you are on the same page as me, wouldn't you say we should at least differentiate between:

1. Duels as we know them e.g. from the 19th century, as a rather formalised way of settling disputes of honour.
2. Single combat between two champions in order to decide a battle vicariously -- or just generally the "champion" style of warfare as it is known e.g. from the Iliad or the Táin Bó Cúailnge.

There could also be a third form which might need to be addressed, which is trial by ordeal in the form of single combat, of which I know at least one example from 14th century Switzerland (it was even used to settle marriage disputes). Trigaranus (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well bugger me, it's the wrong template. I wasn't thinking of a disambiguation page at all. If anybody knows a more suitable template, be my guest. Trigaranus (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the template you were after is {{Split2}}.

I'd be looking at a more concrete definition of the categories, or, rather, what makes them different. For example, there is clearly a difference between 'personal' combat and proxy battles, but both are still single combat and/or duels of a kind.

I've been breaking my head about taxonomy and morphology, but still haven't reached any startling conclusions or insights. It seems to me that either (duel or single combat) could be a sub-category of the other. For example, if there had been such a thing as the confrontation at the river in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, was this a one-on-one for bragging rights/status, or a proxy battle for rights to the water? I think you could make a case for either

So: what is the defining difference between duel and single combat? My thinking so far is that duelling is a particularly refined category of single combat in which formal rules and ritual are as important to the combat as the outcome or victory.

Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  14:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC) (00:57 11 March 2011 local)

Very feasible route as well, it seems. Do you have any good reading on the subject? (BTW you're very welcome for the Unicorn. Everybody should share in Her invisible pinkness. Or pinkitude.) ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that dueling is generaly about the status of the indivduals involved where as single combat has more to do with the status of the tribes/countries involved.©Geni 04:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm I suspect the main problem is that since dueling was an illegal activity for the most part most reports are in the form of sensationalised anecdotes that that historians have done little to correct.©Geni 04:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to address this. Single combat now a separate page. This article is still very bad, of course. It is surprising how articles can sit around for five years, constantly being added to, but without any increase in article quality. As a rule, article quality will decline as people just pass by adding bits and pieces. --dab (𒁳) 12:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Fencing

The section on fencing as a means of duelling, as it stands now, is irrelevant to the article, since it seems to be focused more on various techniques than on fencing's role in duels.

Chris Allen (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. You wouldn't expect the article on the FIFA World Cup to contain a detailed overview of football tactics in general. I'm removing the section (although I think a fencing section could be useful if it detailed the specific rules relating to a fencing duel). Arthur Holland (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Women and duels

The article does not seem to mention that women occasionally performed duels. Some are mentioned here: [[2]] and here [[3]]. Female duelists were rare and perhaps worth to mention because they broke the rules by participating in duels. It should be mentioned somewhere in the article that women are also known to have participated. --Aciram (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Urban legend

I reverted this edit, as it is an urban legend, sourced with some very dubious cites, none of which can be said to be reliable sources for the claim stated in the edit, namely that it is an "urban legend that is totally untrue". Most of the sources stated can't be said to be reliable sources in any regard in connection with Wikipedia policies. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up tag - justified or not? If so, why? Why is no reason given?

This article has a clean-up tag. No reason is given for it. Shouldn't it be removed? Or at least modified to show why the clean-up tag is justified, so that it would be possible to know when it should be removed?

I hate this whole system of tagging articles. If someone wants to label an article as substandard, that someone should darn well buckle down and try to fix the problem first. I think many of these tags are highly abusive. To my mind, this is a good instance.

Poihths (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Claims about the legality of dueling in Paraguay.

I added the following comment ...

There is a frequently quoted, but totally untrue, claim that dueling is legal in Paraguay if both parties are blood donors

This was deleted with an edit commentary of "nonsense" and a note asking for references.

I then provided the following references

1. http://www.sodahead.com/living/dueling-is-legal-in-paraguay-as-long-as-both-parties-are-registered-blood-donors-do-you-wish-it-wer/question-411229/
2. Selling Destinations: Geography for the Travel Professional. By Marc Mancini p236
3. Weekly World News 28 Jan 2003
4. The Southron's Guide to Living in Uruguay By R David Finzer

The edit was again removed, this time stating that we don't do urban legends. (Perhaps my title might have been better.)

But this claim is widespread. It is listed hundreds of time on the net, in a variety of places including books. I can't understand why it is being removed without discussion. It is the disproving of the claim that is difficult to prove, not the fact that the claim is being made. Perhaps removing the part about "but totally untrue" would be a good compromise for now.--Dmol (talk) 09:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"this claim is widespread" means nothing - there is plenty of widespread but false "information". If it is true, there must be a law stating it. It doesn't need to be disproved to be removed, it needs to be proved to be included. The fact that there is such a claim is not itself notable. In other words, if there is such a law, cite it.

For online searching a starting point is «paraguay "duelo a muerte" donante sangre inurl:py» Pol098 (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your comments. I have no doubt that this claim is inaccurate, but it is so common that it should be addressed. (There's a similar common but wrong claim about the origin of the word kangaroo that is in that article without any controversy). It is likely that anyone hearing the claim about Paraguay will come to Wikipedia to check it, or may even add it using one of the many sources that state it. Ironically, the claim has references, but the fact that it is unlikely does not. Allowing it to stay will address this imbalance, and hopefully we will find some reliable refs to dispute the claim, rather than those that support it. Once again, thanks for your input.--Dmol (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

European Dueling Sword

European Dueling Sword redirects to here, but there is nothing about it here. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

According to the edit history of the European dueling sword-redirect page, it was originally an article which was merged with this article in July 2011. However the original article didn't contain much information on the weapons themselves, and it was also completely unsourced, which is probably why the "Fencing" section of this article (which is what it was merged into) has since been deleted. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Original Research

This article is stuffed with original research. For example this edit by86.18.190.156 who has also made a number of other edits to this article with no inline citations to back up the edits.

The problem I have with that particular edit is it take no account of the mediaeval concept of trial by combat which was common in northern Europe and out of which duelling must have some origins. One only has to read King Richard's speech "s:I am born in a rank which recognizes no superior but God" in which he says "In reference to the Duke of Austria, he ought to have avenged the insult on the spot, or long since to have forgotten it" and "I need not justify myself against the crime of having caused the assassination of the Marquis of Montferrat; he himself exonerated me from that foul charge, and had I my freedom, who would dare to accuse me of deliberate murder?" to join the dots. I am not proposing to put that in to this article, but that which is in the article needs expert sources as it contradicts inferences that can be drawn from sources such as Richard's speech. -- PBS (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposing to delete section on Wild West "duels"

While I appreciate the effort of adding the Wild West gunfights, a subject I find fascinating, I do not believe that they belong in this article. As the article says, a duel is an arranged meeting of combatants who agree to fight 'by specified rules. Not one of the so-called "duels" in the Wild West meets this definition - not even the Hickok-Tutt gunfight, where Hickok had specifically told Tutt not to meet him while carrying the disputed watch, and there was no agreement on rules like matched weapons, number of shots, or any other particulars of a fight. It was just two prickly men pushing each other too far until they went for their guns with lethal results. That is an interesting part of the legend of the West, but it is not a duel in the sense this article means. Pirate Dan (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Citation 24

Source 24 needs to be replaced with something different. It's cited in the specific technique of parrying with a lantern, or using a lantern to blind one's opponent, but the source confirms only that lantern-and-sword techniques existed and were used at some point.

Poland- Chmielnicki's case

This note does not rely on any citation, and moreover comprises mistakes and unjust accusations against Polish-Lithuanian state. First of all, so-called Khmelnytsky was not "Ukrainian", but the son of Michał Chmielnicki, a Polish newcomer from Mazovia (that's more or less the center of today's Poland) so "Polish" regime hardly could favor Czaplinski over him. His own piece, preserved to date "letter" to deceased general Żółkiewski, whom Michał served in battle of Cecora leaves no doubt about that.

Secondly, I have found in the book (J. Kaczmarczyk, "Bohdan Chmielnicki", 1988) quite different course of action. Helena married Czaplinski and was killed by Chmielnicki in 1651, so Czaplinski rather seduced than raped her. Chmielnicki, not having the deed of ownership of his village Subotiv, gave Czaplinski an opportunity to use his position and throw him out of it "in the name of law". It's very unlike that they were dueling at all.

Commonwealth's authority over Diepr's basin, (at the time called "Savage Fields") was very limited, and nobody cared to change that, as long as local lords and Cossacs served their purpose of keeping Tatars out of country. Hence the dismissal of Chmielnicki case by the King. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.195.160.224 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Duel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141205015528/http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/techniques/pup_wd.html to http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/techniques/pup_wd.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080202005156/http://www.twaintimes.net:80/page4.htm to http://www.twaintimes.net/page4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110605190423/http://pages.sbcglobal.net/blyle/Angelo/46.png to http://pages.sbcglobal.net/blyle/Angelo/46.png

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Batak

Hi, I'm not sure what you meant. I own the book but I copied and pasted the ref from a different article. If there's some problem with the ref itself, I can fix it. In any case, this is a book by a reliable author. You have taken a look at the source, correct? Now, the book in question doesn't mention the words sitobo lalang lipa but it's talking about the same thing. The source for sitobo lalang lipa already in the article only talks about it in the context among the Bugis-Makassar but as this book shows, it also existed among the Batak (and was probably created by them but I didn't add that in since I currently don't have a source). The book also mentions the origin of the practice in India. While the source never mentions the term "duel", I thought it goes without saying. The source absolutely never says that this is done as "training". I assume you're confused because the paragraph begins by saying "Batak warriors train daily". This doesn't mean fighting in a sarong was training. This type of fight was to the death. The article's definition of a duel is arranged combat between two people using identical weapons. This certainly fits the definition. Morinae (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Morinae: I understand your reasoning. The thing is, Wikipedia:Synthesis doesn't permit us to synthesize conclusions by drawing multiple sources together. An encyclopedia article isn't a research report. The source doesn't describe this kind of combat as a duel. It doesn't even describe it as sitobo lalang lipa in the context of Batak. Not all arranged combat between two people using identical weapons is called a duel; jousting comes to mind as an example. And fights to the death are not necessarily duels either (a duel need not end in death if both participants agree that honor has been served). If the source doesn't say it, we can't say it either.

The connection between the sources may be self-evident to you and me, but we can't put it in. A few years ago I became embroiled in a rather lengthy dispute, defending an addition to an article that seemed completely self-evident to me and the person who added it. That was in Talk:Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)/Archive 1#Scout Oath. I learned a lesson then, that Wikipedia editors should never synthesize a conclusion no matter how self-evident, the sources need to do this. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I suppose you're right about that. I'll just continue looking for sources. I do have a different book which mentions the Indian knife-fighting practice in a paragraph on duelling so I guess I'll add that in but I'll leave the Batak form of it alone until I can track down a citation. Morinae (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have no problem with your recent edit either. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

a feel for more "typical" outcomes ("shotless")

It would be nice if there was a section giving a better feel for what must have been common outcomes that were indecisive. Talk of duels usually focuses on ones with famous outcomes, rather than the cultural practice - which must have often been less about the final strike/shot, and more about debating the terms, ignoring challenges, or considering appeals from friends & family to call it off at the last minute. The WP article on the Burr–Hamilton_duel for example mentions that "Hamilton had been a principal in 10 shotless duels", but gives little explanation of what that means, or what those formative experiences would have been like. DKEdwards (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Legal in Uruguay

Translated from Spanish:

"In the twentieth century was also assimilated by upper classes, being famous several duels of politicians and other personalities, highlighting the confrontation early in the century between the former President of Uruguay Jose Batlle y Ordonez and the young journalist Washington Beltrán Barbat, in which the latter I was mortally wounded. Acquired notoriety led to this event in 1920 in Uruguay enacted Law 7,253, known as "Act duels" which regulated duels establishing the conditions under which they could be made.

Amid the critical political and social situations of the 1970s in Uruguay, they became common duels between politicians and military. Of these clashes highlights that took place between Manuel Flores Mora and Julio Maria Sanguinetti, Manuel Flores Mora and Jorge Batlle, Danilo Sena and Enrique Erro and between Liber Seregni and Juan Pedro Ribas. The rejection of domestic and foreign public opinion duels, manifested in 1990 when journalist Federico Fasano Mertens, editor of the daily La República, was challenged to a duel by the police inspector Saul Claveria (director of the National Directorate of Information and Intelligence between 1970 and 1974, during the dictatorial government) led to a public debate on the law of duels, which would finally repealed by article 1 of law 16,274 of July 6, 1992." - from https://espanol.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131106070001AA16Hbu Snori (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Legality

YOu see up there, its crying for a comprehensive table including legal status institutionalization date and abolishment date. --Neurorebel (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Duel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726214658/http://keepenglefieldgreen.org/page12.htm to http://keepenglefieldgreen.org/page12.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060509130900/http://faculty.columbiabasin.edu/faculty/dabbott/duAmericanCode.htm to http://faculty.columbiabasin.edu/faculty/dabbott/duAmericanCode.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)