Talk:Messer (sword)

Persistent insertion of a commercial link by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

(Moved from WP:AN/I)

On the Grosses messer page, WP contributor Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg persists in adding an external link (Example of a traditional grosses messer) that feeds into an online catalogue page, complete with ordering instructions and prices, maintained by a maker and vendor of reproduction swords. His reason? Because, he says, "...in a search for a picture of the weapon. I was unsure about the legal status of the photo so I added the whole link." When warned (on my talk page) that adding blatant commmercial links to a WP article appears to violate WP:EL policy #4, he replied, "it was the only picture of the weapon available and thus gives an adaquate reason not to follow it." He further insists he has no commercial or other interest in such a link but is justified in inserting it, "since a picture of the weapon would be helpful to the article." To prevent further acts of what might be considered vandalism, i.e., willful violations of WP:EL policies, and after encountering three reinsertions of the commercial link by Al-Silverburg on December 13th, it seems the matter should be referred to cooler heads at the WP Administrator level. Could a decision be made whether persistent insertions of purely commercial links are considered vandalism, or whether such links are justified because a contributor believes they would "be helpful to the article" and he says "it was the only picture of the weapon available"? Thanks, Jack Bethune 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, I would agree with you, Jack: commercial links should be avoided. However, that is a pretty nice picture on that other site, which unfortunately we can't simply take and move over here. WP:EL says commercial links should be generally avoided, but this might be one of the acceptable exceptions to the rule. Moshe, please weigh in: are you at all associated with that web site? JDoorjam Talk 04:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have already told Jack I had never even heard of the site until I googled "Grosses Messer" looking for a picture, since I was unsure of the legal status of it I decided just to add the entire link. I will also mention that I did not appreciate how Jack began our interaction by immediately accusing me of link spamming which was not only a violation of good faith but was also completly unwarranted. I also attempted to explain my position by stating that guidelines may at times be ignored if their is good reason which in this case there was. I will admit that my reaction has not been appropriate at every turn but I feel it was almost justified considering such incivility on such a mundane detail.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You should probably both apologize to one another for letting this get heated and not making use of the grosses messer talk page, where other passers by might have opinions on the value of the link. I mean, come on, guys. This is an argument over whether to include a relatively non-controversial external link at the bottom of a start-class article. This should not have reached the point where admin intervention was requested, with both of you an edit away from a WP:3RR violation.

It's my opinion that the link adds value to the article by showing still images of the grosses messer which, so far, we do not have a free-use image of. I think the value of the link outweighs the guideline suggesting the avoidance of commercial links. Without getting into an edit war, and letting any previous comments made in haste be forgotten, let's talk about the value of this link. Jack, do you think that the link adds value, setting aside momentarily the general guideline against commercial links? If not, why not? JDoorjam Talk 06:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We can all agree that an image adds significant benefit to an otherwise unillustrated article. In addition, we can certainly all agree that commercial links should be avoided, per WP policy, unless (a) the image adds a significant benefit to the article, and (b) there are no other illustrations available. While there is no dispute about (a), or apparent benefits, the real question seems to be (b), i.e, whether there are no other illustrations available. For this topic, that clearly does not seem to be the case. Images of the Medieval weapon known as the grosses Messer are not common, but they do exist in period illustrations from Albrecht Dürer's Fechtbuch, which is available online here [1] and, in detail, here [2]. Another online source illustrates this weapon in combat here [3]. These Medieval-period illustrations now being offered on other websites are probably in the public domain, and any one of them would be preferable to the commercial links in the currect Wikipedia article, which now consist of not only a repro manufacturer's catalogue page but also his full-length promotional commercial. Wikipedia can do better than that, don't you agree? Jack Bethune 18:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Cold Steel replica is somewhat notable. There is nothing to keep us from discussing other notable replicas as well. However, there is no conceivable reason why the Cold Steel image should be linked at "pokingstick.com" in particular, which is just one of many resellers. here is the manufacturer's page (yes, the pricetag for some reason is considerably higher, but Wikipedia isn't a "best buy" linkfarm), or, better still, here is a full review of the product by a neutral party, concluding that

The suggested retail price on the sword is $300 USD. The notion of value is entirely subjective, but I simply cannot state that I feel this sword is worth that asking price. Luckily, it can be found for substantially less from many on-line sellers. At a bit less than $200, I'd say it would be a good buy for those happy with what this sword can offer. For me, and my collecting tastes, this piece simply doesn't meet enough of my needs.

dab (𒁳) 11:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the only problem with the "myarmoury.com" example is that it is an illustration of the sword while the "pokingstick.com" example has the benfit of being an actual photograph. I think that best scenario would be if we could find an example of the same style that is from a completely non-commercial website.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

what are you talking about? The review article is positively crammed with "actual photographs". dab (𒁳) 12:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I was looking at the first link where there is only one partial photograph. The myarmoury page looks fine.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A short, wide, long, curved blade ?

The article reads: "Used for menial work in addition to battle, the großes Messer (alternately spelled Grossemesser) or Hiebmesser sported a short, wide blade with a single curved edge that led to a clipped-back tip (like a kilij). Its long, curved blade and the ferocious cutting power of the sword made it the European counterpart to the katana."

I'm confused. Is the blade short and wide, or is it long and curved ? 81.210.189.211 11:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it definetly more long and curved than it is short and wide. You can find a picture of one under external links.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to modern depictions, ancient swords of a given name were not all made in one uniform shape. Some grosse messers may have been short and wide, others may have been long and curved (like in the picture). As for "menial work", any sword (except the katana) would have been used as tools if necessary, but no sword would have been used for work if it were not necessary. The grosse messer was a sword, not an oversized utility knife.

The grosses messer is probably a descendant of the seax which, in fact, was more thought of as a tool. Arano (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Messer should be spelled with a capital M. No29 17:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Gallery

Hello disputors! ;-) I've added a picture for the Langes Messer in Vienna. As there was no article on the Langes Messer itself and as most Great Knives on the internet are often erroneously called Long Knives anyway, I've also added a redirect for Langes Messer to this page. If ever somebody wants to look at the Hungarian Long Knives and start a separate article, they're more than welcome to remove that redirect (and to use my blurred photograph of the thing). Cheers, Trigaranus 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And bugger - I'm not sure anymore whether I've confused the use of this Long Knife by leaders of Hungarian footsoldiers with a massive pickaxe I also saw at the Rüstkammer... If anybody knows more on the subject (or has recently looked at the exhibit in Vienna), please pour your knowledge in there. Trigaranus 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is wrong!

I am practising with those messers at the european martial arts school "Dreynschlag" in Austria. After reading this article it appears to me, that the author confused those two weapons.

1.) Lange Messer (long knives) are weapons having a long grip but are used with ONE hand. Their blade length seldom exceed 90cm and they have crossguards with a additional hook sideways for special binding techniques. They were used as sidearms in the late medieval ages by mercenaries and city militias. The german master Leküchner describes the use of those weaopons in his fencing manuscript.

2.) Große Messer (great knives) are weapons with an even larger grip and are always wielded using BOTH hands. They are usally quite huge and rather seldom used for fighting (like with the two-handed Swords) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.81.246.97 (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that this is the terminology used by some people. The question is, by whom, on what grounds, and since when? see also [4]. A more precise discussion of terminology would certainly be welcome. --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"1500 mm long"

Ok, I've got no beef with metric system but must we really use MILLIMETERS for something this long! This is a sword, not a thumbtack!

cheaper?

I often read that swords like the grosse messer or the falchion, etc. were cheaper than other swords. This does not make sense. Having one edge does not make it cheaper. A sword has to hold an edge, stay intact, and handle well. It doesn't matter if it has one or two edges. If anything, a single edge sword would have been more expensive. metal curves dramatically as an edge is being forged onto it, special counterbending techniques are needed to prevent this. Forging a two edged sword is much simpler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.205.164 (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I recall from discussions at myArmoury, a messer has a relatively thin and usually poorly heat treated blade. Their hilt construction tends to look rushed (sloppy), as if it were done by unskilled labor (larger pool lower expected rate of pay). --Meversbergii (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

afaik the cheaper price comes from less quality (in terms of material and craftmansship). while a sword needs very high quality material and superior craftmanship for forging, tempering and polishing to be a sword and not just a SLO (sword-like-object). -> point of balance, oscillation points (?)

while a single edged blade with its broad back could be forged from cheap iron with only little steal welded on the cutting edge (similar to axes).

plus a sword is a weapon for a nobleman, so often highly decorated, while a falcion oder messer is a weapon for a peasant, so mostly undecorated and plain. Glimmlampe82 (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have started with poor people making larger and larger knives for fighting with then it turned into a fad in the Germanic areas until the nobility smothered the design in so much bling that it wasn't cool anymore?

Clarify please

This article has improved by leaps and bounds since the last time I read it, but it abandons all clarity with that last paragraph in which nothing is said clearly. The editor throws two new and related terms at us, yet fails to clearly define either. Is he comparing the Messer to the Grossesmesser, or to the Kriegsmesser? What is the difference (if any) between the Grossesmesser and Kriegsmesser? He doesn't say. Frankly, I think the article is confusing "Messer" with "Grossesmesser". A Messer can be any large knife, including hunting and utility knives, or it can refer to a family of swords derived from the same design. A Grossesmesser is a sword which generally meets the few specific details given for the Messer. The Grossesmesser can be large and two handed, but one-handed varieties similar in scale to an arming sword are more common. The Kriegsmesser, on the other hand, is a two-handed sword with a trailing point. I'm not sure where the Langes Messer falls into all this, as I always thought it was a synonym for the Grossesmesser. Can someone please straighten out that last paragraph? 12.233.146.130 (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Translation Error

The translation "Hiebmesser" to "cutting knife" is false. "Hiebmesser" would better be translated to "slashing knife". Glimmlampe82 (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Unclear paragraph

In the following paragraph, some nouns and separate sentences are needed to clarify what is being referred to at which point. See below for inserted questions/comments.

"Although the Messer? is often confused with the Kriegsmesser ("War Knife"), it which one? the Messer or the Kriegsmesser? has to be clearly distinguished from the Großmesser, since the again, which one is more than 1500 mm long?? the Messer or the Kriegsmesser or the Großmesser]] ? more than 1500 mm long and shaped more like a scimitar, originating as the Hungarian version of the German Zweihänder. Kriegsmesser were used by professional soldiers, typically Landsknechts. An example of a Kriegsmesser, also called a "Long Knife," is preserved in the Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer, Vienna." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithalwulf (talk • contribs) 15:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Revamped the page

I've redid a lot of the information on this page and copied some of the formatting on the arming sword page since it was more complete. Not everything here is entirely accurate, but I tried to get rid of the worst of the unfounded misinformation (none of it was sourced anyway). Sdmr (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Emperor Maximilian

Is he a notable person?

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/10395/lot/106/

Hcobb (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

---

• Messer (sword) → Messer
• Messer → Messer (disambiguation)

– Primary by pageviews and longterm significance. Messerschmitt does not mention this "Messer" nickname within the article, so I'll have to discount that as WP:OR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear what you mean if we apply the WP:DPT guideline and look at the data:

• WikiNav says in October we saw 346 views at Messer, which led to 211 identifiable clicks to the sword (~61%), 65 to four other identifiable topics, and then there were 122 filtered clickstreams (~35%). These are not conclusive numbers at all, because when the most popular item is so far removed from the anonymization threshold of 10, it's more likely to expect that most of the filtered clickstreams' destinations are other items.
  • So the most likely ratio of clicks is ~211 vs ~187, which is not an indication of primary topic by usage - half the people want the sword and half the people want something else - inconveniencing either half by making them click once again is just not particularly good.
• Mass views is far from conclusive, as the artist gets over 3x more traffic - even if a small part of these people associate the term "Messer" with him, that already doesn't bode well for the idea that most people strongly associate the term with just the sword. Plus in turn the other items, the interest in which as a group - is noticable.
• If we account for the fact of natural disambiguation with a surname, and the fact that we're making readers jump through hoops to read a separate index of people with the surname (which means this bad navigation pattern will naturally reduce their clickstream numbers), and look at the mass views over there, it's easy to find usage of Messer that surpasses that of the sword (211/day), just with Danny, Luke and Erica (96+73+57=226). Plus in turn the other people, the interest in which as a group - is noticable.

There's no analysis of long-term significance in the proposal, so it's hard to comment on that. (Oppose) --Joy (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Mitch Grassi used this term in 2020 and has more views[[5]] and the group also comes up on Google. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Here's my reasoning on the issues raised. Surname: is not an article, just a list index, and can't be primary. The names within are all WP:PTM and also don't qualify to be primary. The stage persona: Invented in 2021, and cannot compare in longterm significance to a sword type invented in the 15th or 16th century, regardless of views. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  The name as such isn't primary, but the volume of people using the name means that there is a usage and significance in that aspect of navigation. These are not partial title matches, they're people called the exact same way that are naturally numerous enough that it had to be disambiguated in the real world. This is another conflict between strictly mononymous usage and natural disambiguation.

  More fundamentally, if the average reader looks up "messer", some might want to know who or what is a messer, or who or what is Messer, who or what is the Messer, or who or what are Messers. If there was a primary topic, then we'd have to somehow detect or infer that there's a strong expectation of there being little to no ambiguity. The available data does not support that contention. --Joy (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

14th or 15th Century

The introduction mentions that the messer is from 15th Century, but later they appear in 14th Century texts. Inconsistent. 137.92.97.234 (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)