Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2013 February 15

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 15

Question: Does the Hispanic actress Carla Perez have a website in English?

Question: Does the Hispanic actress Carla Perez have a website in English? Venustar84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not finding any personal websites that appear to be managed by her or her people, but there are many websites where she is discussed. There are some good leads here. --Jayron32 05:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Why does modern sports fencing seem to degenerate more and more?

Dear Ladies and gentlemen. I have already asked a question about the realism in theatrical swordplay (see above). There is another aspect in modern day fencing, which confuses me highly: why does the modern sports fencing (please compare 1953 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXVpQ9vK_3w with 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJB91JzVf5s) seem to get less and less refined?--188.62.118.195 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Define "refined". --Jayron32 16:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jayron32. With "refined" I mean the once highly advanced, precise trained basics and techniques (the French word raffinement means sophistication). Most modern day fencers seem to be barely able to shield themselves from an attack (just look at the different tempos of the the combat phases in modern olympic fencing). Take a look at a modern day bout: both the correct use of the motor leg and the tethering in the first pace overwhelms both "fencers" enormously. Do they have bad fencing masters today?--188.62.118.195 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A couple things. One I noticed mistakes made by the fencers in the 1953 clip that would never go unexploited today. Also changes to the right-of-way rules have led to the more dynamic modern style emphasizing attacks. Notice the footwork of the modern fencers (even at the expense of posture). Much more "attack or retreat" than "attack, parry, riposte, counter-riposte, etc."). Rmhermen (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rmhermen. Thank you for the response. You are right, I noticed the errors too. It seems, that most fencers today just want to hit the target first and make the lights go on.--188.62.118.195 (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Why, indeed. It's how one scores; one is not rewarded for elegance. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, sports fencing is a contradiction in itself. The wiki says, that sport is "sport (or, primarily in North America, sports) is all forms of competitive physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim to use, maintain or improve physical ability and provide entertainment to participants". Fencing is the art to defeat an enemy with a weapon. Despite what some practioners think, Fencing can NEVER ever be transformed into a sport. What we call sports fencing is a downright crude and mutilated version of a former martial art.--188.61.214.157 (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Language doesn't always work that way. War games are not any kind of war, but they are a kind of game. Dwarf planets are not any kind of planet, despite doing almost all of the things that planets do and nothing they don't do. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

There have certainly been changes in fencing style since the 1950s, but I think the most important difference between those two videos is that the 1953 one is foil fencing while the 2007 one is mostly Épée (there's a little foil at the beginning and end). In foil, parrying is essential due to the right-of-way rules. Epee, in contrast, has no right-of-way rules. Counterattacks (attacking into an attack) are much more common in epee than parry-ripostes. Also, people do make distinctions between modern competitive sport fencing and earlier forms. Our article on the modern form is, naturally, fencing. We also have classical fencing, which is about fencing as it existed in the 19th and early 20th century—when it was both a "sport" and used for actual duels. Some info on earlier, "non-sport" sword fighting can be found at Historical European martial arts. There are people who bemoan the fact that modern sport fencing has become quite different—less refined some say—than earlier forms. Some people try to recreate "historical fencing" or "classical fencing". And that's great, but a key aspect of those earlier styles—perhaps the key aspect—is dealing with the fact that the whole point was to wound or kill the other person. People who recreate the old styles today tend to do it safely so they don't wound or kill each other. They may try to simulate being wounded (changing hands or pretending they can't move a leg, etc), but still, it is somewhat artificial. Which isn't to say it isn't fun. But still, no one actually fences the way people used to, because it is lethal.

That said, the teaching of fencing has gone through a lot of change over the last century or so. Early sport fencing, through the 1950s, placed a lot of emphasis on "proper form" and "elegance". Fencing was supposed to look a certain way, and certain actions were supposed to be responded to with other specific actions. In short, fencing in the early to mid 20th century was quite stylized. The "refined" style mentioned above could also be called an "artificial" style. It developed in part because human referees had to judge whether a fencer hit and who hit first. Before the late 1950s the masters of "proper fencing" were almost entirely French, Italian, and Hungarian. If you look at Olympic fencing before the 1950s it is almost completely those three countries. Electronic scoring machines became common for epee, then foil, by about 1960 (and for saber much later). Electronic scoring has a huge effect, especially on epee, which has no right-of-way rule. Eastern Europeans were the first to develop new techniques that challenged the French, Italian, and Hungarian dominance. Techniques that involved making hits that a human ref might miss but the machines would register. One of the reasons sport fencing was stylized before the 1950s was because human referees naturally look for certain things. A smart fencer in those days would try to score in ways most likely to be judged in their favor by a human ref. This is still somewhat the case in foil and saber, due to right-of-way rules. How large does a foil parry need to be for that fencer to establish right-of-way? A: Large enough for the ref to see it as a parry that establishes right-of-way. Epee is much less dependent on the ref and more on the machine. Elegance counts for nothing. The video from 2007 posted above is mostly epee fencing. The video from 1953 is foil with no electronic scoring machines, and is, I think, a good example of the highly stylized, rather rigid "classical fencing". One obvious example of a change that took place around the 1970s was a shift from the old "stepping" footwork to a boxing-like "bouncing" style. At the higher levels of fencing the bouncing style proved better within a few years. I might argue that the history of fencing from the days of duels to today is largely a long and slow process of figuring out how to best tell when a hit has been made. In duels with sharp swords it was obvious when someone was hit, whereas it is often not clear when using blunted swords. Well, and the other key thing that has changed is that today fencing is not a life or death situation, but rather a fun and safe sport.

Finally, in reply to this from above, "Fencing is the art to defeat an enemy with a weapon.", yes, if by "defeat" you mean "score more points" and both fencers walk away unharmed. If by "defeat" you mean wound or kill, fencing hasn't been that way for a very long time now. If modern fencing is not a martial art because people are not wounded and killed, then neither are most martial arts. Pfly (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

PS, one more thing. Arguably the older "classical" style of fencing is easier and more enjoyable to watch. The old style involved a lot of blade play "conversation". Modern fencing can be quite hard to watch. Everything is much faster, with the scoring lights going off for things you didn't even see, the action stopping and points being awarded for mysterious reasons (in foil and saber anyway). While modern epee is often painfully slow to watch, with the fencers not seeming to do much for a while, then suddenly a flurry lasting less than a second and someone scored, somehow. I can certainly understand the frustration of anyone trying to watch and understand modern fencing, and thinking it was better before 1960 or so. But of course there is a big difference between watching and doing. I originally learned non-electric foil fencing and now do electric epee. Electric epee is undoubtedly harder and less enjoyable to watch, but, personally, much more fun to do. Pfly (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

@Jack of Oz: Hi Jack. Please do not forget, that I am from a different country, where we speak and write in a different style of English. @Pfly: Hi Pfly, thank you very, very much for your response. I am not a fan of the reconstruction of historical fencing, since most practioners are amateurs and barely able to read and/or understand old high German, English or Italian properly (most interpretations are horribly unrealistic and lack knowledge of even all the fundamental principles). But good historical fencing, as practised by professionals can help to make stage combat look more accurate. I hope you understand, that I meant the olympic fencing with "mutilated version of a former martial art", not the modern fencing styles in general. I assume, that you have learned the very important basics of the classical, non-electric foil? Your response shows a excellent insider knowledge of the art of fencing. PS: I personally do not like the term "martial arts", because it is used as a notion for both the effective styles and the sports versions as well.--188.61.214.157 (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)--83.77.53.240 (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Politically Incorrect

Was Barbara Olson a guest or permanent member of the show? Kotjap (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Politically Incorrect says she was a "frequent guest". Staecker (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

what's in the Netflix streaming catalog?

Does Netflix have a list available to non-subsribers that shows what titles are available for streaming? When I was subscribed to the streaming plan, each selection would show if it was DVD or Streaming available, but as a DVD-only customer, I can't find where to see if a title is available on streaming. RudolfRed (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is Netflix cuxtomer support page. If you are not logged in, you get a limited number of options, but there is a phone number. If you log in, I believe you can get more options. Hopefully, someone there can assist you. --Jayron32 21:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. RudolfRed (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Does https://signup.netflix.com/search do what you want? If you preform a search, then click on a title, you get a details page that includes a section called "Streaming Details". However, it doesn't have specific wording confirming if the title is available for streaming or not, and I don't know enough about Netflix to tell. --Bavi H (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

As a member of the streaming Netflix service, I notice that some items come and go depending on Netflix's contract arrangements. Some films that I watched a few months ago are now gone, others appeared, and others went away and came back a few weeks later. The catalog seems somewhat fluid.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 02:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that search is what I was looking for. It appears to only show what's available via streaming so it's perfect. RudolfRed (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I had the reverse problem, not being allowed to see their DVD list cuz I just have streaming. Not sure why they assume that nobody wants to know "how the other half lives". StuRat (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

instantwatcher.com is a third party site that lets you browse the netflix streaming catalog. Staecker (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that looks interesting. Thank you.

Resolved

RudolfRed (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Also the Unofficial Blog http://netflixstreaming.blogspot.com/ has info. Pepso2 (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)