Delirium wrote
Charles Matthews wrote:
It is being argued that xiangqi (Chinese chess) is appropriately labelled 'chess variant', when it predates chess and can't be a variant of it. So it's like saying soccer is a 'gridiron variant'.
Hmm. In that case, can't we call it "similar to chess" or something of that sort, that allows us to both orient the reader who may be familiar with chess and unfamiliar with xiangqi, without making claims about what is a variant of what (especially wrong claims)?
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_variant isn't a page that specially bothers me; which is why I think it's an example to look at for some principles. The talk page debate airs the issues. It was the final comment
"For better or worse, it is now set in the English language- the prevalent language of the internet. There is nothing left to debate."
that got me. The page is not good on xiangqi (the game of the Chinese diaspora, by the way) and shogi, and doesn't even mention the Korean and Thai versions. Well, it's insensitive to make 'chess variant' include all of those.
I hope it's clear why I find the progression
English language > majority vote > minority voices don't count > brusque approach to cultural factors > dismissive tone to other cultures
objectionable. Especially when the assumption (Internet is Anglo) is spelled out.
Charles