Charles Matthews wrote:
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.
Although I agree with what is included in the broad category of chess variants,. (I was active in the debate in April 2002.) I do not endorse the kind of "shut-up" statement that you find objectionable. Nevertheless, it is only a talk page comment, and the latitude for what people say on the talk pages is much wider than in the articles themselves. I also note the absence of any proposals from you to solve the problem on that page. This is a clear case of a discussion that should be happening on that talk page.
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.
Nobody's stopping you from adding the Korean and Thai versions, and I doubt that they will meet with any serious objections. The argument that you raise is about accepting these as variants at all, and not about what belongs in the list of "variants" of this class. As to whether the page is "good on xiangqi", there is no need for wide elaboration on the page. As long as there is a link to the proper page, it suffices to identify it as a game which had parallel development in China.
I tend to take a broad interpretation of the word "variant". For me it is not limited to derivatives of FIDE chess, but includes games with a parallel development in other parts of the world. They may very well be polyphyletic, rather than descended from some single "proto-chess"
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.
I believe your approach is hyper-sensitive. You are objecting to one person's opinion away from that talk page, before anyone has responded to it there. Perhaps no-one will, which in turn may indicate that the comment isn't worth a response.
So, when speaking of cultural insensitivities, my impression is that a large segment of Wikipedians do make a serious effort to speak in a culturally sensitive manner. Some don't. That which you complain about on the [[Chess variants]] page is very mild in comparison to other things that I have read. In other places calling certain behaviour "culturally insensitive" would be the epitome of euphemism.
Ec