----- Original Message -----
From: <wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org>
To: <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 3:12 PM
Subject: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 4, Issue 49
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"
So, as one person suggested, why not start the "Chess" article by
mentioning that there are several different types of Chess, played all
throughout the world, that they have certain similarities, and that
there's no agreement as to whether there may or may not be a single
proto-chess; and then make the main "Chess" article a jumping off point
with links to Chess (Western) (or whatever its name is) and the other
types of Chess, so each type has its own article?
70,000 hits + multiple appearances in print
authorities should get a
mention
in the article ("commonly seen as Adolph,
although technically
incorrect").
??? This seems like a problem of transliteration. Is it spelled Adolf in
German? Then why not make "Adolf Hitler" the article, with a automatic
redirect from "Adolph Hitler"? I know I'd be annoyed if I went to all the
trouble of suspending democracy, starting war, killing 20 million people
and wrecking Europe, and some German Encyclopedia 60 years later went and
bolluxed my name up as "Hans". :-)
Well, clearly the NPOV is regarded by its creator and
some of its
supporters as a model of clarity which shines a beacon of hope and
harmony over this dark and contentious world - while others regard it
with much less awe, e.g., "a horrific, self-contradictory mess".
I've only just stumbled into the Wikipedia world, so maybe I'm ignorant of
everything - but shouldn't simple reporting of recorded historical fact
fix most of the battles going on? Propagandizing does seem to be a problem
on your website (e.g. the Danzig and Silesia messes), but isn't it easier
to avoid by simply leaving out all value-judgments and strictly reporting
things that really exist?
This Wikipedia thing is starting to look like it has the same problems as
rec.org.mensa. I hope it's just a few people who would rather hear the
sound of their own voice than try and agree on anything.