[WikiEN-l] Multilingual?

Fri Nov 14 10:22:18 UTC 2003

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