[WikiEN-l] Multilingual?

Fri Nov 14 19:17:51 UTC 2003

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