| Revision as of 02:55, 23 September 2013 editBladesmulti (talk | contribs)15,638 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:11, 23 September 2013 edit undoBladesmulti (talk | contribs)15,638 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| ::I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to communicate. The Cox-Forbes theory was refuted before 1900, and Forbes' dating of his sources was incorrect. I think the article accurately reflects the reliable sources on the subject. ] (]) 20:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC) | ::I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to communicate. The Cox-Forbes theory was refuted before 1900, and Forbes' dating of his sources was incorrect. I think the article accurately reflects the reliable sources on the subject. ] (]) 20:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :: Why you are inserting a false source? For proving a false information? I have removed it once again for good, stop inserting until you have a correct source, because the book you presented doesn't include even a single word that would support any of your claim. ] (]) 02:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC) | :: Why you are inserting a false source? For proving a false information? I have removed it once again for good, stop inserting until you have a correct source, because the book you presented doesn't include even a single word that would support any of your claim. ] (]) 02:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::: As per this source :- "It was the monumental 1913 work of HJR Muray which finally disposed of the four handed origin thesis. For the reasons indicated above, the idea that chess originated as a four handed game is now rejected by historians." "The most acceptable conclusion seems to be this: chess was originally a two-handed game, and a four handed variety was an early derivative.." This is the actual phrase, but it doesn't seem to support your claim. ] (]) 03:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:11, 23 September 2013
 | Chess Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Credibility
Suggesting that The Oxford Companion to Chess is an unreliable source is rich. I have both Murray and Hooper & Whyld, and I can confirm that those references are accurately summarized in the article. Three pages of Hooper & Whyld are used as a reference for all the claims in one paragraph, and I will cite the statements with the individual page numbers to make the supporting reference more clear. Quale (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Quale No one said that the source isn't credible, but where in whole book it mentions any word like rejected or purana, or 1500 AD?? Because this is how you are trying to assert it, but you should not. Even if it's a minor edit, it's wrong, because this book "Chess History and Reminiscences", mentions those theories, so no way they are being denied either. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to communicate. The Cox-Forbes theory was refuted before 1900, and Forbes' dating of his sources was incorrect. I think the article accurately reflects the reliable sources on the subject. Quale (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Why you are inserting a false source? For proving a false information? I have removed it once again for good, stop inserting until you have a correct source, because the book you presented doesn't include even a single word that would support any of your claim. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- As per this source :- "It was the monumental 1913 work of HJR Muray which finally disposed of the four handed origin thesis. For the reasons indicated above, the idea that chess originated as a four handed game is now rejected by historians." "The most acceptable conclusion seems to be this: chess was originally a two-handed game, and a four handed variety was an early derivative.." This is the actual phrase, but it doesn't seem to support your claim. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)