Misplaced Pages

Talk:Cox–Forbes theory

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Quale (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 22 September 2013 (→Credibility: sorry, I don't understand). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:51, 22 September 2013 by Quale (talk | contribs) (→Credibility: sorry, I don't understand)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconChess Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)
Categories: