Talk:Jul-gonu

The game is related to...

In the lead, it is stated that this game is or may be related to a number of other games from variuos cultures. But what does it mean for two games to be "related" -

1. same or similar board, mechanics, or other such similarities,
2. or shared historical roots?

I'd say number 2, and if so, there's a lack of sources supporting this.--Nø (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with you that "related to" should include some justification in believing that the games have a common origin, not just that they have similar rules. In the later case, one might say "the rules are related to those of ...", but saying "the game is related to ...", as this author keeps doing, seems wrong to me. Darrah (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see Nø's message earlier, although I did notice a strange reversion of my edit a few days ago immediately after I posted it, but I thought it was a glitch and didn't realize that someone had done it on purpose. I've just edited the article and replaced "related to" with "bears resemblance to". On a personal note, I do think that they are related historically although I don't have sources to support that.21:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)~Aamma58

It is, unfortunately, pretty hard to get good evidence about the transmission of games, primarily because historical writers so rarely discuss them. In some cases, when there are known trade routes and very close similarity in the games, we can assume the existence of diffusion from one locale to another. Transmission can also be documented when a game in one place uses terminology from another language. But there are far too many examples of independent invention of very close games to assume such relationships. (For example, the Aztec played a game very much like the Indian game of Parchesi, but this is certainly independent invention.) Darrah (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

We (i.e., wikipedians) cannot really assume that this game is related to that game, but if we can find permissible sources that say so (or suggest so), we can and should of course include it.

In a lot of uncontroversial cases it annoys me a little when obviously correct material is aggressively removed because no-one has found the proper sources, but relationships between ancient games in very different parts of the world is a bit contentious, so we absolutely do need sources.

Aamma58's newest edit is fine, though it obviously makes the article a bit less interesting - that's how it has to be unless sources cn be found.--Nø (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

In the case of the Aztec game I mentioned, I can find sources that say the game IS descended from Parcheesi, and is proof of trans-oceanic commerce. But I can find *better* sources that say that's nonsense :-) Darrah (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)