Talk:Hokm

Untitled
The last line about who are most likely to play it is incredibly irrelevant seeing as there is nothing to back it up.


 * You were clearly right so I have cut the line to its minimumTetron76 (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hoax?
I am unable to verify this information in any reliable source. It seems unlikely that a real game would score zero hits on Google Books for the terms Hokm and Whist. In addition, "Hokm" sounds rather like "Hokum" ... Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a hoax at all. In general you can't verify the existence of a topic tied to a language with a non-Latin script by searching only for a random Latin transcription. You should have searched for the Farsi word حُکْم. According to Wiktionary this word exists and means arbitrator. That's totally in the normal range for names of whist variants ("contract", "auction" etc.).
 * I am also not sure how valid this article is, but that's mostly because there is a tendency to describe local variants of international standard games as separate games, merely because they have developed a local terminology. The corresponding article on the Persian Wikipedia (see interwiki link) was created in August 2007 by an admin, and was edited by at least two other admins. However, they do not have an article on whist. Hans Adler 18:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I didn't search for a "random Latin transcription", I searched for the title of the article -- and found nothing.  If you know of reliable sources for this topic, please add them.  Nothing has been provided for four years.  Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The title is a random Latin transcription or transliteration. For originally non-Latin words there are typically many such, and very often the one at first used in a Wikipedia article is different from the most common ones. Google's spelling correction doesn't help you in such a case.
 * But in this case there is an excellent source using the same name. It may not be obvious to you, but this is a reliable source. Together with David Parlett, John McLeod is the expert for card games. Parlett is concentrating on their history, and McLeod is concentrating on their geographical distribution today. Together with Michael Dummett he wrote an extremely important two-volume book on card games that are played with the tarot pack (the original purpose of the pack, and still common in countries around the Alps). That's why his online encyclopedia of games is used extensively as a source throughout Wikipedia.
 * I am now going to add the source and removing the templates as resolved. Hans Adler 07:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the source you found. The website pagat.com "is maintained by John McLeod" and appears to be a self-published source: I presume you're putting John McLeod forward as "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications".  However, the page in question "is mainly based on information from Ali Jahânshiri"  Are you also vouching for the expert status of this person?  Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to believe that Ali Jahânshiri is an expert. But the information was published under the editorial control of John McLeod, who also names two other informants. Careful explanation of the origin of the information makes a source more reliable, not less, unless the origin raises a red flag. And the site gets so much exposure that any errors would eventually be fixed. This page has been stable since its creation in 2005, so there is no reason to believe it has yet to converge.
 * If you have any doubts I don't mind discussing this at WP:RS/N. Pagat.com is used very widely because for most games it is simply the only reliable source at all. The site has never been discussed at the noticeboard, and perhaps this should be done. Hans Adler 10:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have taken this to Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, thanks for the suggestion. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)