Talk:Telephone game/Archive 1

Archive 1

Opening comments

Just a quick question regarding the page move (Telephone game -> Telephone (game)): is it really generally referred to as "telephone", rather than, say, "the telephone game" (or, indeed "that telephone game"). I don't claim to know - I have only ever known it as "Chinese whispers", but it just surprises me that that should be the usage somehow. - IMSoP 04:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yup, I've heard it referred to as "Telephone." Brian Kendig 19:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough then. - IMSoP 19:16, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I noticed somebody decided to link the word "Chinese" in "Chinese whispers". I'm going to take it back out, because a) it looks ugly having a link in the middle of an alternative title (note that Chinese whispers redirects here); and b) I gather it's not entirely certain whether the name refers to China, the Chinese language, or is completely erroneous and doesn't really mean anything at all. If you disagree, however, feel free to say so. - IMSoP 19:16, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

"Chinese" seems to be used here as a meaningless adjective, as in "Chinese fire drill". Philwelch 18:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And, Chinese finger cuffs. --Viriditas | Talk 04:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also believe that the term "Chinese" here is being used in the same manner as it is used in "Chinese fire drill," but not as a meaningless adjective. There, the term "Chinese" means confused or disoriented (check the "Chinese fire drill" article here on Wikipedia). The name "Chinese whispers" for this game honestly struck me as borderline-derogatory at first glance (having never heard of the term myself). 138.69.160.1 17:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We used to play this game at kindergarten and it was called a Broken Telephone/Gossip. I'm from Finland, and I haven't heard about the game referred as "Chinese whispers". Heidi, 14 August 2006

I just have to give massive kudos to whoever added the 'Johnny Dangerously' quote. It's a hilarious and yet an insightful peek into human nature. Ehrichweiss (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A written version

When I was at school we once played a written version of this kind of game. The idea is that we are shown a sentence for a few seconds, have to memorise it and then write it down to pass on to the next person. Effectively it's testing memory rather than sense of hearing. Is there a name for this game? -- Smjg 17:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Use Google.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.103.70 (talk) 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Example used in text

I am intrigued as to why the example was chosen "Johnny can you please pick up the pencil that you dropped, and please remember to take your homework with you to school tomorrow."

It appeared anonymously in : Revision as of 14:52, 14 October 2005 71.103.222.113 (Talk | contribs)

I'm not sure an example is required at all, but why was this one chosen?

--Parasite 02:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Chinese is offensive

Would it be possible to make the main page for this article "Broken Telephone" and redirect from "Chinese Whispers", listing "Chinese Whispers (offensive - racist)" as an alternative name for this game? Chinese is not used here as a meaningless adjective, but comes from the British colonial attitude to the Chinese, as gossipers who spread false information. Jane 10:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The name "Chinese Whispers" is not used in any racist or derogatory context. The name (at least where I live, in Australia, where I have only ever heard the name "Chinese Whispers" for the game) is completely neutral to the point where someone calling it racist didn't even come to mind until I read this page. To label it "Chinese Whispers (offensive - racist)" would be making a value judgement on the name and hence unencyclopaedic, not to mention ridiculously hypersensitive. --lbft 14:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's false. People may have been ignorant about it in time, but there was once a whole gaggle of phrases that were couched in the fact that the British believed that the Chinese were inferior, and therefore the word "Chinese" was used to indicate confusion or disorganization. See [1]. Other words of this ilk included Chinese fire drill and Chinese puzzle. You'd be surprised at how many phrases seem innocent (and this one doesn't even seem innocent) until you learn their backstory. ColourBurst 02:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I daresay that, if the backstory is just backstory and not part of the contemporary understanding, then the 'Chinese' is merely a historical artifact that does not carry any intentionally offensive or racist overtones. Believe it or not, things do change meaning over time.

In any case, even if you personally regard the name as offensive, I couldn't find anything in WP:NAME stating that you should avoid naming an article something if it is liable to offend some, but rather that you should name it under the most common English name. If 'Chinese whispers' isn't the most common English name, then by all means move away. --lbft 15:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"Broken telephone" beats "chinese whispers" 15:1 in a Google Fight. --Doradus 01:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

rename -google test Spencerk 03:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've always known it as "Telephone". Incidentally, if you put the phrases in quotation marks, [2], Chinese whispers beats Broken telephone 4:1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geoffreynham (talk • contribs) 14:25, October 29, 2006 (UTC).

Lbft, the backstory is part of the contemporary understanding. If multiple people come to this talk page to complain that it's offensive, then that doesn't necessarily mean they're being anachronistic - it means that their contemporary understanding of the term is that it's offensive. Note Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) says when in doubt, aim for neutrality: Some terms are considered pejorative, or have negative associations, even if they are quite commonly used. schi ^talk 22:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The expression 'Chinese whispers' is not used in an offensive way today, and neither is it evolved from offensive roots. The prefixing 'Chinese', as the article states, simply denotes the difficulty Europeans had understanding the Chinese language; not because the language is 'garbled' or any way inferior, but because they are very different languages that have developed extremely independently of each other. While some phrases prefixed with 'Chinese, like 'Chinese fire drill', are indeed offensive, this one uses the adjective differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.133.254 (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

To all the people accusing the offended parties of being "hypersensitive," please take a look at the Chinese fire drill page on Wikipedia which has already been linked to a number of times. Just because you cannot see how another might take offense does not mean the term is inoffensive. The slang term "gyp" for instance; I'm sure most users of this word have no idea where it comes from (at least I didn't until just recently) and yet I doubt any of them would blame someone that does for taking offense. At the very least there should be a short discussion on the topic of the possibly offensive origins of the term "Chinese whispers" as was done in the Chinese fire drill article.

I could not agree more. The title of this article needs to be changed. The word "Chinese" has a very specific meaning here: disorganized and inefficient. The etymology of the word doesn't matter: "Chinese whispers" describes a game involving confused whispering; "whispers" alone does not; therefore, "Chinese" must be the part of the phrase that denotes confusion.

I can think of other phrases based on this usage -- "Chinese gift exchange" comes to mind -- that friends of mine with Asian background find offensive. I mean -- I find it offensive, let's put it that way (full disclosure: I am of European extraction).

Please, do not change the name! This would be an embarrassing excess of political correctness. The name "Chinese" does indicate confusion but only because, to English speakers, Chinese is a language spoken by a comparable fraction of the globe (to English), but is one of the more distantly related languages and therefore one of the hardest to learn. This directly reflects the point of the game, which is that the speaker is essentially speaking the language *phonetically* and without semantic understanding. Compare this to David Searle's philosophical construct of the Chinese room -- the point is exactly the same! Yet there is no discussion of racism or offensiveness on the talk page for that article. To rename this article would obscure this relevant connection. The alternate names of "Russian Scandal" and "Arab Telephone" again suggest that the nationalities in the name are (in contemporary usage) signifying the fact that the speaker has no semantic context with which to error-check the message. As an English person who has moved to America, I find it admirable that diverse and multi-ethnic Americans are concerned with the connotations of this assumption, especially its potential reflection of jingoistic attitudes (though frankly I think these have been lost in the mists of time). I suppose the etymology may have involved jingoism, though evidence of this has not yet been presented. However, accusations of racism based purely on a knee-jerk reaction to seeing the word "Chinese" in the name (rather than actually digging into the context) reflect a "Chinese Whispers" mode of editing Wikipedia articles, and would obscure the link to the Chinese Room... Ian Henty Holmes (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it has anything to do with political correctness, which I am against. I have never heard it called anything but the "Telephone Game." Wastrel Way (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Eric

If I'm not mistaken, I think the term "Chinese Whispers" as a name for this game alludes to the fact that the Chinese language relies on intonation/inflection of speech for meaning. The same "word" with different intonation or inflection would have different meanings in Chinese. Thus, one person whispering something to another in Chinese would have a much higher chance of being misconstrued down the line. Sup3rmark (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That said, I don't see any reason why "Chinese Whispers" shouldn't redirect transparently to a "Telephone" article. I see below that there was a vote; how upsetting that no decision was reached. Solemnavalanche 15:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't look at your example article because some hypersensitive revisionist deleted it three months ago.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

What word can't be termed "offensive" these days? Let it go. It's the title of the game, not a slap in anyone's face. If people want to argue about this then maybe they should be finding something better to do with their time.

LOL. A way to slap a whole group of people in the face is to name a game intended to demonstrate human miss communication after that group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmarkchan (talk • contribs) 14:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't just redirect - I came to this page due to concern about the name "Chinese whispers" as well as to find a less offensive name that people I know might still recognise, this article confirmed the name can be considered offensive and also provides context for why it was called that, so unless a "Telephone" article is going to specifically talk about the connotations/history of the name "Chinese whispers", then I'd rather it didn't just redirect to a generic "Telephone" article, details of how the game is played was not what I was interested in. Perhaps it could be a stub with a link to "Main article: Broken Telephone"? Treer (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment to have this page renamed from Chinese Whispers to Telephone. I understand the etymology but still find it offensive especially for a child's game intended to show errors in human communication. Telephone is better in that you don't have to explain why it is not offensive and it is a widely accepted name for the game. We can easily leave a section saying this game is also known as "Chinese Whispers" and then explain the history for that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmarkchan (talk • contribs) 13:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I second the swapping of which name is primary (i.e. it should be "Telephone (Game)" as primary). Growing up it was always called "Telephone". I wanted to send a link to this page to somebody at work. I had to sit wondering if it was even work-appropriate after seeing the alternative name. All else being equal, I feel like the name which doesn't have any baggage should take precedence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.214.145 (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This should absolutely be moved/swapped. The non-American English name of this game seems quite racist to many people, whether you "mean" it to be or not. Having a section explaining "it's called this other thing in the UK and some other commonwealth countries, where it's bizarrely not considered racist" is fine, but to have this as the main page name is shocking and appalling to someone trying to learn about the game Telephone Audrey Hamelers (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Requested move 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was} 'No consensus Duja► 09:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Chinese whispers → Telephone (game) — Multiple editors have already expressed that the name "Chinese whispers" is offensive - in keeping with WP:NCI, I propose to aim for neutrality and move the page to another, very common name for the game. schi ^talk 23:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support Per nomination. Also open to alternatives like "Broken Telephone", etc., although my understanding is that just plain "Telephone" is the most common. schi ^talk 23:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I've never heard of "chinese whispers", it's always been the telephone game to me. Do we really need an article on this at all? –  Anþony  talk  04:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Without some evidence that the name 'telephone' is significantly more common I do not believe that this article should be renamed. WP:NCI is irrelevant, especially since in contemporary usage in the name 'Chinese whispers' the word 'Chinese' is an empty fossil word. Hypersensitivity has no place in an encyclopaedia. --lbft (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose- I've never heard of this game being called "Telephone". It was always known as "Chinese Whispers" when I was at school, and I agree that anyone offended by the name is simply being hypersensitive. What next, objection to the legal term "Chinese Walls" (describing how the same law firm can work for opposing clients without compromising their integrity or attorney/client privilege etc)?--Commander Zulu 06:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And I had not, until coming to this Wikipedia page, ever heard of the game being called "Chinese whispers"; it was always "Telephone" when I was a kid. Note that "Chinese walls" is a term that has been discussed in reliable sources. When I looked up "Chinese whispers" in the OED, it defined it as "Russian scandal", and defined the game under the entry for that. Unless you find a reliable source that shows that "Chinese whispers" is the more common name, I see no reason not to err on the side of neutrality. schi ^talk 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

*Weak oppose per more common name. -Part Deux 20:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be pure speculation as to which name is more common than the other. Per Jayjg's comment below, "Chinese whispers" may be the British name. schi ^talk 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I am American, and I will admit that I always heard it as the telephone game. Maybe there's merit to this suggestion. I'll strike my oppose, because if it's not a more common term, and it's possible people will get offended, it might as well go the other way (though this isn't a support statement either: a neutral). Part Deux 01:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• "Chinese whispers" is the British name. "Broken telephone" is more common elsewhere, and more clear that "Telephone". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Chinese Whispers" is also the name used in New Zealand and Australia, FWIW. --Commander Zulu 01:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Re: lbft's comments above, "Hypersensitivity" is a POV characterization, and I disagree that this is a case of hypersensitivity. WP:NCI is relevant, as I and other editors have indicated that we find the term Chinese whispers offensive, that would suggest that this offensive usage of Chinese is not an "empty fossil word". This could, of course, be due to regional variations; for example, the Wikipedia article on oriental says the term is considered neutral in the UK and other parts of the Commonwealth, but it is certainly considered offensive by many in the U.S. Chinese whispers may be considered totally neutral where you are from, but others have indicated that they find it offensive. schi ^talk 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also note that there are no reliable sources cited in this article regarding the name of the game, that one name is more common than the other, or really, anything else for that matter. schi ^talk 00:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see any references to reliable sources at all in this article. We should delete it rather than worrying about what to call it. –  Anþony  talk  00:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • True, there are no references to reliable sources. It may be difficult to find reliable sources that report on children's games like this. I suppose you could take it to AfD if you want. schi ^talk 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name, references, changes

I've made some edits, mainly to add references in the light of the foregoing debate. I removed some bits:

• This describes not the game, but the error it seeks to caution against:

An apocryphal story in the UK is of a general who sent the message "Send reinforcements, we are going to advance" back to HQ. After passing through many intermediaries it finally arrived as "Send three and fourpence, we are going to a dance".

• I don't see how the line can fail to be completed:

Even if the line is not completed, the last few people to receive the message can compare this with the original

• The second half is vague and redundant:

The game has been used in schools to simulate the spread of gossip and its harmful effects, and it has implications in many topics, like bureaucracy, religion, politics and Academia.

I think the article should be moved to Telephone game. The only argument against seems to be that political correctness is not a reason to move; but in any case the history shows the article was first at Telephone game and later moved to Chinese whispers; so by the priority principle it should not have been moved. Having said which, all the references I've added use "Chinese whispers"...

I think the current examples are rather trivial and not illustrative of the game; they exploit its familiarity for humour, which is not helpful to a reader seeking to understand a game they do not already know. If there is a published account of one or more actual games, it would be more useful: whether gleaned from some dry academic tome, or from a journalistic colour-piece, or from a self-indulgent memoir. jnestorius^(talk) 22:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

History?

Seems to me like the so-claimed military history is more of an urban legend. Otherwise, why does everyone on the net refer to "a general", but nobody says who he was, and apart from one instance, in what war it was?Ladypine 21:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Spanish

• Spanish: el teléfono estropeado/dañado/descompuesto ("broken telephone") el telefonito

The spanish line seems wrong. Seems like it says "the tiny telephone" at the end of the line. Is this an alternative name? Or should this not be there at all?Ladypine 22:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

¡Listo! Removed the "telefonito" mention, which I imagine was added by someone who calls it that in their region. —SaulPerdomo 00:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Versions

The children sit in a circle and the originator on the message coming back to them gives both original and end versions. Jackiespeel 18:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion/Urban Legends

There could be correlation of how urban legends begin and slowly get exaggerated, maybe also helping explain how Jesus goes from preacher of peace to son of God etc.

How? The Old Testament was written with an original copy always there and if you had to copy "see Spot run," you would look and see "s" write "s", look back see "e" write "e", look back see a space put in a space, look back see "S" write "S", look back see "p" wrieete "p", look back see "o" write "o", look back see, well, you get the idea. 

here's a comparison of never doubted ancient work and the new testament Author Written Earliest Copies Time Span # of Copies

Caesar (Gallic Wars) 100-44 BC c. AD 900 c. 1,000 years 10

Plato (Tetralogies) 427-347 BC c. AD 900 c. 1,300 years 7

Thucydides (History) 460-400 BC c. AD 900 c. 1,300 years 8

Sophocles 496-406 BC c. AD 1,000 c. 1,400 years 100

Catullus 54 BC c. AD 1,550 c. 1,600 years 3

Euripides 480-406 BC c. AD 1,100 c. 1,500 years 9

Aristotle 384-322 BC c. AD 1,100 c. 1,400 years 5

Homer (Iliad) 800 BC c. 400 BC c. 400 years 643

Herodotus (History) 480-425 BC c. AD 900 c. 1,350 years 8

Demosthenes 300 BC c. AD 1100 c. 1,400 years 200

Livy (History of Rome) 59 BC c. 350 (partial) c. 400 years 1 partial

                         to AD 17     c. 10th century   c. 1,000 years              19

Pliny Secundus

(Natural History) 61-113 c. AD 850 c. 750 years 7

New Testament AD 40-100 AD 125 25 years 24,000+

from Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler, Don't Check Your Brains at the Door, and Josh McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict 68.50.253.178 (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"See Also"?

Among the links at the bottom to other wiki-articles is the link translation relay, which redirects to this article. Either the link should be removed or a separate article for translation relay should be made. Akatari (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think there might have once been a separate translation relay article which was turned into a redirect to this page. If so, either the material from it wasn't merged into this page or it's gotten lost since then.

There's some similarity between the games but the multilingual nature of the translation relay game makes it fundamentally different, I think. I'll do some research when I have books handy and write a section for this article which could be spun off to another article later. Sarah Higley talks a little about constructed language translation relay games in her book Hildegard of Bingen's Unknown Language, and Douglas Hofstadter talks about a translation relay game using natural languages that was done by a group of professional translators ome years ago in his Le Ton Beau de Marot. --Jim Henry (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to write another Translation relay article if nobody objected to my above comment in a week or two, but it seems that the former "Translation relay" article went through AfD in November 2007 and was theoretically supposed to have been merged into this article, but apparently was just deleted tout court. I'll add a section to this article instead, when I finish some work I'm doing on the History section of International auxiliary language.

I personally think translation relay games are different enough from the "Telephone game" (or "Chinese whispers" if you insist) that it deserves a separate article, but unless someone else backs me up on this, I fear yet another AfD if I recreate a separate article. --Jim Henry (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, translation relays are not the same game as Chinese whispers. The mechanism of distortion in the latter is mishearing; in the former, it's a combination of lexical and grammatical divisions in two languages not matching one-to-one, and misunderstandings of points of the grammar. To my eye they're about as different to each other as either is to Eat Poop You Cat, whose mechanism is misinterpretation of drawings, and I don't suppose anyone would merge that game here.

I think Mandsford had misapprised what a translation relay was when he voted Merge on the last VfD: he seemed to think the game was nothing more than the "back and forth through Babelfish" game. And I note the old article didn't include the citation to the example noted in lTBdM (which I don't remember the details of offhand, but it's certainly there), which if present would give it some resistance against the deletionist raptors. 4pq1injbok (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"reflects the former stereotype in Europe"

it is very nice to know each country in europe had the same stereotype. 194.76.29.2 (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Serbian broken telephone.

In Serbia, we call this game "Deaf Telephones". RocketMaster (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In Finland it's "broken telephone", which is attributed specifically only to Poland in the current wording "broken telephone (in Poland)". Changing that to "broken telephone, deaf telephones (in Serbia)", for example, with the broken telephone being left unspecified as many of the other names are, would be an improvement IMO. Maybe the same for deaf telephones, even: I wouldn't be surprised if it's used at least elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia. Finland & Poland don't really have that close ties historically, so that's likely in use in other countries too, at least in Sweden or Russia. 128.214.69.105 (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy question

I question the accuracy of the unsourced statements in what is now the third paragraph of the lead. It is my understanding that the errors in the retellings accumulate precisely because the players do understand the statement, but make cognitive errors in hearing and attempting to quote it. When the company then known as Mead Data Central created one of the first large-scale indexed, searchable text databases by manually keying-in text (Lexis), it found that typists who did not know the language of the text that they were copying were more accurate than native speakers of the language. Native speakers typed the word that they thought they saw, and understood, whereas typists who did not understand the language more carefully copied the text character-by-character. Unless reliable sources are supplied for these statements, including their applicability to the game that is the subject of the article, within about 2 weeks, I intend to delete this paragraph. Finell (Talk) 18:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Finell (Talk) 04:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No source supports statement that Chinese whispers is used in ESL

I deleted the statement, in the Purpose section, that the game of Chinese whispers is used in ESL classes. The external link that was at the end of that statement does not support the statement. The link, to a page on a web site developed by one ESL teacher, describes The Charades Race Game. In explaining how to play Charades Race, the page describes the Telephone Game (i.e., Chinese whispers) as an analogy or comparison. The page does not say that Telephone (i.e., Chinese whispers) itself is played in ESL classrooms. Furthermore, the same site has a list of ESL Classroom Games. Chinese whispers is not on that list; Charades Race is. Again, this second page mentions Chinese whispers to help describe Charades Race. Please do not restore the statement about using Chinese whispers in ESL without a citation that supports the statement and that meets Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. This Web site, the product of one teacher, probably would not qualify as a reliable source in any event. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 00:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Pre-invention of telephone - name?

This is such a simple game that I'm sure it was played before the invention of the telephone. In countries where "telephone (game)" is now the usual name for it, what was it called then? Was it "Chinese whispers" as it still is in the UK etc, or something else entirely? 86.159.64.127 (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard the game being called Chinese whispers. Only in the context of "the game is alss known as Chinese whispers". The game was always introduced and called 'Telephone' for me.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.141.8 (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Whisper Down The Lane?

I have never heard of the "Telephone Game" or "Chinese Whispers". I am from Pennsylvania, USA. This same game however, was always referred to as "Whisper down the lane". Is this common any where else? Should this be added as another name for the same game? It seems the wikipedia redirects "Whisper down the lane" to Chinese Whispers, but other than that, no other mention to this title is made. Is this a local name only? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.137.210 (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack Parr's TV version

This was a standard bit on the old Jack Parr show. He would assemble a bunch of celebrities, each pair of whom spoke two different languages. He would start the story in English, and each celebrity would then translate the story to the next person in another language both understood. At the end when it had gone through many translations, it was translated back into English, and of course it was very different from the original version, often incomprehensible, much to the delight of the audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.107.146 (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

3 billion-7 billion

The entire worlds population plays this game daily... Are they interpreting this game as anybody who gossips plays the game? Then I could see that being relevant.. Maybe. lol 2602:4B:7996:5500:7448:E325:473D:B747 (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

History + Yoko Ono

Is there any evidence to support an origin story? I ask because in Yoko Ono's Grapefruit, I find the following: "WHISPER PIECE / Whisper. / This piece was originally called a telephone piece, and was the starting of the word-of-mouth pieces. It is usually performed by the performer whispering a word or a note into an audience's ear and asking to have it passed on until it reaches the last person in the audience." Did Ono invent this game? No likely. But I would like to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmuse99 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Why Chinese?

Please add in a history of why Chinese Whispers is called Chinese Whispers. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

(seemed like the closest area to put this) None of these seem to answer this as much as what I found my time living in Taiwan. Chinese people don't like to give bad news directly, they didn't want to be direct or blunt or ruin their relationship with that person. The news would be given through a third party so as not to offend or hurt anyones pride. Because of this the message sometimes could lose some of it's meaning. I had a friend try to give me the news that something they had promised they wouldn't be able to do. Their friends would tell me that it was probably not going to happen a few times but as the message didn't come from my friend I ignored it as I would of expected them to speak to me directly. I can see that this way of communication is like Chinese whispers as the meaning may change. DW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.183.3 (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence

The first sentence reads as follows:
Chinese whispers (or telephone in the United States)...
But is this "telephone" or "Chinese telephone"?
85.193.218.118 (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Unclear if the title shows systemic bias. How about 'It's all Greek to me!' Does that disrespect the Greeks? If so then Shakespeare should be embarrassed. Our article on Greek to me has a table of other languages that have been considered obscure at various times. EdJohnston (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Chinese whispers → Telephone (game) – Guys, this is really embarrassing. It's the 21st century, and we're supposed to be a global encyclopedia that's written neutrally and free of systemic bias. I love Wikipedia, but this is really personally embarrassing. I couldn't justify this to a friend or colleague. I'm sure many people use this phrase and don't hate Chinese people or anything—that's not the point. It's also not about pushing American English; I will support any reasonable alternative that doesn't disparage a whole group. And if the current title were the only policy-based title available to us here, I'd hold my nose and my tongue. But it's not, so I won't. For the love of Jimbo, rename this page. --BDD (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I never even knew it was called "Chinese whispers". Here in Finland, it has always been called "the broken telephone" with no hint of any ethnicity. JIP | Talk 21:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support, I've never heard it referred to as 'Chinese whispers' but as 'telephone' or 'the telephone game'. I don't know why it's called 'telephone', something about pretending you're on a telephone and calling the next person, but that's better and more accurate than 'Chinese whispers', although a redirect should stay if this changed. Good find BDD. Randy Kryn 21:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NATURAL – Natural disambiguation is always preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. In addition, the present title is the standard term in Britain, New Zealand, and Australia, and should not be changed per WP:TITLEVAR. RGloucester — ☎ 03:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

We could use Telephone game, which has previously been bolded in the lede, for natural disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support I've only heard it as the "Telephone game" , the only times I've heard it called "Chinese whispers" is in academic contexts (such as the history of games, or people saying various other names that this game has) -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ASTONISH Red Slash 07:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• And WP:RETAIN Red Slash 18:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Question BDD How do you see systemic bias here? Please see image search of chinese characters. Currently the article states "Historians trace Westerners' use of the word Chinese to denote "confusion" and "incomprehensibility" to the earliest contacts between Europeans and Chinese people in the 1600s, and attribute it to Europeans' inability to understand China's culture and worldview." The main thing that I see here is an interpretation of linguistic and cultural complexity and an acknowledgement of potential communication problems across cultures. I played the game as a child. My dad was half Japanese and was raised in China though with no very clear visual appearance of origins. In any parties that I attended I didn't see disrespect in any way. It has never been considered an issue then, or as far as I have seen in current situations, since. GregKaye 07:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Also can any one present any views on WP:Primary? I did a books search on ("Children's party games" OR "Children's games" OR "games for children") AND (telephone OR "chinese whispers") and, to my surprise, I did not readily find reference to this game by either name. What I found was two other games with variants which were given titles such as "Telephone Game". If a move was made I would suggest that it would be to something like Telephone (children's whispering game). GregKaye 08:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Telephone game is an option. --BDD (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

In my books searches "telephone game" related to a different game but in image searches related more to the whispering game. GregKaye 08:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. As a Brit, I've never heard it called anything but "Chinese whispers", and it seems that this is the common usage in Australia and New Zealand too. It would appear only in North America is it called something else. See WP:NATURAL and WP:TITLEVAR. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TITLEVAR. Khestwol (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Everyone saying TITLEVAR means WP:ENGVAR or WP:RETAIN, right? This game doesn't have "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation". Even so, neutrality is much more important. And see #WP:RETAIN below. --BDD (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As North America seems unique in calling it this, why should it be moved to the North American name if there are no strong ties? Also, considering the game most likely pre-dates the telephone, any ideas what it might have been called in North America before "telephone"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Why was it moved away from the North American name if there are no strong ties? You can say that it's been long enough that we shouldn't reverse the unilateral move, but you can't say the move wasn't contrary to policy. (I mean, you can, in the sense that you can say humans aren't carbon-based lifeforms.) As to older names, I suppose there were probably disparate names, or instances of people playing the game without naming it, but since we use common names (i.e., ones recognizable to readers), that's not directly relevant to this discussion. --BDD (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, per WP:COMMONNAME, "Chinese whispers" will be more widely recognisable than the North American-centric "telephone", so I don't think it was against policy. And as there has been an unsuccessful move request in the interrim period then the move cannot simply be reversed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: WP:TITLEVAR is very clear, BDD. It has nothing to do with strong ties. It simply says, "Otherwise, all national varieties of English are acceptable in article titles; Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety over any other. American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa". There is no justification to rename this article for the purpose of changing the English variety from a British English term to an American English term. The variety that has been stable for nearly ten years should remain. Not just per WP:TITLEVAR, but also per WP:TITLECHANGES. RGloucester — ☎ 16:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

To add, it seems that Ngrams finds "Chinese whispers" to be much more common than either "telephone game" or "game of telephone". If that's the case, WP:UCN comes into play. RGloucester — ☎ 01:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:RETAIN. I'll be honest, if RETAIN wasn't an issue I'd consider supporting the move anyway just on IAR grounds, but luckily a wobbly rationale isn't needed here. Straightforward application of RETAIN. SnowFire (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

RETAIN does not apply to article titles. The relevant section of the article titles policy is WP:TITLEVAR. The present title has been stable for nearly ten years. In accordance with WP:TITLEVAR and WP:TITLECHANGES, the stable title for nearly ten years should be retained. What's more, that title provides WP:NATURAL disambiguation. The article titles policy is clear on this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 00:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Demonstrably false, RGloucester. WP:RETAIN specifically says "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another" (emphasis mine). --BDD (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It isn't "false". The MoS is a mere guideline relating to article content, whereas WP:AT is a policy relating to article titles. The relevant AT section is clear, at WP:TITLEVAR. As a policy, it trumps any prose-related guidelines. WP:TITLEVAR is clear that the title should not be changed from one dialect to another. RGloucester — ☎ 15:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: the COMMONNAME is chinese whispers. also TITLEVAR says not to change to other national variety. however as an american, i only know the game as chinese whispers. there isnt a clear national variety issue here only a matter of common name, which is chinese whsipers 2600:1000:B101:BFC4:0:0:0:103 (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You only know the game as Chinese whispers as an American? While, I'm assuming good faith here, and saying, sure, that could happen...ask around to your friends and ask what they call it. In all my travels, I've only heard it called 'chinese whispers' in Great britian ~ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. What the hell is telephone? It's always called Chinese whispers in Britain and nobody would even consider that to be racist. This may be a WP:ENGVAR issue, in which case it should stay as is anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

So, what you're saying Necrothesp, is that it's an ENGVAR issue, as it's called one thing in great britain, and another thing in America? So...thus it should be restored to the original, due to ENGVAR? Also, it's not always called chinese whispers in Britain, as I certainly don't call it that, and I certainly live in Britain, and I do consider it a bit racist. ~~ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Look through some old move requests that failed, I found a good solid argument:

"ENGVAR states that articles which deal with common objects not specific to one country should remain in the variant of English in which they were originally written. My point was that ENGVAR trumps COMMONNAME in such articles and claiming that more webpages use one form rather than another is irrelevant in this case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC) "  :

By this argument, it should go back to the original spelling, right Necrothesp? (interestingly, the article this comes from, Windscreen wiper was also started in American English, but was changed unilaterally to british english, and the same sort of arguments here came about when someone asked to get it changed back. I take it that ENGVAR only holds in some peoples opinions if it is british English that is trying to be changed back to American english, and not vice versa? ) ~~cheers, ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If it began as the American form then it should indeed remain as the American form, but I didn't notice the nominator using that as an argument! Instead we had some stuff about racism and systemic bias. Was it ever titled anything other than Chinese whispers? If it was then I may change my vote, but I don't actually see any evidence of it. As to you not calling it that and thinking it's racist, I think you're in a vast minority in Britain and I think you know that! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was originally under the American title. See the subsection. I'm sorry I didn't get that into the nomination—I admit I was rather emotional when I wrote it. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I may be in the minority, but it's then certainly not always as you said, probably in jest. The fact remains, it is known as telephone in GB as well, and I bet there are a great deal of Chinese folk who might take offense at the imperialist title of 'chinese whipsers' vs. 'telephone'. ~~ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: The present variety has been stable for nearly TEN YEARS. Per WP:TITLEVAR and WP:TITLECHANGES, which are part of our article titles policy, the stable title should not be moved simply to change the variety of English. What's more, moving a title that is WP:NATURALLY disambiguated and replacing it with parenthetical disambiguation is directly contrary to our article titles policy. RETAIN and ENGVAR are both parts of the MoS, which are mere prose guidelines. WP:AT is a policy that pertains to article titles. It is clear that WP:AT is the relevant policy, and must be adhered to. Regardless, there is also evidence that "Chinese whispers" is used in America, as well. For example, see <redacted blacklisted link>/projects/chinese-whispers-golden-gate-community-theater#/story this website. In addition, WP:UCN states that the common name should be used. The above Ngrams that I linked shows that "Chinese whispers" has always been the common name of the game. Even if we throw TITLEVAR arguments out the window because "Chinese whispers" is used in both American and British English, "Chinese whispers" remains the common name. RGloucester — ☎ 20:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester Did you look at the link you posted? "Chinese Whispers" is the name of a play in San Francisco about the stories of the Chinese migrant people who toiled building up the cities of California, and weren't allowed to speak their mind (thus, whisper). If anything, your link shows moreso that Chinese Whispers doesn't refer to the game in America as it does in the UK, as you wouldn't title a play about turmoil and suffering as the same of a childrens game. It would be akin to saying "Irish Whispers" in the south of NY or Boston, or "African Whispers" in the American south, or "Polish/Romanian Whispers" in the current construction industry of London. Cheers, ~~ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to read the site more closely. Please read what it says "We take our name from the game of Chinese whispers, that’s also known as “Telephone,” where a sentence is whispered from one player to the next and becomes garbled in successive retelling – the title refers ironically to the stereotyping that equates unintelligibility with the Chinese, and comments on how cultural attitudes shaped social memories of the early Chinese immigrants in America". The game is known in America as "Chinese whispers". RGloucester — ☎ 15:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I should have looked more closely, I stand corrected. The fact that it had to be explained to roughly 316,000,000 Americans means that it probably isn't a primary use of the phrase in American English. If you want to try to confirm that it is in fact known mainly as "Chinese Whispers" in America, I can probably help you find 10,000 politically correct Elementary schools where they teach the kids it is called "telephone". I can only imagine how Chinese students arriving on the shores of Britannia feel when their Great British teachers start teaching them that a method of communicating with losing all meaning and muddling all pronunciations is named for them, and not, as it is in many other countries, named for the phenomenon when you have a wonky telephone. ~ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 08

56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN

• RGloucester, Robsinden, Khestwol: the proposed title was the original title of this article, from August 2003 to July 2006. Per WP:RETAIN, it never should've been changed in the first place. --BDD (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There was a move request in 2006 which did not result in the page being moved away from "Chinese whispers", where it has been sat for the last 9 years. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No one brought up ENGVAR, though. That move was against policy; if nothing else, a no consensus result should've meant reverting to the previous stable title. If that happened yesterday, I'd go straight to MRV and probably win. As such, the statute of limitations is probably past. --BDD (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The original justification for that move is irrelevant now. This title has been stable for nearly ten years, and should not be changed per WP:TITLEVAR or WP:TITLECHANGES. Regardless, the original move could well have had good reason. As WP:NATURAL disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical, the title "Chinese whispers" is unambiguous, unlike "telephone". RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

We should definitively rename it then, per RETAIN, because of the YOGURT decision, we don't keep the British spelling just because it's British. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support by both ENGVAR and RETAIN. This is one of those things where we should most certainly move back to the original style of english, as opposed to maintaining a BOLD move without consensus. This is a classic case of ENGVAR creep, where people switch to their preferred version of english, and hope nobody sees it until it's too late. There is no statute of limitations on this, I strongly, wholeheartedly support moving it back to the original, non-stub version of the article,which also, coincidentally gets rid of any political correctness problems. Cheers, ~~ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Coincidentally, problems like this is why I proposed a policy at Village Pump (policy) saying that we should give primacy to original titles if someone moved the title unitlaterally (like here, or at humour) but which was shouted down by the same folk trying to oppose this today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29/Archive_119#Restoring_articles_to_original_Language ~ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The present variety has been stable for nearly TEN YEARS. Per WP:TITLEVAR and WP:TITLECHANGES, which are part of our article titles policy, the stable title should not be moved simply to change the variety of English. What's more, moving a title that is WP:NATURALLY disambiguated and replacing it with parenthetical disambiguation is directly contrary to our article titles policy. RETAIN and ENGVAR are both parts of the MoS, which are mere prose guidelines. WP:AT is a policy that pertains to article titles. It is clear that WP:AT is the relevant policy, and must be adhered to. RGloucester — ☎ 15:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So, the title change, restoring back to the first non-stub version of the article was brought up before. How many years must go by before what is a contreversial move that should be immediately restored, becomes a stable title that shouldn't be restored. 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? A decade? Or never? I do notice that lots of british editors change things to the proper spelling and then will go a little nutty if someone tries to restore it back to websters spelling. RGloucester what is your limit then? ~~ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ground_beef — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.209.24 (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support per WP:COMMONNAME (in addition to the aforementioned previous reasons by other users.) I present as evidence Google Trends data([3]), which indicates that 'telephone game' is far more popular and widely used in searches as opposed to 'chinese whispers.' In particular, 'Chinese whispers' is used only in Australia, the United Kingdom, and to a small degree in the United States. In comparison, according to google trends, the 'telephone game' is used in South Africa, the United Kingdom (to a lesser extent), France, the United States, Canada, India, etc. Reyne2 (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"Google Trends" is useless. Please see the Google Ngrams search above, which searches RELIABLE SOURCES, which are the basis for our article titles. "Chinese whispers" has always been more common. "Chinese whispers" is the common name, and regardless, the title should not be changed per WP:TITLEVAR. You have no sources showing that "Telephone game", referring to this specific game and not to other potential games involving telephones, is "used in South Africa, the United Kingdom, &c." "Telephone game" is completely unknown in reference to this game in Britain, though it might refer to other games played on a telephone.RGloucester — ☎ 17:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose because the common name has been shown as Chinese whispers in the whole world, including in the U.S. of A. I support opposers in there better arguments 174.252.32.71 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments on move

Just for the record, I'd like to note that the 2 IP addresses who opposed were very not convincing as far as I'm concerned. There is a solid argument on WP:TITLEVAR per RGlouster that the title shouldn't be messed with after so long, but 2 IP addies claiming that it's called "Chinese Whispers" in the US smells fishy to me. I never heard of "Chinese Whispers" until the above MR as an American, so the usage appears rare at least.

I do think it's too bad the closer didn't address the WP:RETAIN argument. I can see the no consensus close regardless, but the RETAIN argument is very strong IMHO and the main reason to do the move, regardless of issues of causing offense or not. SnowFire (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If you don't agree with it, you can always ask for a move review. I too thought the same thing, that RETAIN was a pretty good argument (as was ENGVAR) for restoring back to how the article was originally titled. It does seem that once an article gets a British English title, that restoring back to the original title goes out the window, and one must RETAIN the British English, at all costs. I obviously have views on this, so I will not be asking for a move review, if someone without a dog in this fight wants to and feels that is warranted, by all means. ~ipuser 94.14.212.141 (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Still racist, at least ignorant

You can't deny that this term is not ignorant because it clearly mentions "Europeans' inability to understand China's culture" and "Westerners' use of the word Chinese to denote 'confusion' and 'incomprehensibility'". Besides, Europeans and Westerners is wrong. It's only English. No article in any other language is titled "Chinese". --2.245.212.152 (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese whispers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151116133159/http://www.brokenpicturetelephone.com/ to http://www.brokenpicturetelephone.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional heading is needed

The last two paragraphs in the Etymology section aren't about etymology. Would someone more intimately connected to this article than I like to retitle that part? Cognita (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure). The majority of editors, by about 2:1, consider that the reasons to oppose the name "Chinese whispers" are more persuasive than the arguments to support it. There are various reasons given, including the fact that the article was originally created under a variation of the name "Telephone (game)" and moved via an undiscussed move, and that the name "Chinese whispers" has anti-Chinese POV. Looking at the article titles policy, WP:POVNAME generally only allows POV titles if "the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources". Although some of them dispute that the title "Chinese whispers" is POV, opposers of the move haven't shown that it is the name used "in a significant majority of English-language sources". Among the supporters of moving there were differences in which form should be supported, with some preferring "Telephone (game)" and others "Telephone game". However, since the original move request was for "Telephone (game)", and I see more support for that than "Telephone game". (t · c) buidhe 22:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Chinese whispers → Telephone (game) – 1. "Telephone" is as commonly used as the other term, and is more commonly used depending on what tools you use to search what corpus. This Google Ngram viewer result shows that "telephone game" and "game of telephone" are cumulatively vastly more used over time, while the other term just has one massive spike over the early 2000s (possibly just of people writing about how controversial it is!). During the previous move request, someone in opposition took this same Ngram viewer result to mean exactly the opposite, because the search end date was right in the middle of the spike.

2. Translated into other languages the game is also widely called 'Telephone' or variations thereof across the world, making it a far more searchable name in two ways.

3. The content of the Wikipedia page itself explains, with references, that the other name is based on 'a belief that the Chinese language itself is not understandable', related to the fact that 'Chinese people have historically been stereotyped by Westerners as secretive or inscrutable.' Whether you, personally, or your culture, widely, find the term you use for the game inoffensive, this does not ameliorate the offensiveness and ugliness of the term and its history for others. — Audrey Hamelers (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom though "telephone game" might be preferable in accordance with WP:NATURAL. I should also note this was originally titled "telephone (game)" and was moved without prior discussion based on what I consider rather weak reasoning not supported by WP:AT. -- Calidum 16:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support for reasons listed in nomination. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I've never heard this called "telephone", WP:NATURAL says "Sometimes, this requires a change in the variety of English used". Unlike Patience we do have the NATURAL in favour of this title unlike (possibly) solitaire (that the game might actually be at). Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ...Well, to be fair, I've never heard it called "Chinese whispers". Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Same. I've known it as telephone my entire life.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 06:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
      • That suggests we should probably leave it as is. Clearly both terms are alien to the other version of English but WP:NATURAL does suggest that this is an effective tie breaker. It was moved from Telephone game to Telephone (game) in March 2004 and moved to this title in July 2006. In December 2006 there was a RM to move back but that was closed as "no consensus" and no action and maybe 5 months doesn't make it stable. Unless we move to Telephone game the current title seems preferable to the proposed one and given it hasn't had that title since 2004 I don't think RETAIN would recommend it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Especially since WP:RETAIN per se didn't exist in it's current form back in 2006 - so how did the original move break it? FOARP (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Move to telephone game per NATURAL and COMMONNAME. -- Netoholic @ 07:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR. It's had this title since 2006 and has survived two RMs. This is the common name in the Commonwealth, where it also has a wider meaning, and it remains its overwhelmingly common name, whether some people choose to be offended by it or not. What is the telephone game? Never heard of it. This is not American Wikipedia, which is why we have the policies about articles in different varieties of English. We do not default to American English if an article has no close ties to any variety of English just because America has lots of people and a large internet presence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. I've always heard of it as "telephone game". Here in Finland it is called "rikkinäinen puhelin", meaning "broken telephone". I did not even know the name "Chinese whispers" existed before reading this Wikipedia article. JIP | Talk 11:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:RETAIN and arguments in last RM, and also for the record decry comments of the original closer who decided to write an irrelevant tangent and comparison to Greek. This article was originally at Telephone (game) before being moved in 2006 under a bogus rationale - that the game preceded the invention of the telephone, a fact entirely unrelated to what the game is called now rather than in 1800. It's not like the article was massively rewritten such that it was the equivalent of creating a new article, either, which can sometimes be used to ignore RETAIN arguments when a stub is moved and expanded simultaneously. Finally, as the article itself notes, the existing name is frankly based on a racist and incorrect assumption, so to the extent that there's any tiebreaking between competing claims on RETAIN, can we please choose the less embarrassing, dated name? (Note: I would also support a move to Telephone game, either is fine.) SnowFire (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  As noted moving from a bracketed title in 1 variety of English to the most common name in another is permitted by RETAIN ("or the change reduces ambiguity") and ATDAB, the choice is between (1) "Chinese whispers" the most common (and only) name in British English, (2) a bracketed term in American English "Telephone (game)" and (3) "Telephone game" a natural disambiguation in American English, the common name in one variety is an effective tie breaker. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  This, plus the title is not "racist" but simply an expression of the fact that the average English-speaker does not speak Chinese. Even if it was thought so by some, Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia has similar titles (e.g., Chinese wall) and where there are allegations of racism reported in reliable sources the practise is simply to "teach the controversy", not censor. FOARP (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  To be abundantly clear, I support the move on either of my stated grounds independently, so I don't want to let an "is it racist" get carried away. I disagree with you on the racism topic but it's not decisive. If this had been a boring any old AmEnglish / BrEnglish dispute, we should do the same thing and honor WP:RETAIN here and restore the original title. Certainly NOTCENSORED in no way means we should prefer controversial titles to non-controversial ones. SnowFire (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Trying to use WP:RETAIN as a reasoning for returning to the name this article had 14 years ago, and not to use the name it has now consistently had for 14 years, clearly goes against the spirit of WP:RETAIN as well as what it explicitly states. WP:RETAIN states: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." (my emphasis). 14 years has passed, in which the present title has been kept, and no "consensus to the contrary" has been established either of the times this has been discussed, nor is likely to be established this time. Since the name of the article changed in 2006 the length of the article has increased from 7,969 bytes to 12,455 bytes with more than 500 edits being made in that time, so it is hardly the case that no-one has been working on it or that it has not changed - instead we see evidence of a well-established page with a well-established title. Finally, there is WP:NATDAB which clearly points us away from parenthetical disambiguation (which "Telephone (Game)" is, though even this is not really a disambiguation as there are other "Telephone games") where a natural disambiguation (which "Chinese Whispers" clearly is) would do. FOARP (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

(de-indent) If there had been a Requested Move in 2006, fine, there'd be consensus to the contrary. No such consensus-gathering happened, just a random undiscussed move, ergo WP:RETAIN still applies. There would need to be a consensus to break RETAIN, so the burden is on proponents of "Chinese whispers" to show that a consensus existed to break RETAIN. You can argue that the 2015 RM counts, but that RM was incorrectly closed IMO, and certainly didn't say "consensus is that Chinese whispers is actively better than Telephone" rather than simply note that it was the status quo, so I don't put too much stock in it. SnowFire (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, SnowFire, I get your point but I don't see how 14 years of consistent usage in several hundreds edits adding thousands of bytes of content and surviving two surveys doesn't add up to the present title being "established" per WP:RETAIN. In contrast, how does a couple of years usage that ended a decade and a half ago after a dozen or so edits constitute "established" usage in this article? WP:RETAIN clearly favours the present usage because the present title has clearly become established. FOARP (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

PS - one additional point, people are criticising the 2006 move and RM discussion for failing to follow policies and guidelines that barely existed in 2006. For reference, here's what MOS looked like on 21 December 2006. The MOS at that time did not include any hard and fast rule as to retain one style over another but instead simply said, after listing scenarios where the style might change, "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article" (my emphasis). It basically left it open to editors to change style where they thought it appropriate to do so. FOARP (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:RETAIN due to its original title. Strong oppose for Telephone game which can be misinterpreted very easily to refer to any game involving a telephone._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TITLEVAR and WP:NATURAL. First of all, as per the TITLEVAR policy, there is no benefit to be had from moving between two dialectal variants, and such moves should be avoided at all costs. This title has been stable for years. Secondly, NATURAL disambiguation is always preferable to parenthetical disambiguation, and a move to the proposed title would be an affront to our guidelines on this subject, for no good reason. There is nothing offensive about the term 'Chinese whispers', indeed, to the average speaker of English, Chinese is incomprehensible! This term remains current in British English, and therefore, no grounds for a change can be said to exist. Arguments about what this game is called in other languages should be immediately discarded — only usage in the English language is considered by our guidelines and policies. RGloucester — ☎ 17:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I actually think in this case the foreign language usage should be the tie-breaker, given all other circumstances. This game has a zillion names attached to it -- Whisper Down the Lane, Grapevine, Gossip, etc. (just some of the English names) -- but in the United States, "telephone" clearly dominates at the moment. The British "Chinese whispers" seems to be very common in Commonwealth English from Googling (although "telephone game" is known too). However, there does not appear to be a foreign nation that uses an equivalent "Chinese whispers". A *lot* of foreign nations on the other hand have a telephone oriented name as their dominant terminology for this game. Although this is an English encyclopedia, in lieu of a tie among the variants of English (and it really is an unscientific tie -- a Google search for "telephone game" and "Chinese whispers" in quotes currently show both at 646,000 results!), I would lean towards the worldwide commonality of the telephone metaphor worldwide as the tiebreaker. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

What you think, unfortunately, is irrelevant. Wikipedia has guidelines and policies that we follow...these clearly specify that English-language usage is our only concern. This is the English-language Wikipedia. See WP:UE. RGloucester — ☎ 00:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree that using foreign languages as a "tiebreaker" makes no sense. If you think this is tied then that means no consensus to change, and what is said in other languages doesn't matter. Telephone is NOT the commonname (see below - roughly half of the references to "Telephone game" are not actually references to this particular game, but instead references to other games, or a concept in game-theory, or to the telephone industry). FOARP (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ENGVAR, WP:CRITERIA, WP:NOTCENSORED. The nom is relying on hits for "Telephone game" and "game of telephone" to demonstrate that this is the preferred name for THIS PARTICULAR GAME, but the usage in the corpus of "Telephone Game" is much more defuse and typically refers to any game that can be played using a telephone. Taking the first ten GBooks hits for "Telephone game":

• 1) "Microeconomics: A Modern Approach" - "Telephone game" here is used to describe a game that does not resemble Chinese whispers. Instead it refers to a different game that is a concept in game theory.
• 2) "Game Theory and Linguistic Meaning" - again, the game being discussed here is not Chinese whispers, it is a game involving people calling people and then trying to redial (i.e., the game-theory concept).
• 3) "Faith Is Like Skydiving: And Other Memorable Images for Dialogue with Seekers and Skeptics" - the game referred to here is Chinese Whispers, but I have concerns over whether this book (a book on how to convert sceptics to christianity) should be considered an RS.
• 4) "Introduction to Law" - refers to the game of Chinese whispers.
• 5) "Kid's Reading Craze - a Collection of 20 Short Stories" - refers to the game of Chinese whispers.
• 6) "Bargaining Theory with Applications" - refers to the game theory concept discussed above, not to the game of Chinese whispers.
• 7) "A Guided Inquiry Approach to High School Research" - The game referred to here is not Chinese whispers per se, but another game comparing primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.
• 8) "Hot Springs" - Fictional story and thus not an RS, the phase "Telephone game" appears to just be referring to a game played using tapped telephones.
• 9) "Understanding the Destructive Power of Assumption and How to Control It" - Self help book, appears to be referring to Chinese whispers but also states that "Telephone" is only one name for the game (i.e., indicates the user may know it by another name and thus knowledge that the name is not universal).
• 10) "Dumb Ideas Won't Create Smart Kids: Straight Talk About Bad School Reform, Good Teaching, and Better Learning" - refers to the game of Chinese Whispers.

"Telephone game" is the name for a concept in game theory/economics (technically it is a co-ordination game involving two Nash Equilibria), as well as many other games involving telephones that are not related to Chinese whispers. The proposed name is thus ambiguous, imprecise, and unnatural/recognisable.

In contrast the name "Chinese Whispers" is only ever used to refer to the specific game (even when only using it as a metaphor, and the metaphoric use of the term "Chinese whispers" again indicates that it is more recognised) that is the subject of this page as a quick review of the first ten Gbooks hits shows. Chinese whispers is therefore more natural, precise, and less ambiguous, and should be the preferred title per WP:CRITERIA. Since all uses of "Chinese whispers" are ultimately a reference to the game (if only by allusion in using "Chinese whispers" as a metaphor), and roughly half of the uses of "telephone game" are not actually references to this subject but instead refer to other games involving telephones, Chinese whispers is also obviously the WP:COMMONNAME for this topic.

PS - the same thing is seen for "Game of telephone", many of the uses are actually "game of telephone tag" or "game of telephone tennis" and not actually references to the game Chinese whispers but instead refer to calling people and not being able to get through, leaving them call-back details, and you calling them and similarly not being able to get through. If these false positives are thrown out, the idea that "telephone" is the common name of this particular game disappears with them.

PPS - The nom asserts that:

"1. "Telephone" is as commonly used as the other term, and is more commonly used depending on what tools you use to search what corpus. This Google Ngram viewer result shows that "telephone game" and "game of telephone" are cumulatively vastly more used over time, while the other term just has one massive spike over the early 2000s (possibly just of people writing about how controversial it is!). During the previous move request, someone in opposition took this same Ngram viewer result to mean exactly the opposite, because the search end date was right in the middle of the spike.

This is clearly incorrect. Even f you add the totals for "telephone game" and "game of telephone", "Chinese whispers" still comes out massively ahead (combining the totals for "game of telephone" and "telephone game" in their NGrams search gives a prevalence of 0.0000016519% at peak in 2004, whilst for Chinese whispers the total is 0.0000023520% at peak in 2004 - more than 30% larger). Chinese whispers peaks in NGrams in the same year that the other terms peak - 2004. This is simply a product of the fact that 2004 was the year that the NGrams corpus was first created, and many books were incorrectly catalogued as being published in the year they were scanned rather than their actual publication date. "Telephone game" also shows a peak in 1923, which I suspect relates to a completely different subject since the game was commonly known as "Chinese whispers" before the politically-correct alternative name was introduced in the US - a GBooks search for the early 1920's shows "Telephone game" being used as a reference to the Telephone industry and to a game used to practice spelling/grammar. FOARP (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 October 2020 :: split point 1

• With respect to RETAIN there are 3 valid reasons for changing the variety of English once established, (1) if the subject has strong ties to 1 version such as Monopoly that used both "color" and "colour" on the 2nd edit (even though Monopoly is international it originated in the US) (2) to a version acceptable in more or preferable all (COMMONALITY) such as Glasses or where it reduces ambiguity (ATDAB) such as Elevator. I think that the 3rd applies here for the move in 2006. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the move may have been justified even under present rules. Additionally some of the above discussion appears to be operating on the assumption that we should apply present rules to a move made in 2006. For example above we have people saying that "If there had been a Requested Move in 2006, fine", but in 2006 moves were explicitly allowed undiscussed, so why did the 2006 mover have to open an RM? What was the rule they were supposed to have followed that actually existed in 2006? The present injunctions against changing EngVar were much less strongly worded then and they likely thought they had a good reason to make an undiscussed move. FOARP (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as that the move was OK under the 2006 RM general rule, neither the article title policy nor the disambiguation guideline appeared to mention natural disambiguation (but the MOS did appear to generally not allow it) but the main point is that the move would have been acceptable in 2006 under our current rules even if not under the 2006 rules or a move would be too controversial in 2020. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Prefer Telephone game per WP:NATURAL. Chinese whispers is racist, and derogatory. This is a good reason to overrule WP:RETAIN on this occasion. The term is not particularly associated with British/Comminwealth English tradition so much as associated with traditional British 19th Century anti-Chinese racism. The many international names demonstrate that the origin of the game was not so named. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Choosing what Wikipedia is to call it is unlikely to affect general public spoken and public-media word usage. I am one of the many who knew this game as "Chinese whispers" long before I heard of another name for it. It is easy to smell racism where none was intended. (I am British.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Let's close the name issue

After the third requested move has again resulted in no consensus, I think that we should focus on improving this article and leave the argument about the title behind. If, however, anyone wants to re-open this issue for a fourth time I urge them to consider that the following arguments have been tried repeatedly and failed to become consensus each time:

• "The name is racist" - As presently described in the article, the actual origin of the name is unknown. A number of theories exist for its origin, including theories that have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the average English speaker can understand the Chinese language (e.g., the Great Wall theory). Even if you think that using "Chinese" as a synonym for "something misunderstood" is necessarily racist, you have to contend with the very widespread use of this phrase which indicates the contrary. If you think using a British name is POV, then I invite you to consider that using the US name is hardly less POV.
• "Telephone is the common name" - The issue here is that the Google Ngrams data shows the precise opposite (Chinese whispers was 30% more common at peak than the variants of "Telephone game" combined). Moreover analysis of GBooks hits shows that about half the time they are used in print, the phrases "telephone game" and "game of telephone" were being used to refer to something completely different than the subject of this article. For example these phrases are used to refer to concept in game theory, the telephone industry, or some other thing that is not this game such as playing chess over the telephone. In contrast "Chinese Whispers" is only ever used to refer to this game, if only by allusion, whilst "Telephone game" is actually pretty ambiguous which probably explains why it isn't used as much as a metaphor.
• "Telephone was the original name" - The name changed more than 15 years ago. We don't know the reason for the move, but it appears to have justified under WP:NATDAB given that "Telephone game" and "Telephone (game)" are both ambiguous. The article is now more than twice as long as it was then and has been edited hundreds of times since then. The argument that the name should revert to that used in 2006 was never strong and has become weaker as time goes on. The present name is clearly the one that is "established in an article" for the purposes of WP:RETAIN.
  

In contrast the present name has WP:RETAIN, WP:NATDAB, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:ENGVAR, and WP:CRITERIA on its side. In the absence of a new and persuasive argument to move I really think this should be a closed matter. Please consider this a standing vote against moving in any future move-request. FOARP (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Count me in for "voting" against next time if this comes up again (unless maybe in many years if "telephone" does become more common which I doubt) again I think POVNAME is mainly for articles where the choice between "X scandal" and "X controversy" where we would only chose the former if it was used in the majority of sources but this is a children's game rather than an article about the Chinese language or similar so I think POVNAME has less weight anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  There is an article here from Australia about "Phrases you didn't know were racist" and notice another one is Grandfather clause, an American term. I certainly don't support being racist but its clear that the term is used by many people (including myself as noted back in 2006) who never knew it might be offensive to some as well as being used by reliable sources so if it really was thought to be offensive surely it would have been phased out long ago in other countries as well as the US? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The original version of this article is a stub but the very next edit takes it beyond stub and uses the British spelling for “neighbour” establishing the original English variety of this article as British. —В²C ☎ 18:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: Are you now saying that because it ceased to be a stub with British spelling that sets that variety for the purpose of RETAIN even though the title was American and intro had "telephone game" first? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The title should match the English variety in the article, when applicable. —В²C ☎ 20:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

TBH, I think this shows why we should be cautious about treating what someone wrote off-hand ~20 years ago as though it were the Dead Sea Scrolls. Prolonged usage and stability, rather than blind adherence to a rule that is at best a tie-breaker when all else fails, is the important thing here. However I congratulate B2c on spotting something not spotted by anyone (myself included) in numerous RM discussions - that the original EngVar wasn't even consistent throughout the article. FOARP (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Calidum, Necrothesp, and SnowFire: Does that resolve the RETAIN debate? I guess WP:POLCON may apply with regard to COMMONNAME and ATDAB but I don't think POLCON even needs to be applied since there doesn't seem to be conflict anyway since RETAIN already explicitly or at least implicitly allows such changes and policies are generally more general while particular guidelines or essays may be more specific in dealing with something but a policy may override them for example COMMONNAME may override a particular NC if an exception is found that common usage favours a different name. Should {{British-English}} be added to this talk page? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've stated my opinion favoring "Telephone" before but agree with FOARP in so far as I'm not sure it's productive to keep at it - not because it's wrong, but because it's become a waste of time. I will say that FOARP's claims above are overstated as far as acting as if the pro-Telephone side's arguments have been "refuted". In particular, the "it's racist" section wildly misunderstands... well, everything... but that's a longer discussion, and I just stated it's probably not productive to relitigate. (Notably, "it's used everywhere so it can't possibly be racist" is just... uh... not true, plenty of phrases can be both racist and common. And somehow "telephone" is just as bad? What? Nonsense.) SnowFire (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Which, if you actually read it, isn't what FOARP said at all! -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Why ping editors to this page if you are immediately dismissive of any point of view that differs from yours? -- Calidum 21:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  To see if those editors withdraw their disagreement given the new points. Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  But I opposed the move in the first place! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  I know you did, I was just pinging you since you also talked about RETAIN. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Speculated origins of name "Chinese Whispers"

I'm too lazy to do the research, but I wonder if anyone has investigated this theory: Madarin Chinese has shifts of pitch as part of its phonetics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_(linguistics)#Asia), and when whispering, syllables are 'unvoiced' and so do not have pitch information, thereby creating much more scope for ambiguity. By contrast, in English, we would only miss out on whether or not a consonant is voiced, but this is actually redundant information because in English voiced consonants are always unaspirated while unvoiced consonants are always aspirated. So from an English-speaking point of view, the Chinese language is much more prone to being rendered ambiguous by whispering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.63.228 (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as anyone can see the origins are unknown with various sourced speculations already described in the article, one of which is that the Chinese language is not understood by most English-speakers. FOARP (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Archive 1