Talk:Buck buck

Mix in a carriage return once in a while.

Great comedian named Bill Cosby had this as one of his jokes involving Fat Albert. -71.224.19.29 16:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

This article was unsourced and essay-like for quite some time (focusing on game strategy, etc.). In Janaury 2010, I tagged it for additional references and as an essay. I added a citation to the relevant entry in the Dictionary of American Regional English. Since then, no new sources were added, so I removed the unsourced material and added in some additional material from the one source I found. Any future additions would best serve the article by being sourced to a relaible source when they are added. Novaseminary (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.gameskidsplay.net/games/strength_games/buck_buck.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.116.112 (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The third version in the above link is the one I played in Philadelphia as a kid and that Cosby described. InsultComicDog (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source for painting

What kind of source is needed for this removed edition to be recovered? An interview with the painter? Jotamar (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would also probably be original research. The fact needs to have been previously said in a reliable source so the fact satisfies WP:V. Novaseminary (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't consider the University of Waterloo a reliable source? Jotamar (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference was a photo of a painting, and that was it. I don't doubt that was the painting. It was the synthesis/original research that fails WP policy. Novaseminary (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reference that establishes that the photograph at the top of the article shows children playing buck buck? That the children in the painting are playing the game is, if anything, more obvious than that the children in the photograph are. One player in the painting is even holding up his hand to display some number of fingers, though I can't count them in the reproduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcuin518 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I probably wouldn't disagree with removing the photo currently in the article. Regardless, the fact you are trying to insert is original research, or at least not sourced properly. Get a reliable source that says as much, and there is no problem. Remember, verfiability is what matters, not just whether the fact you are trying to insert is correct (WP:V). Novaseminary (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point by Alcuin518. But my point is: what exactly do we need as verifiable source? Perhaps someone who saw the painting and thought that looks a lot like buck buck and then bothered to write that in some kind of printed media? Or is it more like someone doing a long research and arriving to the conclusion that the children in the painting are playing buck buck? Should the one who makes the statement be an art expert, or maybe a Renaissance expert, or a games expert, or all at the same time? In other words, should an overwhelming evidence count as such only if someone bothers to state it in some media external to Wikipedia? Jotamar (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, overwhelming evidence (in your or my opinion) does not meet WP:V (it is original research). A reliable source, external to WP, stating as much is needed to satisfy WP:V. Novaseminary (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish, the addition that I make to the article will be restricted to the claim that the game that I played as a schoolboy in Woodbridge, New Jersey, during the 1940s was all but certainly the same game as that depicted in the lower right corner of the Bruegel painting. The painting is online and available for everyone to look at. The only issue that there can be regards what the game that we played in New Jersey was like. Having been there and participated in the game, I am what historians refer to as a primary source. A primary source depends upon no references. Indeed, the references are placed in histories for the the purpose of providing a paper trail back to the primary sources. Thus, it is not legitimate to question my observation; only my credentials, i.e., my age and residence in New Jersey in the 1940s. If you insist, I will provide a copy of my birth certificate, and it will only be necessary to wait until 2020 when the federal census is made public to establish my residence in 1950 (I lived in New York City until shortly after the 1940 census). With regard to this being original research, that is nonsense; it is a simple observation. You appear to entertain the idea that knowledge can only be gained from books, a ridiculous and self-refuting claim. If you are concerned that my claim will not be vetted by peer review, the matter is of such little import that no scholarly journal would publish it unless it was as a favor to some eminence in the field, which I am not. Even were I able to publish it, it would only be one more paper that would remain ignored and unvetted in the literature, as are most scholarly publications. However, my observation is one that would make a point that I regard as rather more interesting than the observation that Bill Cosby discussed buck buck in a couple of books. By putting this minor point in Wikipedia it would come to the attention of others of my generation who, if they disagree, can edit and correct it just as I entered it. Otherwise this interesting fact will continue to pass unnoticed, and within not too many years, everyone qualified to remark on the point will be dead, and the observation will be lost. I would point out that your criticism of my claim would also apply to Cosby's work. Does he cite any reference to establish that the description of the game that he and his schoolmates played was a valid description of buck buck? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.179.116 (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not criticising anything. But this fact (as is) fails a fundamental policy of Wikipedia (which doesn't make it wrong or bad, just not appropriate for a WP article). Please read WP:OR and WP:SPS. If you have a problem with WP:OR, this is not the place to argue it. Novaseminary (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with High Cockalorum

I have taken the liberty of merging that article with this, as the two obviously both concerned the same game. Alansplodge (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger from Bulleribock

A proposal has been made to merge the Swedish game bulleribock here. I strongly disagree, since the only similarities is that is has something do with backs and that both names include something like "buck". Sjö (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the merge tag, it was included by an IP editor who didn't even give a reason for it. --Jotamar (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leapfrog

Never heard of this game before. Is this some kind of Leapfrog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.183.52 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]