This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"[I]t was discovered that Darrow had actually stolen the idea [...]." For God's sake, please cite sources! Please specify. Please give details about the case. Where? When?
Were the "Marven Gardens" mentioned in the Landlord's Game? The Marven Gardens are a housing area outside Atlantic City.
See Whatever the spelling, Marven Gardens has its charms.
http://www.adena.com/adena/mo/mo11.htm
There is no direct connection between Charles Todd's game and The Landlord's Game. Or else, prove it.
The story at http://www.theantiquesalmanac.com/monopoly.htm states that "The real story begins with Elizabeth Magie Phillips", but I don't find it decent, since there is no "real story". That article by Bob Brooke is way too anecdotal and gossipy, and I find it implausible. There were many people at the beginning of the 20th Century playing similar games.
2004-12-29T22:45Z 06:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
For more interesting information including "the real story" of how Magie's game led to Todd's game (given on oath by witnesses in court), you should read http://tt.tf/gamehist/monopoly-sale/anspach-archives.html as well as the link to the Early History of Monopoly which you can find at the bottom of the Monopoly (game) page. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I believe this entire article lacks citations. Anyway, I added another known version to the 'evolution' section. Nricketts ( talk) 13:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, how about some structure and formatting to help make this discussion easier to follow... There are plenty of resources available to help you format Wikipedia discussions...
The opening sentence of this article states "Charles Brace Darrow (10 August 1879–29 August 1967) is best known as the inventor of the Monopoly board game." To the casual observer this sounds like an undisputed fact. Anyone reading this discussion page will know that nothing could be further from the truth, which is highlighted just three sentences later!
I have only just begun researching the origins of Monopoly and in many ways was not surprised at all to learn that the details of its origins is shrouded in so much controversy and apparent supression. The article
Monopoly (board game) is considerably biased in favour of the
Parker Brothers position.
Personally, I find it exceedingly apt that Parther Brothers was able to monopolise a game called Monopoly so successfully!
PS. First sentence changed in lieue of above justification.
--
Simonmetcalf (
talk)
06:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The birthday was changed:
Both changes were done without sources. So I think the first date was correct. If you have a good source for another date please insert the source. Greetings -- Heiko ( talk) 09:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a sentence in the article that reads: "During the ten year suit, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Darrow had copied down the rules directly (even the misspelling of Marven Gardens as "Marvin Gardens") from the game produced by Charles Todd.[8]" However, in the citation ( http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1441&context=llr) which discusses the courts rulings, I couldn't find any mention of Marven Gardens being copied misspelled. I'm not sure the best way to resolve this... perhaps put "Citation needed" within the parentheses? ScooterJohn ( talk) 19:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no mention of Marvin/Marven Gardens, or of the Todd's in the article, or in the court cases. http://openjurist.org/684/f2d/1316/anti-monopoly-inc-v-general-mills-fun-group-inc http://openjurist.org/611/f2d/296/anti-monopoly-inc-v-general-mills-fun-group Olivertownshend ( talk) 07:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
In this revision of the page, there is the following claim that has needed a citation since November 2013:
The latter company rejected the game for three (not 52 as is popularly believed) "fundamental errors", which included the game's length and complexity.
Basically, I could only find the information on page 49 of Monopoly: The World's Most Famous Game--And How It Got That Way, from which it looks like the text was paraphrased. However, I couldn't find where the author's source for that was, and I couldn't find any more authoritative sources on this in Google Books.
If anyone can find an authoritative source for either the 52 errors or 3 errors number, that would be great, but otherwise I've removed the claim and just said that the game was initially rejected. AllenZh ( talk) 21:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"[I]t was discovered that Darrow had actually stolen the idea [...]." For God's sake, please cite sources! Please specify. Please give details about the case. Where? When?
Were the "Marven Gardens" mentioned in the Landlord's Game? The Marven Gardens are a housing area outside Atlantic City.
See Whatever the spelling, Marven Gardens has its charms.
http://www.adena.com/adena/mo/mo11.htm
There is no direct connection between Charles Todd's game and The Landlord's Game. Or else, prove it.
The story at http://www.theantiquesalmanac.com/monopoly.htm states that "The real story begins with Elizabeth Magie Phillips", but I don't find it decent, since there is no "real story". That article by Bob Brooke is way too anecdotal and gossipy, and I find it implausible. There were many people at the beginning of the 20th Century playing similar games.
2004-12-29T22:45Z 06:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
For more interesting information including "the real story" of how Magie's game led to Todd's game (given on oath by witnesses in court), you should read http://tt.tf/gamehist/monopoly-sale/anspach-archives.html as well as the link to the Early History of Monopoly which you can find at the bottom of the Monopoly (game) page. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I believe this entire article lacks citations. Anyway, I added another known version to the 'evolution' section. Nricketts ( talk) 13:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, how about some structure and formatting to help make this discussion easier to follow... There are plenty of resources available to help you format Wikipedia discussions...
The opening sentence of this article states "Charles Brace Darrow (10 August 1879–29 August 1967) is best known as the inventor of the Monopoly board game." To the casual observer this sounds like an undisputed fact. Anyone reading this discussion page will know that nothing could be further from the truth, which is highlighted just three sentences later!
I have only just begun researching the origins of Monopoly and in many ways was not surprised at all to learn that the details of its origins is shrouded in so much controversy and apparent supression. The article
Monopoly (board game) is considerably biased in favour of the
Parker Brothers position.
Personally, I find it exceedingly apt that Parther Brothers was able to monopolise a game called Monopoly so successfully!
PS. First sentence changed in lieue of above justification.
--
Simonmetcalf (
talk)
06:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The birthday was changed:
Both changes were done without sources. So I think the first date was correct. If you have a good source for another date please insert the source. Greetings -- Heiko ( talk) 09:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a sentence in the article that reads: "During the ten year suit, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Darrow had copied down the rules directly (even the misspelling of Marven Gardens as "Marvin Gardens") from the game produced by Charles Todd.[8]" However, in the citation ( http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1441&context=llr) which discusses the courts rulings, I couldn't find any mention of Marven Gardens being copied misspelled. I'm not sure the best way to resolve this... perhaps put "Citation needed" within the parentheses? ScooterJohn ( talk) 19:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no mention of Marvin/Marven Gardens, or of the Todd's in the article, or in the court cases. http://openjurist.org/684/f2d/1316/anti-monopoly-inc-v-general-mills-fun-group-inc http://openjurist.org/611/f2d/296/anti-monopoly-inc-v-general-mills-fun-group Olivertownshend ( talk) 07:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
In this revision of the page, there is the following claim that has needed a citation since November 2013:
The latter company rejected the game for three (not 52 as is popularly believed) "fundamental errors", which included the game's length and complexity.
Basically, I could only find the information on page 49 of Monopoly: The World's Most Famous Game--And How It Got That Way, from which it looks like the text was paraphrased. However, I couldn't find where the author's source for that was, and I couldn't find any more authoritative sources on this in Google Books.
If anyone can find an authoritative source for either the 52 errors or 3 errors number, that would be great, but otherwise I've removed the claim and just said that the game was initially rejected. AllenZh ( talk) 21:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)