Talk:Doyle Brunson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Poker, an attempt at building a useful poker resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page.

Contents

[edit] Family life - hoax tag

I wrote the family life section using Super System 2 as a source. I wasn't really sure what to do about the claims of miracles - I'm an atheist so it's not as if I just assume they just happened, but Brunson has made these claims more than once and they do seem notable enough to include in an article on him. Also, as far as I can tell, they meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiablilty (though not necessarily mine) in that the source they come from seems as reputable as any on Brunson. I could prefix them all with something like "Brunson claimed..." but then I'd feel like I ought to do that for everything else that was sourced from his book, which I'm not overly comfortable with. I suppose the best thing to do would be to talk to people at the religion-related WikiProjects and see what they do with claims like this, but if anyone's got any ideas please discuss them. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. The only reason that I put the hoax tag up was because I had removed some vandalism in the family life issue and I was just skeptical of that entire section. BlueGoose 08:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'll leave it as it is then. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SEC

Any think a section should be made for the SEC scandal about his bid for the WPT?

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/business/local/13778374.htm?source=rss&channel=twincities_local http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr19495.htm

- Duke of Kent 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casper

After seeing the side story in a recent WSOP show about Casper, Brunson's cardholder, and Howard Lederer paying Brunson to will Casper to him upon Brunson's death, this seems like a pertinent addition to the article. Yea/nay? Willbyr 04:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Worthy of a sentance. Essexmutant 08:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism to the main page?

"Doyle "Texas Dolly" Brunson (May 30, 1908 – June 5, 2006)"

"Doyle Brunson passed away at 8:37 am, on June 5, 2006, in his Malibu home after losing a hand to poker-great Edwin Tablada."

Surprised to see that he had died so recently, I search news sources and could not find a single reference to his death. Unless Wikipedia is the first to report, I'm guessing this is vandalism.

Furthermore, the "poker-great" (sic) mentioned is not able to be found, as such, on basic Web searches.

Also, I gravely doubt that Mr. Brunson was born in 1908.

Forgive me, but I'm loath to make corrections to the main page myself, both because I'm a newbie, and also because I'm certainly no expert on Mr. Brunson---who I hope is actually alive and well!

KevinWho 02:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "the Bible of poker"

The word Bible has metaphorical and non-religious uses ,I don't think it was meant to be taken literally.

Its mention even on Doyle's website about Super/System "the book remains the bible of poker"

Also Merriam-Webster's Dictionary 4th definition of the word is

  • "4 : a publication that is preeminent especially in authoritativeness or wide readership <the fisherman's bible> <the bible of the entertainment industry>"

I think it should be added back but I'll see what others think (not so boldish right now :)) Sirex98 09:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the word "bible" so long as it is used as in, "considered to be a bible", rather than "Doyle Brunson's bible of poker 'Super/System'". I edited the article because the sentence structure (not to mention grammar) that resulted from the edit was poor, but feel free to change it back to the original version.--Hpesoj00 11:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I was speaking of Abscissa edits sorry for the confusion Sirex98 12:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I realise that. I was just commenting on how I edited Abscissa's changes to be more grammatically correct, and that if you want to change the article back to before Abscissa's edit, it is fine by me. --Hpesoj00 16:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I see what you were saying, I'm a bit thick was up too late last night :), I'll make the change Sirex98 17:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I still think it is an inappropriate metaphor and/or turn of phrase, and I have reverted, but I am also going to solicit the opinions of some other members of the poker project. - Abscissa 13:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Abscissa, I NOT going to get in a revert war with you its just too petty, but I have to say the way you went about this was just wrong, First: the only thing you put in the original edit summary is (FFS, Doyle Brunson did not write the Bible) now you call it "an inappropriate metaphor" Second: you go on other user's talk pages to solicit opinions rather then discussing it here before making an additional revert, anyway you can have the last word if you want, I'm done with this discussion --Sirex98 18:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I have brought this up on Wikiproject poker before and the consensus seems to be to not use the metaphorical term "Bible". We are trying to create some broad "standards" on poker articles, that's why I asked for the opinions of members who are very regular and serious contributers, you are welcome to sign up. - Abscissa 13:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Generally, I think if a matter needs to be discussed, it should be done on the discussion page of the relevent article. 'Serious contributers' will most likely have all the poker pages on watch, and will comment if they feel the need to do so. I think there is a significant difference between "Super/System is the bible of poker" and "Super/System is often considered to be the bible of poker"; I'd say the latter is pretty much the same as "Super/System is often considered to be the most important book on poker", but for that reason I don't think it matters one bit which one is used, so lets just keep it as it is.--Hpesoj00 19:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Your Edit is fine by me Hpesoj00, I'm not out to make a mountain out of a mold hill, the original edit summary irritated me a bit, originally the metaphor was fine by me, but I ‘m over it and don't really care anymore, I'm stressed anyway, in the US we had a bill (HR 4411) to restrict domestic banking with off shore internet gambling and now we have an idiotic measure added to a port bill during a lame duck session to do the same thing. I’m sure Dubya will sigh it. :( --Sirex98 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I heard about that; I find it ridiculous that the US government is passing a bill to outright ban internet gambling, while the UK government have recently passed an act which will allow the construction of "super casinos" around the country.--Hpesoj00 20:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doyle Brunson financed documentary

As it is written in the Wikipedia article 11th Hour (documentary) and as he is credited in the movie, he financed the movie together with others. Where to put that information?

[edit] Should Doyle Brunson be under the category 'American Christians' ?

I ask because I'm pretty sure he is still a practicing Christian. I wanted to run this by someone before making a personal edit. --Jtd00123 (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question "I'm pretty sure he is still a practicing Christian." That's a pretty weak statement with no RS and purely OR.Balloonman (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was simply wondering if anyone had any sources on his religious beliefs, which I thought was fair game since others have asked for sources at the talk section before. If this isn't good ettiqutte, then tell me now, since this isn't exactly common knowledge to the average new wiki user. --Jtd00123 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey now, go easy on the new editor. Jtd, are there any recent news articles/interviews/etc that mention this matter? See Wikipedia:Reliable Sources ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I have moved since new topics should go on the bottom of the talk page.
Thanks for the response. I've seen sources in the past but haven't had any luck stumbling upon them again. I was hoping someone had something on hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd00123 (talk • contribs)
I can poke around and see if I find anything. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doyle Brunson Iconic

Everyone in the poker community considers Doyle Brunson to be iconic. He is ranked as the most influential force in the poker world and is stated by EPSN and nytimes as a poker "legend". Simply research shows that he is iconic. Please see Wikipedia:Don't be an ostrich and assume good faith. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It not a matter of it being true or not look at the examples from WP:PEACOCK, the statement "is considered, by many people, to be the most important man ever to carry that title." isn't meant to be deceptive, under headline "Words and phrases to watch for" you will even see "iconic", there are exceptions such factual statements like "The Pacific Ocean is Earth's largest ocean" , you said to me on my talk page "I don't think Doyle needs any promoting" you're right he doesn't which is why the term is unneeded, but I'm not going to get into a edit war over this, I think you should revert yourself, if someone agrees or disagrees either pro or con, please say so before any further revisions., thank you ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 17:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

" Peacock term:

  • William Peckenridge, 1st Duke of Omnium (1602? - May 8, 1671) is considered, by many people, to be the most important man ever to carry that title.

Better:

There's simply no reason for inclusion of the term "iconic". It simply does not impart actual information and therefore is not useful in this article; see WP:PEACOCK as previously stated. I'd also point out that truth is not the metric for inclusion. I would have reverted already but will respect sirex's instruction. --SesameballTalk 17:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a request to let other editors weigh in like yourself and for 63.76.234.250 to respond before this thing is blown way out proportion. there isn't a need for an unnecessary revert war over a much ado about nothing.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 17:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
What Sirex said. Consider:
  • it's one word. We can easily rephrase it to be more neutral/inclusive/accurate/etc - how about listing the times he has been voted into "Top 10" player lists in Cardplayer, ESPN, etc?
  • User:63.76.234.250 is an anonymous editor and possibly new to Wikipedia, so let's not bite him
  • though I did revert it once, it's not a huge deal in the big scheme of things ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, I know one thing thats missing, no where in the article does it mention that he is in the Poker Hall of Fame, should be in the lead., it would be great to bring this article to FA▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 17:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't "Poker Hall of Fame" an official category at some point? I seem to remember it being deleted, or maybe I'm nuts. Maybe both. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You might be thinking of these Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/European_Poker_Players_Hall_of_Fame and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_5#Poker_Player_Halls_of_Fame, there is a category Category:Poker Halls of Fame mostly unpopulated. Somehow i miss these AfD debates when they happen.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 19:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal Keep "Iconic" Several quotes can be gathered from seperate top professionals for example Daniel Negreanu said that "doyle brunson is doyle brunson" on Poker After Dark, Phil Hellmuth bowed down to doyle in an WSOP interview. Doyle Brunson is much more influential than any other poker player in fact he is almost household name and is synonymous with competitive poker. It would not be doing the article justice if it didnt mention his influence over poker. Peacock terms are ment to be avoided because possible bias. The term iconic for Doyle is not only obvious among the poker community, but also cited. An example would be Roger Federer in tennis the term "greatest player of all time" was used and cited to describe him. In the Tiger Woods article the words "most successful player of all time" was used. Doyle is more influential than many other players in the poker hall of fame and deserves some kind of recognition. If there werent multiple independent sources citing Doyle as "the most influential player" some of which directly used the term "iconic", then we would have a problem, but since there are I dont see how this is an issue. WP:PEACOCK said that there are exceptions is this not one of them? 165.230.74.150 (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I added information requested above, also I said that Doyle Brunson was iconic not "the most" iconic. There should be no doubt that he is a poker icon. 165.230.74.150 (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's 100% necessary but where it says "In some contexts, the fame or reputation of a subject may be an objective and relevant question, better supported by a direct source than by drawing inferences indirectly based on other facts". So keep, you seem to have a valid point. good enough not to revert anyway.:) ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 21:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem just trying to improve the article hopefully it can become FA some day :) 204.52.215.128 (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)