User talk:Doesluch

Doestuch, is you are going to add Foster's theory on his connection between As Nas and Poker, then you should clarify that there is no contemporary evidence to support his claim. In addition, wikipedia requries sources to be authorative. Since Foster's claim that As Nas is the definite ancestor is poker is not supported by contemporary evidence, it is therefore not factual, and therefore not authorative. Plus, your edit was copied and pasted from another website, without quotations.

I will still delete any opinionated sources you continue to post. My small edit on As Nas was at least factual, there was no need for it to be deleted. In addition, your source's intention to include Foster's statement in the article was to illustrate the contrasting beliefs of the origin of poker from the 30s to now. Your source's author did not intend the statement to be factual. However, even if you may not have intended it, since you only showed Foster's statement, then added that a group of historians are "challenging" it, it is implied that Foster's statement is heavily supported by evidence (it is supported by no evidence), and a group of radical thinkers are somehow opposed to the dominant theory. (when in fact, every modern historian cited in your own source seems to disagree with that statement).

Of course, the discrepencies between historians over the course of 70 years is fine to include in a jouranlistic article, but for an encyclopedia, it is not appropriate. An encyclopedia is meant to report that facts, and Fact: 1) As Nas is very similar to poker, and 2) As Nas has no evidence of its existence until 1890, is sufficient enough. The disagreements between historians 60 years apart is clutter, and has no need in the history section. However, it would be appopriate to include the debate in a seperate section on the poker article, but it should be clarified that most of the debate is pure speculation.

The quote on Foster is misleading, and honestly, my original edit is sufficient enough information. There is no need to quote historian's opinions, just the facts. His quote is not sufficient enough for "evidence". In addition, why did you delete the information regarding the fact that the earliest reference of As Nas is 1890? If a game has no evidence that it existed before 1890, then its relation to poker is questionable. Therefore, it should at least be mentioned, or As Nas should not be mentioned at all. Why are you so intent on deleting that piece of information? In addition, stylitically the history section is written in chronolgical order, therefore, Pochispiel should be listed first, since it is the oldest.

Best regards. --Jtd00123 (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.pagat.com/vying/pokerhistory.html ''"The question naturally arises as to which way round any borrowing may have taken place. Favouring the priority of As-nas is the fact that As-nas cards, a subset of the Persian ganjifeh pack, are attested as early as 1700 in Persia, though without any account of the game played with them. Against it are -

the absence of any description of the game earlier than 1890; the fact that As is not a Persian word and obviously derives from the French for Ace; and (hence) the probability that As-nas derives from a European vying game rather than the other way around."''

If As Nas needs to be mentioned, then it should be worded in such a way that these facts above are given merit. There is no evidence to support Foster's claim, since it is more probable that As Nas comes from a European vying game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd00123 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)