Talk:Chris Moneymaker

Opening comment

Does anyone know his marriage status? There were reports of a divorce following his big win. I think it is an intereting addition if it is true. Wins millions and because of his fame or celebrity or ? ends up divorcing his wife. Thanks

Did he change his last name to Moneymaker in celebration of his poker success, or is this just a crazy coincidence?

It's his real name. CryptoDerk 03:35, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

His main goal is to provide for his family; although he quit his job, he does envision going back to mainstream work eventually. Is there a source for this? Bltpdx 08:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Moreover is at at all relevant? I've deleted it.

How is this POV?:

"Many pros and casual fans of poker consider Moneymaker a lucky winner of the 2003 Main Event, not just because of his amateur status but because of the perceived quality of his play. He was eliminated during day one of the 2004 and of the 2005 Main Events, perhaps adding some clout to the argument."

Monkeymaker's reputation as a weak player or lucky winner is a pretty critical characteristic of his place in the poker world. This quote does not say that he is a bad player, just that he has that reputation, which anyone who knows a lot about poker knows to be noteable to moneymaker. I've put it back in the article and vote to keep it there.

It's obvious POV, and hopelessly unencyclopedic. Many pros and casula fans view Moneymaker as an excellent player, which he quite clearly is if you ever watched his play. Additionally his second place in the World Poker Tour "adds clout" to the argument that he is an excellent player. This sort of total POV comment ("some people think he plays bad") is useless as obviously others think differently, and of course in this case more knowledgable people and those who play against him regularly consider him a fine player. 2005 09:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Are you kidding me?? Moneymaker is almost universally regarded as a weak player. If you look at his record following the 2003 wsop it proves it (one 2nd place finish does not prove anything). You clearly have no knowledge of what you're discussing and are just trying to stand up for moneymaker here. I am reverting it back and will continue to do so, but I will change it alightly to make it more "encyclopedic." I'm not trying to argue about his playing ability, but the way he is seen in the poker world is certainly as one of the weaker main event winner in history. I would like to see others comment here.

You obviously have no idea what POV means, and also apparently have little understanding of serious poker itself. Moneymaker is regarded by very good players as a very good player. His play during the his WSOP victory was outstanding. Since then he is well in the black in terms of his tournament play, so your dismissal makes no sense at all. Of course poor players think he is a poor player but they would have no way of knowing. Please do not add your opinion to this article again. 2005 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Most lottery jackpot winners are "in the black" but it doesn't mean they're good at playing the lottery, or that the odds are on their side. Adam Carolla (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about poker??? I happen to be a professional poker player myself. Moneymaker is regarded as a weak player, end of discussion, whether or not he actually is (or your opinion of him) doesn't really matter. I know full well what POV means, you however clearly have no idea how to spot it. I don't really have the warewithol to check this page daily to win an editing war against you, but your hopeless defense of Moneymaker by deleting such information on false POV grounds is disgraceful, and I will be reporting it to the moderators.

P.S. It would not be POV to say something like "Michael Jordan is regarded as one of the best basketball players in history." There is a difference between POV and objective value statements.

Please stop inserting your POV. POV is inappropriate, and wildly false POV is even more inappropriate. Such comments will be removed. Below are three authoritative comments about Moneymaker's actual ability: http://www.ultimatebet.com/team-ub/article.html?articleID=47&author=krazykanuck http://www.poker-babes.com/bio/chris-moneymaker/ http://www.worldpokertour.com/players/?x=profile&id=3863&featured=1 The first is from an online poker site that COMPETES with the one Moneymaker endorses, a professional player's site, and from the official World Poker Tour site. While you can have your own POV that is directly opposite of these three sites, the Wikipedia is not going to include your own opinion, both because we don't print personal points of view, and because your view is not held by authoritative sources. 2005 06:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You're ridiculous. I'm not even going to bother reading those sources. I could just as easily post three that say he's a weak player. Get off your high horse and realize that you are the one trying to impose your opinion. I edited what I wrote to contain both sides of the debate, and you still deleted it. I said I'd like to hear what other people think, and you said end of discussion. Who do you think you are? I wouldn't really care except that you try to guise what you're doing as noble and unbiased. You are a shame to wikipedia. This really isn't worth my time in continuing, if you're just going to edit this to hide the truth, there's nothing I can do except let the Wikipedia community know that you are shameful. Get a life buddy.

Can I just point out to the editor: Moneymaker made it to day 2 of the 2005 Main Event - see World Series of Poker, 2005. Essexmutant 09:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Tournament winnings

"As of 2005, his total live tournament winnings exceed $2,740,000."

Is this line really necessary considering the first paragraph mentions the $2.5mil and the $200,000. Useless sentence, I deleted it.

This is consistant with 95% of other articles on poker players. Essexmutant 01:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It is consistent with other articles; at the same time, it is a bit redundant in this one. Personally I hate these tournament winnings entries in the profiles as they are hopelessly, totally inaccurate for almost everyone who played before 2000. I'd like to see them all removed, or made much more general, like in this case it would be tournament winnings exceed 2.7 million (which doesn't address the redundant part). Getting too specific makes it appear as if these numbers are accurate for most people, which of course they are not. (Although in this case, since he didn't play prior to 2000, the number is basically accurate). 2005 02:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy to move it to units of $100,000, as opposed to units of $10,000 which most are at the moment. Essexmutant 09:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Lucky winner

That's not POV.... I agree with that editor that something should be in there, though it should be re-worded. The first thing most knowledgeable poker fans think of when they hear Monkeymaker is "over-rated" or "lucky to win." (If you look at Tom Brady's article, there is a section about the debate over whether he is truly a great quarterback or just in a good situation, that isn't POV... a similar type of paragraph should be added to the Moneymaker article). I think it would behoove the encyclopedia to include this, but personally I don't feel like putting in the effort to word it appropriately. Maybe I will later on.

• • If you added that, you'd have to do the same for every poker player what won the WSOP. For example, Chris Ferguson won the WSOP by outdrawing TJ Cloutier when his A9 beat Cloutier's AQ. Even the legendary Stu Ungar was very lucky on the final hand of his last WSOP win. Luck is a huge aspect of poker and no one has won a large tournament without some luck. Furthermore, Moneymaker's luck is overstated. There are really only two hands where he outdrew someone (against Ivey and Brenes, and the Ivey hand was after Ivey already got lucky). The rest of the hands, where he defeated guys like Johnny Chan, Dutch Boyd, and Sam Farha, he clearly outplayed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.88.255.139 (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Debate

Debate section is a good addition, please do not revert. Re-wording might be necessary though. JOPKE 14:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)JOPKE

Please spare us more of these ridiculous entries. How he stands in the eyes of one, ten or 372 professionals is not something you know, nor something this article can possible cover factually. This fetish of yours is beyond old. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip center. 2005 20:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to let you solely determine what is encyclopedia worthy. Many pro athletes have debate sections - a pro poker player is a similar type of deal. A player's legacy is noteable. I will continue reverting it unless I see opinions other than yours that this is not encyclopedia worthy. Please stop your blind defense of Moneymaker. I don't know what your motives are, but it is certainly not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. JOPKE 05:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)JOPKE

Stop insertuing this nonsense. A passage saying some people think he sucks while others don't is not just pointless it is ridiculous since every bio could have that, and that doesn't even address the silly POV in the wording. Whatever your motives are in inserting your POV in this article over and over, get over it. There is no need for a "defense" of Moneymaker nor your attacks. This is an encyclopedia about facts, not your personal gossip platform. I've already posted relevant references about the particulars, even though that wouldn't matter since opinioneted speculation has no place here. Please make your future contributions factual and without your POV. 2005 06:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You simply misunderstand the purpose of the edit. But I'm not gonna check this page every day to revert. If you insist on deleting sections that you are too blinded to see the relevance of, oh well, go ahead and help make wikipedia a poorly edited encyclopedia.

This encylopedia entry isn't even really that large. Is there some way to get more information on him?

Autobiography Book Review

I would like to post an external link to a review of Chris' autobiography written by Nick Christenson. I think that since we reference the autobiography it would be helpful for the readers of the article to see what a third-party thinks of it. Nick is a well-respected reviewer who has no axes to grind or need to curry favor. If you would like to look at the review it is located here: xhttp://www.readybetgo.com/book-reviews/review-320.html. Let me know what you think. MichaelOpton 17:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

His autobiography is mentioned. The article about him, not his authobography. And please stop dropping these links. 2005 22:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

He posted the links here rather than trying to add them back to the article at my suggestion. He originally posted the to the article from an IP address and I removed them, warning him for spamming in the process. After the exchange of a few emails, I came to the conclusion that he had a genuine interest in the subject and it was worth trying to make him into a contributor as he seems knowlegable on the subject of poker. I suggested that he create an account and make actual contributions to the project. I also suggested that he post to the talk pages asking regular contributors if his link was worth including.

My personal opinion on the review page is that links to buy the book are too prominent and so, we should probably not include the link. That said, please give it some consideration. You're in this area of the project as you have an interest in the subject and I'm only here as it's a spammer magnet, so your own opinion is more valuable than mine. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The book review link is meant to expand the information about the subject, not to sell books. If people prefer there not to be a book cover with the book review, that can also be arranged.MichaelOpton 17:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't get led astray, information about an *autobiography* is totally relevant on the page about the subject. The cover of the book is totally appropriate. It's best not to provide a link to anywhere you can buy it - just provide the ISBN number, and Wikipedia's software takes care of the rest. However, links to sites that have decent reviews of it would be perfectly appropriate. Stevage 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

'The article about him, not his authobography.' This is undoubtably the most asinine statement I've ever read. Do you have any idea what an autobiography is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.212.211 (talk • contribs) .

Please be civil. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Outdrawing?

Moneymaker eventually won the WSOP when his 5♦ 4♠ outdrew Farha's J♥ T♦ on a board of J♠ 5♠ 4♣ A♠ 4♥, giving Moneymaker a full house.

I don't get it. Before the river, Moneymaker would have been holding two pairs (5s and 4s) compared to a single pair (Js) of Farha's. In fact, he was winning from the flop - in what sense did he "outdraw"? Stevage 15:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's changed. Any time you see something like that I don't think anyone would mind if you edit it. SmartGuy 17:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "outdraw" simply means to draw to a better hand when you start with a weaker one, regardless of the betting pattern. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 18:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, strangely enough re-reading this now it seems ok to me. Yeah, the weaker hand "outdrew" the stronger one - two pairs vs one pair (and eventually upgrading to FH). Maybe I was getting confused with "drawing out" on someone. :) Stevage 22:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Outflopping" is probably the concept trying to be stated, since "outdrew" makes no sense. Clearly Moneymaker was the major favorite when the money went in. But even "outflopping" isn't right since that wasn't a key element in the hand. When Moneymaker had the best hand, he bet the main bet, and continued on to win when his better hand defeated a weaker one. 2005 22:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction on the bluff

the actual board was flop: Js 5s 4c, turn: 8d, river: 5h

I changed the turn to 8d from Ad because 8d was incorrect. The original and only update for this is 9 May 2006 Essexmutant (Talk | contribs) (adding 2003 WSOP winning hand) and was apparently never verified. Not that the outcome would have been any different, though.

For video reference of the play in question: http://youtube.com/watch?v=7knaWAaQCKU

-BonfireBuddhist 11:19am CST 12/03/06

Good catch!, It was undoubtedly a typo, as the hand was listed as a full house and the ace would had made only 2 pair, Essex must had thought 8 and typed A, btw User:Essexmutant is responsible for most of the articles on poker(for a single person), before he left and was imho greatest contributor which you can see on he user page along with number of article he started and added to, as I remember I caught an error on Moneymakers birth date and year once, heh, anyways good looking out on this one , thank you :-) ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 17:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Lou Diamond picking Moneymaker to win the WSOP

Someone keeps removing the information about Lou Diamond picking Moneymaker to win the WSOP calling it "nonsense spam." Moneymaker mentions that in his own autobiography (check pages 99-101 of his autobiography Moneymaker: How an Amateur Poker Player Turned $40 into $2.5 Million at the World Series of Poker), so I have no idea why this would be considered either "nonsense" or "spam." 68.45.106.216 (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A fellow saying he picked a winner is not a reliable source. Please read WP:V. And then, when did he pick him, two days before the event started? When there were two players left? If the passage as entered was not spam, it was still ludicrous. To have such a passage you need a reference from an independant reliable source, and then also phrase the passage so it isn't mystical... specifically, when exactly did he pick him to win? Obviously picking him to win once they wre at the final table is silly, since he was the chip leader. Finally, the fact that somebody picked him to win (at some point other than before the event started) is extremely trvial and likely not worth mentioning. 2005 (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that you added a proper source, and I changed the wording to the actual quote stated in the source and said it was on day 1, now the passage works appropriately. In the future, just remember that quoting someone about their own achievement is seldom going to work. You need a source independant of the person, especially in articles about other living people. 2005 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're telling me I need a source. I am not the author of that sentence, I simply restored the edit that your reverted without explanation, as I knew that information was contained in Moneymaker's autobiography and Moneymaker's autobiography is already mentioned on this page. 68.45.106.216 (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Ran deep"

What does the phrase "ran deep" mean within the meaning of the article? 69.255.250.110 (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It just means lasted a long time before being eliminated. I've removed the slang. 2005 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Sourced Text

The following text, has been deleted from the article without explanation. I do not see any reason for this and would like to place the text back in the article. What do others think?

• On the World Poker Tour Moneymaker finished second at the 2004 Shooting Stars event and won $200,000.[8][9]Moneymaker's poker tournament results and statistics include one 1st place finish, 1 final table appearance, and 1 in-the-money finish for $15,889 in total poker tournament event earnings over the years.[12]
• According to World Poker Rank, Moneymaker has a poker tournament rank of 1271 overall in All Games as well as 1267 in No Limit Hold 'Em, 3291 in Limit Hold 'Em, and not ranked in Pot Limit Hold 'Em. In addition, Moneymaker's world poker ranking includes not ranked in Omaha Hi-Lo, 426 in Pot Limit Omaha, not ranked in Seven Card Stud, and not ranked in 7 Card Stud High-Low.[13] Card Player online reports that Moneymaker has $3,219,087 in career winnings with 5 career titles and 30 career cashes (finishes in the money).[14]
• According to Poker Listings, in spite of his success, Moneymaker is considered by some to be a one-hit wonder. [8]-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The first group of statements is already in the article. Why do you want to repeat it a second time?

The second group of "facts" become obsolete virtually every day that poker tournaments take place. Someone moves ahead of him, or he finishes in the money in a tournament. It's useless minutae that will soon be inaccurate. No other poker player article has such information for that reason.

The third bit violates WP:WEASEL and WP:BLP. He is considered by some a fine player. He is considered by some a bad player. The sentence says nothing beyond being insulting to him. And most obviously the assertion is plainly false because he has won another tournament, in addition to the WPT second place.

If you want to rewrite the text regarding his finishes, that would be fine, but don't simply repeat the same information that appears elsewhere in the article. 2005 (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi 2005, thanks for your comments. Let's take one topic at a time. The first point I'd like to discuss is this text:

• According to Poker Listings, in spite of his success, Moneymaker is considered by some to be a one-hit wonder.

WP:BLP says that "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." So criticism is permitted in a BLP. If your only objection is the phrase "considered by some" than let's edit the sentence to fix that or provide a direct quote from the reliable secondary source. Which would you prefer? Moneymaker has been the subject of criticism and it is acknowledged in reliable secondary sources. Surely you are not trying to keep all criticism of MoneyMaker out of the article are you?-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

KBob, focus on the content and not the contributor, your last sentence there isn't helpful. Please find some sources that discuss Moneymaker's play both positive and negative so that we can create a balanced section of 3rd party views on his play in general. thanks --guyzero | talk 18:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Since Moneymaker has won more than one tournament, how can he be considered a "one-hit wonder"? The reference is an old profile of Moneymaker written before he won a second tournament. It's also very vague. Some random profile writer for an affiliate poker site (Poker Listings) said that "many" (nameless people) consider him a one-hit wonder. Here's the full text: [9]

Despite his success on the felt since his big win many still regard Chris as a one-hit wonder, a fish who got unbelievably lucky to take down what was, at the time, the biggest tournament in the history of poker. While still reigning world champion, however, he came painfully close to adding a World Poker Tour title to his list of accomplishments when he finished second to Phil Gordon at Bay 101 Shooting Stars. He had another solid WSOP cash the next year in the $5,000 Pot-Limit Omaha event, going bust in 10th place." Hazir (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The unqualified reference to "many" who have this (old?) opinion is problematic. Who are the "many", and are they actual poker commentators? Would be better to get updated views from actual commentators than to try to somehow fit this perhaps outdated view. --guyzero | talk 19:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That whole piece is anonymous rubbish. In the first part it talks about Chris living a "life of mediocrity" as an accountant Nashville. I have never read anywhere Chris describe his pre-poker success life in such derogatory terms. Hazir (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Keithbob, please take the time to read WP:WEASEL. It specifically prohibits the exact thing you want to say. "Some people say type text is not to be used. And, even more obviously in BLP articles. Criticism is allowed, but that isn't the issue here, so let's not go off on a tangent. The Pokerlistings comment is anonymous, as pointed out above in less than good article, has no authority, and is belittling in a weasel word way. Sure, some people think he plays bad, and some people think he plays fine. (This can be said about almost any player, making the entire concept of having such a sentence pointless.) The sentence you added fails on every level. 2005 (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Good so you say now that criticism is not an issue. It's just the Weasel wording that is your only objection. Therefore I will adjust the text to avoid the use of the weasel words and re-insert the text. Thanks.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey folks, thanks for your input and comments. One point we should all be clear on is that our role as editors on Wiki is to create text based on what is reported by reliable secondary sources like news and magazine articles, books etc. Our personal opinions and criticisms about what the media reports and the words it chooses, have no place on Wiki. I am just trying to include in the article what some reliable sources have reported. If there are other sources that contradict those reports, then fine, we can include those also. This is how a neutral article is developed. As editors we are innocent mirrors of what the media reports. Moneymaker has been criticized and discussed as being a "one-hit wonder" and that his 2003 win was just a "fluke". These criticisms are from multiple sources. There is no Wiki policy that precludes these reports from being in the article. So let's work together to include them in the article in a way that is consistent with the BLP guideline that I have quoted in my post above.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I agree we should discuss the content and not the contributor. In my post above, I did not discuss any contributor, I simply asked a question, which was then answered. I also agree that all sides of the issue should be included in the article. This is how we work together as editors, each adding content from a variety of sources to create a neutral article. I appreciate the input and cooperation of all the editors here-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Reception" Subsection

• A 2009 article in Bet Us says Moneymaker has had his fair share of critics as a result of his tournament record after his 2003 World Series of Poker win. (Bet US, Poker Insider, Moneymaker Making Noise, Charles Jay, [10]) According to an article in Poker Listings, Moneymaker is regarded by many critics as a "one-hit wonder" in spite of his success in 2003.(Poker Listings web site, About Chris Moneymaker, [11]) However, an article in Blind Bet Poker says that Moneymaker has shown he is not a one-hit wonder by making strong showings at some of the biggest tournaments in the industry.(Blind Bet Poker, Profile: Chris Moneymaker [12]) These tournaments include 2nd place at the Bay 101 Shooting Stars World Poker Tour Tournament, 3rd place at the Fourth Annual Jack Binion Poker Classic in Tunica and another 3rd place at the APPT in Sydney, Australia.(Poker Tommorrow, Chris Moneymaker [13])

I have created a subsection to the Career section of the article called "Reception". I have given it a moderate placement at the bottom. Based on our discussion I have avoided weasel words and made sure that each sentence is reliably sourced and that the section gives both sides of the Moneymaker controversy. Together we can tweak the copy as needed but we cannot deny that criticism and controversy exists and has been widely reported via multiple sources. Even the "one-hit wonder" phrase has been mentioned in at least 4 sources that I have seen so far. I have nothing against Moneymaker or any poker player or BLP subject. I just want to help create an article that reflects all points of view from reliable sources as per the Wiki guidelines. Thanks for your help.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no "Moneymaker controversy", you're trying to create one! I could find a few throwaway lines on blogs, forums and affiliate sites criticizing every poker player in the world and create a "reception" section in every individual Wikipedia article. I think your section actually degrades the article (it's random and contrived) and the only reason I haven't deleted it is that I can see this is a borderline obsession for you. Hazir (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe controversy is not the right word but the issue whatever you want to call it, is there in several articles and bios on MM. Wiki does not allow the use of personal blogs and to the best of my knowledge I have not used any as sources. If you look around Wiki you will find many Bios of Living Persons that contain criticism. Sara Palin, John Hagelin, Peter Schiff, Leon MacLaren This is a standard practice on Wiki, to present all points of view. Wiki actually prefers that criticism be placed in appropriate places throughout the article rather than all in one section so we can do that if others feel that is better for the article. I thought a reception section would be a good way to start out. It's up for discussion. All the best,-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's "up for discussion" why did you go ahead and create the section? Your references are diabolical. First, there's a bits and pieces contributor/tipster for a bookmaker (BetUS) who says that Moneymaker has "had his fair share of [nameless, faceless] critics". Then there's the Pokerlistings profile page, which as mentioned, was written by an anonymous author and also makes reference to "many" faceless critics. How does this constitute a section? I note also that Moneymaker is a [profitable online player], recently taking down the Pokerstars Quarter Million and is up more than $110,000.00 overall. Good luck with your Holy War. Hazir (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Keithbob, the two references you used are terrible. We've already dealt with the Pokerlistings one, and Bet US one is similar. "Some people" and "has had his fair share of critics" are weasel words, and hopelessly WP:UNDUE. More to the point, why are you adding them? As noted above, virtually all poker players have been called rotten players by "some people" -- this means clowns on Internet forums mostly. If an expert like Doyle Brunson or Phil Ivey were to write an article commenting on Moneymaker's play and explaining their comments (not just 'oh, he stinks') then something could be added that is authoritative criticism. Some guys writing articles (one anonymous) basically just saying a person has been criticised by some jerks is not how we write articles. (Additionally, the older the comments, the less valuable they are, since obviously his other poker accomplishments are greater today than the day after he won the wsop.) 2005 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And then from a purely process point of view, if you want to take a stab at a more appropriate paragraph of text, please test it out here rather than just add it to the article as thus far no one has agreed with the addition, which means you should get a consensus on this talk page before adding anything similar. 2005 (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you have a misunderstanding of how Wiki guidelines are applied. They are guidelines for Wiki editors. So for example the guideline on WEASEL does not mean that we cannot use any source that use the words 'some people' etc. The one thing that I think we can agree on is the we disagree.  :-) I don't want to have an edit war, but at the same time I would like to see the Wiki policies upheld and I feel that accurate, reliably sourced information is being blocked from the article because of personal point of view rather than Wiki guidelines. So I am going to ask for some impartial, outside editors to join the discussion and give their insights.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"reliably sourced"? Keithbob, while you haven't seen fit to answer the issues raised by the editors above, simply asserting that the sources you have mentioned are reliable sources for this subject is part of your problem. The burden is on you to at least try to show reliability for this text. Assertions get you nowhere, and neither will statements like: "So for example the guideline on WEASEL does not mean that we cannot use any source that use the words 'some people' etc." Suppose I say: So for example the guideline on WEASEL does not mean that we can use any source that use the words 'some people' etc. Where did that get us? Guidelines exist for a reason. No one has agreed with you that for whatever reason the clear language of guideline should be ignored in this case, and other editors here and on the Admin page you previously started have stated the weasel words should not be included. 2005 (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am all for following the guidelines. It is my position that you are mis-interpreting the WP:WEASEL guideline. The guideline is that we as editors should not create text that says "some people say" and for this reason I have not used this kind of text in my paragraph. Instead I have given very specific attributes as to the source of the info in the text. What you are saying, on the other hand, is that any article/source that uses the phrase "many people" or "some critics say" is not a valid source. I disagree and it is my opinion that that is a mis-interpretation the guideline WP:WEASEL. So that is my point. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear in my prior post. Anyway, let's just relax a little bit and see what other editors have to add to this discussion and we'll take it from there. It's always good to get a fresh perspective from some uninvolved editors.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Requests for Comment

Tag Moved to new section, per discussion between Guyzero and Kbob.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• [A 2009 article in Bet Us says Moneymaker has had his fair share of critics as a result of his tournament record after his 2003 World Series of Poker win. (Bet US, Poker Insider, Moneymaker Making Noise, Charles Jay, [14])According to an article in Poker Listings, Moneymaker is regarded by many critics as a "one-hit wonder" in spite of his success in 2003.(Poker Listings web site, About Chris Moneymaker, [15]) However, an article in Blind Bet Poker says that Moneymaker has shown he is not a one-hit wonder by making strong showings at some of the biggest tournaments in the industry.(Blind Bet Poker, Profile: Chris Moneymaker [16]) These tournaments include 2nd place at the Bay 101 Shooting Stars World Poker Tour Tournament, 3rd place at the Fourth Annual Jack Binion Poker Classic in Tunica and another 3rd place at the APPT in Sydney, Australia. (Poker Tommorrow, Chris Moneymaker [17])]

The above text, [in brackets] which I believe to be current, reliably sourced, well attributed, neutrally worded and balanced in weight, has been deleted twice (the first version was just one sentence). Discussion has not yielded any common ground so rather than edit war I would like to have the opinion of other editors. Additional citations and quotes from articles that support the above paragraph, can be seen in this sandbox here.[18]Thank you.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The para looks good to me and I think should stand, both for the reasons stated by Kbob, and because all of the points in the paragraph are quite relevant to the subjects notability. He is notable because he is a successful tournament poker player. All of the points in the para in question detail either reasoned speculation or relevant facts on the subject's notability as a poker player. I think this mention of informed skepticism regarding the notability of the subject in this para adds balance and depth to the article. But of course, you would want to take a look at how the points in the para fit in with article as it is now, to avoid undue repetition.--Early morning person (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I also checked the sources of criticism of Moneymaker, and I see no reason why they should not be considered reliable secondary sources.--Early morning person (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Early. Its interesting to note that one of the sources I cite in my paragraph is PokerListings.com which is used five times as a citation in the existing article.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make misleading statements. "Pokerlistings" is a website with tens of thousands of pages. Some of those are signed articles, others are anonymous. The article you want to link to is anonymous garbage and will never be an adeaquate reference. The Bet US one has a byline, but similarly offers no value. If text is used on this subject, there are far better sources. 2005 (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What points in the paragraph? That some people say he sucks? Who? Please state a verifiable source where a specific authoritative person states that. While WEASEL is a guideline, WP:V is policy. Quoting these two articles saying anonymous, non-authority inviduals belittle him does not come within a million miles of WP:V. 2005 (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The sources in question are ludicrous for a BLP article. If something on the topic of his ability is to be added, we can use real reliable sources. The World poker Tour website, or a World Series of Poker champion. Then there are anonymous sources that are superior to the two being suggested because they actually addres his play not what "some people" say. Here is one on a website owned by Pokerlistings that actually discusses his play including what they suggest may be the Best WSOP Bluff Ever, and another highlighting two of his most important hands. This could go on and on, but the most sensible idea is to not add opinion at all. if opinion is to be added though it should be authoritative, and in this case that would mean quoting the WPT site directly: "While some were quick to discount Chris's skill, his consistent play this year has silenced his critics. Look for Mr. Moneymaker to continue living up to his name for years to come." 2005 (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. If you would like to add the sentence:'"While some were quick to discount Chris's skill, his consistent play this year has silenced his critics" and cite the WPT site, in addition to my text and citations that would be fine. By the way did you notice that the web page on the WPT site that you are citing for that quote does not give an author or editors name? Take a look.[19]. That is because player profile pages are not articles and are written by the web sites editors and generally do not list a specific author. This does not make them invalid as they are created and over seen by editors and writing staff just like the player bio I cite on Poker Listings.com that you say is "annonymous garbage". -- — Kbob • Talk • 03:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, in your comment on sources, you have cited WP:V. I am familiar with WP:V and just now looked at it again. I do not see anything in this guideline that says that certain pages of a web site are considered unreliable and "anonymous garbage" if they do not specify the author or editor's name. Can you please show me in WP:V where it says that? Can you also point out where WP:V says that text that criticizes a subject must be sourced to a "specific authoritative person" as you state in your comment above? That would be very helpful. Thanks.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP as well. Blogs and sources that do not appear to have editorial oversight, such as this, are not to be used for any controversial information, such as this. New York Times, Card Player Magazine, Bluff Magazine, etc. are examples of reliable sources that would be great to source critical or controversial information. These blog pages you'd like to use are examples of the types of sources to NOT use for controversial info. thanks, --guyzero | talk 03:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. I am familiar with WP:BLP and its policies on Reliable Sources. Please show me where it says in WP:BLP that "sources that do not appear to have editorial oversight" are not valid. Furthermore, what proof do you have that the four sources I reference in my paragraph do not have editorial oversight? Also, if you would take the time to look at my sources you would see that none of them are blogs and your contention that they are blogs, is false. In addition, one of my sources, PokerListings.com is already listed five times in the current article as a citation. And the three other sources I cite in my paragraph are just as valid.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm have a hard time believing that Pokerlistings.com, whose byline printed at the top of the page is "World's Best Poker Deals", should be considered a reliable source for general/weaselly "some critics said..." type information that may not be recent because the page isn't dated. Their [20]terms of use specifically says they make no representations of the accuracy of the information presented on their site. --guyzero | talk 04:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This thing about making "no representations about accuracy of information" is a standard disclaimer, to avoid lawsuits and appears on every web site including the WPT [21], CardPlayer Magazine [22] and Bluff Magazine [23] web sites, which are the same web sites you cite in your comment above as being reliable sources.-- — Kbob • Talk • 04:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And just to reiterate the point below, Keithbob when you say: "Furthermore, what proof do you have that the four sources I reference in my paragraph do not have editorial oversight?" you are looking at it totally backwards. It is on you to prove editorial oversight. We don't just assume everything in the world has oversight until proven otherwise. 2005 (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

yes, the World Poker Tour page is also anonymous. What are you not getting? Anonymous stuff should not be used, but if something anonymous were to be used, it should at least be from generally more authoritative sources, which the WPT and WSOP sites would basically be. As for the rest, why are you taking this backwards stance? The burden is on you to demonstrate something contentious (which this obviously is) follows all the guidelines. Your replies continue to ask where there is specific text in the guideline disallowing something, when you are the one who needs to be presenting evidence that this anonymous junk abides by the guidelines. You don't provide any verifiability or anything at all. And you continue to ignore the guideline concepts that both BLP articles in general and contentious material of any type needs stronger references than normal. Pokerlistings is a, OK source for some poker material, but an anonymous opinion article is just worthless. This armwaving speculation stuff you want to add is worthless if anonymous, and wholly banal no matter what. Every poker player gets criticism, and gets praise too. "Some people says he sucks some people say he doesn't" is simply bizarre when talking about a game player, and offers no encyclopedic value in general. Let's move on. 2005 (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:REDACT for good etiquette guidelines on changing your comments after they've been responded to.[24]

They "make no warranty", but they don't specifically deny representation that their info may be inaccurate, which pokerlistings does. The same language appears in the TOS of the NYTimes. I don't mean to sidetrack ...

The issue remains that pokerlistings.com isn't generally considered a reliable source for contentious information. Do other reliable sources cite pokerlistings.com biographies or articles? NYTimes has referred to Card Player[25], for example. The RS rule of thumb is "the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication" -- do we have any way to verifying this with pokerlistings.com? --guyzero | talk 05:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There is zero encyclopedic value in adding anonymous, faceless, vague, unenlightening criticism on poker players. If Doyle Brunson, Phil Helmuth or any notable player had something negative to say about Moneymaker's play (e.g. he doesn't seem to have a good understanding of pot odds), then great, add it. Similarly, if an expert from a related field such as game theory analyzed Moneymaker's hand histories and concluded that he's a negative expectation player, this would be perfectly reasonable content. Otherwise we could have a pointless "reception" section for every poker player on WP, that essentially says "While many people think X is a lucky player, others do not"... Hazir (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a very valid discussion. In a BLP, WP:V stipulates that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. And the claim that Chris Moneymaker is a one-hit wonder is a strong statement, especially since the same writer says immediately following that CM nearly won a World Poker Tour title soon after the big win. However, at the same time, the argument that the one-hit wonder statement is anonymous and therefore substandard really doesn't hold up. Articles in the news media as very often unsigned. This does not mean that they are "anonymous." Unsigned articles, especially profiles like this one which put together a lot of information, may be the work of several people--more than one writer, a fact-checker or researcher, and possibly also major input by an editor--and so a single name or even shared byline is often not appropriate. Also, updates may be made by different writers. Unsigned articles are as much supported by their publication as signed ones. They are equally subject to editorial oversight and quality standards. And the publication is equally responsible for libelous statements.

Point two: I don't see the problem with accepting Pokerlistings.com as a reliable source. Who says that it "isn't generally considered a reliable source for contentious info"? I poked (or should I say pokered) around the site, and it is obviously a detailed, up-to-date, well-designed, well-written and comprehensive site on the game. I was impressed with the extent of the information in it. It carries profiles of dozens of top players. It is obviously a quality source.

Bottom line: controversial statement made (possibly in part, admittedly, to get reader attention--we all know that media writing is often as much about entertainment as it is about the literal truth), but it comes from a high-quality source of info on the subject in question. And the statement made also jibes with reality: 85 percent of CM's winnings come from one tournament, six years ago. I see the objection here, and I think the vigorous discussion is good, but I think that in fairness, the statement adds very valuable balance to the understanding of the subjects notability, and to the discussion.

--Early morning person (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that then make the case for it. The only thing you pointed out is the idiocy of the Pokerlistings article, calling someone a one-hit wonder when he just came in second at the WPT. The statement is stupid on its face, especially with the addition of the most recent wins. As for your strange claim that an unsigned article is not anonymous, both the article is unsigned and more importantly the alleged detractors are unnamed. C'mon, this is just silly. Anonymous writer cites anonymous detractors, in a BLP! That doesn't even get to more of this backwards stuff, "Who says that it "isn't generally considered a reliable source for contentious info"?" is obviously not at issue here. The issue is who says this particular anonymous article quoting anonymous detractors IS a reliable source for this contentious info?" Does the New York Times link to this article? Present two or three reliable sources, stop just asserting. The statement is utterly banal, and the source is pathetic, and three editors have presented a large amount criticism against this armwaving text, none of which has been answered at all. Finally, both editors supporting this need to reevaluate their approach to BLP editing. Suppose the text said "some people say he is a horrible parent", or "some people say he bites the heads off chickens", or "some people say he abuses his spouse." Etc etc. We don't put anonymous junk like this in BLP articles, ever. 2005 (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And the statement made also jibes with reality: 85 percent of CM's winnings come from one tournament, six years ago. Whose reality? This is exactly the kind of uninformed nonsense that I would like to see kept out of poker articles. Perhaps I should start a basketball affiliate site and say that "Some people consider Doctor J to be a one hit wonder". Afterall, this "jibes with reality" since he only won one NBA championship in 17 years. Hazir (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that Chris has the skill level of a professional player. Even after his 2004 drop-off in winnings, he has at least made a living for himself at the poker table--assuming he's staying out of the strip clubs! The flash in the pan type accusation does not hold up IF we make it in this context, i.e., in terms of the question, "Is CM a pro-level player?" But if we make it in the context of the question, "Is CM a 'poker superstar'? -- the term used at one point in the article, and also implied by his status as a high-profile, expert spokesman for the sport, the story is different. This is obvious from his tournament record. And it has been pointed out by by writers in credible secondary sources. In addition to the profile mentioned above by Kbob, I refer to an article ranking the top WSOP champions of the last 10 years. The article is again carried by pokerlistings.com, and it is SIGNED by their staff writer, Daniel Skolovy. (see http://www.pokerlistings.com/blog/wsop-world-champions-of-the-last-10-years-ranked) In THIS context, he is given the very low score of 1 on a scale of 10 in terms of his after event success, and 2 on a scale of 10 in terms of his skill level at the time of victory.

(If you doubt the credibility of pokerlistings.com, take a look at its site map. It may well be the world's most detailed site on online poker. An obviously sophisticated and high quality source--and, as another editor has mentioned, good enough to have been cited several times already in the article!)

I have seen CM's skill level questioned on at least two other sites. He has made some great plays, but a number of amateur fumbles also.

Although I do not personally feel motivated to bring this info into the article at this point, I do think it backs up the point made by another editor that this article may be in need of balance. Here's the point: the subject of the article is notable purely as a pro poker player. It is obviously quite relevant to explore just how notable he is by exploring in the article his overall pattern of success, not only initially but also later on.

BTW, I would point out that it is not only two editors that think it worthwhile to bring out this point--I notice that early on in the discussion it was also made repeatedly by a third editor who ID'd himself as a pro poker player. --Early morning person (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

See this is where you get by waving your arms: "He has made some great plays, but a number of amateur fumbles also." You just make that up without the slightest bit of evidence. Moneymaker has been criticized for one key mistake that was televised, an 88 versus AA, but every single player makes mistakes, and to assert this one thing equals "number of amateur fumbles" is astonishing. Additionally your POV about if he is a superstar or pro level player is totally not relevant here, if only because we do not write opinion articles making judgments on such things. The article is balanced now because it lacks POV, especially anonymous POV foolishness. Finally, "Here's the point: the subject of the article is notable purely as a pro poker player." is truly bizarre. He is NOT primarily notable as a poker player. Alleging that betrays a total lack of understanding of the person. He is primarily notable for his effect on popular culture, online commerce, and human behavior. Moneymaker is not parallel to Robert Varkonyi. He is different in that he is notable for far more than just winning a poker tournament. 2005 (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, Hazir, you base your points on classic logical fallacies. First, you argue by dismissing my argument out of hand, without explanation. I would suggest that in examining the success of a pro poker player, a sport in which monetary winnings are the name of the game, it makes a lot of sense to look at the dollar numbers. If you have some problem with that, please explain why.

Second, you make an argument by bad analogy to Dr J and the obviously false statement that he was not a notable ball player because he only won a single NBA championship. You imply that I was questioning Chris Moneymaker's star status because he only won a single WSOP. But I was not. I'm questioning his star status because he hasn't, since 2004, been winning much money. I was calling attention to his winnings, which is surely relevant in assessing the success of a POKER player (esp. one named Moneymaker!).--Early morning person (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Focusing purely on the numbers "he hasn't been winning much money since 2004" is silly when considering Moneymaker's first major achievement was to win the richest event in all of poker. He has since performed well in several tournaments and has established himself as a winning online player (details in this thread). The guy has made hundreds of thousands since winning the WSOP. I wish I was that unskilled... Hazir (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Meaning always comes from context. If we look at Chris as a player whose main goal is to make a living, he has, since 2004, been managing that--just. He's been grossing about $100K a year. But if you look at him as a poker superstar, which he was in 2003-04, with a big win or near-big win each year, the 2005 - present winnings are less impressive. This is primary analysis, and has no place in the article, but it helps us to understand why he has his critics. --Early morning person (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comments just don't make any sense. Moneymaker has a multi-million dollar endorsement deal. he doesn't need to "make a living" from playing poker. And where do you come up with "poker superstar" stuff. Your comments seem to be based on some alternate reality you have in your head, which we don't care about. We aren't here to promote or belittle people. We just state verifiable facts. He has had some verifiable tournament results, which we don't comment on whether this is great or rotten. The fact that he plays less than ten tournaments a year because he has a sponsorhsip deal that makes him a fortune is not particularly vital to discuss since the article now just presents the balanced facts, not opinion. 2005 (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Our actions as Wiki editors are guided by the Policies of Wiki. It is not our role to censor text based on our personal opinions of that text. The text posted at the top of this thread meets appropriate Wiki policies and should be included in the article.

• Neutrality- WP:NPOV says “Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias” WP:NPOV is on of Wikipedias three core content policies, along with Verifiability” By blocking text that represents a significant view that you disagree with violates Wiki NPOV.
• Verifiability-WP:V says all material “must be attributed to a reliable published source”. “The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article”. The text under discussion has four inline citations to reliable sources. One of the sources is the exact same page of the exact same source that is cited four times already in this article. To dispute the same page of the same source already used in the article only demonstrates bias and point of view on the part of the editors who object. In addition to the four sources already cited I offer additional citations and quotes to support the text: [26] In all there are 12 reliable sources which report on the issue discussed in the text that is being blocked from this article. Its time to take a deep breathe and allow this text to be entered into the article.-- — Kbob • Talk • 04:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Given your lack of response to any of the numerous points made above, there isn't much point in belaboring this. You are advocating biased text, asserting reliability instead of proving it, ignoring the counter views from more authoritative sources, and basically just insisting your POV be added to the article... which is particularly strange given the sources in your Sandbox talk about how he is NOT a one hit wonder. You've wrapped yourself up into such a circle of contradictions there is no way to reply other than to read the guidelines you mention above. We don't do "some people say" in the Wikipedia. We expect verifiability and expertise. In this case the overwhelming amount of material, and objective facts, show he is no one hit wonder, so why the heck are you belaboring adding anonymous "some people say"? 2005 (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify this, the principle issue that must be addressed is:

• 1) who are "some people"? Specific names of individual critics. Anonymous armwaving is not acceptable.
• 2) specific text of the comments
• 3) are the specific individuals notable? Doyle Brunson, Phil Ivey, a WSOP champion... these are what is needed.
• 4) are the notable specific individuals expert reliable sources? Just because someone is notable doesn't mean their opinion is relevant on poker skills or accomplishments. If some non-expert has an opinion, it doesn't matter.
• 5) is the specific, notable, reliable individual's opinion verifiable? Is it on his/her personal website or quoted directly in a clearly reliable third-party source?
• This is the bare bones starting point. Each of these issues must be addressed directly, starting with names of specific individuals. No matter who says "some people", it still is the comments of "some people". We don't quote unriliable, unverifiable, anonymous critics in biographies of people. "Some people" think Neil Armstrong is a con artist who did not walk on the moon, and we don't care... and we certainly are not going un-balance his article to wave our arms about "some people". 2005 (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have clearly demonstrated that the text which you have deleted is in accordance with Wiki policies of NPOV, BLP and Verifiability. Your request list above is your own personal list of requirements for inclusion and not the policies or guidelines of Wiki:

• 1)There is no policy in Wiki that says a source becomes invalid because it uses the word "many" such as in the quote from one of the several sources provided: "many still regard Chris as a one-hit wonder" [27] In my sandox here [[28] I provide additional quotes and context and URL links to other reliable sources that also criticize, in a fair and balanced way, Moneymakers play and winnings since his WSOP title win.
• 2) Here is the complete sentence cited, in context, direct from one of the sources in case you are having trouble finding it. It is the two paragraphs near the end of the Poker Listing Player Profile: "Despite his success on the felt since his big win many still regard Chris as a one-hit wonder, a fish who got unbelievably lucky to take down what was, at the time, the biggest tournament in the history of poker. While still reigning world champion, however, he came painfully close to adding a World Poker Tour title to his list of accomplishments when he finished second to Phil Gordon at Bay 101 Shooting Stars. He had another solid WSOP cash the next year in the $5,000 Pot-Limit Omaha event, going bust in 10th place."
• 3)There is no policy in Wiki that says that a reliable source has to cite the names of a group of people whose opinion they are reporting about. If a New York Times reporter says that many Republicans are critical of Obama, we can use that info in Wiki and we do not call the New York Times an invalid source because they do not give the names of the Republicans who have made criticisms.
• 4) Yes there may be a fringe group of people who say that Moneymaker himself didn't win the WSOP and that it was someone disguised as him who played in the event. But I'm not asking to put that content in, I'm proposing a widely reported fact that Moneymaker's play since the WSOP win has been criticized. This kind of criticism is permitted according to Wiki BLP which says "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." All of which is accomplished in the three sentences of text which you have deleted. Those three sentences report the point of view of both his critics and his supporters. The text meets all Wiki criteria for inclusion.-- — Kbob • Talk • 11:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So again, no response from you on the issues. Also this is utter silliness: "I'm proposing a widely reported fact that Moneymaker's play since the WSOP win has been criticized." That certainly is not going in the article as it is just weird. The anon critics essentially say he got lucky in the WSOP. We don't make up stuff and add it to articles. Since you refuse to even attempt to address the problems with the POV text you want to insert, going over this more is pointless. 2005 (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding vague comments that "some people" or "many" have criticized his play will make the article worse, not better, so they shouldn't be included. Common sense trumps policy interpretations here. If someone specific has criticized specific aspects of Moneymaker's play, then that would be excellent information to include. Weasel words don't improve this article though. Rray (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

2005, you make a valid point in saying that Chris is notable for more than just winning the WSOP. It is true, as is noted in the article, that he is also notable for the manner in which he won, starting with the humble beginning of an online poker game. However, a major part of his notability still comes from his victory, which established him as a pro poker player. It is logical and appropriate in a bio of a pro poker player to examine his career pattern of success.

KBob has already made the point that the paragraph he proposes is, in the words of WP:BLP, responsible, conservative, and takes a neutral, encyclopedic tone. His sources are also solid. A further point I would make is that the proposed para fits the guidelines in another important way: it does not give disproportionate space to a particular viewpoint. “The views of a tiny minority have no place in an article” states the guidelines.

In addition to the para’s ref to Bet Us, I have often seen the statement that Chris has his critics. For example, the article by Daniel Skolovy at pokerlistings.com, in which he gives Chris low marks both for his quality of play at WSOP, and for his success as a player since that time.

Other writers have questioned whether his playing quality is at star-level. For example, Michael Wittmeyer, the editor of pokersite.org, commenting on Chris’s play at the WSOP in 2003 says, “He often made mistakes with blinds and position by professionals who scrutinized his play . . .” (see www.pokersite.org/poker-players/live-mtt/chris-moneymaker)

Also, it is true that Chris is often pinned by professional commentators with the epithet, one-hit wonder, in those or similar words. Daniel Skolovy, staff writer at pokerlistings.com, acknowledges his big win in 2003, but then adds, “Unfortunately outside of that he hasn’t done a whole lot. He’ll always have a big entry in the poker history books but he’s had almost zero tournament success since 2003.” (same ref as given in earlier post). Also see the following appraisal at facesofpoker.com:

“Chris Moneymaker’s success could be compared to a band making a one-hit wonder. Since his win, Moneymaker has had almost no poker accomplishments.” (see http://www.facesofpoker.com/moneymaker.html)

In addition to the brief statements of criticism for Chris, the proposed para also notes in equal detail his successes, and so achieves a fair balance.

According to WP:BLP, “Wikipedia’s standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show a bias in their subject’s favor . . . or the removal of appropriate and well-sourced information . . .” The proposed minor addition gives some needed balance to the article. I see every reason in the guidelines to include it. --Early morning person (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Be careful to not conflate the Wittmeyer criticism of MM's play at WSOP2003 (a tourney where he won the bracelet) with our discussion. The fact that someone somewhere made that criticism does not mean that we can use this other poorly sourced criticism which is at the heart of this discussion. The "almost no poker accomplishments" type articles you are pointing out are clearly dated and is in direct contradiction to his winnings.

The issue is the "many critics think...one hit wonder" text. Pokerlistings.com source does not clear WP:BLP for this unfocused and unattributed criticism. So far, the only assertions made that it's a good RS for criticism is that the website looks good and is complete (which doesn't cut it) and we use it elsewhere in the article (which is fine for non-controversial info.) Please find a better source that gives real, attributed criticism and we're in business. We can grind on this page forever and it won't make the source clear BLP for the criticism. thanks, --guyzero | talk 22:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Early morning person, while you also continue to avoid the issue here (authority, notability, reliability, verifiability, direct quotation of any critics), it has to be pointed out that your lack of understanding about the subject of the article renders all this POV you want to add to unbalance the article all the more ill-advised. Moneymaker has played about 30 live tournaments in the past five years, making his results relatively very good. He doesn't play much largely because his is hounded by people/fans/photo-takers unceasingly wherever he goes. Second, he hardly plays because he is very wealthy from his poker sponsorship deal. You seem to have made up out of thin air fictional ideas about Moneymaker that you want to insert into the articel to unbalance it. The dude has parlayed his main poker accomplishment into millions of endorsement dollars to the point he never has to work at his previous trade or at playing poker ever again. he plays when he feels like it because he is rich from poker -- both the playing side and the business side. We could add all this to the article, but that could be considered un-balancing it, so we don't. What we obviously are not going to do though is add a bunch of fictional nonsense, whose birth comes from anonymous "nobodies" who have no credibility to talk on the subject. One other thing you obviously are unfamiliar with... a poker player could play zero tournaments in a year and be wildly successful in cash games, or he could play five or six like Moneymaker, or he could play 250+. There is no central database on that, a "return on investment" database. Because of Moneymaker's fame we know he virtually never plays tournaments, and we know he does not need to play because he is very wealthy. Other players play 200 tournaments, show $250,000 in earnings for each year of the past five years, and are losing their ass. So this is an area we can't really go into in articles because we have no way to for sure verify net results... especially in cash games where no one knows the truth except the player. Anyway again, the point is your unfamiliarity with the subject makes you jump to conclusions, and that's part of why we don't put armwaving opinion in articles. 2005 (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

KBob, can you please refactor your first comment under the RFC tag and your proposed paragraph to simply say "Is this proposed paragraph neutrally worded, balanced, and reliably sourced?" That is the meat of the RFC. Asserting that you think it is neutrally worded, reliably sourced, edit warring, etc. just poisons the well. Remove the link to your sandbox and please be careful not to actually make an argument either way inside of that comment. Perhaps move the exact refactored text to be a new comment below your RFC request so that information is not lost. If we want neutral contributions from the RFC, the request needs to be more neutrally worded. thanks in advance, --guyzero | talk 23:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Guy, Thanks for your suggestion. I will add some additional sources to the text and re-post below with a more neutrally worded intro and also repost on the RFC noticeboard. In the meantime I just want to point you that I have purposely avoided the temptation to edit war. My first post was one sentence and one source. After some discussion and feedback I made the text longer to add balance and note CMM's recent victories. However, this revised version was again reverted. For myself I have not deleted or reverted anyone's text. That said I think your suggestion is good and I also feel we are getting close to a consensus in favor of the text. So we have had supportive comments from Early Morning Person, Rray and myself. Let's see if we can get more outside editors to comment and get some resolution on this issue. Peace!-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad that you created a new section too. Please don't take the reversions personally ... per WP:BRD, our good faith discussions, and your RFC, we are following the process as intended. I encourage all of us that have extensively commented thus far to perhaps wait for new input from the RFC before further commentary (as we all appear to be repeating ourselves at this point.) thanks again --guyzero | talk 17:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Keithbob, please act in good faith. Rray's comment directly opposes the text you want to add. Only Early morning person has shown supposrt for your suggestion, and he/she seems to be unfamiliar with the subject of the article,. Four editors oppose it. There is plainly no consensus to add this text, and strong opposition to it. 2005 (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing the view of the above editors:

• Supporting the inclusion of the text: User:Keithbob, User:Early morning person
• Opposing the inclusion of the text: User:2005, User:Guyzero, User:Hazir, User:Rray, User:Off2riorob, User:Collect, User:Apoc2400

Request For Comment part II

In order to resolve a talk page dispute, editors are requested to please comment on the nature of the text below. Is it neutral? Reliably sourced? Appropriate for a BLP? Thank you.

• A 2009 article in Bet Us reports that Moneymaker has had his fair share of critics as a result of his tournament record after his 2003 World Series of Poker win.According to an article in Poker Listings, Moneymaker is regarded by his critics as a "one-hit wonder" in spite of his success in 2003.However, an article in Blind Bet Poker says that Moneymaker has shown he is not a one-hit wonder by making strong showings at some of the biggest tournaments in the industry.These tournaments include 2nd place at the Bay 101 Shooting Stars World Poker Tour Tournament, 3rd place at the Fourth Annual Jack Binion Poker Classic in Tunica and another 3rd place at the APPT in Sydney, Australia. -- — Kbob • Talk • 17:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"...had his fair share of critics" - who?

"...regarded by his critics" - who?

The suggested text just keeps getting worse and worse. Apart from the last line, this only place this text belongs is in a WP policy page as an example of weasel wording. Hazir (talk) 09:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the expressed desired text here appears rather weasel wording and appears to be not notable criticism unworthy of addition to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 16

49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

agreed The paragraph is a spendid example of "too much totally useless information, presented in a totally useless way" to be in a BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)

I think I expressed my opposition to the inclusion of the weasel words in the earlier RFC, but I wanted to make sure I got it in here too. It just plain doesn't add anything useful to the article. It's vague to the point of being meaningless, which never improves an article. Rray (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• It looks like just speculation. I think it is better if this article presents "just the facts". --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I concede. Thanks for you comments everyone.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Please preserve this Ref List at the bottom of the talk page so editors can examine the sources attributed to proposed text. Thank you and Happy New Year!

Personal attacks on this page

The amount of vitriol and the number of personal attacks on this discussion page should be looked at by Wiki staff, because I see about six different contributors who deserve at least a temporary ban. I don't know how to summon staff intervention so perhaps someone who does, should do it. This talk page makes all of Wikipedia look bad. 67.204.16.137 (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see all that much of a problem with the discussions on here. They get may get heated, but they're certainly not "personal attacks." Unless I happen to be missing something...? JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chris Moneymaker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070521220019/http://tvtotal.prosieben.de:80/show/letzte_sendung/2007/04/02/10104.html to http://tvtotal.prosieben.de/show/letzte_sendung/2007/04/02/10104.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Matt Moneymaker

Is Chris Moneymaker related to Matt Moneymaker, the president of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization and one of the stars of the show Finding Bigfoot? They both have the same uncommon last name so I was wondering if they are related.-Schnurrbart (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Moneymaker. 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/20130608002808/http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9286395/view/full/the-oral-history-2003-world-series-poker-which-chris-moneymaker-turned-39-25-million to http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9286395/view/full/the-oral-history-2003-world-series-poker-which-chris-moneymaker-turned-39-25-million

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) 15:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

This article needs to be cleaned up and formatted correctly

It looks like an 11 year old using Google translate from another language into English wrote it 2605:8D80:60B:CC43:C98B:641F:E09C:A186 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)