Jtd00123
|
Your recent edits
editHi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Lots of bad information on the net regarding the history of poker
editThere have been a lot of bad information out their on the net regarding poker's history, mainly from online poker websites or Poker news pages, not historians. Most of these errors do not use citations, so we have no idea where the author's got their information
Common errors found in many bad sources:
Error 1) As Nas is an ancient game that is surely connected to poker. Comment: For a game where the earliest evidence of its existence dates back to 1890, well after poker, there have been a lot of people claiming it is connected to poker. Some common mistakes say the game dates back to the 16th century, or even the 14th century. I believe the mistakes come from the fact that the Ganjifa pack, the deck used for As Nas, dates back to the 1700s (which, btw, is the 18th century). The source of this error likely comes from Hayano. Poker Faces. University of California Press. Berkeley. 1982. p8 that confidentely said As Nas dates back to the 16th century, but without giving an explanation as to why the author believed it. The problem is that we don't know the game used in this deck, and the fact that the original deck used 90 cards, was probably not used for As Nas or any poker related game. Also, there are earlier games before the 16th century that are similar to poker.
2) Pochen dates back to the to the 18th century: Comment: No it doesn't. It is, in fact, the oldest known game that closely resembles poker. Dating back to the 15h century, this makes Pochen, not Primero, Brag, As Nas, or even Poque, the most likely earliest ancestor of Poker.
Error 3) Poker history dates back to China: While this may in fact explain the origins of Poker cards, there is no evidence that the ancient Chinese played a game even remotely resembling poker.
Error 4) Primero is a Spanish game that is the oldest game resembling poker: Primero is actually an Italian game, and is not the oldest game that resembles poker
Error 5) The 52 card deck was introduced in the 1900s I saw this, literally, on at least 3 websites. I mean, cmon.....really? Where do these people get their information?
Your recent edits
editHi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
South Park comments
editHello, I wanted to point out to you that in your discussion of libertarianism on the South Park page, you misrepresented the concept quite badly. You were speaking of the American Libertarian party, but libertarianism itself is actually quite different. There is no defined economic position for libertarians; it is quite simply the opposite of authoritarianism and purely a social ideology. Just the way being a Canadian liberal does not necessarily mean supporting the Canadian Liberal party, being an American libertarian does not necessarily mean having any interest whatsoever in the American Libertarian party.
It's very important to differentiate between parties and ideologies.Fofe510 (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
About Lee Falk
editHello. Sorry, but I did not add any information in that article; I just add the interwiki es (after I created that article in Spanish Wikipedia)... --Melisa River my talk 21:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Frank Miller
editInfluences citation, Alex Toth and Eisner: http://www.aspiritedlife.com/blog/labels/Frank%2520Miller.html
Back to the Ashkenazi Genome
editHi Jtd00123, In reply to your comment on my talk page: genetically the closest groups to Ashkenazim, besided Sephardim, are non Jewish Syrians, Lebanese and Tunisians -differences between these groups and Ashkenazim are small. Studies that examined the paternal heritage showed close resemblance between Galilee palestinians and Ashkenazim. However, this similarity is anything but surprising as it was known much before the DNA structure was even explored, that these palestinians are descendants of local Jews who converted to Islam, probably forced to then, at the 8CE. However, the present study you provide didn't discern between all Palestinians and those from the Galilee. Most palestinians are not originated in Israel or even in the region. It realy have politicaly charged subject, but I'm talking only for this discussion on Ashkenazi genome: Most palestinians are the offsprings of seasonal workers from Marocco or Egypt who first stepd in Israel less than 200 years ago. Many others arrived from all other Islam countries, from different races and ethnic groups. There is a documention of this by the British mandate: plastinians are from Sudan, Nigeria, present days Bosnia, Caucasus, Indonesia, Spain and etc. Most of them are from Iraqi, Egyptian, Lebanese or Maroccan heritage-but here is the potential for natural differences on other genetical aspects. Bedouin tribesman are originated in Arabia, not in the Levant and Druzes are from multiple ethnic origins so their similarity to Jewish people is limited. The Phoenicians consisted the closest ethnical group to Jews ever lived. Both because Hebrews and Phoenicians both spoke with North Western Semitic languages which are estimated to be 60% similar by linguists (Arabic is Southern Semitic and have striking differences from both languages), had the very same material culture and inhabited at virtually same places. The differences were in religious beleives but probably during history there was a huge current of Phoenicians who converted to Judaism and as the Hebrew bible tell us, also vice versa.
It's known that after the destruction of Carthage more phenocians converted to Judaism in Tunisia. While other part consisted the local non Jewish population untill the Arabic invasions and so was in Lebanon and Syria. In the same way, geneticall history of Southern Italy was affected by Phenocians and later by Arabs and as the Greek pagan system of believes was based upon the Phenocian's one and from historical writings we know that there was also significant geneticall contribution of Phenocian's to Greeks (Pythagoras father was Phenocian). So, this kind of geneticall history could explain the pattern was found.
Also interesting, about 20% of present days Iberians are from Jewish descent-they probably intermarried more with Southern Italians, but that's just a wild guess.
The most important point is that this study don't show in any case that Ashkenazim are of European heritage.--Gilisa (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)