Talk:Jamie Gold

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2006 World Series Of Poker:[edit]

In this part of the article it states that Dr Gold was his father - shouldnt it state that he was in fact his step father? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.40.204.246 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping the Gun?[edit]

Yes Jamie is chip leader, has made to the final table and has a good chance of winning the whole thing, But can remember last year when Andrew Black was chip leader and Joe Hachem was one of the short stacks, right now Jamie has an artical longer then the 1984 and 1985 WSOP ME Winners!. Sirex98 18:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably due to there being more information readily available on the 'Net. Not that this is a reason not to expand the articles on Keller and Smith though. Essexmutant 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is this article is a bit early, should Richard Lee, Erik Friberg, Paul Wasicka, Doug Kim, Rhett Butler (poker), Michael Binger, or Dan Nassif have Wikipedia Articles on them? Last years final table Aaron Kanter, Scott Lazar, Daniel Bergsdorf and Brad Kondracki don't, the point being should someone have an article just by making the final table regardless of where they finally place? Sirex98 20:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we pick up the conversation again tomorrow, when we see how well he does. Essexmutant 20:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moot point now, congrats to Jamie. Sirex98 11:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made the article because unlike any of the others, he already has won a major poker tournament, which then combined with the WSOP finish and film industry credentials easily merits an article regardless if he comes in eighth. 2005 23:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Gold originally named James Gold[edit]

Based on a back-story in Entertainment Weekly

In the original Entourage outline, Jeremy Piven's character was named James Gold - not Ari.

File:Goldew.jpg

I know that other wiki post and articles attribute the character's development and current form to Ari Emanuel, but it appears as though the original character was based on an agent named James Gold.

According to this blog post [1]

the Entourage writers had a legal problem with their original name for the agent, so “when the show got picked up, they changed the character’s name to my name.

All the blog seems to state is that two people with the real name of Ari Gold are mad at the character of the same name becoming popular. All the magazine article claims is that "Ari" was originally to be "James." In no way does this seem relevant to Jamie Gold, from my perspective. --Zimbabweed 14:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and included a link to ESPN's conversation with Jamie about this issue. aww 14:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Entourage character Ari Gold's name was taken from a member of Adrian Grenier's ( Vincent Chase ) band "The Honey Brothers". Ari Gold is the bands vocalist, and their myspace page can be found here: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=9767720 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.223.217 (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Jamie was my agent and best friend. He was born the same day as me, Aug. 25. but in 1969....I was born in 1970. We celebrated that day for many years. He was an amazing agent who actually DID represent all those people in question! People just hate that others do better than them and try and shoot them down!.. He is a good friend who would never "show up" anyone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.131.242 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age/DOB[edit]

Please do not edit information regarding Gold's age and date of birth unless you can provide an established source. As for choosing 1970 as a birth year, how do we not know his birthday is in December? --Zimbabweed 14:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold is born in 1969 as you can read here [2] on the botton of the page.

"As he continues to inch up the payout ladder -- the top 12 become millionaires -- he's also guaranteed himself a great early birthday present. Gold turns 37 on Aug. 25." Sirex98 06:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

who is Douglas Gold?[edit]

Is Gold's brother someone who needs to be mentioned in the first sentence of the article? I'm assuming no, so I got rid of it. Bigdottawa 04:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is he Jewish?[edit]

Just curious, looks like a Jewish name Tromboneguy0186 01:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters but yes, CNN the day after his win said something in effect of how a nice Jewish boy from New Jersey win... Sirex98 01:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the relevant cat too. Essexmutant 07:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of this holier than thou "not that it matters" crap. It's an encyclopedia. We include his birthday, a picture of him, where he grew up, but his religion doesn't matter? Yes, do not judge a person on his religion, but I don't see the harm in including it in a friggin encyclopedia Oreo man 04:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to be "holier than thou " I just didn't know if it was encyclopedic, Essexmutant pointed out that it was a relevant category which I trust and had no problem with, the category was added over a month ago. cheers --Sirex98 04:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big neighborhood[edit]

The article claims (and yes it is referenced) that Jamie Gold and Chris Ferguson are neighbors. however, their articles have them being residents of Malibu and Pacific Palisades, respectively. While these are two neighboring towns, that doesn't exactly make all residents neighbors, now does it? --216.75.93.110 14:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I live in a town abutting Bedford but I don't consider Martha Stewart to be my neighbor. --SVTCobra 23:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seperated at birth?[edit]

Image:Jamie Gold wsop2006.jpg Image:Colbertreport.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ouzo (talk • contribs) 04:38, 9 October 2006.

Liar, Liar Pants On Fire[edit]

The integrity of Jamie Gold has been question regarding his actual involvement with celebrities he has claimed to "represent", most notably by a defamer.com article that sources a few discussions from people purported to be "in the know" via various online poker forums. In addition, there is the whole pending lawsuit thing with Bruce Leyser.

Jamie Gold's "agent" rebuffed one of Golds self-aggrandizations by providing a statement from one single client, with a photo of Gold having dinner with said client, James Gandolfini. This leaves a whole lot of territory regarding the claims of Jamie Gold yet to be proven.

I have added a simple and neutral comment to the article that states "(although the degree of his actual involvement with other stars he has claimed to "represent" is still unproven)". I have run into a perpetual anon deleter with logic problems (see article history for a brief rundown). I would ask for opinions on this matter to be posted here. I will also request moderation. --FactsAndHonesty 23:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add comments like an adult instead of a child. Now to belabor the point AGAIN, your POV is of no interest here. If you want to add a comment from a reliable source WP:RS questioning Gold's claims, then do so. That's it. Do it or don't, but don't add your opinions again. 2005 00:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FactsAndHonesty, You’re using a self proclaimed gossip rag as reliable sources?
"LA is the world's cultural capital.
This is the gossip rag it deserves." -defamer.com
I would think logically that the stars he represented would have made some noise by now if he really didn't represent them, plus I think NBC News is a more reliable. ▪◦▪=Sirex98= 00:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me the tag team effort. One click on 2005's profile makes that pretty clear. Since the logic of what constitutes POV is apparently beyond certain comprehension levels, I'll see if I can't analogize a bit to just maybe help facilitate some understanding. Say I claim to have won numerous poker tournaments around the world. The BS flag is raised. (which, by the way, if you actually read the defamer.com article, you would see that it wasn't "defamer.com research" that was cited regarding Gold's level of truthfulness) To rebut, I show a single poker tournament that I've won... Does this establish my claim of having won numerous poker tournaments around the world? If so, I would like to hereby proclaim that I have won numerous poker tournaments around the world, and can gladly show a single poker tournament that I've won to prove it. This is akin to what we have with Gold; a typical Hollywood me-promoter and endless self-aggrandizer who exacerbates his actual involvement with certain people much like "Hollywood folk" often do (Lived there for 4 years. BTDT). Now, if I posted something like that in the article, that is obviously POV. Simply stating that Golds claims aren't fully verified IS NOT NPOV to anyone who isn't cursed with some sort of pathetic hero-worship for the guy. It's the truth. If you can prove me wrong and show me where he has gone on to verify his claims in their entirety, i'll gladly delete it. Until then, unverified is unverified and it deems inclusion. (and PS- actually read the NBC article you sourced. It doesn't cite a single bit of information that is germane to Jamie Golds career or the voracity of his claims. That was a typical wiki-example of "citing a source" just for the sake of citing a source, even though the source cited is entirely impertinent to the discussion) If you want to leave it with a citation tag, that's fine. I have faith that the readership can understand a notation regarding an unsourced claim does not, in and of itself, require a peripheral source in order to deem inclusion. But if it makes you feel better... --FactsAndHonesty 04:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words you can't provide anything to back up the assertion. The current text is properly cited, even if the defamer seems a non-reliable source. Read WP:BIO to learn more about Wikipedia articles on living people. 2005 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is almost getting to the point of being uncivil please don't accuse me of being part of some sort of tag team effort I didn't revert your edit I merely gave my opinion of what I thought of a source that calls itself a gossip rag, I have over 400 poker related articles on my watch list so I'm always watching for changes, aside from me they are others that also watch for changes, me giving 2005 a barnstar(if that's what you are referring to) has nothing to do with this issue which is something that I gave him because I notice that had done a lot of up keep, reverted a lot of vandalism and spam, I don't think I ever even talked to him other then briefly on the wikipoker project, as far as "anyone who isn't cursed with some sort of pathetic hero-worship for the guy" you will see from my talk archive that I'm not User_talk:Sirex98/Archive_1, my point was that if what Gold claims were not true it seems likely that at least one of the stars he claimed to had rep would had came out and said so, or that a major news agency such as NBC, CBS, CNN, or even so much as an entertainment weekly article that refutes his claims. This is from a USA today Article on Gold's reaction to the rumors.
"His instant stardom hasn't been without controversy. Immediately after winning the main event, he became the target of anonymous postings on blogs where he was accused of exaggerating his Hollywood credentials."
"Everyone I've known in Hollywood slammed them," Gold says. "They vouched for me. I didn't think people would challenge my background."
Which you can read read here ,it seem to me that that with millions of people reading it at least one of the stars would come forward.
And as far as this article
It very well may be 100% true, yet it doesn't have a tag line as to who wrote the article or who the source was in the article that they quoted. if they did I missed it. btw my own personal opinion of Gold after watching the WSOP, was that he was more lucky then skillful, I rather had seen Allen Cunningham win it, but so what▪◦▪=Sirex98= 09:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team Bodog[edit]

Jamie Gold is no longer a member of Team Bodog as of January 25, 2007. Read here (Pparazorback 06:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

For what reasons?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.58.233.129 (talk • contribs)

winnings controversy stuff is unclear[edit]

What exactly did Gold receive in exchange for promising half his winnings? It's not at all clear. Hermitage 13:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Champion without online sponsor[edit]

Of the past five main event champions, Jamie Gold is the only player without an online poker sponsor.

Just five? But Carlos Mortensen represents Full Tilt Poker, as does Chris Ferguson (http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/ourTeam.php).--UrbanGrill 15:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Was/Is?[edit]

Honestly, how can I be the only one to think that "He is the 2006 World Series of Poker Main Event champion" does not read well in 2007? You don't hear people say Brazil are the 2002 Soccer World Cup Winners, you hear them say "Brazil WERE the 2002 World Cup Winners" or "Brazil won the world cup in 2002". I have now edited it so it reads the same way as Raymer etc's page, and hope it'll be a satisfactory compromise between the is/was question. --Simon Lamb 12:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it works, but on WSOP/WPT telecasts, they do describe people as the "200X/19XX WSOP champion." Once you win a title, you are forever the winner of that year's event. Brazil is the 2002 Soccer World Cup Winners until somebody else becomes the 2002 Soccer World Cup Winners---since nobody else will ever become the 2002 Soccer World Cup Winners, it is appropriate to refer to them as such in the present tense. In fact, if you refer to them in the past tense as they were the "2002 Soccer World Cup Winners" the question immediately becomes who replaced them as "the 2002 Soccer World Cup Winners" or why did they lose said title?Balloonman (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously question Strongsauce's motivations for his edits[edit]

This morning, I made the following revision to the Jamie Gold article: "Jamie Gold will be hosting the Celebrity Poker Tournament at the Playboy Mansion on May 18, 2008. This event will benefit the Urban Health Institute."

A user named Strongsauce promptly deleted my revision, with the following reason: "sounds like an advertisement.".

If you read Strongsauce's talk page, you will see a dozen other complaints about the "undo's" that Strongsauce has done in the past 6 weeks (since March 17, 2008).

When I see Jamie at the charity tournament in two weeks, I will be sure to tell him that a Wikipedia "policeman" did not find his contribution to this charity event to be relevant to this article.

I hope someone else in this forum chooses to undo Strongsauce's revision, as Mr. Gold's contribution to this charity event is extremely relevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmyMajor (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is your complaint or did you just post this to slander? There are barely 12 comments on my talk page so unless you think all 12 are complaints about my edits there are not a dozen "other complaints."
Do you have involvement in this event? You seem to be judging by the way you name drop Jamie Gold's name. Looking at your contrib list it seems that you just registered for the sake of adding this line in and I felt that there was definitely a feeling of an ad and most likely a WP:COI. My main reason for objecting was the manner in which this was put in as ad; I have no real object to the content itself.

In response to Strongsauce's questions and comments: 1. I have no involvement with this event, other than recognizing that it is for a worthy cause, and it is very relevant to Jamie Gold's article.

2. I have no idea what WP:COI is. I do know that your pompous attitude will scare off most newcomers to Wikipedia editing, which I happen to be. If that is your goal, then you are doing a fine job. However, I think that Wikipedia frowns upon that, and the next time you're up for a promotion within their ranks, I hope they read these comments.

3. I placed my first and only Wikipedia revision in a section of the Jamie Gold article that directly pertains to Mr. Gold's involvement with charitable causes. It could not possibly be more relevant and appropriate.

4. You indicated that you have no objection to the content that I added. Therefore, I would appreciate a retraction of your "undo". —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmyMajor (talk • contribs) 22:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with line "Jamie Gold will be hosting the Celebrity Poker Tournament at the Playboy Mansion on May 18, 2008. This event will benefit the Urban Health Institute." , as it does not seek the reader of the article to do anything (it will have to be rewritten after that date passes),if it was an open event that told the reader where and a what time and where to buyin etc. then I would agree, the only thing that should be done with this addition is to provide a source for the information, here is an easy reference maker tool if you need one, I don't see the need to get into a long dragged out fight on this issue as it looks to be a simple misunderstanding, thats all, I don't think Strongsauce had bad motivations nor do I think you're a spammer with conflict of interest.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 23:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just change it yourself instead of attacking me on my own user talk page? As a newbie maybe you don't understand that with Wikipedia if you felt that the line is valid no one is preventing you from readding it back in if, "it could not possibly be more relevant and appropriate." Instead of wasting all this time making these posts you could have just undone it yourself and that would have been the end of it. Strongsauce (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, based upon your remarks, I will reverse Strongsauce's undo. I didn't know I was allowed to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmyMajor (talk • contribs) 23:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So where exactly does it say Jamie Gold is hosting this event? Articles entered into Wikipedia must be cited and the "sources", mainly http://www.celebritypokertournament.org/ says Khloe Kardashian is hosting the tournament, not Jamie Gold. Strongsauce (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if it doesn't say it hosted by Gold then it will be removed again due to WP:BLP issues, plus you should make sure the website is a third party source like cardplayer, pokernews etc. not the site taking admissions .▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 00:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I found the reference to Jamie Gold, it is hidden from the page but if you actually view the source you can see that there is text that says, "Hosted by Khloe Kardashian and Jamie Gold." Now let's see, either ArmyMajor is associated with this event or he magically found this out. Whether or not the text is actually relevant overshadows the fact about how shady ArmyMajor has approached including this into the article. I've never seen a normal user go completely apeshit on a talk page rather than just undoing the edit. Strongsauce (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongsauce is correct that is what the source code says (see below), this is unfortunate because the event is for charity involving notable people at a notable location, however the way ArmyMajor when about it was all wrong, if you have conflict of interest you can mention what you feel should be added on the talk page, rather then add it yourself (see WP:SCOIC), if you had press released it to a notable online paper ,cardplayer etc, mention that you were involved but felt it had merit in the article and allow someone else decide if it should be included or not, rather then take this approach, which included attacking Strongsauce, if you still feel it should be included, please bring it up at the Conflict of interest Noticeboard, Thank you.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 09:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

source code
" <center><b><font size=3>Celebrity Poker Tournament at the Playboy Mansion</font></b></center><br> A Celebrity Poker Tournament will be held at the Playboy Mansion on May 17, 2008. This event will benefit the Urban Health Institute.<br><br> Khloe Kardashian and Jamie Gold are hosting the event.<br><br> Confirmed celebrities include: <ul> <li>Doyle Brunson <li>Todd Brunson <li>Pam Brunson <li>Don Cheadle <li>Hoyt Corkins <li>Bob Daily <li>Melyssa Ford <li>Kevin Hart <li>Mad Mike <li>Dondre Whitfield </ul>"

Dead Links[edit]

Citation number 19 linking to http://bigpoker.ca/resources/rounders/interviews/jamie_gold_interview.mp3 is currently a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismen (talk • contribs) 09:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jamie Gold. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 04:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jamie Gold. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jamie_Gold&oldid=1223148167"