Talk:Harrah's Entertainment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kotniski (talk | contribs) at 12:14, 1 December 2010 (→Requested move: closing what seems to be a dead discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:14, 1 December 2010 by Kotniski (talk | contribs) (→Requested move: closing what seems to be a dead discussion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Gambling Start‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Nevada (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada

Casino and hotel stats

I just found this page that may be of use in filling in infoboxes and getting a single souce for facts. Its at this page. Vegaswikian 12:22, 23 January 2006

I think that you might wanna hold on with the Harrah's Page. Apollo Entertainment just privatized it and the whole empire has been substantially reduced. (See VegasTodayAndTomorrow for the latest). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickschuyler (talk • contribs) 03:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Casino Locations

Please be advised that I again removed the Locations template from the page because it is a duplication of the list of Harrah's casinos which is already located in the article. We need to make a choice here, Either we delete the entire list of casinos in the article and depend solely on the template listings and/or delete the template and rely strictly on the data within the page being updated, You cannot have both ways because it makes the article look sloppy. Misterrick 07:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

Expansion still needed there is no history between 1937 to 1999, there is a lot of history there. The company was bought by Holiday Inn during this time. There is a lot history and none of it mentioned. I will do my part to add some history in but I can only do so much. Anyone interested in expanding this article should read Jackpot it has a lot information it. --Ben 07:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Casino List

I took out the note about Harrah's Lake Charles opening in 2008, as I can't find any references to support that a re-open date has been established. Also, Horseshoe Council Bluffs is the rebranding of Harrah's Council Bluffs, not Bluff's Run Casino, which is a different, although physically near by, property. Pokerriot 21:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but your wrong, I fixed that a while back. Harrah's Council Bluff is staying the same. They are getting rid of Bluff's Run Casino, though the race track will keep the same name. Look on Harrah's website because both Bluff's Run and the new Horseshoe have the same address. --Ben 07:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right. My mistake. I notice that Harrah's Council Bluff is not listed, so I am adding that. Pokerriot 19:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

corporate headquarters

I have found conflicting reports as to where its CH is: Memphis, TN or NYC. Harrahs casinos were bought by holiday INN, and thats in Memphis. can anyway one confirm this Barcode 22:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

According to their 10-K, they are incorporated in Delaware and have their principal offices in Nevada. It's the building you pass when you exit I-215 east bound to go to the airport. Vegaswikian 22:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

CH were in Memphis for a while after being spun off by Promus/Holiday Inn, but are definately in Las Vegas now. Harrah's still maintains a sizable corporate services presence in Memphis. Pokerriot 19:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have some details on that it might be a good add to the history section. Vegaswikian 19:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Just an FYI, most of the corporate headquarters, including the offices of CEO, COO, and CFO, have been moved to Caesars Palace. HET still uses the building off highway 215 to house corporate IT and Legal. Jimmyd.lv 20:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, they now list it as 2100 Caesars Palace Drive, Palace Tower, Spa Level, Las Vegas, NV 89109. It was One Harrah's Court. Vegaswikian 21:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Locations

At the bottom under Harrahs Locations or what not it says Horseshoe Council Bluff, Can someone please change this to Council Bluffs. The city name has an S on it. And I am unsure how to change that. Thanks!--LocalBandAid02 18:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just figured it out. Thanks. --LocalBandAid02 20:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Billsgamblinhalllogo.gif

Image:Billsgamblinhalllogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flamingologo.gif

Image:Flamingologo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Fair use rationale for Image:Imperialpalacelogo.gif

Image:Imperialpalacelogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Fair use rationale for Image:Harveys Logo.JPG

Image:Harveys Logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Fair use rationale for Image:Rio logo.JPG

Image:Rio logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Fair use rationale for Image:ShowBoat logo.jpg

Image:ShowBoat logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Margaritaville thoughts

Do we create a new page for Margaritaville Casino and Resort, or do we move the current Grand Casino Biloxi page? I say we create a new page as it's a new facility and we leave the Grand (and Casino Magic, if any) pages as linked references for the former facilities. Thoughts? SpikeJones 16:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally I'm opposed to removing history as far as the old names go. When you combine articles, you lose a lot of information as the later editors don't see why older information is important for the new property. Casinos have history, and frequently history with a particular owner. So in a case like this, I'd leave both old casino articles and write one for the Casino Magic Biloxi Casino & Hotel while this information is still available. So yes, a new one for Margaritaville Casino and Resort. Vegaswikian 19:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Horseshoe Casino logo.png

Image:Horseshoe Casino logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Harrah's Tunica renaming

To those Harrah's editors: the article Harrah's Tunica should be merged (then deleted) into Grand Casino Tunica, then that article should be renamed appropriately to Harrah's Tunica. Please confirm your thoughts here first (or do the move yourselves). Thx! SpikeJones 06:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Critics section

I noticed that on 11/4/7 a Critics section was added and promptly removed. Perhaps it could remain if references were added. Two possible references are the Las Vegas Sun http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/leisure/2003/nov/13/515853930.html and http://www.blackjack-scams.com/html/6_5_blackjack.html. This is after all a fundamental change to a 95 year old game that is a major part of casino activity – the primary business of Harrah’s. 71.247.206.159 19:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am the original adder of this section (also on a few other pages) and have reverted the edits. I agree these changes are very Misplaced Pages-worthy and anyone that follows the table game world is aware of the changes Harrah's has made, and the effects of those changes in Las Vegas generally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgtd (talk • contribs) 19:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, this is not encyclopedic for this casino. It is a change that is occurring in many casinos and we don't need to list this in each casino article. In belongs in the description of the game and the various pay tables that can be used there. The critics heading is totally inappropriate, it is simply a different version of a table game. Vegaswikian 20:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it's also absolutely unsourced and violates WP:NPOV. Misplaced Pages is not a WP:SOAPBOX.--Sesameball 20:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by unsourced with so many references. And the criticism is widespread. And I do find it interesting that Harrah's felt it needed to fundamentally alter a game drastically changing the century old probabilities. But I do see a problem in that some other casinos have followed suit.Objective3000 21:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The sources provided were irrelevant as they provided no support for the value judgements made. They had nothing to do with the article subject's table numbers or odds specifically, nor provided any evidence that there exists "routine criticism", and also did not address the craps game claims. --Sesameball 21:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Craps and H17 comments were weak. But I thought the Las Vegas Sun article did indicate "routine criticism" of the BJ pays 6:5 invention. Also I believe the refs did indicate support for the value judgements as this is a change so fundamental to the game it is why the game was named Blackjack 95 years ago. And the effect is to drastically alter the house edge in a major part of the primary business of the corporation. If the business was auto manufacture and the business quadrupled the markup of autos for the first time in nearly a century, I think it would be worth a mention.:)Objective3000 23:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact that 6:5 vs. 3:2 is unfavorable to the player supported not a single statement made in the edit in question (the edit only said S17 was bad - it didn't even say 6:5 was bad). And it certainly doesn't support a value judgement against the Harrah's company as a whole. ~~I also left a message on your talk page.~~ Nevermind, editor already beat me to it. :) --Sesameball 01:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes the original text was less than perfect. The 6:5 problem was explained in the references I and another added. As for whether this action relects unfavorably on the company as a whole; I think that a very large segment of Harrah's customers and watchdogs would say yes. That's why it would seem to make sense in a "critics" section. If you would like to see an example of Harrah's actions, see http://www.qfit.com/whopper.jpg. This is a picture of the marquee in front of Bally's & Paris (two Harrah's casinos) when 6:5 was first announced. Although the rule change drastically increases the house edge; the sign suggests that it is a boon to the customer. Clear false advertising.Objective3000 02:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone has accused me of being a sock puppet. This is absurd. Is this kind of nonsense common? Can I not politely discuss something without false accusations? I want this accusation removed. Can't believe I ever volunteered my time on this site.Objective3000 01:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at the reversion that removed the sockpuppet's edit here and some how your edits got mixed in with the sock's edit. See here. Again, My apologies. -- bulletproof 01:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I realize you are having a problem with an editor at the moment. Actually it's probably not sock puppets. The original editor posted on two BJ forums that people should keep adding the text.Objective3000 02:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? So he has been prompting others to re-add the section for him? Could you please show me a link to the sites where he has been promoting this agenda? It’s called Meat Puppeteering which is against Misplaced Pages policy. It would really help us if you could provide a link to those two forums he has been active on.-- bulletproof 02:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's on bj21 private subscription only pages.Objective3000 02:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not a concern. Subscription can be obtained if that is the case but what we need are the links to those forums. -- bulletproof 02:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

http://bj21.com/greenchip/misc_bj/index.cgi?read=96707 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me take another tact that I believe fits well within Wiki guidelines. Over the last several years, three companies have been buying up all of the major Las Vegas Hotels. Harrah's has purchased much of the center strip. Such activity obviously raises the possibility of monopolistic practices. BJ Pays 6:5 is merely a symptom of the lack of competition brought on by consolidation. That is to say, a risk in the consolidation of properties in a marketplace is loss of competition and harm to the consumer. And we are seeing the result in a major alteration to a 95 year old game. I believe this is a legitimate, and widely held criticism of Harrah's corporate actions.Objective3000 11:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And your point is? First, Harrah's owns a handful of casinos in Las Vegas. They own a handful of casinos in a town with over a hundred casinos. While they may have a higher percentage of revenue then others, they are not close to being a monopoly. While this consolidation is going on, independents are opening and in a big way. Think Wynn Las Vegas and the thorn in everyones side, The Venetian. Another issue that the critics seems to forget is how many other casinos are making the same change? It is clear that the tone of these postings is to disparage Harrah's for making these changes. However this is far from the first time that a casino has changed the rules. Consider double 0 roulette. Or two deck blackjack. How about the shoe for blackjack? Both of the last two improve the casinos take. Neither of those is taken out against a casino that I'm aware of. In fact, does anyone know which of those three actually has the biggest impact on improving the casinos take? Finally every business has critics. What makes this one unique, notable and encyclopedic? Vegaswikian 18:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

1. A handful among a 100 casinos makes it sound like an insignificant number. But this is misleading. In fact the majority of casino floor space on the Las Vegas Strip is now in the hands of two corporations.

2. Yes other casinos are making the same change. And most are owned by these two corporations.

3. Yes of course we know the effect of the rule changes you named. 00 about doubles the take. Two decks and shoes are usually accompanied by other better rules that dampen the effect. There are in fact over 100 BJ rule variations. However, none of them slightly compares to the effect of BJ Pays 6:5. This can be a 1000% gain in casino advantage. It fundamentally alters the game. The very name of the game relates to the BJ bonus gutted by this change.

4. Yes every business has critics. And you will find Critics sections in many Wiki entries. What makes Harrah's unique in that it should not have a critics section?:-)Objective3000 18:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the last time I saw earlier this year, single deck blackjack was available on the strip. Many casinos offer different versions and odds on many games. However players still decide to go where returns are lower. So does the existence of the various rules say that the players don't care? If you were running a business, and you had individuals who want to pay you more for your products then your competitor charged, would that be a bad business decision? Also Vegas is no longer the only place you can play. So even if there are monopolies here, they are still competing with casinos in thousands of other locations. Some of those have casinos that probably come close to matching the casino space that Harrah's offers on the strip. Vegaswikian 18:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the problem is that 6:5 has already taken hold in many casinos and in many corporations. It is certainly not limited to Harrah's, and it represents a much larger movement. It was very obvious from the beginning that a group of editors had an ulterior motive to bash Harrah's (and, notably, peacock Bellagio) - for whatever reason. Let's be honest - Station Casinos, for one, has been doing 6:5 single deck in GVR since it opened and in Sunset Station even longer than that. The bottom line is that wikipedia is not a WP:Soapbox. It is not a place for individuals with an ulterior motive to voice their opinions against specific corporations that they do not approve of. That's a violation of many of the fundamental wikipedia principles that we've already discussed in this section. --Sesameball 19:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that the players don't care. They don't know. And this situation was not helped when Harrah's falsely advertised that 6:5 was better than 3:2. I don't understand the accusation of 'ulterior motives.' What exactly do you claim is my motive? I thought the purpose of an encyclopedia was dissemination of information. I can understand how Harrah's might have ulterior motives in stopping the flow of information or suggesting that a major change was in their patrons' favor. But I don't see how spreading information requires an ulterior motive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a source of encyclopedic information. If you really want to point out the impact of the various options on the expected return for blackjack, then do it in the blackjack article and not here. If the players don't know, then in fact they don't care. A general encyclopedia does not have as its purpose the teaching of individuals to play a specific game. We can have an article that explains the impact of different versions of the game, using NPOV, and how some versions can be better for players then others. That's why I only play single hand blackjack which is getting really hard to find. Vegaswikian 20:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not my intent here to teach BJ. This is the Harrah's page. The Harrah's corporation has been widely criticized for altering a 95 year old game so severely as to make it unplayable to the detriment of consumers. They were able to do this because they have bought out so many of their competitors. The fact that a far flung casino like GVR can now get away with this is because Harrah's does it.

I must say that this discussion page seems remarkably hostile. I have been accused of being a sock-puppet and of having ulterior motives. Both of these accusations are nonsense and I haven't seen this on other pages. If I were looking at this discussion from the outside; I might come to the conclusion that someone else has an ulterior motive. Afterall, we have heard that some companies sanitize their pages. I'm not saying this is what is going on. Just how it might appear.Objective3000 20:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As I already stated, GVR has been "getting away with it" for more than half a decade and Sunset Station, possibly double that! I don't understand your argument at all. Somehow, it is specifically notable for Harrah's to have done this because it somehow makes it OK, many years later, for other casinos to have done it beforehand?--Sesameball 21:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say it's OK for Station Casinos (which also owns GVR) to copy this change? Actually it's quite a shame as these casinos mostly cater to locals. Also you are exaggerating the time periods.

You're just playing with semantics here. By "OK", I meant for you to avoid targeting that casino specifically as well, which you were apparently trying to make an excuse for. Also, please sign your posts by using ~~~~ and spare me the accusations of exaggeration. As I said, 6:5 single deck has existed at GVR since the first time I played there, and at Sunset before that. --Sesameball 22:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, seems to me you were the one playing with semantics. Speaking of consolidation, are you aware that GVR and Sunset are being bought by Colony Capital that owns the Atlantis casinos, Tropicana, RIH casinos, Accor casinos, Las Vegas Hilton, Resorts International and Harvey's casinos?Objective3000 22:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you care to respond on topic? --Sesameball 22:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

!You want me to respond to a strawman argument?:) I didn't say what you said I said. Objective3000 23:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I explained very clearly how I interpreted your statement and why it doesn't make sense. It's your choice to respond to it or not. --Sesameball 23:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem: You keep attesting that it is simply "dissemination of information", yet you are using this information to target one company. As I posted on other talk pages regarding this discussion (in response to other claims of neutrality), of course information (just like math and statistics) is neutral - but the application and interpretation of information is as biased as the applicator/interpreter wants to be. Your precise motivation is irrevelant; the mere fact that this debate has arisen from and centered around actions targetting a single company, among many that have undertaken the same practice, demonstrates that there are other motivations besides "dissemination of information". --Sesameball 20:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly a demonstration of ulterior motives. In fact you still haven't said what that motive could even be. I am on the Harrah's discussion page because this is where the original change was made. I didn't make that change. But this does seem to be the right page. Harrah's may be a single parent corporation, but it owns many enormous casinos. Harrah's is the corporation that bought up much of the center of the LV Strip. Harrah's brought out this unprecedented rule change. Harrah's was the corporation that falsely advertised that this game was good for the patrons on a sign hundreds of feet high. I hardly think it surprising that there exists major criticism of Harrah's.Objective3000 21:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

To repeat, take the issues of the rule change to the blackjack article. This is not new news and it is not in play at a single company or casino, so putting it here is a NPOV issue. If you wish, post to your hearts content about news reports on wikinews. Vegaswikian 22:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, about the advertising. Not encyclopedic. If we included every company that is guilty of false advertising, then we would need this section in every company article. That makes it the norm and not worth mentioning anyplace. Vegaswikian 22:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's get it straight - you are on the Harrah's talk page because you are proposing changes to the Harrah's article. Wasn't that the point of your original post in this line of the discussion (from 11:48UTC today)? Furthermore, it does not make sense to target Harrah's specifically for a movement within the industry as a whole, and certainly not due to the mere fact that Harrah's owns several casinos or bought out Caesar's/Park Place. And even the sources you have defended earlier in this discussion show that 6:5 existed long before the acquisition. --Sesameball 22:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes let's get it straight. I am on Harrah's page as opposed to some other page because someone else added a critics section and it was removed. I then proposed changes. I am not here as has been repeatedly suggested for some ulterior anti-Harrah's motive that no one can even define. This repeated claim is beginning to sound like paranoia by a Harrah's employee. 6:5 was introduced by Harrah's and they made efforts to disguise its effect in order to gain acceptance. Once it gained acceptance it spread.

However, I will tell the Las Vegas Sun and all the people that are critical of Harrah's that apparentlyt they aren't critical of Harrah's afterall.:-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable or verifiable sourcing whatsoever for your repeated claim that Harrah's was the first ever to do 6:5 blackjack? And you can spare us the accusations of being affiliated with any organization. I'm on this page because it was targeted for vandalism. --Sesameball 22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey I didn't start the accusations. My id was flagged as being a sock-puppet and I have been accused repeatedly of having some ulterior motive. All because I suggested what everybody knows - that widespread criticism of Harrah's exists. As for going through the effort to prove Harrah's invented the concept - clearly that would be a waste of time. You have decided that there are no critics of Harrah's. Objective3000 22:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you have to come out with accusations of your own. As for the rest, the only thing that can be said is to recommend you read the three content policies of wikipedia: WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR.--Sesameball 23:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I made no accusation. As for POV; it would be a POV to state that Harrah's is in the wrong. It is not a POV to state that there is criticism of Harrah's. That is a fact. Objective3000 23:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

However it is wrong to only cite this one casino company. It is true about every casino that uses this version of the game. The main article already covers the problem so trying to add extensive coverage in individual articles clearly violates NPOV. And no, we don't need a version of this for every casino that have this rule per WP:POINT. Vegaswikian 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at the start of this thread - not the start of this section. My point was that the incredible consolidation of casinos is leading to decreased competition. Harrah's is one of the two corporations leading this consolidation. That is why it makes sense on Harrah's page and not on Green Valley Ranch. Objective3000 23:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Or that there are criticisms of casino consolidation on the Strip. And Harrah's is the major culprit. Objective3000 23:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Are they now? I thought MGM would have been the major concern here. But then you seem to forget that there are positives like was mentioned above. Vegaswikian 23:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine; make it Harrah's and MGM. Objective3000 23:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Vegaswikian and Sesame. Cited information on rules variations and odds differences of the games belong on the individual game pages, not on the casino pages. Otherwise, we would fill the Paris and Monte Carlo pages with information on why they both offer single-0 roulette (which, at least in the Paris case, shows that Harrahs does know how to cater to the discerning gambler... but pointing even that out digresses us from the topic at hand), or we would list practically every strip casino with statistics on their <85% payback on penny slots. But we don't as that info is irrelevant to an encyclopedic article about individual casinos.SpikeJones 03:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And I agree with this also. But this is another strawman. It is not what I was proposing. I proposed at the start of the thread that a Critics section be added that talks to the massive consolidation of the casino industry and its effect on competition. The gutting of Blackjack is merely an example of the effect. And it is not merely a rule variation. Since it changes the edge by 1000%, It is the mathematic equivalent of changing a 91% slot machine payback to 10%. Frankly, to claim that there is no criticism sounds like a whitewash to me. Objective3000 11:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is a valid encyclopedic article about the effect of the consolidation on the casino industry, then write it! Unless there is a single company that is so monopolistic that no one else has a chance to enter the business, then you need an article on the topic, if one can be put together. That article would discuss all of the associated issues and can identify well sourced comments about the various companies. Be aware that this might be better in an existing article on this topic in general and not focusing on the casino industry and it may already be covered in such an article in general terms. Vegaswikian 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well at least you now understand the concept behind the proposal. But, you are asking me to create an extremely complex legal argument and an actual proof of wrongdoing. IANAL. As I have been told numerous times, POV is incorrect in WikiWorld. I am not trying to present a case. I am not trying to present a proof. I am only stating that critics exist. A common Wiki section. How can anyone argue with this? You are now suggesting that I present a POV. That has never been my intent. My suggestion is very simple. Add a Critics section that talks to the possibility that the massive consolidation of the casino industry; particularly in Las Vegas and at the hands of Harrah's, is having a detrimental effect on consumers. As has been a classic problem in history. I do not wish to present a POV. A critics section only states that 'some' people have a problem. You are now demanding that I make a POV argument. How can anyone argue that there exists no criticism of Harrah's on this basis when it is all over the Internet? In any case, thank you for some understanding of my thrust. Objective3000 01:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You're really making our argument for us - as you said, consolidation "has been a classic problem in history". The problem here is not that critics exist or that criticism exists; the problem is that you are taking criticism of movements in industries as a whole or business as a whole (or even, as you said yourself, throughout history) and targeting one corporation for it. Again, all I can suggest is to read WP:NPOV. --Sesameball 01:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to have it both ways. First you claim that talking about a specific unprecedented effect is not cause to add a Critics section. Now you are saying that a general case is not cause to add a Critics section. Is there any case? The fact is that some people, for some reason, do not want to admit that there exist critics of Harrah's. My reference to the fact that this situation has existed throughout history was only to indicate that there may very well be, as so very many critics have stated, a possibly valid criticsm here despite claims to the contrary and this is hardly unprecedented. Might I suggest that YOU read WP:NPOV. It appears to me that those that wish to suppress even the concept that critics exist are in violation of NPOV. It is not only a violation of NPOV, it is a violation of common knowledge laughable on gaming forums. At this point, Google is more valid than Wiki because as random as Google is it does not suppress criticism that is so widely held. And we all know how random Google can be Objective3000 02:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the only person here who has suggested it is a "specific" or "unprecedented" event here is you. I have refuted that assertion since my first response in this line of the discussion. --Sesameball 04:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I already gave references. The Las Vegas Sun article alone contains numerous quotes. You have not refuted a word of it. Objective3000 12:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, nobody is questioning the 6:5 odds issue. The references you provided only talked about 6:5, and did not discuss whether it was a problem with a single casino/company running it into the ground at the expense of its customers. Again, please find a reference that specifically and factually supports your discussion to be present on the individual casino page. Otherwise, any and all talk about Caesars, Bellagio, Harrah's, IP, Castaways, GVR, or even Terry Benedict's impact on the game is meaningless.SpikeJones 14:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that I need to first place this on one of my BJ sites and then reference that site. I don't see how that makes it any stronger a case. Objective3000 14:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And now you are going to throw a potential conflict of interest and original research issues into the mix. Vegaswikian 18:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What conflict of interest? I can point to numerous examples of people that have created online casino affiliate sites using info they've heard in random places, and then added links in Wiki to their sites as advertisement. And these sites are approved. Where are your complaints of conflict of interest and original research issues? Objective3000 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if you add something to your web site and then include that here with a reference what do you call it? Vegaswikian 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I call it ridiculous. But that seems to be what you are suggesting and what has taken place with so many other references on the BJ pages of Wiki. Objective3000 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's quite simple. IF you have unbiased, third-party, non-blog, non-message board articles that meet all the qualifications under WP:CITE to support your argument that Harrah's has singlehandedly monopolized screwing over gamblers by handcuffing card players to the tables and forcing them to play 6-5 BJ exclusively, then by all means include it. But merely discussing Harrah's (or other companies) decision to offer 6-5 blackjack is not encyclopedic at all, nor is simply citing the odds differences of 6-5 BJ without a Harrah's reference. As we've all stated, the 6-5 commentary (without a company reference) is perfectly valid for the blackjack page. Remember, WP is not a discussion board or a forum to vent a personal vendetta for or against a given cause. Otherwise, continuing to state your case without those citations makes the issue WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Either provide those citations or drop the argument. SpikeJones 03:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Good lord. You are the one venting. Handcuffing players? What an awful post. Objective3000 12:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

London Clubs International

Anyone have the time to add an article for London Clubs International? Has a few links and is notable enough for one. Better to start now why there is a lot of public information for citations. Once the buyouts are complete, information might be harder to obtain. Vegaswikian 23:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RioSecco.jpg

Image:RioSecco.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move appears to have been made Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Harrah's Entertainment → Caesars Entertainment — Per -- Kendrick7 22:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Support move to Caesars Entertainment Corp.. Caesars Entertainment was a previous major casino owner what is rather notable in the history of Las Vegas. Better to use the full proposed name for disambiguation rather then getting the two companies confused as some editors already are. Also since some casinos were owned by both companies, a clear name for both needs to be used for the articles to make sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Support Vegaswikian, rename to Caesars Entertainment Corp. --Svgalbertian (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Support, but should we spell out "Corp." in the title? Anyway, the name change takes place today (11-23). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- That seems to be the correct name of the corporation per the local rag. Dropping it creates an ambiguous name since it was the name of a previous corporation. BTW, the common name for the previous company was Caesars and I suspect this will apply to the new incarnation. So the article should retain this name since the disambiguation is required. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Caesars Entertainment Corp.. However I encourage the dicussion to continue if you remove the disambiguation at Caesars Entertainment.--Svgalbertian (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Categories: