Talk:Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board

Site

Could you direct me to a site that has information on how to go about opening a casino. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.193.113 (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Economic effects

If there's to be a paragraph on the economic effects of slots gambling (and there should be; the board was set up because of economic effects), then it follows that it should contain information about all major economic effects. PRRfan (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what this section has to do with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. I think that it is better suited to be included in the Gambling article. It really serves no purpose here. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The board is quite concerned with gambling's economic effects. It was established to regulate gambling as a business and to bring gambling revenue into state coffers. I think a short section on the matter is worth including.PRRfan (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a section titled as above. Since this is an article about the Control Board and not "Gambling in Pennsylvania" or even "Gambling" or "Slot machines" it's completely off topic so I'll be removing it. If someone has data or a report from the PGCB itself on the subject, then include that and the section would become relevant to the topic. 2005 (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, my bad I didn't see this entry was about the same topic. But as noted above this serves no purpose is completely off the subject of the article, so I'm removing it. Add information about the economics of slots to the slots article if you want. this is about a Government regulatory body. 2005 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The board was set up to harness slot machines' economic effects. Having been set up, it set off other economic effects. The section is, therefore, relevant. N.B. Let's finish the discussion here before changing the article; agreed? PRRfan (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been challenged by three editors, and removed by two. The opinion stuff is silly, and the generic statements are inappropriate for this article. Add something to the slot machines article if you want, not here. Nevada Gaming Control Board doesn't discuss the positives and negatives about gambling, and neither do other articles about bureucratic entities. The content has been challenged by multiple editors. Don't add it again. 2005 (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, the PGCB was set up specifically to foment and control such economic effects. Moreover, you seem to be labeling well-cited research as opinion, which is odd. PRRfan (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

PRR, I took this out once but let it go when you put it back in. I don't think that the issue is whether or not gambling has ill side effects, it is whether or not a detailed discussion of such belongs in this article. Really, the info that you have put into the article applies to gambling as a whole, and should be - in fact, is already - covered in the Gambling article. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, there is a level of detail beyond which this article should not go. But I don't think three sentences is unreasonable. The section exists to say, "Here's the effect of the PGCB, an economic regulator, on the economy," which I don't think anyone would characterize as irrelevant. If we cite only the official justification, we allow WP to become an organ of the government agency, not a well-balanced reflection of reality. PRRfan (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The section is quite obviously fully irrelevant. This is not an article about pennsylvania, gambling, slots, gambling in Pennsylvania or the effects of such. We have other articles on those topics, and we wikilink to them. We aren't going to have little content forks in every article about every gambling entity that discusses the economic impact of slots. The opinion stated as fact is silly of course, but that isn't even the issue. Text on the overall impact of slots or gambling goes in the gambling article, the slots article or even the gambling in the United States article. It's weirdly out of place here. And the second issue is the more important one, which is three editors have removed this inappropriate content, and you restored it multiple times. You need to respect the views of other editors and the guidelines of the encyclopedia. Please revert your last edit so someone else does not have to. 2005 (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is odd to hear an injunction to "respect the views of other editors" from someone who attempts to issue orders, calls one side of a contended point "obvious", and labels well-cited academic research "opinion". Moreover, respectful debates between editors are customarily resolved on Talk pages, not in edit summaries of reversions. Witness, for example, SmartGuy's post of April 9. He expressed doubts about the economics section's relevance; I answered, and life moved on. (The fact that he was not ultimately convinced by my reasoning has brought him back after several weeks, which is fine.) Anyway, I am pleased that 2005 has left off reverting as we continue our discussion here.

Moving on: let us imagine a reader who comes to our article. Upon learning that the PGCB was set up in part to help gambling "deliver a significant source of revenue" and "provide broad economic opportunies", the reader will naturally ask, "How much revenue is being brought in?" and "What economic opportunities are being created?" Neither question is answered in any detail by this article, but they ought to be. And a fair answer to the latter question would include any harm to various economic opportunities as well. Perhaps, as 2005 suggests, there is a wikilink that would direct our reader to an article or section about the economic effects of gambling or, better yet, the economic effects of gambling in Pennsylvania. If none is to be found, a new article or section could be started. But until those exist, we may properly note such effects on the page about the government agency that oversees them. PRRfan (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop this. The point is first you have been reverted by three editors. I am removing the content again since you did not. Three editors have removed this, and you have not once even had the courtesy to address this issue, let alone gain a consensus for adding it. Instead you refer to a ridiculous article sub-titled "How slot machines are secretly designed to seduce and destroy you, and how the government is in on it" as well-cited. And "Yet research indicates that facilitating gambling also has great costs to the communities in which it takes place" is in your mind something other than opinion. Whatever. This is completely off topic. This article is not about the economic aspects of gambling, slots or gambling in Pennyslvania. We don't discuss the economic aspects of gambling in The Nevada Gaming article, or social imapcts in other bureaucracy articles like United States Department of Health and Human Services. Slot machines exists add genuine, well-sourced content there where you don't state opinion as fact. 2005 (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I see no discussion of the economic effects of gambling at the articles you cite. Would you care to be more specific? And kindly cease reverting until we finish discussing this. PRRfan (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding text that other editors have clearly stated is inappropriate. Don't be a dick. No one supports your action, as you well know since even at this point you have not addressed one word to the whole point of this. It serves no purpose to just be stubborn since the text is not going to stay. Your addition will be removed again. As for something about economic effects not being in the slot machine article, huh? You are insisting that text should be added to the wrong article because no one has added it to the correct article???? Once again, have the courtesy to revert your inappropriate addition, and then if you want to productively start a section in the correct article, go ahead. 2005 (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How about if, as a compromise, somebody starts the article Economic effects of gambling? I would do it but I don't have the time to do things on Wiki anymore other than patrol the articles. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think that is probably too broad and prone to some agenda spam on specifics, and also it brings in lotteries and all that. I was going to do a section in the slots article, but there isn't any evidence that would make any difference to the issue here until PRRfan deletes the stuff here. 2005 (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

2005, if you would kindly put your energies into discussion instead of name-calling, you might note that I wrote, "If none is to be found, a new article or section could be started. But until those exist, we may properly note such effects on the page about the government agency that oversees them." Perhaps it wasn't clear to you that I was pointing to just the sort of action that SmartGuy has suggested. (Indeed, I was also inviting you, who insisted that such material already existed elsewhere on WP, to suggest a relevant wikilink. Of course, you could not and did not.) So, to reiterate a point I made several days ago, if such material is made available elsewhere on WP, I would be fine with SmartGuy's compromise. PRRfan (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"name calling", reverting yet again another editor and then just flat out lying about me saying this text is elsewhere, please get a grip. You seem beyond acting responsibly here. 2005 (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lying, 2005? Did you not write, "This is not an article about pennsylvania, gambling, slots, gambling in Pennsylvania or the effects of such. We have other articles on those topics, and we wikilink to them [emphasis added]." I asked you to support that, and you could not. Instead, you continued to attempt peremptory change to the article, rather than conduct a discussion. Nevertheless, I see a that a consensus is emerging here, and I will respect it. And here's a friendly wikilink for you. Cheers. PRRfan (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Since another editor also removed the off topic content, and PRRfan yet again reverted it, I removed the passage again as every editor besides one does not suport its inclsion in the article. As pointed out before, the slot machine article could use some fair, objective, well-sourced coverage of this issue. PRRfan please finally respect the opinions of multiple other editors. 2005 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Revenue produced from slot machines in Pennsylvania go to property tax relief and rebates, the horse racing industry, economic development, tourism, and the local governments of gambling establishments" is irrelevant to this article. It could be included in an article about "Pennsylvania Gaming". Only the fact that the PGCB gets all its funding from the industry should be mentioned here. The additional stuff that keeps being deleted about 'costs to communities' is miles off topic. Hazir (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am of the humble opinion that all of this could be included in a separate article, or in an "Economic Effects" section in the Gambling article. I would do it but I don't have much free time these days. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I also reworded the section and renamed it "Funding and support." Per the discussion here, this should not be about the "economic effects" so such a label is misleading. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Very good. The section title was the most oddball thing overall. The final (fact) part sounds like a conclusion that could just be removed, but if it is in the text of the law that created the agency, then that could be cited. 2005 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)