Talk:Bodog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Blatant Self Promotion & Blatant deletion of anything the least bit negative 2 Blatant Self Promotion 3 Correct use of link text 4 Edit War 5 Documentation, please.... 6 This article can not be an advertisement for bodog 7 Removed claim of 7 billion USD in wagers placed 8 Spamming 9 External links 10 Removed Popular Culture Section 11 Recent edits on financial solvency

[edit] Blatant Self Promotion & Blatant deletion of anything the least bit negative

I can understand the biased view of some of the recent negative additions needing to be more objective, I get that. But if Bodog is going to use this site to promote itself (a violation 'neutral point of view', the page should also be permitted to display the negative aspects, especially since they are backed by reliable sources. If a reliable, mainstream news source says Bodog is suffering huge financial losses, I don't see why that can't be included. The fact that it's deleted, but all the self promoting remains, makes the entire page an un-neutral page of self promotion. The page needs a major revision to get rid of the overly promotional atmosphere and add more realistic, current aspects of the company.

Hello Ctdwmdc. First things first - sign your comments with 4 tildes ("~~~~") so that your name shows, like this: ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 21:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, I reverted your edits because you come across as having a personal vendetta against the company:

"Users are warned not to make any deposits with Bodog until this issue is resolved because their money will not be honored and payouts will not be given."

I realize that you are a new editor at Wikipedia, and hope that you can stay and make some positive contributions. My intention is not to bite the newcomers. Understand, though, that editing an article as such will make others think that you are simply trying to divert business away from Bodog by posting that something bad might happen. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

I am well aware of the common complaints about Bodog's customer service, slow payouts, crappy software, etc. I hate their software and basically everything else about them which is why I don't play there. That's all opinion, though. Opinions posted on twoplustwo.com, somebody's poker blog, or an affiliate site are generally poor sources of information.

If you know of some coverage of Bodog's financial situation in a major news source - Financial Times, Reuters, USA Today, etc - then by all means bring it up. I did a quick Yahoo news search and couldn't find anything. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 21:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't post anything from a reliable source. You only posted your own opinions, plus useless anonymous comments from a non-reliable-source forum, which are are of no value. The article currently just states facts. They have had that TV for example. Please don't add your opinion or links quoting forum posts. If a reliable news source has a story about finacial troubles, you can cite it. If you can't find any such story, that speaks for itself. 2005 21:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Smartguy, thanks for being patient with me, I didn't understand what you were saying about the talk function. I'll try to do a better job about having the info be more neutral. I do plan on putting that information back in there about Bodog not paying out and about their recent financial troubles but I'll get a more relevant source if it's needed. I just went for the first source but there are a ton of people complaining about Bodog not paying out so it'll be easy to find a better one. Thanks for helping me edit this better. Ctdwmdc 12:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)HiCtdwmdc 12:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Continuing to add blatantly false information, and particularly making wildly false titles for references that say nothing like what you say they do is not going to "work". The two Forbes links you added do say things, but they say completely different things than what you keep pretending they do. Please do not add your opinions to this article again. 2005 21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ctdwmdc 13:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Ctdwmdc 13:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC) there are continued deletions of information with relevant sources backing them up. If you do not agree with the source material you can not simply delete it; Forbes magazine outweighs your personal opinion. I am putting the Forbes links and quotes back in.

Your repeated additions of blatant lies can only ne desribed as vandalism at this point. The Forbes article is ttitled "Down on His Luck" NOT the nonsensical "Bodog experiences significant losses after gambling is made illegal in US". Do not add this false title again. Additionally online gambling was not "made illegal in the US" by the Safe Port Act. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, but yet you continue to put nonsense in this artcle. As it stands now, reliable sources from Forbes are titled properly and summarized to say what they say, not what you make up out of thin air. Please act responsibly. The Wikipedia is not here for you to promote your opinions, and certainly not here for you to repeatedly lie in the titling of sources. Stop it please. 2005 03:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ctdwmdc 12:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Ctdwmdc 12:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC) I can change the name of the link but that does not change the fact that the links provided say the same thing and are legit sources that should be cited. You can dispute the information presented in the article but if the Forbes article says "gambling was made illegal in the US" it is not my opinion or your opinion that counts but what is stated in the reliable source. I'll change the name of the link. Thanks.

Online gambling was not made illegal in the U.S. by the SAFE Port Act. The act did not ban anything that wasn't already illegal. The act cracked down on electronic tranfers of funds to gaming sites. The act of online gambling itself was not affected, as this is still a legal grey area. The statement "Bodog has seen significant financial losses in 2007 after online gambling was made illegal in the United States" is very misleading. Several edits ago I cleaned up the wording of Ctdwmdc's additions, but you people keep reverting/adding back in misleading information. Come on now, this has gone on long enough. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 13:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I corrected your addition to use the correct title for the reliable sources. It is never appropriate to create inaccurate titles for reliable sources. They say what they say, not what any editor may want them to say. If sources are added, please be sure to always title them accurately. 2005 18:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice that it reverted it back to an incorrect article title, sorry. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought you made an oversight, now and before. I should have mentioned that. Sorry for not doing that in the above statement. 2005 21:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant Self Promotion

This article is not only written and edited by the host company, it violates a number of fundamental Wikipedia philosophies:

NPOV or Neutreal Point of View [[1]]

but also

The Five Pillars of the Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

Yeah, it annoys me too. This company does seem to meet WP:CORP though... so I've just taken a buzzsaw to it and trimmed it down to a basic description. If you'd like to take it to WP:AFD though, I'd be there. --W.marsh 15:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correct use of link text

I notice you keep editing link text and removing external reference links, and you do so to "correct link style"

The matter of fact is that Wikipedia explicitly specify to use descriptive link text, and let me quote from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Link_titles

"Generally, URLs are ugly and uninformative; it is better for a meaningful title to be displayed rather than the URL itself. For example, "European Space Agency website" is much more reader-friendly than "http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/index.html". There may be exceptions where the url is well known or is the company name. In this case, putting both the url and a valid title will be more informative, for example, "European Space Agency website, www.esa.int"."

Notice how the Manual of Style *does not* encourage the use of "Official site". In this case "Official site" is as undescriptive as it can possibly get. "Bodog Entertainment Group" is, without any doubt descriptive, and the official name of the organization. The official name of the Bodog.com site is "Bodog Sportsbook & Casino & Online Poker™", so an equally descriptive and officially correct link text is "Bodog Sportsbook & Casino & Online Poker™"

Official site is clearly the most descriptive choice, I can't imagine what your argument would be there, but in any case this is how the other sites are linked in the categories that Bodog belongs to. There is no reason that your site should or will be treated differently. You could start a discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poker to argue diffently but do not talk about Bodog as that doesn't matter at all. What matters is how all the articles of the same nature are stylistically structured. 2005 21:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I stricltly follow the guidelined provided by the official Manual of Style, and will continue to do so until you provide me with a page from the official Wikipedia Manual of Style or similar guideline. Thank you, Sverre

I personally would prefer a different style than Offcial site, but until a much larger discussion takes place making one site different is inappropriate. And also, the spam link text is obviously inappropriate. "Bodog" or "Bodog official site" would be the only other choices as those are the companies offcial name. This article is not for a company employee to spam keywords in link text. Please do not do it again. 2005 22:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I fully understand the problem with spamming, and this certainly is not spamming. The matter of fact is that "Bodog Sportsbook & Casino & Online Poker™" is the official name of the site, and, let be be very clear, until you provide *official documentation* in where it *explicitly* says that gambling sites should not use descriptive anchor text, I must insist that you refrain from further editing.

From my point of view, this is on the border to pure vandalism until you provide me with the rules to back up your point of view.

Thank you,

Sverre

[edit] Edit War

Whoa guys, you both should look at WP:3RR - more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period is not a good thing. I am protecting the article to give you a chance to settle down. This is not an endorsement of a particular version --W.marsh 22:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Specifically, "Do not use special symbols such as TM and ® unless they are important to the context (for instance to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." Comments? --W.marsh 23:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, delete the TM. I'm still very interested in seeing documentation to back up 2005's claims about "special rules" that apply for certain entries. So far, both him/her and I have failed to find/provide material to support his/her claims, and unless such documentation is provided, I must insist on using the correct and official name and that the dispute is settled. Thank you, Sverre

I revert the same spam much as ten times a day, so I have no interest in a silly edit war. I started a discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poker since there is no similar broader Gambling project. Sverre, if you want to start thinking like an editor instead of a company SEO, please contribute to that discussion. If folks agree that keyword stuff links are the best way to go, then that's how articles will be structured. Otherwise, you can "insist" that Bodog be treated differently than everyone else, but it won't happen, and you'll just embarrass your company further. 2005 23:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a reason why Wikipedia have its link policy the way it is, and it is obviously to follow W3C's guidelines on accessibility (WAI) and proper, good markup. W3C recommends in it's WCAG, and I quote: "Use text that makes sense when read out of context. For example, avoid "click here."", and the Wikipedia even quotes W3C as a reason to use descriptive anchor text. "Official site" is clearly as descriptive "Click here", and should under no circumstances be used no matter what category we are talking about.

Following the rules and guidelines established by Wikipedia is thinking like an editor. Starting edit wars with no official documentation or rules to back up your actions is not. -Sverre

[edit] Documentation, please....

Thank God!

Now will some one please show me any rules that goes agains my claims?

We need to settle this.

Sverre

I think reasonable judgment makes it clear that keyword stuffing link text doesn't improve anyone's experience here. And if it were okay, and no one here showed good judgment, then every company with an external link here would wind up with an 8 or 9 word anchor text.

The documentation in the Five pillars says that the most neutral point-of-view should be used; surely this kind of keyword stuffing isn't neutral? Most of the external links I see use the shortest identifiable company name along with the phrase official site. Rray 00:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article can not be an advertisement for bodog

I removed about half of the text of the article, as it was not important. Wikipedia articles are not advertisements. I assume employees of Bodog are coming here and trying to turn this article into a glowing ad for their site. Not allowed. --Xyzzyplugh 15:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed claim of 7 billion USD in wagers placed

An unverified claim of $7B USD removed. Bodog employees should not be attempting to turn the Wikipedia into an infomercial.

[edit] Spamming

Article has been deleted. This is spamming. Sverre, if you have a problem with that, you can call me. I am probably the easiest Wikipedian to find. Danny 00:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not vandalize this page again. 2005 00:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This page should probably be a redirect to gambling then, or deleted outright. The blanking is understandably confusing people, though now there's a hidden warning. --W.marsh 00:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, now, 2005, let's play nice. Explain why you think this drivel has any business being in the encyclopedia, if you please.--BradPatrick 00:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is obviously appropriate, and it is aself evident that an article on a billion dollar company should be in the encyclopedia. Instead of out of line actiuons like blanking, or meaningless statements like "drivel", and outrageously blocking me from editing simply for reverting blanking which is NEVER acceptable, why not state at least ONE objection to the article and then behave civiliy and work to make it better. --2005

Let's begin. (1) WP:V - the only sources you have come from Bodog itself. (2) Advertising - this is a blatant corporate advertising plug. (3) If you were serious about including this as part of a comprehensive online poker list, if you don't have any sources, the better thing to do would be to stub it and propose text on this talk page, not just copy a corporate statement. (4) The extensive list of equally non-noteworthy people on this page screams out "look at me! I'm on Wikipedia!" (5) I could actually see having some relevance if what'shisname's bust were WP:V and had *any* significance to anything. (6) Who cares what software they run? (7) Billions of dollars or not, at most they warrant a list on World Poker Tour - nothing more.--BradPatrick 01:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Sources about what a company does are fine obviously. Removing the stuff like "a zillion wagered" is fine too, but the company can certainly be the source for "they offer sports betting". 2) Hardly, but irrelevant anyway. The point is the company should have an article. Perhaps this one should be rewritten, even rewritten harshly. There is no justification for blanking it. 3) I don't even know what you think you are refering to here. Again, the statements aren't issue, the blanking it totally is. A simplae article can be written stating obvious facts: they offer sports betting, they offer poker, they have a couple players as sponsored players, they have a music arm. That's about it. You can't possibly have a gripe about that. 4) Fine, take the "non-noteworthy" musicians out then. Once again, that has nothing to do with blanking, also some of the people are noteworthy. 5) huh? 6) Not me. I care that there is an article. Having it describe the software is trivia that could or could not be included. More to the point, who cares that software is described? 7) That's just a strange position to take. They have a noteable business that obviously merits mention, and if you or anyone doesn't think so they could afd, but the company runs a TV show, major online businesses and a record label. Of course they merit an article, certainly more so than at least half of the articles in the wikipedia. 2005 01:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I will stop here. I really don't care what happens - this kind of company and topic isn't really my thing - but at least you are conceding there is a better way to write the article. Note, I didn't blank you, someone else did. I would have stubbed it. My simple (non-legal =) ) advice is not to get so wrappped up in the conclusion "there must be an article about this company" that you lose sight of the greater function of an encyclopedia. You might re-read What Wikipedia is not, specifically Wikipedia:What_wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Better information, better articles = better project. Cheers.--BradPatrick 01:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well honestly, this company has always seemed to me to meet our inclusion guidelines for companies (WP:CORP) in that it's listed on various rankings of companies in its industry, it's been given meaningful press coverage by good sources [2], and it seems to have a meaningful presence in its industry. And though the pre-blanking version may not have been great, there's no requirement that it be perfect before we have an article (far from it, the concept that articles improve gradually over time is fundamental to the project). This should be decided at WP:AfD, technically. I'd like to see the article either be reverted or taken to AfD, personally. This is all just normal process stuff, but obviously this is a special situation. --W.marsh 02:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just do this but don't want to get blocked again... how about:

Founded in 1994 by Calvin Ayre, Bodog Entertainment Group is headquartered in San José, Costa Rica and is licensed in Costa Rica, Kahnawake and the United Kingdom. Bodog maintains an online sportsbook (including a racebook), an online casino and an online poker room. Professional players David Williams and Josh Arieh are members of Team Bodog and play regularly in the Bodog poker room.

In December 2004, Bodog.com was named the 2004 US Market Hot Shot by eGaming Review.

Bodog also owns Bodog.net, a play-for-free gaming site, Bodog Fantasy, a free Fantasy football site, and Bodog Music, which features artists such as Bif Naked and Warren G. The Calvin Ayre Wild Card Poker televison show appears on Fox Sports Net. Additionally, the Bodog Entertainment Group sponsors celebrity charity events throughout the United States.

The two External links plus categories###

I'd put this up in place of what was there. If a wikipedia employee wants to then blank it because Bodog employees are acting irresponsibly about the encyclopedia in ways the rest of us don't know about, fine, but an article something like the above clearly should be in the encyclopedia. 2005 02:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the compromise, 2005. I agree with W.marsh that the WP:CORP guideline is met. I would still like to see the article improved with citations for the claims.--BradPatrick 18:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I'm no more fond of advertising and long lists of links than anyone else but surely the company's official website in the external links section isn't excessive? CTOAGN (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No answer after two weeks so I'm putting it back. Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked to states the obvious. And if someone blocks me for this without any discussion, I will try and get them de-adminned :-P CTOAGN (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Popular Culture Section

I removed the Popular Culture section, it had several flaws: It read like an advertisement for the video game, rather than a reference. Also, the game was just released in 2006 and is hardly popular enough to be considered for a "pop culture" reference. Who really cares where BoDog's logo pops up? Wtbe7560 18:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits on financial solvency

To whomever has been behind the flurry of recent edits regarding Bodog's financial solvency, please cite reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for info on reliable sources. Affiliate web sites, etc. are very dubious sources. Furthermore, statements such as

"Users are warned not to make any deposits with Bodog until this issue is resolved because their money will not be honored and payouts will not be given."

do not belong in Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 13:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)