Talk:Sweepstakes parlor

Opening heading

This article is heavily biased in support of the legality of these establishments. The tone needs to remain neutral. HarveySpecter1 (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Tagged cited claim for failed verification

There's a claim in the lead that links to the US legal definition of sweepstakes. According to the link, the US legal definition is "limited to mailed solicitations". I doubt very much the industry is using this definition as a defense; anyway, it fails to support the claim made. Richigi (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Major overhaul

Revised this article pretty much from top to bottom. There was so much back and forth POV editing, it had become too difficult to sift through. I hope that it is more neutral now, but I left the POV tag, in case it should come up again in the near future. Richigi (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done! Toohool (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Addressed OR concern and removed tag

Because this article is still under a POV banner, I didn't want to remove an OR tag without explaining what I did to address it. RJaguar3 rightly pointed out that the way a sentence was worded and the associated reference appeared to be WP:SYNTH. When I wrote the sentence, I think I meant for the citation to apply to "no purchase necessary" being a criterion to negate consideration and thus disqualify a game as a lottery (the reference was for the court case that established the precedent). But the way I wrote the sentence made it seem like the citation proved the intentions of the sweepstakes parlors--clearly a conclusion. Anyway, I rewrote the sentence to instead mirror a claim in one of the articles referenced. I think that should satisfactorily resolve the OR concern. Richigi (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote the claim because the statement "Chances may also be given just for coming into the establishment, to comply with no purchase necessary laws" is not supported by the reference, which reads "In a nod to a 'no-purchase necessary' rule in state sweepstakes promotions, first-time patrons are given an extra 100 free sweepstakes entries." Saying that an action is a nod to a rule does not mean that action complies with the rule. Additionally, there are several court cases where giving away a limited number of free entries on-site did not cause a giveaway to not require payment of consideration. See, e.g. U.S. v. Davis, 690 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 2012), Barber v. Jefferson County Racing Ass'n, Inc., 960 So.2d 599, 612 (Ala. 2006) (availability of "minimum quantities" of entries "at the point of sale without charge" does not necessarily imply no consideration), Jester v. State, 64 S.W.3d 553 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet.). In any event, the claim that the limited numbers of free entries actually comply with sweepstakes law is not in the source, and therefore does not belong on Wikipedia until it can be properly sourced. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I wrote the Legal challenges section on this article as well as the Business model section, so I do know about Barber v. Jefferson County Racing Assn. I guess the difficulty I'm having is this: it is the position of the sweepstakes parlors that this is a practice of theirs that demonstrates their compliance with the law. It's a fact that it's their position. It's also a fact that they would be violating the law (where it exists) if they did not offer "no purchase necessary" chances. It is insufficient to merely say that they give free chances: the reason they offer for doing so is meaningful, to either side of the issue. Maybe we can solicit some further opinions on the subject. Richigi (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirect

An article was recently created entitled Sweepstakes casino. It essentially duplicates the information contained in this article. Also, that other article has a lot of issues. It was recently (and accurately) tagged, between February to April 2024 for duplicating the scope of this article, needing to be written to comply with quality standards, a lot of promotional wording, and was suspected of incorporating text from a large language model. Hence, since it is a poor quality duplicate of this article, I have made that article into a redirect target to this article. And before creating the redirect, I removed promotional wording, and WP:OR. See edit history of that article. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)