Talk:Brian Souter/Archives/2013

Untitled

Personally I find this part of the quote rather amusing "because capitalism is based on greed", considering some of the controversial tactics that Stagecoach have enacted over the years. Douglasnicol 14:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

POV edit

The following language was reverted by myself, and re-instated. I believe it was added in good-faith, but clearly violates WP:NPOV : Souter has often courted controversy and has become notorious for his underhanded business practices, inappropriate public statements, and for his failed attempt to keep the anti-gay legislation, Section 28. - superβεεcat  19:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Like it or not, Brian Souter IS a controversial figure and he has gained a certain notoriety for his business practices and his attempts to keep homophobic legislation from a bygone era in place. Also, his comments about northerners (which is on record and also quotes a reliable source) were inappropriate - that's how they became headline news! If they weren't inappropriate, do you think the press would have paid any attention to them? Would YOU call your customers such things? He has become more famous in the press for these things than he has for his actual business. 79.73.33.117 07:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You have totally missed the boat on neutrality. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It has nothing to do whether I like it or not. I happen to personally agree with everything you've written, but it's completely in violation of POV. - superβεεcat  08:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Disgraceful bias

This article is utterly disgraceful, and a blatant and foul breach of WP:BLP. There is absolutely zero effort to provide a balanced presentation of the topic. It is unrelentingly hostile and negative in tone and content, with zero coverage, for example, of his remarkably successful business career. Wikipedia should not allow itself to be used as a free soapbox. Please see Wikipedia: Reliable sources and undue weight. --Mais oui! 21:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You might not like it, but the things written in the article are TRUE and they have reputable sources. Brian Souter's business practices have been decribed by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (an official body) as "deplorable, predatory, and against the public interest". He put up £1 million of his own money to try to keep a piece of homophobic legislation on the statute books (and failed). He publicly slagged off northerners, who contribute to his personal wealth. OF COURSE he is going to gain notoriety! Try writing an article about Hitler and see how it comes out! If you want to mention Souter's achievements (and I think the article already does that) then please feel free to add them, but DON'T EVER delete facts that are true and appropriately sourced - even if you personally don't like them. 79.73.33.117 07:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you've got it totally wrong. It's one thing to cite that SOURCE XYZ SAID "ABC". It's quite another to use POV terms and cite a source that happens to agree with your opinion. Just as "President bush is a failure" violates POV, even though many valid sources agree, even if the new york times and congress itself agrees (it does). It's a different thing altogether to say "the new york times stated that president bush...". That's because restating an opinion doesn't make it fact. The only thing that's fact is that the (valid) source thinks that XYZ is true. And for future reference, comparing just about anything to Hitler really takes a lot of strength from any given argument, see Godwin's Law. - superβεεcat  08:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several words in the article that you seem to take umbridge with, which are:
notorious: the dictionary definition of this means "something or someone who is publicly or generally known for a particular trait, sometimes unfavourably".
underhanded: "something that is marked by or done in a deceptive, secret, or sly manner".
inappropriate: "not in keeping with what is correct, acceptable, or proper".

These words are descriptors and may seem critical of the subject, but they are all used accurately and are all true. They give an honest (if somewhat unflattering) description of the subject and help to establish the reasons as to why he is so widely known in society, but without having to resort to libellous lies or defamation of character (for that, it would have to be proven to be untrue). These terms are not even emotive, and it's not like somebody wrote "filthy homophobe" or "capitalist pig" or "bible basher". If somebody were to amend the opening paragraph to also state "Souter is a successful business man", then that would also be true and there is no way I would ever considering deleting or changing it because it is honest and relevant to the subject.

I dont think the comment about Hitler in one of the previous postings was intended to actually compare Souter to Hitler (although persecuting an entire social group will easily lead to comparisons) but it was to highlight the fact that just because a person is famed for something negative or dishonourable, it should not stop those items from being mentioned in an article - even if it means the subject does not come out smelling of roses. For those who feel that the article leans more towards a negative POV rather than a PPOV, then I suggest they look at Souter's character and ask exactly what has he done that is so wonderful apart from make a load of money for himself?

The example of commenting that "President Bush is a failure" is not the same thing as it is far too vague and open to interpretation, where as the information given about Souter is far more specific. Nor does it distort reality. As for quoting sources, there is nothing to stop other contributors quoting opposing sources if they so wish - as long as they are reputable and valid.

I would be happy to work with you on rewording the first paragraph of the article if you like, as long as it doesn't whitewash over the things that the man is widely known for. I think something along the lines of:

Despite being a successful business man, Souter has gained notoriety for his business practices (which were criticised as "deplorable"), his controversial public statements, and for his failed attempt to keep the anti-gay legislation, Section 28.

The article would then proceed to state those criticisms in more detail, citing relevant sources. MassassiUK 11:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's fair to say that he is a fairly controversial and, some may say, undesirable type of person. However pointing this out in an unbalanced fashion is POV. "Inappropriate public statements" would probably be more accurately rendered as "controversial public statements"; another point of contention is to give a blanket criticism of Section 28 as 'anti-gay' when there are plenty who will argue that it was not. --Breadandcheese 23:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention "underhanded" which, unless expressed as a direct quote, is very obviously POV. - superβεεcat  20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(...continued from above)It is true that a lot of what is on the page is factually accurate. However it should be tempered with other information, as mentioned by another contributor. His personal life needs detailing, as does his business career - after all, there are references to his train company being investigated by the Monopolies Commission without even introducing the fact that he owns a train company!--Breadandcheese 19:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it would seem that my reworked version of that sentence (as stated above) would be more fitting then. I wouldn't use the term "undesirable person" though. Section 28 was indeed anti-gay legislation though, no matter how you dress it up. As for providing a more balanced view, that is where Wikipedia needs to be a group effort. I initially posted the "controversies" paragraph on the main page because another user had removed the information from the article which then made the tone of it like a glowing reference to Souter (ironic that the same user was later whining about POV issues). Personally, I can't actually think of anything positive to say about somebody like Souter...but I'm sure other people can, and they are welcome to post that information on the article page, providing that it's accurate. My contribution to the page was to balance it out and state the things he has gained notoriety for. MassassiUK 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You and I find it anti-gay, but it's a debateable point and certainly not a "fact". Check out this article by the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/612409.stm See how they describe what section 28 is, and describe the controversy without passing judgment themselves? That's exactly what NPOV is about. It's okay to cite a point of view as such, a citation of someone's point of view which is a direct quote, or made very clear it's a 3rd party's opinion, it's not okay to pass judgment as fact because a 3rd party source agrees. - superβεεcat  21:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you on the point about Section 28. In the article, you have reworded it to say it "prevented municipal schools from promoting homosexuality". However, Section 28 was far more than that. It was a piece of legislation that dictated that all local authorities (not just schools) "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". This is clearly and unequivocally prejudicial towards gay men and women, and is therefore anti-gay. There is absolutely no way you can dress it up any other way. We should also remember that Section 28 was actually removed from the statute books because it was deemed homophobic in the way it marginalised and disadvataged a whole section of society by denying them publicly funded services, despite the fact that gay people pay taxes too. By its very nature, it also created more of a stigma about homosexuality, which also made it anti-gay. It was also, in all honesty, the most ill-worded (and ill-conceived) piece of legislation ever made in recent history. Of course, there were bigots who always tried to say "I'm not homophobic, I'm just thinking of the children"...and perhaps some of them genuinely did not realise that that kind of statement was still indeed homophobic. Homophobes don't like being called homophobes, the same way racists don't like being called racists, and criminals don't like being called criminals. It makes them feel less evolved. These are the kinds of people who would have a problem with Section 28 being labelled as "anti-gay legislation". At the end of the day, however, anti-gay is exactly what it was - whether that was the intent of its supporters or not. MassassiUK 22:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the law is patently homophobic. I think you err in saying that no rational opinion to the contrary can possibly exist. If the law specifically forbade homosexuality, or in some way disparaged by an affirmative act, your argument would be stronger, which isn't to say you're wrong, just that it's not a fact in a vacuum where reasonable people couldn't disagree. That's what makes it POV. Just as I find the don't ask don't tell policy of the US armed forces homophobic, I would also say that similar language (anti-gay, homophobic) in that context would be equally POV. Again please understand what I am distinguishing: If the article says it's anti-gay, it's saying that it's a fact, which as I've argued, is an opinion, even if it's probably the right one. Far better to simply quote or cite a SOURCE as saying anti-gay, or homophobic to completely avoid the issue. NEXT even if you don't grant that premise, it's far more encyclopedic to simply STATE a controversy. In other words, instead of saying "anti-gay" simply state the statue (as you've just done here), and let it stand for itself. That gives the reader the benefit of the doubt to form their own opinion, and clearly provides more information than simply "anti-gay" POV or no. - superβεεcat  23:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it wasn't entirely respectful of gay rights, but I don't think I'd describe it as anti-gay. Equally I wouldn't describe the institution of civil marriage where it is restricted to one man and one woman as anti-gay even though I disagree with it on a similar basis. I don't believe everyone who supported Section 28 was a homophobic bigot either.

Objectively speaking, I think you realise you won't get away with branding s.28 'anti-gay legislation' - it's simply not how encyclopaedic writing works and it is far too controversial a point to be stated in the absolute without discussion. More significantly this page is not the place for discussing the merits or otherwise of the legislation - that's for the Section 28 page - what should be stated is nothing more than the facts about his involvement in the process. That's my two Euro cents anyway. --Breadandcheese 23:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason people dislike words like "homophobic", "Islamophobic", etc is because the words are scientifically dishonest- unlike the words "racist" and "criminal". A phobia is a mental illness, which is not the same as a differing political opinion. There have been attempts to prove that a disapproval of homosexuality is caused by latent homosexual inclinations, but they have not stood up to scientific scrutiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.96.76 (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think picking up a dictionary sometime might help. A phobia is a strong fear, dislike, or aversion to something. Homophobia is a fear of - or contempt for - gay men and/or lesbians. To negatively discriminate against a whole social group based on their sexuality pretty much shows "contempt", whether fear of said group is present or not. The Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary defines homophobia as an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". 79.66.59.86 (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

POV mess

This article is a POV mess. As a bioagraphy, first it needs to provide information about this person, as related to his notabilty, and only then present any controversies that may have gained notoriety. I am inclined to stubify the article as at is stands it is not compliant with our policies of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article to make it compatible with our content policies. If involved editors want to add more material, please read carefully our biography of living people policy, as well as WP:NOT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I don't like Souter, his (in my view) shady business practices or really anything about him, but the article seems to be getting constantly vandalised. Not by people trying to put forward that he is homophobic, and providing an explanation however NPOV, but just random bile filled sentences. Douglasnicol 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

POV-intro

I've reapplied the above template. No serious attempt to balance seems to be being applied to the intro nor anywhere else for that matter. --Bill Reid | Talk 13:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you addressing this yourself if you have credible, relevant facts to add to the article. Of course, the man is a complete turd and so he's bound to look bad.

The reason people dislike words like "homophobic", "Islamophobic", etc is because the words are scientifically dishonest- unlike the words "racist" and "criminal". A phobia is a mental illness, which is not the same as a differing political opinion. There have been attempts to prove that a disapproval of homosexuality is caused by latent homosexual inclinations, but they have not stood up to scientific scrutiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.96.76 (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you have something to hide. 80.41.55.176 (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion or censorship?

ref. the Stagecoach bully-boy tactics designed to drive smaller operators off its profitable monopoly routes in Manchester. How can something that drew considerable media attention - the Manchester Evening News, Stockport Express, Granada Reports, the BBC (locally AND nationally) - be "unsafe"? perhaps the person doing the deletion works for Stagecoach and Mr Souter? Ref:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4871214.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5319040.stm http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/222/222428_chaos_as_bus_wars_break_out.html

http://www.stockportexpress.co.uk/news/s/511/511311_war_on_the_buses.html I could go on adding citations, but these will do to start with.....86.155.78.146 (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.78.146 (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC) 

Like it or not Soutar has gained notoriety and it does seem that entire segments that aren't exactly flattering have been removed. Douglasnicol (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a question of notoriety, this is a bio of a living person and to quote from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. So the sources for the removed text have to be of the highest quality before they can be added back. The facts, written in a NPOV style with well sourced citations, will always be accepted. Bill Reid | Talk 18:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all very well, but material that was properly sourced has been removed just because it was unflattering towards the subject. That is also a violation of Wiki policies.79.66.59.146 (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Recently I tried to write a well-referenced section on Controversies - Business Practices. This included a link to the Monopolies & Mergers Commission report which reported on a specific instance of Stagecoach business practices (source of the quote found in many places in the media - "predatory, deplorable and against the public interest". Plus two additional media references (including one BBC). This has been removed and replaced and then removed again by different people. The content is not contrary to WP:BLP guidelines - it is well referenced and a genuine part of Brian's public image. If the wording has NPOV problems, that should be fixed - not the content removed. For information, The Monopolies & Mergers report is here: http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1995/371bus.htm Djlivi (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, and it seems that certain editors are intent on trying to remove any details from the article that are even remotely critical of Brian Souter. However, Wikipedia's BLP policies (particularly WP:WELLKNOWN) clearly states that articles should show all factual details that are relevant to a subject's public persona even if it is unflattering towards them. Whether you like him or loathe him, Brian Souter is a particularly controversial figure, and the article needs to reflect that. This is not a Brian Souter fan site and we are not here to make Souter look good, we are here to provide an accurate description of who he is. Wikipedia is not about censorship and removal of sourced content is vandalism. If this continues, the offending editors will be reported and their accounts will be blocked. 88.104.16.35 (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe this kind of thing is still going on. Wikipedia editors should not be censoring relevant information about a person, living or dead. As long as it meets WP:V, it should be included in the article. Wikipedia's purpose is not to make people look like saints, it is here to report facts - even if those facts aren't particularly flattering. To me this is a well balanced article, it lists Souter's successes but also his controversies. Anybody trying to assert this is a WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE issue is obviously a friend, relative or employee of the article subject (which in turn leads to a WP:COI issue). MassassiUK 19:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Dundee to London?

As I recall it, the original bus did not run from Dundee to London, it ran on a Friday night from Murray Street in Perth (from behind the Wheel Inn's courtesy coach!) to London, and arrived back early hours on a Monday morning. Brian and his brother drove the bus, Ann served tea and coffee from Thermos flasks and sandwiches her mum had made. Unfortunately I have no source for this except from my own teenage memory or I would have edited the page in a flash. 87.194.173.169 (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)