Jump to content

Talk:Green Tortoise/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

see edits before this change to track the changes behind this archived page.

shout out to 67

I was surprised to see that one of my groups had been linked to from this article. Not that I'm complaining, but I was wondering when that happened. According to the archives, it was linked to by 67.163.61.212 on December 25. Whoever you are, over at Comcast, thanks. We'll do our utmost to live up to that vote of confidence.


Rocdad/Rockdad's edit, reversion remarks

I might not be who you think I am. My internet service provider, Netsource Communications in Naperville, uses dynamic IP. Any disputes you have with 65, whoever he is, are with him. All I share in common with the guy is our very popular local ISP, the only one based in Naperville, Illinois, a city of 140,000. I hold no views on Hellenic Paganism, being more than a little surprised to learn that it still exists, the germanicness of Alsatians or whatever else this guy argued about. I do hold a view on the practice of vandalising wikis as an act of personal revenge, however. People may argue about exactly what NPOV means, but when you have a user running at random through Wikipedia vandalising a user's entries in order to get even with him over a perceived slight, I can't believe that this qualifies as NPOV.

This all arose on ePlaya after Rocdad (who posts there as "Rockdad") lied about remarks made by one Prof. Van Romero of the New Mexico school of mining. A user on the board calling himself "Dustbuddy" pointed out that Rockdad had misrepresented Romero's remarks, providing relevant links. Rockdad has been on the warpath ever since, doing everything and anything he could to harass anybody who might be Dustbuddy. In practice, that has worked out to be anybody who uses the same ISP. You can find the whole pathetic story here.

On behalf of burners everywhere, I'd like to apologize to the authors of this article and the users of this site for the damage done to their work and for any disruption our misbehaving community member will bring into your day. Our infighting has become a source of trouble for you, and that stinks. All I can say on our behalf is that this guy is acting out on his own, and that few of us endorse this kind of behavior. I wish that I could offer you better than that.

BTW, Todfox's reputation is under attack on ePlaya, as he can see by looking at this post. Thought that somebody might want to know.


unintentionally deleted remarks

removed irrelevant discussion, see old version if you must. ∴ here…♠ 22:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

dirty hippies

Removed from article: 

Participants are mostly hippies, and europeans.

While many many be, I think we can find a better wording for this. - UtherSRG 16:00, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I essentially put this back in with a new opener reading
The company was founded over 30 years ago operating a counterculture bus line. It has maintained a character of mixed appeal, popular with hippie, backpacker, and burner subcultures, but unpopular with a perhaps larger audience unsatisfied with the service.
Comment if issues. ∴ here…♠ 20:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


        65 comments: "Original research" issue already raised in the history
        in the course of a revert - comments about the overall popularity of
        the GT among these subcultures is speculation unsupported by a reference,
        and thus is in violation of the "no original research policy". Also, I
        wonder if the word "hippy" would fit. Maybe it would, but offline I've
        talked to people who've observed that the Green Tortoise customers they've
        run into have tended to be young or at least youngish. If somebody was 18
        during the summer of love in 1967, then he was born in 1949 and would be
        56 at present (in 2005).

        I wonder if "neo-hippy" wouldn't be more accurate? Moot point, perhaps,
        because it's just another unpolled population on this subject, but I throw
        this out for what it's worth.
I feel confident about the subcultures mentioned.
  • Backpacking (travel) is undisputible (please..)
  • the roots of the company are in the old-style hippie community. I had a few of the truest hippies I've ever met school me on The Farm (Tennessee) and Wavy Gravy at the hostel, appalled that I hadn't heard of them already (apparently, I'm the neo-hippie).
  • Burners, come-on now, you are the ones arguing for the category inclusion... ?
Is this really original research, or widely established and accepted fact? ∴ here…♠ 02:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, the Farm's tofu pot pie recipe is fantastic as long as you add liberally to its suggestions for spices (it reflects the era in which it was written :).

Anyway, I think I feel comfortable including some references to all 3 groups in the article. In my opinion, it is justified for the reasons Here mentions. However, we should try to find some references for this as it would be good if the article continued to have good quality sourcing. Kit 04:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes & NPOV

I edited this page to add proper footnotes instead of the numbered links which were present before. Also I removed a 'see also' comment from the body of the text and added it to a See also section. I think this page probably needs some more editing and maybe a bit of NPOV work still. Kit 22:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

(comments by 65.182.172.92): The work on the footnotes looks nice, but as for NPOV, what you see in the text is, aside from some oblique defense of the Tortoise inserted by another user, simply what the sources say. No original research, remember?

I'd also point out that Todfox and I have had a dispute regarding the links section of the Burning Man article, during the course of which Tod behaved in a somewhat unethical fashion and got called on it, and that this smacks of a little bit of payback.

I am suggesting, then, that some further research should be done and viewpoints such as the one suggested in the source I added to 'See Also' should be incorporated into the article. I think you did a good job on this page and it has been greatly improved. I am not sure why you think my work to improve this article is 'payback' or what exactly you see me needing to pay you back for. Although I agree that the anonymous editor (currently editing from 65.182.172.92) and I are engaged in a dispute on Talk:Burning Man I see nothing in my actions here that is vindictive. If you feel otherwise, please point it out so the article can be improved -- in fact, I congratulated you for your work here on Talk:Burning Man and came here to improve upon your already good work. Wikipedia is an ongoing process, and articles rarely remain static as I am sure you know. Kit 21:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I did some more research and positive reports are hard to come by, most are like this one: http://www.channel4.com/4car/gallery/gallery/green-tortoise/route-1966.html which talks about the reporter being ankle deep in beer cans and muddly clothes. Yum. It seems like making the article reflect a balance of both positive and negative would be difficult. Kit 22:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


        65 writes: Yipe. Beer cans, huh? Sounds painful. Hope he got out of
        there with his skin relatively unsliced. I'll have to take a look.

Still NPOV?

I tried to improve the NPOV status of this article. While nearly all reports on the 'net I've dug up seem to be negative, Wikipedia shouldn't be seen as taking a stance on the topic. Does it seem better now? Kit 04:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 


    Kit/Todfox - Does what seem better, now? I'd have to take serious issue
    with the way you're reading the NPOV policy. NPOV does not mean that we
    disregard sources in order to lead our readers to a common state of bland
    indecisiveness, thinking that all views are equally reasonable. It simply
    means that we report what the sources said, and let the readers draw their
    own conclusions.

    That is what I did. You, yourself, have said that finding a report that
    cast the Tortoise in a positive light was difficult, so it seems a little
    strange to me that you're suggesting that some kind of bias is implicit
    in the act of pointing readers in the direction of sources portraying the
    Green Tortoise in much the same light that you say that it appears in
    almost everywhere else.

    Are you suggesting that we bias the sampling of views in order to promote a
    preconceived nonjudgmental view on the part of those reading? Because not
    only is that not mandated by NPOV, it's not even logically compatible with
    NPOV.

    Read some more and ... ummm, no. While the "breach of contract" issue
    raised by one of the authors cited may not fit in with the "nonjudgmental"
    (read: pro-Green Tortoise)
    spin doctoring somebody is trying to push, it is a relevant issue and to
    ommit it is to do violence to that which we are reporting. For all the talk
    of this being done in the name of NPOV, there is a very definite comment
    about the author of the piece being hinted at, and to deny his side of
    the argument a hearing in the article while giving the other side a chance
    to have its spin get heard is not NPOV. POV by hint and innuendo is still POV.

    Guys, you know better.


Please do not revert or remove the NPOV tag without consensus of other editors. I know you seem to think I am out to get you, but in fact if you look at the History the NPOV tag was added at the response of another editor to deal with the complaints of a visitor to the site. Although I agree with you that most reports of Green Tortoise make it sound like an unpleasant experience at best, we can't be seen to take sides -- acting as though a single sources views reflect ours is doing so.

If you'd like to make improvements on the article please continue doing so, but the NPOV flag needs to stay until the consensus of the editors is that it can be removed.Kit 14:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 


    Kit, to be exact, you already established a willingness to use libel as a
    tool of debate over on the Burning Man external links discussion, so let's
    lose the innuendo and stop suggesting that I'm being paranoid just because
    I don't trust you. You're a total stranger who has acted in a dishonest
    and manipulative fashion in your past dealings with me, and has then buried
    the evidence in the archives. None of this earns much trust, and oh, isn't
    it a remarkable coincidence the way you and a friend have come by to chop
    the life out of an article I've written, right after I've criticised a
    change you introduced into another.

    Arguing in favor of removing almost all of the links other than those going
    to the official Burning Man site and saying that you were doing so for the sake of
    promoting a diversity of views was priceless.

    Right now, you're trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth. You state that
    most sources cast the GT in a negative light, yet try to argue that the fact that
    a reader might walk away from the article with a negative impression of the GT
    implies bias in the editing. This is absolute, self-contradictory rubbish; bias
    would produce a distortion of the consensus of the outside sources, and you,
    yourself have indicated that no such distortion is present. I have yet to see
    you respond to this one basic point with anything other than a roundabout way
    of saying "is not".

    So - yes or no - is it our job as editors to distort what other people have to
    say, just to lead the readers to the conclusion (or lack thereof) that we want
    them lead to? I point you in the direction of the "no original research" policy.
    Not only is merely telling the reader what the author said, instead of trying
    to filter it through our own POV allowable, it is mandatory. What you are seeking
    to do, then, is set aside the "no original research policy" in the name of that
    which Wikipedia itself states is a misreading of the NPOV policy, as you can see
    just by going to the article on NPOV. (See "what is the neutral point of view")

     I quote:

     "A point here bears elaboration. We said that the neutral point of view
      is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual
      point of view that is "neutral" or "intermediate" among the different
      positions. That represents a particular understanding of what "neutral
      point of view" means. The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that
      the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to
      our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not
      to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into
      believing) that any particular view at all is correct.

      Another point bears elaboration as well. Writing unbiasedly can be
      conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them,
      rather than engaging in them."

     Thus, by filtering our choice or coverage of our sources in order to lead
     the reader by the nose to the blandly inoffensive wiashy-washiness you
     want this article rewritten in order to promote, not only are you not
     upholding NPOV, you're in direct violation of it, because that very
     blandly inoffensive wishy-washiness is, itself, a POV, which you're
     actively trying to promote.

     Like I said, it's our job to keep our job simple. We find the sources, and
     we give a non-misleading summary of what the sources say, and leave it at
     that, letting the reader draw his own conclusions. Whether we can anticipate
     what most of them will conclude is immaterial. Do we delete links to Geography
     departments because we know that most of the readers won't support the
     Flat Earth Society's POV on the shape of the earth, or soften their remarks
     about the earth's shape in order to give the flat earthers a boost, or do we
     accept that it isn't our place to try to distort our coverage in order to
     make the level of public support for a view into more of a tie than it would
     naturally be? Take a look at NPOV, Tod; Wikipedia is not supporting that
     practice, as much as you might try to pretend that it does.

NPOV, part 2

Former conversation unwieldly at best, new section started.

It is still overwhelmingly negative. Further sources sought. ∴ here…♠ 20:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Expanding the article, npov or not

All this activity leads me to add a few thoughts about the company I worked for in Seattle over the summer of 2004.

The company is really made up of three independant ventures:

The three ventures should each have their own sections, without necessary overlap in experience reports. While a certain character is maintained across the branches, they are essentially independent.

Looking for sources, particularly historical. ∴ here…♠ 18:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Added a bunch, still looking for sources. Will likely contact Rex and Gardner after this gets cleaned up and neutralized a bit to see if they have anything to add. How are 1st person (owner/operator) sources treated? ∴ here…♠ 20:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


     And everybody who didn't think too highly of the way your former employer
     did business is insignificant and can be ignored? If I didn't know better,
     I'd think that you were trying to write ad copy.

    Frowned on, if you're getting at what I think that you're getting at.
    Wikipedia is not here to provide your former employer with free advertising,
    "Here".
(Kit: I'll assume you deleted the following on accident?) Why are you complaining about my reworking of the article when it still reads as strongly biased /against/ the company? All I did was clean up the divisions of the company that belong in this article. Be specific about changes you dispute, or sections you'd like to change. I think the organization is a wonderfully dysfunctional counterculture (adj) travel company, of which there should be more. I do think they deserve an article. I don't have any intention of it being positively biased. Please do jump in and help make sure it isn't. Best ∴ here…♠ 22:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


     I'm not Kit. Breaking something this small into sections might be a little
     premature, but no big deal. Note that I haven't gotten rid of the sections.

     But you were trying to do more than introduce sections, and I think that
     you know that, all wonderfully double meaninged and purposefully vague
     phrasings aside. :)

Yes I did not notice deleting the above comments, my apologies. But also note, 65.*, that I am not 'here' and I have had nothing to do with breaking the article into sections. Kit 22:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 

      Sigh. Do you need a program to keep the players straight yet, Kit? :)
      I'm not "here", any more than I'm Todfox/Kit.

I think that as long as any information provided by the company is purely factual it would be hard to dispute -- like if we said they were founded in 1975, and they responded to let us know it was actually 1972, or we mispelled the founder's name and they let us know it would be hard to argue POV. But other contributions seem likely to be contentious. I do think that the company website can be one source of a positive viewpoint on the company, including the positive testimonials that are posted there (I doubt they were all fabricated) but there should be more sources if we are to reflect this positive viewpoint in the article.

I think the ideal for this article would be to reflect both positive and negative aspects of the company. I can only assume there are many positive experiences because the company has been successful enough to last 30 years. Without happy customers this seems unlikely. Additionally, at least one article I read included a specific mention of old-timers (repeat customers) and how they become almost assistant tour guides on the trips. Obviously, they enjoy the Tortoise experience.

The problem now is finding sources that reflect these positive experiences, and then giving the article a relatively even weight between the two.

Please see my comment below at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Green_Tortoise#here.27s_pro-tortoise_link

I don't have any axe to grind or any investment in this article reflecting either viewpoint: I have no relation to the Tortoise beyond what I've already mentioned. I think you did an excellent job in fleshing this article out, 65.*, and I hope you'll help us continue to improve it. Kit 04:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Bus Line vs Hostels and Intro

The bus line is /not/ the hostels. The name green tortoise means 'hostels' to many who know it and have no idea that it even has a bus line.

Please do not delete Table of Contents categories (bus line, etc). Please discuss variations on introductory statement including both aspects of the business. removed all disputable language. ∴ here…♠ 22:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Burning Man and GT

The following has been copied from Talk:Burning Man as being relevant here:

*Green Tortoise, remove. The green tortoise is not a burning man organization. They happen to run two busses there once a year, but otherwise are focused on running their hostels and busses.
∴ here…♠ 21:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

::I went ahead and removed Green Tortoise. We can use Category_talk:Burning Man for further discussion of what should or should not be included. I'd love your thoughts on the Pictures discussion above and my most recent thoughts in the second Links discussion, too. Thanks for jumping in. Kit 21:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

65.182.172.87 comments: 

        Comment: The Green Tortoise runs the shuttle at Burning Man, which is
        the primary means by which participants reach the neary communities
        of Empire of Gerlach to resupply. Its buses arrive in such numbers that
        not only is the Green Tortoise one of the largest camps at Burning Man,
        but part of BRC would be hard to recognize without the GT's signiature
        shade structure. While the Tortoise has a life outside of Burning Man,
        the same might be said of almost every other group of participants.

        The link should stay in.

Just to clarify, 65.* and make sure we are on the same page, this is a discussion over whether Green Tortoise should be part of Category:Burning Man, not a discussion of the 'See Also' link to the Green Tortoise article in Burning Man. 


         Comment by 65: We are on the same page, now. I was under the impression
         that "see also" was the issue.


However, I am inclined to agree with you on this matter. 


         Comment by 65: Ok, actually it's more like me agreeing with you,
         since I was talking about the "see also" link, but I guess that
         the same arguments apply to the choice of category, so I concur.


I will put Green Tortoise back in Category:Burning Man. Please take any further discussion of this or other items in the category to Category talk:Burning Man or Talk:Green Tortoise as appropriate, as it is not really on topic for this page. Kit 21:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

:I strongly disagree with this categorization. The green tortoise's involvement in burning man is a miniscule part of it's operations. Furthermore, the impact the Green Tortoise has /on/ burning man is miniscule, a medium to small sized theme camp of somewhat ramdon assembly (bus riders need not even bring their own food!) I find this somewhat akin to putting the article for porta-potties in the burningman category. Should the Green Tortoise also be in a category for the Oregon County Fair? How about Alaska? Perhaps Yosemite? They do run busses to all of those places. This conversation should be moved to GT. ∴ here…♠ 22:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I do think GT is one of the most recognizable fixtures at Bman and so I can see the argument for inclusion in this category, similar to the fashion with which David Best is part of Category Burning Man despite being an artist who works outside the festival as well. Likewise, we've included Gerlach-Empire, Nevada despite their existence outside the festival. IMO, this is the reason articles can be in multiple categories. On my first Burn ('02) I heard people referring to the Tortoise without knowing what it was. Including GT in Cat:Bman is a way of helping people in that kind of situation. I don't feel very strongly about this though, so I won't object if consensus seems to sway against including GT in the cat. Since we seem to be expanding and reworking this article, perhaps we could add a slightly expanded section on the Tortoise and their involvement with Bman as justification? Kit 23:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 


       Comment: I don't feel too strongly about this either, though I am
       inclined to side with Kit on this one, and would offer the (perhaps
       unnecessary) reminder that categories at Wikipedia are not hierarchical:
       articles can belong to multiple categories, even in cases in which
       one category is not a subset of another. 

       The Tortoise is much more than just their BM trip, no doubt, but that
       is one of their bigger trips and they are a major presence at BM
I'll take these responses as enough to keep GT in the category. I feel like I'm arguing 65.* 's side about it being advertising, but we'll leave it alone for now. I suppose if theme camps will be in this category, the GT counts. ∴ here…♠ 02:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that if an individual theme camp is deemed encyclopedic enough to have an entry, then it belongs in Category:Burning Man. We can always create a theme camps subcategory if this becomes so overwhelming that the main cat is swamped, but I don't see that happening any time soon if ever.

It would be great if sources on the GT as theme camp/Black Rock's bus line/etc. could be incorporated into the article, IMHO. Kit 07:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

June 1 edit: talk about nerve

This is some of what I found in the edit I reverted, just in case somebody thinks that I was exaggerting when I referred to "blatant ad copy"


"Green Tortoise Adventure Travel began over 30 years ago, with one sturdy bus and the realization that beautiful places, great food, and sociable people were the only essentials for gratifying travel experiences. Since then, over 500,000 people have traveled with us, including many repeat riders from all over the world. Enjoy the beauty, excitement, and inspiration of North and Central America aboard our "stretch-out-and-sleep" coaches.

Our sleeper coaches are unique, with names and lots of character. Our happy passengers sleep lying down on converted platforms and bunk beds. In the morning, we arrive somewhere incredible! By day we swim, explore caves, climb mountains, raft downstream, stand under waterfalls, walk through forests, build camp-fires, visit towns, meet people, or just plain take it easy. You're welcome to join the adventure, friends and fun. The settings are the best national parks, beaches, deserts, forests, hot springs, mountains, and waterfalls. There's nothing else like the Green Tortoise—even a short ride on the Green Tortoise is a vacation . . . the longer trips will become lifelong memories."


OUR sleeper coaches?! Is Wikipedia offering bus service, now? :)

Low informational content, clearly promotional material - this just didn't belong.

Er, yes, but...

Just for the record, I am the webmaster of www.greentortoise.com and solely responsible for our internet operations. This is the first we're hearing about this Wikipedia entry. The above two lines of promo copy were clipped wholesale off our homepage; however, we didn't do it. Whoever it was who had 'nerve', it wasn't us. Gtwebmaster 22:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering the conduct already seen out of GT employees on this page, yourself included, I hope that I might be pardoned if I respond to that protest of innocence with more than a little skepticism. -65 ::::

more from GTWebmaster

I've been encouraged by another user to incorporate the links I listed above into the article, saying, "As far as incorporating additional sources as mentioned on the talk page -- go for it! Some folks will likely dispute your neutrality, but it should be no problem if you stick to the guidelines for verifiability and neutral point of view." I will do my best to stick to those guidelines.

However, I feel that there are some serious neutrality problems with this article beyond that. As before, I want to throw my comments out to the community rather than just making any changes myself.

This article selectively emphasizes, in fact consists almost solely of, the minority negative points of view of a very small number of ex-passengers. It includes opinion, and seeks to portray the reports of single individuals as broader trends.

1.) Of all the information contained on our website, why is our small disclaimer suggesting users to double-check information before booking worth highlighting? Off all that could be said about GT, is this minor disclaimer worth being one of the primary points of emphasis of the two-paragraph introduction our travel company? It is not unusual for a travel company to change schedules at the last minute - ever have a flight cancelled? So why are are we being singled out by having this emphasized as if it's a key facet of our company?

2.) "Even the information one receives from the company over the phone may be suspect, however, according to some reports" Why is, in our 32 years of operation, the opinion of one disgrunted passenger with a grudge worth highlighting? And why is this presented as plural, with the phrases "according to some reports" and "some customers", when the accompanying reference is the unsubstantiated claims of a single person with a Tripod website?

3.) "The company is a for-profit venture, but business is reportedly conducted rather informally." This is a vast generalization, as well as a groundless opinion, and no reference is even cited. Unless this are referring to the possibility of last-minute schedule change as mentioned above... but do wikipedia's articles on the major airlines start off by describing their business as "rather informal" also?

4.) "passengers uncomfortable around nudity, sexual innuendo, or reduced privacy may wish to consider those details, especially given reported incidents in which female passengers were allegedly pressured by employees" This statement is an opinion, and also once again resorts to pluralization to make one single account sound like a pattern of behavior.

5.) "Passengers with special dietary needs have reportedly had difficulty getting them met, sometimes allegedly even in cases in which those passengers had been assured in advance, by the Green Tortoise staff, that their needs would be met." Why is Wikipedia being used to air one person's allegations? Can people insert whatever they want into Wikipedia by sticking the word "allegedly" into anything anyone claimed somewhere on a Tripod site? Also, once again, pluralization is used to make this sound like a trend instead of an isolated incident - "A passenger" and "that passenger" would have been true. "Passengers" and "those passengers" is not true.

If something is claimed by a single person out there on the web, is that sufficient grounds (and sufficiently interesting) for it to be included in a Wikipedia article? This is not a rhetorical question, I'd like to know.

6.) "Under the circumstances, they might consider either bringing appropriate food or making alternate arrangements, although this may prove impractical, given the severe space constraints aboard the Green Tortoise's busses. " Not only is this opinion instead of neutral fact, this is the complaint of a single individual who has been trying to damage our reputation for years, and is culled from the same single website as several of the other negative statements.

Question: Are the single websites these negative statements are attributed to "reliable sources" as described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources ? I would particularly draw your attention to the sections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Check_multiple_sources and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources . Considering that this entry's content may be doing damage to a business, I think it's appropriate that the sources used are held to the highest standards.

And regardless of the validity or lack thereof of the above points, I still don't see why, of all the many things that could be said about GT, they have been selected as of primary importance in describing our company.

It would be very easy for me to dig up a bunch of positive passenger experiences to load this article with references to (see the links I provided above). If I filled this article with comments about good experiences people have had, substantiated by the many positive links I have provided, would that be in violation of neutrality, or of the prohibition of using wikipedia as "advertisement"? Is it neutrality when someone with a negative bias against GT does the same thing?

This page seems in many ways like a platform for specific persons to publicize specific complaints against Green Tortoise, rather than a neutral article describing GT in fair, even-handed terms. Any company that has been around over 30 years, providing intense experiences to thousands of people every year, is going to have a few occasional disgruntled customers. I do not wish to pretend that the complaints don't exist. But in this article, the bad experiences of a few individuals known to us over the years as having axes to grind has been selectively and specifically emphasized, and the intent on the part of the author(s) to emphasize these negative aspects and make them seem like perhaps they are trends, rather than exceptions, is obvious.

If Wikipedia articles shouldn't be advertising, neither should they unfairly damage the reputations of legitimate businesses by providing little more than a platform for the complaints of a small handful of people with an axe to grind.

SOOOOOooooo.... someone wanna say something before I load the article down with "equal time" for the positive things said in the websites I listed above (and others like them?) Truthfully, I wish someone else would just fix it, just to completely avoid any accusations of non-neutrality. But either way this article is unfair as it stands. --Gtwebmaster 08:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree for the most part, and went ahead and chopped the article down a bit. I removed the tripod source entirely based on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources. I also removed the first hand account of the Seattle hostel being closed (it isn't), the comment about double checking the website (every organization says that at times), the advice to passengers (does not belong here).
Looks like the article hasn't changed - was it reverted? --Gtwebmaster 22:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)::
I'll mention again that I have the entire full-text contents of the new york times, washington post, travel magazines etc articles cited as further reading in the article. If you would like those to aid in your revision, just drop me a note or email and I will send them your way. ∴ here…♠ 14:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
And let's point out that "here" is, by his own admission, a Green Tortoise employee, which means that we now have a pair of those trying to hijack this article and turn it into ad copy for the Green Tortoise (this would be the second time this was accomplished, at least) by removing all critical commentary and references in the name of ... and they actually say this with a straight face ... neutrality. Awesome. So yes or no - does NPOV mean anything? - 65 ::
OK, let's discuss this accusation. Unless there's something I missed, here is not a Green Tortoise Adventure Travel employee. I did a Google search... Apparently Here worked at the Green Tortoise Seattle Guesthouse a few years ago. This is a separate company from Green Tortoise Adventure Travel, founded by one of the same people but under separate ownership for several years now and with no business ties whatsoever. He certainly is no longer employed there, because I just spent a month and a half there this summer and never met him. I don't know here personally, I have no idea who he is or anything about him beyond the above and what I see on Wikipedia, and I have never had contact with him outside this discussion, except the one private message he sent me indicating he thought it would be alright if I posted the links I mentioned. He is NOT connected to the Adventure Travel company at all, he has never worked there, and calling him an employee of the travel company, or any of our San Francisco operations, is a mischaracterization. I am the only Green Tortoise Adventure Travel employee involved in this discussion, and I have not edited the article, merely used the discussion page to point out my complaints with it. :::
The nature of GT as a travellers' phenomenon is that a lot of people who are enthusiastic about GT wind up working either for the Travel company or at one of the hostels for a time. If you're going to exclude everyone who ever worked part time in the travel company in its 30-year existence, or picked up a pencil behind the front desk of either of the hostels for a while in the last twelve years, then you're excluding literally thousands of people from working on this article. We have more turnover than you could possibly believe. In fact, since I first posted, i resigned my webmaster duties there, although I still maintain their in-office computer system on an occassional basis, and retain the webmaster@ email address for now. :::
I am not trying to "hijack" anything, I haven't edited the article myself, although where a user with whom I am unacquainted suggested it would be ok, I may yet do so. But so far, I have just contributed on the talk page. I have specifically referenced Wikipedia guidelines in my complaints - let my arguments speak for themselves. Or is my point of view invalid, even on the discussion page, because of my association with GT?  :::
By the way, it's worth saying it this point that I am not paid by GT for my time involved in this issue and I have no material interest in GT's success or failure (beyond continuing my aproximately 5 hrs/month part-time job maintaining their system)... my primary consulting career [[1]] won't suffer if GT goes out of business. I'm doing this on my own time and out of my own interest in seeing them fairly portrayed. I am not the owner of GT, I am not management there, I'm just a guy who makes almost no money doing a few hours a month at most of computer work for them. I have virtually no material interest in whether GT succeeds or fails  :::
I have done my best to proceed every step of the way with clear respect for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I posted on the discussion page, not the the article. I asked for input from the community before doing anything. I spent hours reading Wikipedia's policies. I resent you making false accusations about my motives and mischaracterizations of my actions. :::
My desire is for a neutral article about GT, not "ad copy". I think the comments of everyone involved speak for themselves. I specifically said I do not wish to deny that the criticisms exist. GT's own website attempts to dissuade people fom riding with us who might not enjoy it [[2]]- in fact, I wrote that page myself! We LIKE people to know things about GT that might be uncomfortable for them, rather than have them get on the bus and then discover too late that it's not for them. Gt has no - and I repeat, NO, problem with criticism if it's fair. The criticism in the article, as it stands, however, is not fair. :::
And I have contributed not a single sentence that could be construed as requesting anything like ad copy be added, just suggested a few references from reputable third-party sources. The "ad copy" statement is a total fabrication on your part.:::
You have mischaracterized my comments and my intent. I have substantiated every claim I have made. It seems that your opinion is that unless the article is allowed to stand as a very biased piece centering on hearsay, without criticism or discussion, I am "hijacking" the article, creating "ad copy" and violating neutrality. My feeling is that you don't have the right to write biased articles on wikipedia, and if I see you doing that about something I care about, then I am perfectly within my rights to exercise my freedom to point it out (or even to fix it myself, within appropriate Wikipedia guidlines.) Each to his own. :::
Although quite frankly I am not willing to be derailed into further argument over motives, the identities of people involved, conjecture about our relationships, etc. I have been perfectly transparent about all of the above. Expect me to continue pointing out violations within this article if I can find them, substantiating them with direct references to Wikipedia policy, asking other to consider making edits, and, yes, perhaps even make some edits myself, if they are ones which seem to be in keeping with the guidelines and/or which the more experienced members of this community have told me would be ok. (For instance, I feel justified in adding the "weasel words" tag to the top of the article myself, as it is so clearly applicable - see my comment below.)
Look, the whole section on the travel company is centered on disgruntled people complaining about GT and airing grievances. It ignores huge aspects of the green tortoise to focus almost solely on the complaints of a tiny handful of people. And it's a lot of hearsay. If you want to do a balanced page on Green Tortoise and accurately portray the company and services, including references to the isolated greivances amongst the many positive references, in context, without exaggerrating them, lending false authority to them, or making isolated instances sound like trends, I won't complain. It's killin' me, I handle the website email, so I know how many thousands of people love GT and have had extremely positive experiences, and the experiences reported on this page are far-and-away the exceptions, not the norm, and I don't see why there's an article devoted solely to them. Look, I don't want to see a GT puff piece or advertisement on wikipedia. but this article is a hatchet piece and it's not fair, and I know it's not fair because I know the facts and have the references to prove it but I'm being told I can't fix it because I'm not "neutral". Now, would somebody please do something about it?

--Gtwebmaster 21:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC):::

The point has been raised in the past, that the authors of a great many of these "independent accounts" have suspiciously similar writing styles, and that they seem to read like professionally written ad copy - which is what you're trying to turn this article into. To boil down a lot of verbiage, what you're saying is that you want this article censored, because it doesn't give the spin you and your employer like. ::::
Too bad. We're not here to make you happy or to help you sell tickets. We're here to sum up what people have had to say about the experience, and the problem with those slickly written "personal accounts" that you expect us to be gullible enough to take at face value is that they're as vacuous as advertising material tends to be. "Met a girl and had a damn fine time. Whoo! Thanks, Green Tortoise" - what, as an edior, am I supposed to glean from that? "Some report that the tortoise is a great place to get lucky and get down, and some say 'whoo' after they're done". There's nothing there. ::::
Likewise with these photo pages. What am I going to say? "Some riders use 800 film on bright days". The link might be great advertising for you, but when the time comes for us to write a summary, there's nothing to summarize. So we don't summarize it. The fact that you say that this is "killin'" you may be of great interest to you, but it is of no relevance here, because to summarize a nearly content-free page, we would have to expand on what little the author had to say, and that's original research, one of many things that we're not supposed to be doing. ::::
One of the others is what you've just admitted to doing. By your own account above, you came, not to report on what others had said, as we have, but to slant this article in a way that you felt was "fair" to your employer; ie. to impose the spin you personally liked. The point of NPOV is that's not what you're supposed to be doing. Your question, then, is "how do I get past the spirit and intent of Wikipedia policy, and get what I want, right now". What I'm telling you is that you're asking the wrong question. You shouldn't be trying to circumvent Wikipedia policy, you should be respecting it.::::
If you wish to see that statement as being "contentious" or something like that, so be it. - 65 ::::

Weasel words

As I've been reading wikipedia guidelines this morning, I've come across the page on "Weasel Words" [[3]] such as "Allegedly...", Some people say...", "Accusations...", ""Considered by many..." etc. The "Avoid Weasel Words" page unequivocably says, " If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view" and "Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax". The current GT article is peppered with multiple instances of "reportedly", "according to some reports", "allegedly", "Some customers have claimed". Would that make these statements a violation of NPOV?

No, they wouldn't. See remarks below. - 65 ::::

NPOV: "Difficult experiences"?

Why does the link to the Channel 4 photo gallery say "A channel4.com reporter relates his difficult experiences aboard the Tortoise"? The word "Difficult" seems to be the value judgement of the person who added the link, not the reporter, who doesn't use any words like "difficult" in the article, and describes many different aspects of the trip, both good and bad. Should the value judgement as to whether his experience is "difficult" be left to the reader instead of used as the description of the link, as if it were a fact?

Speaking generally, is there some way to escalate the issues raised on this page? From the tone and statements in the response made by "65" above, I fear this may get contentious, I'd like it if there's some higher authority on Wikipedia that could review the issues & statements and offer guidance.

In other words, is there some way to cover up material that your business would rather that people didn't see? No, and the very attempt to misuse the wiki in that way is grounds for banning you from the site. "NPOV" means all sides get heard from, not just one, even when it's a side that you, personally, don't care for, and the link to your company's homepage has been present on this article from day one. You don't get to have it both ways. :::
As for the channel4 link, I know nothing about that. Another editor put it in, and I have not read it, so I'll refrain from commenting on it. -65 :::

Give me a break

"Here didn't work for the Green Tortoise busline, he worked or the Green Tortoise hostel in Seattle, and that makes him impartial". That's taking hairsplitting to a new level. These are two divisions of the same company. Quoting from the Seattle Green Tortoise Hostel's homepage:

"The World Famous Green Tortoise Adventure Travel began over 30 years ago, with one sturdy bus and the realization that beautiful places, great food, and sociable people were the only essentials for gratifying travel experiences. The Green Tortoise hostels in San Francisco and Seattle are built on this fine tradition. The Green Tortoise San Francisco and Seattle hostels are created around a social communal experience."


"Here" is most certainly not impartial.

As for the reporting of negative incidents involving customers - something that is certainly of relevance in an article about a company - who do you suggest getting those reports from, but the customers themselves? What you seem to be saying is that a site is only "verifiable" if it is owned by a corporation. Under those terms, Wikipedia would become promotional material, not encyclopedic at all.

When you stop and think about it, the Green Tortoise "self-publishes" its site as well, and you seem to have no problem with that link being present in our article. I see a number of sites you've listed as ones you'd like to see this article link to, most of which seemed a little light on commentary - nice photography, but with little for us to report on, in the way of narrative. They are as much personal homepages, in almost all cases, as the one whose inclusion you're protesting, for the most blatantly self-serving of reasons: that particular account does not cast your company in the light you'd prefer. Your criticism is, therefore, hypocritical, and in intent, clearly in violation of the NPOV policy.

As much as you've tried to deny that a certain earlier editor was you, it is, to say the least, rather interesting that literal ad copy from your site found its way into this article, before I reverted it. This latest effort of yours, therfore, represents a continuing pattern of behavior on the part of your company. Consider, for example, the vandalism of the references section carried out in this version by one of your drivers, right above the link to the tripod page you're trying to bury. Your driver writes:


"re: "Bad Times": I used to drive for the Tortoise, and sure they have some problems, but this guy is the worst type of traveler there is. Go ahead and read his whiny psychotic ramblings, all 5 million poorly written words. Would you want to travel with him? Every little thing that happens to this chappie is a personal affront. Gosh, can you imagine standing in a line and HAVING TO WAIT? Or finding a dirty bathroom in a Greyhound station? People like this get left behind on purpose. Green Tortoise is not for everybody but for some, it's magic. I've been part of it."


Aside from the ethical concerns raised by such a gross and bizarre misrepresentation of what the author in question has written, this content is as far from being NPOV as anything imaginable, and certainly would have to be considered a personal attack. Both are violations of Wikipedia policy, which your company seems to hold in no regard.

As for "weasel words", none were present and you got yourself a righteous revert. I, myself, did not insert the word "alleged" or "allegedly", as far as I can recall. (It's been a while). However, I can live with them. The point of those "weasel words", as you inaccurately label them, is that as editors we take no position on the accuracy of these reports. We don't say "this happened", we don't say "this didn't happen". We simply say "this is what people have said" and summarize exactly that, keeping our own personal judgements to ourselves. That is precisely what NPOV means, and always has meant.

What it most certainly does not mean is "corporations get heard but individuals don't, unless the corporation thinks their being heard from will help its bottom line". An article constructed on those terms wouldn't be NPOV, it would be ad copy. - 65

Let's read between the lines, kids

A fun fact about wikis - you can change the current version of a page, but past versions remain in the archives and they are linkable. Let's take a look at some comments on this version of GTWebmaster's comment page, because it's interesting to see what people will let slip. Here's a select quote from GTWebmster:

"Between you & me, management is freaking out about the article."

And along comes their webmaster, to take care of that which management is "freaking out" about - the mere fact that we've mentioned the content of articles written on other sites. Not all of them, by the way, having been introduced by me or even by people I know. If one checks the history of this article, one sees that it actually represents the collective tinkering of a good many people, as most wiki articles do. But very few of the editors involved in the creation of this article attempted spin control in the way "here" and GTWebmaster did, "here" himself seemingly leaving no mystery as to why that was, if we take his comments at face value.

"See you all in Seattle this winter"

He would seem to still be very much involved with the Green Tortoise, if we judge from that. Many questions should then present themselves, like this one - if there genuinely were so many pro-GT sites out there, why would our little page, really not much more than a stub, "freak out" the GT management so much - their words, more or less? What is it about that one particular article that "here" tried to cut the links to, that would make them so desperate to bury it? And when we, as editors, see a business willing to get down and play rough and dirty to keep people from being able to see one of our references, what should we conclude from that?

Give it some thought - but the next part is even better. -65

"Here" is where it gets fun

Take a look at the history page for the GTWebmaster talk page, in particular the firs two entries - all of the ones leading up to 28 Sept 2006, the date of the version of the talk page for GTWebmaster. While we see these words on that version of the discussion page:

"The preceding unsigned comment was added by GTWebmaster"

the archives record the presence of one and only one user editing that discussion page on or prior to that date - "here" himself! The implication is clear - either "here" and GTWebmaster are one and the same, or "here" has chosen to impersonate his friend for some odd reason. Even an anonymous login leaves one's IP address in the record, and as of the time of this wriing, there is no such entry in that log.

So, guys - or would that be "guy" - what's going on? How do you explain this, pray tell? Gee, you aren't trying to stuff the ballot box, are you "here"? - 65

NPOV tag removed

Why not? The NPOV tag was removed from the Burning Man article over my objections, even after I made a rational case that it belonged there. "here"/GTWebmster's entire case for putting the tag on this article can be summed up by the words "I feel really upset when I read this". At best, then, to hold onto here's NPOV tag would be to put a double standard into play, would it not? How could one argue otherwise?

One way, maybe: Retention of the NPOV tag might be argued for on the basis that several users were in favor of it, meaning that a consensus was not achieved - as opposed to the consenses we have everywhere else in Wikipedia, right? But look at the section above. The only two conclusions that the records allow us to choose from are that in the course of this incident, "here" either impersonated a fellow user or created that fellow user as a sock puppet - either way, he worked to create the illusion that two people were talking when only one was, apparently forgetting which login he was using. The reasonable question to ask, then, is how much of his "support" is so much smoke and mirrors - posts from other sock puppet accounts, posted at times when he managed to remember which login he was using and thus managed to not trip over his own feet.

I certainly don't think that behavior like this should be rewarded with extra clout. Anybody here - I mean, present - care to argue that it should? Oh, and "here" - after you slim yourself down to one identity, could you PLEASE choose a less confusing login. - 65

I have one username and am a former short-term employee of a former location of the seattle hostel. Rather than make confusing and unsupported allegations, please consider registering your own account with a username of your choice (Wikipedia:Why create an account?). Regarding the article content and npov, please see my comments below under reliable sources ∴ here…♠ 01:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Translation - "everybody, ignore the man behind the curtain". (See: Wizard of Oz). One need only follow the link I've given above to see that there is absolutely nothing "unsubstantiated" about this "allegation" of mine. The facts are there for all too see, in black and white and attested to by the system archives. You can not bluster your way out of that. As for my remarks being "confusing", what is confusing about the statement that "GTWebmaster is a sockpuppet for "here" and this link takes you to the evidence"? This is not a complicated idea. What it is, for your purposes, is an inconvenient one, because it leaves you publicly exposed in the act of engaging in outright fraud. ::
Your comments about "verifiable sources" are responded to below. - 65 ::
Your assumption that I am both users seems to arise from the fact that I copied a conversation from my talk page to another user's (gtwebmaster) to make sure that the user saw I had responded.  :::
Yeah, right. That most certainly is not how it would be commonly taken, and it strikes me as being awfully convenient for you, if the rest of us agree that italics have this hidden, secret meaning that sounds an awful lot like something that you just made up. ::::
By the way, interesting how GTWebmaster signs his name, eh, MIKE? 65 ::::
I placed the copied conversation onto his talk page verbatim and added italics to indicate that it is a copy. Feel free to look through my other talk page conversations to see simlar habits throughout. Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ as is recommended by the talk page guidelines Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. ∴ here…♠ 22:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC) :::
Please lose the control freak act. It's wearing thin. -65 ::::

http://chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/sociology/SROFieldResearchArticle/field_research_for_boneheads.htm seemed to be down. I don't know if that's temporary or if the Colorado State site is being reorganized, but in the meantime I've realigned the link to another copy of the same article on another server.

We'll see what develops. -65


Later comment: The site came back online soon after I posted this, and I switched the link back to its original destination. -65

reliable sources

My edits made here were based on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources (self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.), and what wikipedia is not (see: instruction manuals, no advice). 65.* does not agree with me and reverted the edits. As I've already been through this with 65.* a few times now, I will likely again wait for a new opinion before continuing this conversation. Concensus has clearly not been reached here, please leave the {{npov}} template visible and allow the addition of additional material based on acceptible reliable sources, such as those cited in the further reading section of the article (email me for full text). Those passing by please do drop a note to help influence the improvement of this article ! ∴ here…♠ 01:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Which would eliminate the Green Tortoise site, would it not? Or rather would, were your (probably willfully) poor command of the English language not showing. "Largely not acceptable" is not synonymous with "universally unacceptable". There is a considerable difference between quoting a consumer report as a source of information about the experience of being a consumer at a particular business, and quoting "Bill's Big Book of Medicine" for an explanation of how the Salk vaccine was developed, the kind of scenario the policy you refer to was conceived of in response to. This particular matter is not one in which professional expertise or scholarship have any measurable role to play; to illustrate the difference, this is like the difference between citing an article in which a layman talks about the physical evidence in a murder case and one in which he says "I got shot". In the second case, we don't really need to know what the man's credentials as a forensic pathologist are, so the issue of our taking those on faith doesn't even arise. - 65 ::
Or until you create yet another sockpuppet as you did in the case of your "GTWebmaster" creation, and this time manage to remember which login you're using as you have a conversation with yourself online. How many times do you get to play that game? Oh, and I would have to think there's some rule about trying to fix the results of a vote by creating false personas. See earlier comments about "ballot box stuffing". - 65 ::
In other words, allow you to stick in links to personal pages, but only the personal pages you happen to personally care for, all others being excluded. My answer to that is "no". It not a reasonable request. ::
As for the NPOV tag, were it to be applied to any article on which one pushy would-be editor was willing to get down and dirty to get his way, it would probably end up being applied to every article on this site. As such a universal usage would render the tag meaningless, it is obviously inappropriate and as I've already shown, not established policy on Wikipedia. -65 ::
That, they've already been doing already, without needing to have you tell them to do so. One only need to look at the history page for the article to see this, As I've already said and you don't seem to want to hear, this article is the collective work of many people, not just me. It is not, in every way, what I wanted it to be, but it has developed as an acceptable compromise. Acceptable to just about everybody except for you, that is, you who created at least one verifiably false front (GTWebmaster) creating the illusion of there being two voices where there was but one, you who have demanded unilateral control and postured, pretending that aggression was defense. ::
As for the puff pieces you tried to steamroller me into sticking into the reference section for you, my objections are already on record and you have failed to respond to them. Playing the "as if" game and pretending that they are not there will not make them go away. - 65 ::
Again, please take a look at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Please do not split my response into small sections, rather answer posts underneath, and sign your posts with four tildes. ∴ here…♠ 22:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
To address your concerns, by paragraph:
  1. I am quoting Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources, as linked. Give it a read.
I did. There is, however, a considerable difference between reading something and going trawling through it looking for quotes to take out of context, which is closer to what you're doing at this point. - 65:::::
  1. I do not use sockpuppets, but instead a registered account. Try it ;) Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account?
  2. I would be quite happy if the only sources were those listed in further reading.
  3. It would be great to get rid of the {{npov}}, lets talk about how to change the article toward concensus.
  4. In the last 10 months, 3 users have edited the talk page. You, myself, and gtwebmaster. Two of these users disagree with your actions.
  5. Puff pieces? At the moment, I'm not trying to add anything. I would like to remove your unreliable sources first and build from there.
All the best.. ∴ here…♠ 22:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
1. Learn how to spell the word "consensus". ::::
2. This article dates back a good deal more than the last three months, so your observation regarding the number of users editing this article in that time is a red herring. ::::
3. You and GTWebmaster are one and the same, and regardless of whether or not you have the personal integrity needed to admit this, the evidence is in. It has been presented on this page, and it is beyond reasonable debate. You most certainly do use sock puppet accounts, and in the case of GTWebmaster, have referred to at least one of them as "another user" who has backed up your demands. This is fraud. ::::
To anybody tuning in late, I pointed those visiting in the direction of this version of the GTWebmaster Wikipedia user discussion page which, by visiting the history page for that discussion page, one can see was the second version of the discussion page, posted 28 September 2006. Looking at the first two entries on the history page, while we have comments signed by both GTWebmaster and "here", only "here" is to be found posting entries in at least the first two cases. The conclusion is inescapable - they are on and the same. "here" (Mike Waggoner according to "here"'s Wikipedia user page) has engaged in sock puppetry. He can sit there going "no, no, it's not true", but look at the facts. ::::
4. Mike, your other points have been answered, and you're not going to win this one through a test of wills. You've already shown how little value you place on the truth and you've done it repeatedly in clear view. Reasonable counterarguments have been presented to you, and you've just let the words go in one ear and come out the other. Until you manage to do better than this, I don't think that we have much to talk about. Since you are, by your own admission, a corporate shill who is here to help bury a consumer report that your employer doesn't want people to know about, it's hard to picture you doing so, because such personal reform would be radically at odds with your very reason for being here, "here", and that reason is as unacceptable as your behavior. As Stephen Colbert would probably say, Herr Waggoner, you are entitled your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. So how about if we start seeing a little more truthfulness out of you and a little less truthiness? - 65 ::::

Seattle change of address and still npov

My recent two edits (diff), which you just reverted in whole, did two things as detailed in my edit summaries: +{{npov}} and removed first hand account; removed now false info about old location. The dispute here is clear, thus the {{npov}}, the first hand account violates no original research, and the address of the seattle hostel is no longer 2nd street. I will make these edits again, please comment here if and why you do not agree with these small changes. ∴ here…♠ 22:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not submit the Seattle remarks, so I will not speak in their defense. However, since you are known to be a Green Tortoise employee, you are not supposed to be editing this article, period, and so your revisions are going to be reverted on general principle.  :::
And the NPOV tag goes down, since your sock puppetry has now been exposed. One very pushy supposed Berliner a broken consensus does not make, even if he is willing to fabricate supporters for his cause. Removing information your employer doesn't like, which is your stated reason for being present, isn't "helping to build a better article", it is vandalism. - 65 :::
Yet, you chose to revert the entire edit anyway (diff). This includes the factually incorrect address for the Seattle hostel, an odd first hand account tacked on to the bottom of the article, and removal of the {{npov}}. I'll leave the article as is and solicit comments from other editors. ∴ here…♠ 00:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC) (reinserted removed comment 15:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC))
Any "removal" of your remarks was a byproduct of reverting your mangling of my own. Once again, you've taken comments that were written in response to somthing you said and moved them, obscuring their meaning because somebody reading this can no longer see what they were written in response to. To portray an undoing of that as being censorious is disingenuous. :::::
I might say the same about your complaint about the reversion of the Seattle closure observations, which were not mine. Note that now that woohookitty, who IS a legitimate editor of this article, has removed them, I will let that change stand, and gladly so. There's a right way to do things around here and a wrong way, even if you don't feel like respecing that. - 65 :::::
BTW, please stop following my signiatures with unsigned edit tags. -65 :::::

Mike, leave my comments where they are

By moving them, you tear them out of the context in which they were made, rendering them unreadable. This is no different from deleting them.

From Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines, can we start with these two?
  • Answer a post underneath it
  • Sign your posts with ~~~~
∴ here…♠ 14:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

65.182.172.*

After again ignoring policy, I will be referring to this previous cas Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/65.182.172.x when I bring this further shortly. You are welcome here 65, though not as you currently choose to contribute. ∴ here…♠ 02:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
In other words, you're threatening to abuse the local disciplinary process in order to get your own way. You're all class, Mike. :::
If you really want to go there, I'll be glad to :::
1. Contact the authors of all the articles cited in the reference section, who may be interested in hearing just how far your company has been willing to go in this incident, in order to keep others from being able to hear what they had to say. One of those articles recently made it into dmoz, and another has been mirrored on a wide variety of academic sites. You can no longer hope to make either reference go away, as per your earlier stated intentions, but you can greatly damage your employer's reputation by trying. :::
2. If you begin action on a frivolous complaint, I will no longer hold off on filing a legitimate complaint against you. I wonder if there is a Wikipedia policy left that you haven't made a mockery of, yet. I'm sure that the admins will be interested to hear about the literal ad copy from your employer's site that was posted to this wiki article, maybe even interested enough to run an IP trace on you, and a few suspiciously similar editors who've hit this article before. :::
You might be able to round up the old lynch mob and get them to ignore the facts the way they did last time, but if they do, their actions and the relation of those actions to those of the Green Tortoise will be a matter of indelible public record in the archives. I believe there are also a few Wikipedia Watch sites that become very interested when politics overrides the rules on this site, and I will be more than glad to hand them a little ammunition if it comes to that. -65:::
Please file a complaint. ∴ here…♠ 14:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's see if that's necessary, first. -65 ::

Reverting Klinda - Here's latest sock?

Greatly enjoying the accusation that I'm one of the authors. Klinda doesn't say which, but I'm sure I'll find out soon.

Somebody claims to have called the company for information. That's a good thing to do in general, but bad on a wiki. Getting information for an article that way violates the "no original research" policy. A halfway decent argument for deleting the Seattle hostel closure comments, but one fight at a time. We have to get Here and his friends/socks to stop vandalising this article, first. Then the rest of the people who actually have some business editing this article, like, say, people who don't work for the GT, might want to talk about that issue. For what it's worth, I agree with Here on that point, but there is a matter of following proper procedure, even if Here wants to resort to threats in order to try to circumvent it.

When the cold weather hits wherever the rest of you guys are and you come back in from your summer vacations, please give it some thought. - 65

Checking Klinda's user page, we find that this user only popped into existence very recently and has edited no article but this one. Klinda is echoing the remarks of a user (Here) who has been caught in the act of sock puppetry (GTWebmaster, see remarks above). We would appear to be seeing more of the same. ::
Maybe it's time to go round people up, if that's how this guy wants to play it. -65 ::
Comments from Klinda, from the History page - "Whay are you calling my edits "Vandalism?" you seem to have a personal agenda. Please stay factual and refer to wikipedias own policy.) (cur) (last) 16:39, 8 October 2006 24.234.110.62 (Talk) " and "(→External links - There are some first hand accounts of travel with the company and all should be included to keep this unbiased.)" :::
Unless those "first hand accounts" happen to be ones unfavorable to your employer, right "Here", err I mean "Klinda". A lack of bias requires a hard filtering of your sources to find only the ones that help the Green Tortoise's bottom line. Got you, I understand exactly what you're saying. Let's hope that others do as well, and let's hope that they show up before you turn this thing into a brochure for the company. -65 :::

I don't know how to add to this discussion without clicking on "edit" - sorry if it is the wrong way. I don't know who you are - I am not competent in this arena so I cannot tell. Do you work for wikipedia?

I am Linda. Please refer to me as "she". I do not work for, nor have I been paid by this company. I am doing research on traveling and trying to write a paper. I do not have my own computer so I must go to places that have "free" use.

I decided to try to change this article and contribute here by removing the biased versions of the truth, but I can see that this is futile as people that have way more time than I do seem to be engaged in petty arguments, slanderous opinion-based article writing and verbal bashing of each other.

Wow. I am unimpressed by this whole arena and am amazed that wikipedia can truly call themselves any sort of encyclopedia when they allow this to happen.

Makes me wonder why anyone uses them to research a subject. This seems to be just a bulletin board where anyone can say anything they want, and a single user with loads of time on thier hands can manipulate it however they please.

I don't have the time or emergy - although it was a nice diversion from my schoolwork.


Comment - Much of this is rehash of arguments already made by "Here", who by an amazing coincidence was on this page within about thirty seconds of Klinda's departure from it. Oh, about as long as it would take the average user to log out of one account and into another. The complaints have already been addressed ad nauseum, and we're still left with one basic absurdity. Our simple decision to report what others have written, simply stating "this is what somebody said" and linking to a few sources without taking any position regarding the truth of their reports, is being referred to as "slander", by somebody who then makes a great show of storming off. The phrase "emotional blackmail" somehow comes to mind, reading the diatribe immediately above, though I have to be impressed with the dedication of somebody who performs a sex change operation on himself before putting on one of his "socks". :) - 65::

Btw

I removed a paragraph that was pure OR. We do not allow 1st person accounts (i.e. "I went by the Seattle hostel and it's closed"). If you have a source, use it. But you simply cannot give first person testimonials in a Wikipedia article. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Attempt to trump up a 3RR violation complaint

65 violated 3rr (wp:3rr) today reverting Klinda's edits (diff), then again after Ryulong put them back in (diff), and again after I added them back (diff). That is three editors who would like a change and 65 reverting 3 times. ∴ here…♠ 17:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Now twice more. ([4] diff), (diff) ∴ here…♠ 17:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting how after "Klinda" "gave up", you were right there with an edit and a trumped up complaint, isn't it "Here". Except you've already been caught in the act of sock puppetry. Ryulong was indiscriminantly reverting everything I posted last night, going on to admit that he was doing so on the assumption that I was engaged in vandalism after ... oh, you'll find out soon enough. But the admission is implicit that he wasn't even looking at what he was reverting, and he even apologized for the reverts. :::
Now what are the rules regarding sock puppetry which, once again, we would seem to find you engaged in, judging from the timing? - 65 :::

oh, and incidently, regarding your 3R charge trumping, "here"

At the risk of overrepetition, I remind those reading this that by your own admission, you are a Green Tortoise employee who came here in response to your employer's unhappiness with this article. (see earlier discussion of your GTWebmaster sock account). As such, you are not supposed to be editing this article at all, even in light of your argument that the rules don't apply to the Green Tortoise, because almost everybody who enjoys his stay at the Green Tortoise drops everything and becomes a Green Tortoise employee. A systems analyst in New Zealand will abandon career and country, coming to America to become a minimum wage desk attendant in San Francisco? We're expected to believe this? Apparently so considering how many of the Green Tortoise's customers come from well outside of the United States, according to the Green Tortoise and its supporter(s).

Reading between the lines, what you and your company would seem to be saying is that the usual rules are unfair to the Green Tortoise, because nobody but your employees would have a kind word to say about that establishment. Anybody who doubts this is invited to take a wade through your voluminous commentary above and see for himself that, minus a lot of circumlocution, that is something you said, which should only heighten one's suspicions about the alleged "independent" accounts you tried to browbeat me into inserting. The ones that read like "professionally written ad copy". First, we have lots and lots of people liking the Green Tortoise. Now, we have only the employees doing so. So, which is it? Because the GT is not a huge company, so for both statements to be true would be impossible.

Meanwhile, as we wait for the Wikipedia administration to go along with your request to have the Green Tortoise exempted from the same rules which would be binding on any other corporation that tried to send an employee to do what you've announced that you're doing, you are still not allowed to edit this article. This being the case, common sense should tell one that you don't count toward any 3R total, because you're not a legitimate editor. Any other interpretation of such a policy would be absurd, because it would mean that all a company would have to do to insert advertising on Wikipedia would be to have three employees sign in. Or, in this case, have one employee set up three accounts.

Socks definitely don't count.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_Tortoise/Archive_1&oldid=922279932"