Talk:Public Transport Users Association

Australia: Melbourne / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Public Transport Users Association is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Untitled

I don't believe it's appropriate for Frank Casey to be described as the founder. He might have been the first President, but the PTUA (and its predecessors, the old TTA and TBTA) have always been run by a collective of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.26.233 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet is was he who established that group, and was his idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.77.221 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who says? The established story (and I can't swear to this, since I wasn't there) is that a public meeting decided to establish it. Casey was the foundation President and thus significant in the collective that set it up, but I don't believe any one person should be credited with the foundation of the PTUA. I'd say the late Patrick O'Connor, a member of the foundation committee, contributed to the setup as much as Casey did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.26.233 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Detractors

Do we need a paragraph about the controversy around the PTUA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.193.67 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that there is any particular controversy. Every lobby group has its critics. The paragraph that was there was far too POV, if you think it's important and can write it in NPOV fashion, feel free. Ender 12:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The removed paragraph was:

The group has many detractors ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}, who to a large degree, interestingly, are people who agree with the PTUA's aims and have extensive knowledge about the public transport system. Their objections are mainly based around the tactics used by the PTUA (almost incessant negativity, even when positive moves are made) ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}, and their lack of technical knowledge ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} (which leads to unreasonable requests).

I'm happy for these assertions to be put back in, but they need to be WP:verifiable. Josh Parris#: 23:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. They're matters of subjective opinion and POV. Who says the PTUA doesn't have technical knowledge? Who says their requests are unreasonable? And who says they're incessantly negative? These opinions are being dressed up as fact. Ender 13:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]