Talk:Public Transport Users Association
Latest comment: 10 months ago by Fork99 in topic NPOV dispute
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Untitled edit
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Detractors edit
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)
- 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)
- The removed paragraph was:
- The group has many detractors [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) [citation needed], and their lack of technical knowledge [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)
- 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)
- The removed paragraph was:
NPOV dispute edit
Almost the entire article is reliant on a primary source (the PTUA’s actual website). Needs more references from secondary sources such as news articles. Fork99 (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)