Talk:Suburban Express/Archive 1

Speedy deletion

This page does not differ substantially from that of other transportation companies on wikipedia (greyhound, amtrak, et al) in its format and current | eventual content. So just take a step back and keep your mouse under control. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.129.139 (talk • contribs) 19:45, November 23, 2008

Reality Check

The current article as of 9/22/13 appears to have been almost entirely written by a user by the name of corporate-m. This user seems to have bypassed the customary discussion stage and deleted large swaths of material and replaced it with his own writing....much of it riddled with poor cites and factual errors. 2602:306:367E:C8B9:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This article has been dramatically transformed by a small number of users acting in concert, some with admitted COI's. The story of Suburban Express is about a 19 year old student taking on Greyhound and winning, despite commerce commission investigations lauched by Greyhound, predatory pricing by Greyhound, etc. The company has a novel business model and has survived and thrived for 30 years.

They recently took some heat for defending themselves against flames by some bloggers, and for initiating collections suits against customers for things like reversed credit card charges, people paying for one ticket but printing and using two, people riding with non-refundable/non-exchangeable tickets on wrong dates -- and sometimes displacing passengers with valid tickets, etc.

As the article stands today, it no longer contains any of the interesting history (legal battles, battles with competitors, etc.), discussion of similar companies that have come and gone at other universities, discussion of competition, etc. Rather, it has been transformed into a shrine for the bloggers who have harrassed the company for the past month.

I strongly suggest that someone who is not a party to this stupidity should step in and fix this mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.143.19.23 (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is missing the important elements of the early history. There were ILL CC inquiries...ok...how did that turn out? That question was answered in an earlier version, but the answer has been deleted from the current version. I am a little curious as to why CorporateM has gone crazy on this article. He's acting like someone with a COI. I notice that he works in PR. That is not usually a positive when it comes to Wikipedia. Could he be working for a competitor of this company? One of the people who were sued? Could he be the guy who was threatened with a suit? His behavior is not consistent with someone without a COI. What about Almostgrad? This person is dominating the talk discussion below. Why does he devote so much energy to trying to get others to make edits which are unflattering to the company? 2602:306:C561:A599:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

To the IP - This is the first and the last time I shall be saying this, so please better understand this carefully - You can try all you want but you will NOT get away with vandalising or any of your other activities here. Not on Wikipedia. If you want to help, fine. But you better don't try any attempts to make this, or any article here worse. All of the editors here, except you have been acting in good faith, and per Wikipedia guidelines. I once again strongly recommend you edit ONLY from the TheNightChicagooDied account, and try adding useful edits, rather than attacking people. Continuing the attacks here will not work. Not on Wikipedia. Please try and be constructive if you actually want even a minor change to the article. Or you can continue the way you are, and worsen your own situation. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey TheOriginalSoni - I don't appreciate your unsupported accusations. Thenightchicagodied (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

POV Problems with Lawsuit Details

Court trials substantially concern whose facts are truer and more important, so highlighting factual matters from trials is an inherently POV activity.

• (broad and avoiding POV) Many of these lawsuits target passengers for alleged violations of Suburban Express' terms of service
• (cherry-picked and POV) including failing to pay penalty fares of $100 for presenting invalid or misdated tickets, or for canceling payment for buses that did not show up

Newsy sources love to punch up articles with vivid examples, but here it has BLP and POV problems. In a similar way, too much is turning on teeny little parts of the blogosphere as if they were significant:

• (broad and avoiding POV) 125 Lawsuits were filed in 2013
• (cherry picked POV) a Reddit moderator accused Suburban Express of using Sockpuppet
• (cherry picked POV) This incident was called an example of the Streisand Effect in Boing Boing and Ars Technica.

Its a big world of facts and fights. Individual "accuseds" and "called examples" are by their nature POV and importing them into an encyclopedia injects POV needlessly (and against best practice). KevinCuddeback (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussing the Streisand effect is not cherry-picked POV. It is notable and encyclopedic by dint of the fact that it has been discussed in multiple reliable sources, of which both Ars Technica and Boing Boing are. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, there are no BLP problems with this article. This article is not about a living person, it is about a corporation. Corporations are not people in the Wikipedia world, and they are not entitled to protection under that policy. The mere mention of the founder's name in the article does not attach BLP to article content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

And to clarify this statement: of course BLP applies to anything about a living person in any article. But I fail to see anything in this article that violates BLP. There are negative statements about the corporation and its actions, certainly, but those are not covered by BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"including failing to pay penalty fares of $100 for presenting invalid or misdated tickets, or for canceling payment for buses that did not show up" accurately sums up what the news sources say the lawsuits were about. These are the alleged violations of the terms of service which the sources discuss. Read the sources, and then come back and tell us if you think the lawsuit paragraph is cherry-picked. It's probably the only reason Suburban Express is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The goal here is not to sum up the news but to write an encyclopedia See: WP:ENC.

I find only a new source that says "In October 2010, Martin purchased a one-way ticket — from Champaign-Urbana to Northbrook — for her teenage daughter, who was visiting the university. She used a credit card to buy the ticket for $26.45 on the Suburban Express website, according to court documents. But the bus never showed up, so subsequently her credit card company reversed the charge to her card because no services were provided." This is a single case. What news source says this is a pattern?

Suburban Express has been notable enough to have its own Wikipedia entry since at least 2009 (when the issue was decided by a vote) and probably before. At this stage of its life, Any non-POV/COI editor would say the most notable thing about it is being a busy passenger service that set legal precedents (back when transportation was being deregulated) and serves (let's estimate) 40,000 people per year and perhaps a million over time.

And here's where we get back to cherry-picking. Given a number of passengers between 20,000 to 50,000 per year, how can it be that even 125 lawsuits (0.6% or 0.3% of tickets) is notable? Heck, the incidence of mental illness in most populations is 2%, and we don't say in articles about Urbana-Champaign that "4600 of locals are probably mentally ill" (or quote higher or lower numbers as if they'd be interesting).KevinCuddeback (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think that Suburban Express is more notable for the reasons you've stated, you're free to find reliable sources which discuss those aspects of the company, and to weave them into the article with the appropriate weight. The sources we have so far deal mostly with Suburban Express' legal actions and the ensuing social media kerfuffle. If the articles we've found so far are unrepresentative of what all reliable sources say on the company, then please contribute some sources to balance them out. We indeed do not want to write this entry like a news article, but in cases where the subject of an article is best known for a particular event, that event gets most of the weight. There is a real danger of skewing articles about well-known subjects towards recent events, and Wikipedia strives to avoid this. For example, the entry about Oklahoma shouldn't spend half of its space talking about tornadoes, even though if you read the news right now, most of the sources on Oklahoma will talk about tornadoes. However, if you look at all sources on Oklahoma, you'll find that they spend most of their space dealing with other aspects of the state. That doesn't appear to be the case with Suburban Express, so WP:NOTNEWS doesn't imply that we should de-emphasize the more recent sources. - Thucydides411 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You correctly note there is a real danger of skewing articles toward recent events. Recent edits seem a runaway example of this: a collection of non-notable things bus drivers say and a bunch of small-claims cases are the ordinary background noise of (American) life. Not encyclopedic.KevinCuddeback (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest, strongly as it happens, that there's clearly some media coverage of the legal actions. This probably makes it notable - and the issue may grow (or may well disappear after a couple of days). It's almost certainly got undue weight in the article at present, but a shortish section on the issue and it's handling by the company is probably fair to include at this stage. As with all current events, however, it needs to be kept in check - todays newspapers are tomorrows chip wrappers etc... You may well be right about the number of small claims cases btw - it's whether or not these generate the level of coverage that these ones have which is, perhaps, more of an issue. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Kevin, I don't think you fully understood what I wrote above. WP:NOTNEWS does not mean that an article should not reflect all available reliable sources. If a subject is notable primarily for recent events, those events get most of the weight. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

But notability is not something that is transient. At present we don't really know if the legal cases - let alone the social media issues - will be stories that run for the next three months or will be dead as stories by the end of the week. It depends on what happens - and that's where there are fairly large recentism issues associated with the article as it currently stands. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope that as this article develops, more than 1 sentence is devoted to the Fare War & ICC cases and fewer than 3 paragraphs are devoted to a grab bag of 2013 controversies.KevinCuddeback (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to address the issues raised by KevinCuddeback:

1. KevinCuddeback said: "Suburban Express has been notable enough to have its own Wikipedia entry since at least 2009".
     This Wikipedia entry was created by the company itself - The user who first created the Suburban Express page, Fairmont-m19[1], was concluded to be a sockpuppet account making bad-faith edits as long back as 2008. The article was nominated for deletion twice, but somehow survived because they put together a page with irrelevant references and links to various bus company websites.
     The owner's website[2] contains a link to the 7 March 2013 version[3] of the "Suburban Express Wikipedia entry before it was vandalized by sad, lonely bloggers". If you see the references in that version, you will notice that there is only one reference which talks about Suburban Express in any significant detail (Daily Herald, 1985)[4] - it talks about the fare war, which does not make the company inherently notable - it is a common enough business practice.
      • Thank you for the link to the article. No Daily Herald archives online yet? Read it again without the modern POV that a Fare War is a common practice. There are some anachronisms that were notable then (like considering it "dirty" to give coupons to your competitor's customers) and the UIUC (and everyone's) general sense that one provider, Greyhound, is enough, that show how very notable the rule-breakers of the deregulation era were. KevinCuddeback (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
     The rest of the news articles provide padding for the reference section - the only reference to Suburban Express in the Daily Herald (2005) article[5] is one sentence - "Students at University of Illinois and Eastern Illinois University have an option to use Suburban Express, a company that provides rides from Champaign and Charleston to the suburbs every weekend." The third news article (The News-Gazette, 2003)[6], about British Airways' Concorde shutting down services is completely irrelevant - Suburban Express is mentioned in only this sentence - "Toeppen, 39, who owns Suburban Express bus company, talked about his hobby of riding last runs of various kinds of transportation in a July 31 story in the News-Gazette".
     People on Wikipedia assume good faith - if no one is challenging the article, and the person who wants to keep the article provides some references, they take it at face value and don't dig up obscure offline references and verify their contents. Since the company provided some references, including some bogus ones, the result of the deletion proposal was "no consensus" the first time and a "weak keep" the second time.
2. Serving a large number of customers does not make a company notable. Peoria Charter is a much larger and older company in this area, but does not have a Wikipedia entry.
3. Regarding your comparison of lawsuits with mental illness, I don't really understand the analogy. If 2% of the residents of Champaign-Urbana suffer from mental illness, and that is the rate of mental illness in the rest of the country, then this is obviously not something notable about Champaign-Urbana. But if a company has pending lawsuits against 125 customers and its competitor Peoria Charter Coach Company has no pending lawsuits against its customers[7], then this is a significant/notable detail. AlmostGrad (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So if Peoria Charter has a below average number of lawsuits, that doesn't make them notable, why should an above-average number be notable for Suburban Express? We don't know what the "right"/"normal"/non-notable number of lawsuits is, but I doubt that we're anywhere far from the norm, and so whipping what still amount to a bunch of "stuff we heard" together in a paragraph isn't going to be notable a year from now--and so isn't notable now.KevinCuddeback (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Kevin, in Wikipedia, notability is decided on the basis of what sources consider notable. Do you have any sources you'd like to present which cover some other aspect of Suburban Express? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem seems to be mistaking accessibility for notability. Low-quality "sources" like Yelp and Reddit (cited in the second lead paragraph!) are electronically available, but sources from the 1980s, like the Illinois Commerce Commission filings and verdicts, are not. I would hope, however that the awareness of this disparity would temper people's desire to have Yelp reviews write the ledeKevinCuddeback (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No one is disputing the Illinois Commerce Commission filings and verdicts since these have been reported in a secondary source (Daily Herald, 1985). ICC filings would be primary sources and not acceptable as references here anyway. No one is using Reddit and Yelp as sources either; they are writing about what is taking place on Reddit and Yelp on the basis of what secondary sources have reported. AlmostGrad (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Then will you (AlmostGrad) also withdraw your contention that a 1980s Fare War was not notable? now that you understand that the newspaper coverage from the 1980s should be accorded a sort of "multiplier" as a proxy for two Illiois Commerce Commission cases brought by Greyhound against Suburban Express. As another proxy for notability, two ICC fights probably took more legal hours to resolve than 125 small claims would. KevinCuddeback (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Kevin, you're mistaken; Yelp and Reddit are not cited as sources in the article. There are secondary sources which talk about what happened on Yelp and Reddit, but the latter two are not cited. Again, since you seem certain that Suburban Express is notable for events before 2013 (particularly the "fare wars" in the 1980s), please post the references you are relying on. Without any sort of references, there's really nowhere we can go with this discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

We have one great source for Suburban Express, and many covering airlines that show that "fare wars" were radically-new in the 1980s, as common carriers in the USA (mostly airlines) actually started putting into practice their right compete on price in a post-deregulation world. To us, a fare war is a pocket calculator, everyday and forgettable. To those who lived through the first, it was shockingly new (the word "war" gives some sense of this...and fares had previously been set in Washington or Springfield to protect carriers). See also the "controversial" Frank Lorenzo and how most of what he's famous for was still unfolding in the mid 1980s, despite de-regulation having come in the late 1970s. Then see this Daily Herald (Sunday Herald) article (from Toeppen's website...but its all that's accessible)[8] Today, we don't get articles like this because fare competition is an everyday thing, but in 1985 it was highly disorienting (the quotes from all concerned have an almost-comical "how could this happen?" quality to them) and it merited a half-page article with photos. KevinCuddeback (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You cannot allude to deregulation and fare wars that airline companies engaged in in the 1980s and claim that the same applies to Suburban Express. This would, as Thucydides411 pointed out, constitute synthesis/original research - see WP:ORIGINALSYN. If you can find sources that support what you say, and that say explicitly that it applies to Suburban Express, then this discussion can proceed further.

For the sake of argument, suppose we consider only one print source about the controversy - the Chicago Tribune (and only for the sake of this argument, because to discount the other sources is not fair - the other sources add additional weight to the controversy section - see WP:BALANCE). According to this list of newspapers by circulation, Chicago Tribune has the 9th largest readership in the nation, while Daily Herald is 78th on that list. The readership of Chicago Tribune is 4 times that of Daily Herald.

If you look at the current state of the article, the Early History subsection has ~100 words. The 2013 Controversy subsection has < 400 words. Thus, the History section is already skewed towards the early history and the early history is overrepresented compared to the recent controversy, given that the recent news was published in a much more widely-read and well-known newspaper, and that is before even considering the other 27 sources including nationally and internationally-read ones like Boing Boing and Ars Technica.

The terms you use, such as "radically-new", "shockingly new", "almost-comical" and "highly disorienting" are your interpretations of the article and probably fall under WP:ORIGINALSYN. AlmostGrad (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not intending to put them into the article, only trying to convey that an NPOV reading of the past includes being able to see the notability in things they found notable (and not dismiss them as commonplace because they are commonplace today)KevinCuddeback (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What old sources do you have to support early weight for sources? Early history is not required for NPOV. Pushing early history, when reliable sources and sources used for notability, do not weight the early history as important is WP:NPOV pushing. If you have sources that suggest early history should be given additional weight compared to the recent ones, then please share them.... Otherwise, you are trying to manipulate policy to your own end. --LauraHale (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

To recap: The article has a newsy/recency bias partly caused when editors dismiss the past because it has few sources (none that Google up) and dismiss a great source--a balanced (Greyhound vs UIUC vs students vs Suburban Express) half-page article with photo in the Herald[9]-- because fare wars and winning the right to compete from the Illinois Commerce Commission seem commonplace to them (see AlmostGrad's point #4 in the Issues on Refs and Notablity section, above). I hope, at least, that all can now see how insufficient it is to say the company was non-notable before 2013 and only notable now for events in 2013 (POV contentions which you will find in these talk pages). KevinCuddeback (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If a source on fare wars does not mention Suburban Express, it probably doesn't belong here, because its inclusion would be synthesis. That leaves us with only have one source on Suburban Express' role in the fare wars. That's in comparison to about two dozen articles on Suburban Express' recent legal actions. If you present more articles on Suburban Express and the fare wars, that will shift the balance of sources. Remember, the sources do not have to be online, and they do not have to be recent. You're free to find newspaper articles, books or academic articles from the 1980s. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a numbers game, particularly as concerns the present vs the past. A numbers game is just going to worse the recency bias--the present makes its news in an echo-chamber of sources unconstrained by the physical need to put ink on paper, and you can't count each electronic echo as another thoughtful vote for notability. Old school newspapers (like our fare war source) actually did a good job of sifting and weighing and providing context (and giving a better sense of what a notable and non-notable level of litigation and bigoted bus drivers might be).KevinCuddeback (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on the basis of sources. If you want the article to deal with the early history of Suburban Express more than it currently does, your time would be better spent going out and finding sources than in continuing to argue. Until you or someone else find a couple sources on Suburban Express' early history, that part of the article doesn't need any more weight. If the early history is notable, then there will be sources out there. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Arguably there's already too much on the early history as well. This is, don't forget, a fairly small company. If we can find more stuff then, fine, add it - but I would imagine that, aside from bus spotters, there's probably not all that much more to find.

Now, while I'm at it, how many Yelp reviews does the negative rating refer to btw? And is there any form of secondary source to back the claims of negative ratings up from? And is it, actually, in any way notable? Which brings us back to a need for some balance in this article... Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The Yelp reviews can be found here. There are 60+ reviews, but Yelp shows around a dozen of the reviews and filters the rest (the filtered ones are at the bottom of the page and can be read by typing the captcha). The material in the article is as much about the negative Yelp reviews themselves (which contain information about harsh Terms Of Service, how the reviewers were treated by the company, etc.) as about the company's practice of hunting down people who wrote the negative reviews and harassing them and banning them for life - this is described, for example, in this Daily Dot article. AlmostGrad (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, we're dangerously close to synthesis territory in some ways with some of that you know. Some of the factual stuff is good to use - but I'm really not sure about sticking this in the lead as direct references to specific web services. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

How is this synthesis? The article talks about what was said on Yelp on the basis of what secondary sources wrote about them. Please explain how this is synthesis on the part of Wikipedia editors. Secondary sources can synthesize, that is their job, to interpret and do original research and report their findings. In the past, people were interviewed or they called up a news agency to report something and what they said was published. Now, the opinions people state in Yelp reviews are being published. AlmostGrad (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was synthesis, I said it was getting *close* to synthesis *in some ways* - i.e. by pulling together too much from places such as Reddit to create something else - and certainly by placing an emphasis on particular points being raised by some commentators. There are sources pointing out negative reviews, sure. There are then some sources pointing at the specific substance of negative reviews - we seem to be choosing to stick with those specific points rather than simply stating that there are a number of negative reviews - as more sources (and, possibly, more reliable sources) do. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of "news sources" obviously containing inaccurate information. It seems unlikely that the company would sue people for "buses that didn't show up". 174.159.78.41 (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You're not reading the text carefully. They were suing because people cancelled payments: did not abide by their commitment to pay even for buses that did not show up, which was apparently part of the TOS under which the tickets were sold at the prices for which they were sold (you were gambling, in other words, when you bought the ticket). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

MiguelNaranja - If you look at a comment which LauraHale has hidden/deleted, you'll see that company disputes an important element of the Tribune story - namely, the claim by a passenger that she was sued after reversing a charge as a means of obtaining a refund for a bus which did not show up. Apparently the bus did show up and customer used chargeback as a means of getting around non-refundability of ticket. That's how I read it, anyhow. 2602:306:C561:A599:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Controversy

After reviewing the recent edit war, I've removed the "controversy" section for now as mostly unsupported by reliable sourcing. All material must be explicitly supported through reliable secondary sources that explicitly state what is contained in the article. Court records are primary sources, and outside of very narrow situations, are not usable on Wikipedia, as selected extracts are vulnerable to cherry-picking and selective interpretation. Opinion columns are likewise not admissible. The only reliable source presented was the Daily Illini news article, which did not include all the material presented in the controversy section. It appears that feelings are running high and that a social media campaign is underway. Wikipedia may not be used as a vehicle for disparagement, nor is it appropriate to whitewash negative coverage that is supported by multiple reliable sources. Please use this talkpage to work out an appropriate, sourced consensus. I have no opinion on the merits of the controversy section, only about the edit-war and the poor sourcing. The article has been semi-protected for a day: if edit-warring breaks out again, it may be protected for a longer term. I suggest all participants review WP:V, WP:RS, and keep an eye on WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've also removed an accusation from this page that violated the biographies of living persons policy, which applies throughout Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not to be used as a means of shaming people, regardless of how reprehensible their alleged actions might be. Acroterion (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Acroterion's applications of Wikipedia's policies. It is worth taking a pause to (re-)familiarize oneself to all the policies linked above. If you stripped away the POV, court-sourced, newsy, and titillating stuff from the controversy section, as of this writing you'd be basically left nothing. And nothing seems like the right choice until we can come up with a notable, source-based, neutral core narrative around staff-passenger interaction KevinCuddeback (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Strong agree. Wikipedia is not the correct forum for urination contests. That's what blogs are for. 5/5/13 update: users corporatem and negatedvoid seem to be systematically stripping useful content (see pre 4/2013 versions) and adding blog-like heresay to the article. I strongly recommend that this page be restored to its pre-social media campaign state.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenightchicagodied (talk • contribs) 06:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Its clear that as of this writing, we're still struggling to present the "lawsuits" issue in an NPOV way. I have to believe that whatever Suburban Expresses' policies are, they can't be happening just to be "mean", but must have some some larger customer-service and business-efficiency "balance" that, so far, those presenting the issue have been unable to show KevinCuddeback (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Writing the section on the lawsuits in a balanced way is difficult. Above all, however, what we write should be guided by the sources we have on the subject. When I wrote the section on Suburban Express' lawsuits, I tried to write it in a fair way, and to use only reliable sources - i.e. no blogs, user posts on Reddit, or the like. If you think the article is currently unbalanced or unfair, could you be more specific, and could you post additional sources you think we should be using in the article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I object to the claim that I have been adding "blog-like heresay" to the article. I've really added almost nothing. I have removed some content, but it was in the aim of removing unverifiable, miscited sources. For example, this citation had literally nothing to do with the text. Or this citation was clearly self-published/questionable (I checked with some help desk helpers before making that change). Looking over CorporateM's edit, it seems to be he was trying to resolve the COI banner that has been on this page since 2008. I think that his new text sounds much neutral. Which information that has been removed do you think was useful and should stay? I'd love to participate in gathering sources and adding more useful content via this Talk page.NegatedVoid (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, have a look at Special:Contributions/Thenightchicagodied. Are you related to Suburban Express? You seem to be sligning unfounded accusations around. I am not a blogger[10]. You called a Legoktm and Thucydides411 (both users with hundreds of edits) Sock Puppets[11]. NegatedVoid (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

NegatedVoid is indeed a blogger with very strong conflict of interest. See http://www.reddit.com/r/UIUC/comments/1d3qqc/my_correspondence_with_suburban_expresss_lawyer/. Discussion above fails to address years-old interesting content added by DualFreq and recently stripped and repeatedly removed by above users who feign no conflict of interest. Thenightchicagodied (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)thenightchicagodied

I haven't denied my Conflict of Interest. That is why I haven't edited this article substantially, and have discussed my changes on here with others. Which of my edits do you contest? As I said, I would participate in a discussion to add any appropriate content. NegatedVoid (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a new user and cannot edit the currently protected Suburban Express Wikipedia page, nor do I wish to since I have a Conflict of Interest with Suburban Express from the UIUC subreddit. However, I want to provide the following list of published articles so that a neutral person can edit/rewrite the material on the Suburban Express Wikipedia page, and add in these references.

Many favorable edits were done from the IP address 99.147.29.158 which can be traced to Suburban Express.

I am a new user so I'm not very sure how to sign this entry, I hope this is good enough.

AlmostGrad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I notice that AlmostGrad was a frequent poster as AlmostGrad100 in the reddit threads about suburban express. Wikipedia is not a place for you to bring your online pissing match. Take it elsewhere. The company history which has now been deleted, no doubt by blog activists, is interesting and unique. No amount of press over a single issue justifies destroying the interesting article which DualFreq wrote. Here is an article which is missing from the list above Popehat: Suburban Express Took the First Bus to Streisand Effect end Thenightchicagodied (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)thenightchicagodied

The current "Competition" section is just an advertisement of the company by its own representatives - how is the reference "Champaign man takes one of the last Concorde trips" relevant? How does a list of self-compiled "trivia" on its own website count as a reliable source? The trivia website is not a reliable resource for the ridership estimate either. The "Competition" section should be removed. AlmostGrad (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing Sockpuppet attempts to force their position. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

AlmostGrad - I would ask you, have you read the source article? Author DualFreq apparently did read it. Unless you have read the article, it is not appropriate for you to comment on its contents. Eyeteststar (talk) Agreed Thenightchicagodied (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)thenightchicagodied Competition section appears to be an attempt at balance by original author. Including competitors would hardly be in the interest of the company. There seems to a concerted effort by serveral users to replace encylopedic content with POV, news and heresay. Blog references are customarily unacceptable. Try to reference conventional media, as it tends to be much more reliable.Thenightchicagodied (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)thenightchicagodied I respectfully disagree. The above user have been consistently removing sourced sections on Lawsuits about the company. News sources are considered reliable for Wikipedia, and you are welcome to remove any part of it that is unsourced. But please desist from removing an important section of the article. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC) thenightchicagodied is a representative of the company who is again removing sourced content that reflects unfavorably upon their business. This archived sockpuppet investigation page[12] is relevant. AlmostGrad (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Pardon, but AlmostGrad stated that s/he has a COI (above, unsigned). Adding properly-sourced content consistent with Wiki principles is fine. Wholesale destruction of stable, older content and replacement with trash is not. I suggest contributing to an article on the streisand effect, first amendment, etc. Eyeteststar (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)eyeteststar I have never denied I have a COI. I have a COI with Suburban Express stemming from my interactions with them on the UIUC subreddit. However, I have only used sourced material in my edits, and I have edited only after CorporateM gave permission to COI authors to edit the page based on the "Links related to Controversy" section. There is no reason to trust older edits just because they are old. The user who first created the Suburban Express page, Fairmont-m19[13], was concluded to be a sockpuppet account making bad-faith edits as long back as 2008. AlmostGrad (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC) The content deposited by Fairmont seems to have been entirely replaced by the user DualFreq. Am I missing something? Also, I'm not an expert on Wiki stuff, but wouldn't someone related to the company be in a good position to know about its history? It seems to me as if the edits going on here are rather destructive. Joshuabcohen (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)joshuabcohen

found something cool on their website--an old poster. their name wasn't always suburban express — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.119.47.171 (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

User NegatedVoid has a COI yet has posted numerous self-promoting edits to article. NegatedVoid is the blogger who the section added by NegatedVoid refers to. Self-promoting section added by NegatedVoid fails to contribute to article in any sort of productive way. Perhaps NegatedVoid should write an article on himself, since he finds himself so fascinating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.246.227 (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Doxing and Impersonation

In the "Lawsuits" section, I had added doxing and impersonation of forum members on reddit as additional reasons for the moderator to delete comments originating from Suburban Express. TheOriginalSoni suggested that I write about this on the talk page and let a non-COI author edit that part of the article. Accordingly, I have deleted the part about doxing and impersonation, and am leaving it to a non-COI editor to modify it. This is how I had written it:

"In April 2013, persons related to Suburban Express posted favorable comments about their company on Reddit using sockpuppet accounts, and doxed, impersonated, and insulted members of the forum who criticized them. The forum moderator deleted the comments and posted a note on the forum's frontpage warning readers about Suburban Express' legal tactics."

Evidence for doxing claim: Excerpt from the Daily Illini article "Suburban Express lawsuits reach 125 this year; conversation continues on Reddit":

"As a part of his job, Finnicum said he has had to remove over a dozen posts that either revealed personal information or spammed the thread since April 19."

I currently can't find any published (in a news source) evidence for the impersonation claim, though Suburban Express' representative(s) impersonated me and the UIUC subreddit moderator on reddit, among many other people. AlmostGrad (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

College papers can be used sometimes, but in this case I think we have better available sources. Additionally, it would be more on-target to say "Finnicum claimed" than to state it as a fact, based on the quoted material. I think this is a case of looking for a source to support the content you would like to add, rather than writing in a way that is representative of the totality of available source material. CorporateM (Talk) 20:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have googled around and I can find no evidence to substantiate the claim that suburban express used "sockpuppet accounts" to post to reddit. When I look at reddit, I do see repeated claims by user Almostgrad100 that certain users were Suburban Express, on the basis that the comments posted by that user were positive. Almostgrad100's unsupported claims, however, do not constitute proof. Also, please note that user Acroterion removed owner name from article. Suggest you refer to his/her comments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.246.227 (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done This is true. The source only says that a Reddit moderator speculated astroturfing was taking place. CorporateM (Talk) 03:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry was concluded in the same way as you conclude it here on Wikipedia - from behavior. It is impossible to obtain incontrovertible proof unless you have a court subpoena that orders the reddit admins to release the IPs. It was not just me, many other people on the UIUC subreddit believed the same. In the reddit post[14] in which he posted the lawsuit threat[15] he received from Suburban Express' lawyers, the moderator responds to the lawyer's claim "You further claim to know that some and/or all of the posts which are negative about Suburban Express are being made by someone at Suburban Express, however, I doubt that you have any actual proof of your thoughts." with:

"I will assume that you meant 'postive' instead of 'negative' since surely SubEx wouldn't be insulting itself.

I don't have any proof. However, I have a strong personal belief and many of the users agree with me. There probably is such proof, however, which would only come to light if this proceeds to litigation - a counter-claim of harassment would reveal the IP logs during discovery. You can ask your client if that would be a good thing, or a bad thing, for him."

I understand that such behavior-based evidence of sockpuppetry might be good enough for your own moderation on Wikipedia but not good enough if it is on other sites like reddit to make it a credible Wikipedia-level source, but I wanted to address this anyway since yet another Suburban Express account/representative[16] has brought this up.

I have some questions regarding Verifiability. The two secondary sources on which the Early History and Competition sections are based are not accessible online (the Daily Herald and Russell's Guide references), and the third reference is a self-published document[17] on the company's own webpage. As per the articles/sections on offline sources and self-published sources, shouldn't material based on such sources which is controversial and challenged be removed? Without direct access to the articles, it cannot be verified if the content in the history and competition sections is indeed an accurate reflection of what the sources say, or is a favorably-interpreted, exaggerated, cherry-picked version of it.

AlmostGrad (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that there is nothing stopping anyone from citing any sources that are not available online. Editors are free to cite offline sources, as long as they provide enough details so anyone with an access to a decent library can find and verify those sources.

Also, Primary Sources, while discouraged, can be allowed for indisputable non-controversial facts.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I think if you search your soul on that one, you will find that you are grasping at any rationale that can be found to make the company look worse... CorporateM (Talk) 13:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM, just curious here, but have you gone through those offline sources, and verified them? I just want to be sure they're in order, and not exaggerated in any way. I think that section should be trimmed a little bit for balancing of the entire article overall. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I haven't seen the source. CorporateM (Talk) 13:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you try and look at them, and see if anything needs to be altered? According to the IP below, they can be viewed at the owner's website though I prefer you check it through a more neutral source. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest you refer to acroterion's comment above: "I've also removed an accusation from this page that violated the biographies of living persons policy, which applies throughout Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not to be used as a means of shaming people, regardless of how reprehensible their alleged actions might be. " The current article is violative of this policy. Also, I'd suggest blocking AlmostGrad from editing, as s/he has a clear conflict of interest (Personal attack removed) [Personal attack removed by TheOriginalSoni (talk)]]. Finally, pdfs of two Daily Herald articles can be found at (link to likely copyvio removed, User:Drmies) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.113.146.206 (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• The current article, in my opinion is not "shaming" anyone. That appears to be simply your opinion. Also, we are not blocking anyone for using our best practise of revealing COI and editing openly, as well as to refer to the talk page before aking the edit.

If you have any specific changes to suggest, feel free to do so. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thucydides411 has a COI and should refrain from editing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.115 (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't. You should refrain from making things up. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

suburban express employee posting here. 5 or 21 citations in the current article relate to the last month in a wikipedia entry for a company that has been in business for 30 years. Is this an encyclopedia or a tabloid? this article has been hijacked by a small number of angry nutjobs who are clearly outliers.

meant to say "5 of 21", of course.

Please let us know what facts/information are missing. CorporateM (Talk) 21:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think he means to say that we must have more sources on the events of last month. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What? That doesn't make any sense. Anyhow, we at suburban express find it very bizarre that references to other similar companies have been removed. (link to likely copyvio removed, User:Drmies) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.115 (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This sarcastic comment by the Theoriginalsoni: "I think he means to say that we must have more sources on the events of last month." coupled with his very insistent reeinsertion of recent events/POV leads me to question his objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.246.227 (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I checked the Daily Herald reference provided on the owner's website (I think the reference in the article should contain a link to the scanned pdf copy) and there does not appear to be any misrepresentation of the material. However, I think the details are reproduced in excruciating detail in this Wikipedia article - these details are not relevant or noteworthy by Wikipedia standards, especially after 30 years. The "Early History" and "Competition" sections span a total of 5 paragraphs, with 4 paragraphs exclusively citing this single reference (in contrast, 27 articles about the recent events have been condensed into 2 paragraphs/6 sentences). I suggest these two sections be merged into a single section, "History", with the following content:

In 1983, Dennis Toeppen, then a student of the University of Illinois, started Suburban Express as a "virtual" bus company that did not own any buses or facilities but instead contracted buses from other carriers. A fare war ensued between Greyhound and Suburban Express, with both sides substantially reducing ticket prices. Suburban Express survived two Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) investigations initiated by Greyhound, and its ticket sales caught up with Greyhound by 1985.

I have concerns about this claim:

In 1989, Greyhound pulled out of the Champaign-to-Suburbs market altogether.

The reference for this is the inaccessible source "Russell's Guide September 1999 - GLI Schedule 397 removed from publication" (what does "removed from publication" mean anyway?). Greyhound certainly operates from Champaign now and has been operating for several years, and the above statement is somewhat misleading and makes it look (at least to me) like Greyhound completely pulled out of the Champaign market forever and has never been back (Greyhound still goes to downtown Chicago/Union Station).

I also have concerns about this claim:

As of 2003, annual ridership was approximately 55,000 passengers.

because the reference (http://www.suburbanexpress.com/bulletpoints.html) is a self-published "trivia" list on the company's own website.

I am convinced that Dual_Freq who the Suburban Express representative here frequently refers to and demands that the article be reverted back to his version is related to the company, since that user first added[18] the Daily Herald reference. I don't think anyone unrelated to the company would have ready access to a newspaper clipping from a suburban newspaper from 1985, let alone find it and cite it. Dual_Freq started editing within 3 hours after the article was created by Fairmont-m19 (who was soon reported as and concluded to be a sockpuppet[19]), and after that, within 5 hours he was able to find an obscure news article from 1985 which is not readily available online. AlmostGrad (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, AlmostGrad! Suburban Express, here. We initially created the page and it was deleted. DualFreq stepped in and wrote a thorough and interesting article, based primaryily on (link to likely copyvio removed, User:Drmies). As for Theoriginalsoni, his most recent action, deleting most of the non-controversial content, calls into question his motivations and maturity. Both articles are available at Newspaperarchive.com. Have you searched there, Almostgrad, or are we supposed to just accept your recurring unsupported claims. Finally, Almostgrad, we have send you an email or two, and our customer service guy called you and left a voice mail, yet you haven't responded. Please give us a call when you have a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.29.153 (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Almostgrad - I didn't realize that whole giant mess above was from you... As for Russell's Guide...do you know how to use google? If not, try searching for "russell's guide" on ebay. Russell's "Official Bus Guide" is, or more accurately, was, the bible of all bus schedules in the United States. If a bus company stopped advertising a schedule in Russelll's Guide, it means the schedule ceased to exist. GLI schedule 397 was the university of Illinois campus service, which ran from Wright Street to: Markham, Forest Park, Northlake, Elk Grove, Cumberland CTA, Dempster Skokie Swift Station, and Northbrook. Later, it was modified to include Oakbrook and Woodfield malls. But they dropped it in 1989 because Suburban Express decimated their ridership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.29.153 (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Issues on Refs and Notablity

• Some issues I want to point out:

1. The BBB reference shows up only as "[1]" in the References section. I think it was better off as an external link in the infobox. At the very least the reference should be expanded so that it doesn't appear as only "[1]".
2. I think mention of the University ticket center and its actions is unnecessary in the lead - too much detail in just the second sentence.
3. Greyhound pulling out of the Champaign-Chicago suburbs is no longer mentioned in the article, so the Russell's Guide reference should be removed. As the Suburban Express representative explained above, Greyhound stopped advertising that route in the publication, and that meant that they no longer operated on that route. The lack of information about something is being used as a source. This is an interpretation of a primary source that is not obvious to anyone not intimately familiar with the bus business (it was not obvious to me at least; I thought "removed from publication" meant that Russell's Guide itself had gone out of print or something). Unless there is an additional reference that backs up the claim that lack of advertisement in Russell's Guide implies that operations have stopped on that route, this reference has no place in this article. Even in the case that a supporting reference could be found, that would probably count as original research.
4. I think there should be a dedicated "Controversy" section. There are 28 articles about the controversy, and the controversy is the company's only claim to notability. The fare war, though some might find it interesting, does not make it Wikipedia-level notable since it was published in only one source (Daily Herald). A fare war is a pretty common business tactic that many businesses employ; a company engaging in a fare war and winning it does not make the company notable. As per WP:WEIGHT, I think the controversy deserves its own section, because the controversy is the only reason that this company even deserves a Wikipedia article.
      • While fare (and capacity) wars are common today (and not notable to contemporary readers), A 1980s fare war was a BIG deal. Fare wars were illegal in intERstate commerce until 1978/79 and were (effectively) illegal in intRAstate Illinois in the 1980s (which was why Greyhound had a right to bring actions against competitors at the IllinoisCC to put competitors out of business). Actually being a competitor at all was a huge deal see Southwest Airlines Early History (It took 2 US Supreme Court cases to prove the right of Southwest to fly *intRA* Texas routes...and it stayed there until 1979 deregulated intERstate flights). So a fare war was bigger news than can be conveyed today, and is notable now because it was highly notable then (because Greyhound thought it should be/was illegal. KevinCuddeback (talk)
5. Mentioning the founder/owner's name does not make the article violate BLP. Most company pages on Wikipedia have the names of their company founder, owner, CEO, etc. in the infobox and in the article.
6. The Jeremy Leval incident deserves some mention; it was widely covered in the news articles, and there was a new article[20] in Techdirt about this just two days back.
7. The mention of Streisand Effect should not be removed. It is central to notability. AlmostGrad (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You're hilarious, AlmostGrad. By your bizarre logic, Greyhound is still operating campus->suburbs service because disappearance of the schedule from their schedule listing does not prove that they discontinued service. Thanks for a good laugh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.115 (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

We currently note that in the article, there are only 2 sources (One of whom we dont see - If you could help us locate and access that, it would be great) not speaking against Suburban Express, as opposed to 5 sources doing so [I am not sure if there are any other sources speaking against the company that are not included though]. So in the view of balancing the entire article, I believe the lawsuits section should be increased, and the two others history sections be reduced, unless more sources are available speaking about the company in a non-negative light.

Which is why I ask you to put list all the sources you can locate about your company on this talk page (similar to how those criticising the company have done) so that all of us can look into those sources, and add them appropriately to make the full article balanced. Please note that unless we have more sources, the article cannot be balanced in the state it currently is.

Thank you, and hoping for a reply, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TheOriginalSoni. The legal problems oapparently are the company's main claim to notability and have generated more third-party coverage than everything else combined; per WP:WEIGHT we should cover the lawsuit in correspondingly great detail. Thus I have reverted back to TheOriginalSoni's version. Huon (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I was operating under the assumption that additional sources exist, but have been unable to find them in a quick search. I did some copy-editing/re-writing, but this seems fine for a large portion of the article to focus on what they are best known for. Though it irks me a bit, because the press has different interests than us and would be less likely to cover some of the boring historical aspects we might take an interest in.

I believe the argument made by the company editor that we would want to have some reasonable balance over-time is sound, in that regardless of sourcing, we wouldn't want the entire article to focus on a three-month period over a 30-year history. The problem is that the argument doesn't apply in this case. While the press coverage may be recent, they describe lawsuits taking place over ten years. CorporateM (Talk) 22:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"The problem is that the argument doesn't apply in this case." - By that logic, one third of the article would be dedicated to lawsuits and two thirds to the twenty years preceeding lawsuits. 174.159.78.41 (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Fresh Perspective

I've come to this article as a completely uninvolved editor - I happened to pick it up on the Bus wikiproject (for street cred reasons I should point out that I don't generally read the Bus wikiproject; it's a long story...). With regard to the list of 7 points above first - in general I agree with them, numbers 2, 4, 5 and 7 in particular. Number 1 is a gimme.

The question of reliable, third party references and the potential undue weight - and, frankly, undue detail - in the controversy section is of some concern though. My gut feeling is that there's far too much detail here - we're an encyclopaedia. If we use references and summarise then people can follow up and get the detail. As it is, it does feel like a bit of a "he said, she said that he said" debate. I would suggest some of the detail at least can go. There are, clearly, good quality third party, uninvolved references for **some** of the content. I would urge, in particular, that the Chicago Tribune, News Gazette and Paxton Record are considered to be the most likely to be uninvolved sources. It would be difficult to argue that these don't have weight - the Tribune in particular. The internet tech sources are probably reasonable, but it's fair to say that there's an element of potential POV that could creep into those (in general terms) - the traditional sources, given the obvious controversy over this article, are probably a better place to start.

Deal with the (potentially) undue detail and then some of the other issues can be dealt with afterwards. I might take a go at editing this later; I'll see - I have no desire to get dragged into an edit war over this article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that the Streisand Effect took place mainly through the internet - otherwise it wouldn't go beyond Chicago Tribune and hence beyond the state of Illinois. Print sources generally don't report much on internet happenings. For example, they are unlikely to report things like users getting harassed for posting negative reviews of the company on Yelp, or people being harassed on Reddit, or these people being forced to delete their unflattering reviews. Nor will they report on facts like Suburban Express posting dirt about a passenger on its website[21]. This is just not the kind of news that makes it to print sources, however, in this internet era these are important and newsworthy all the same, because people are equally affected by these things - the bullying and intimidation is real. In fact the internet news articles might be even more important these days because a lot of people get their news from the internet these days rather than reading the print version of a newspaper. So I don't think it is fair to discount well-known and respected internet publications when they are reporting something that happened largely on the internet. AlmostGrad (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know - that Tribune article does a pretty good job at *summarising* the issues associated with the company, including mentioning, iirc, some of the online stuff. To be honest, a huge proportion of the population *don't* use Yelp or Reddit. You might, maybe I do (as it happens I don't), but we're internet people - otherwise why would we be discussing the weight to place on a pretty obscure wiki page. The majority of the population don't really.

From a reliability and *balance* point of view I think the traditional sources absolutely have to be the *starting point* for a summary of the issues (and I'm not saying don't include some of the internet stuff as well - just don't start with it). As I've said above, we already have arguably far too much detail anyway - the big deal here is really the law suit and it's implications. The article needs to end up dealing with this properly; at present it's really not got great quality written all over it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ars Technica is at least as reliable and useful a source as any major newspaper. It is a respected technology news website with significant editorial controls and without any reputation for significant sensationalism. It's quite possible that Ars has more readers than the Chicago Tribune at this point, quite frankly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - traditional media much more likely to contain verified information than random blogs. Newspaper reporters are professional writers, bloggers not necessarily so. 174.159.78.41 (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It may well be reliable and it may even have more readers. I'm not suggesting we don't use it; I am suggesting that we use the traditional sources as the starting point - we can point at them and they will tend to be considered the sorts of sources which wikipedia can rely upon - reliable, third party, independent from the subject(s) etc... I'm sure that specialist web writers have insight that is useful in this case - although, as above, I would query whether that insight is rather too specialist at times - the big deal here, the notability even, is that the company issued a bunch of law suits that have been generally described as unwise. Yes, there's an internet side to this - but that's not actually the real notability (as much as all us Wiki geeks here would like it to be).

Interesting, though: the wiki page for Ars Technica states very clearly that it's owned by the same parent company (Advance Publications) as Reddit. I don't consider this a smoking gun in any respect, although there is clearly a very real need to consider any potential NPOV issues associated with sources relating to the article we have here. None of the print media sources we have appear to be associated with Advance as far as I can tell. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, Blue Square Thing. Here are two print media articles to aid you in editing the history section: (link to likely copyvio removed, User:Drmies), and here's a version of the page before the kiddies decided to use the article as a means of making themselves feel important http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suburban_Express&oldid=542659074. Best wishes.

I think we'd need a few more details to use those sources as they are, although they would appear useful and it's always going to be helpful to have printed sources from the pre-internet era. In particular I'd want to know what type of paper they were in - we get local free papers here which essentially print adverts for companies in place of stories. That wouldn't appear to be so much of an issue for one of the sources, it may be for the other. Balance is a slightly bigger issue and one that's very clearly relevant to the page just now. I'd be interested to hear other opinions on whether these sources are considered to be reliable, third party sources independent of the subject - I appreciate they're stored on a website linked to the company and balance wrt selection of sources needs to be considered, but as sources they would appear to provide some quite useful information on the history of the company. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

One of them is already cited in the article, actually. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah - OK, I see one of them certainly. Not sure about the other, but I've barely looked. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing a priori that makes traditional newspapers more reliable than internet news sources. For example, the Paxton Record, a traditional news outlet, probably carries a lot less weight than Ars Technica, a news website. This is because one is a local paper with low readership and circulation, while the other is a national news source with high readership. What matters is whether a given publication has editorial controls, whether it is an advocacy organization, and what sort of steps the source takes to verify its information. See Wikipedia:RS for a more detailed discussion of what a reliable source is.

In this light, blogs are not considered reliable because they are self-published, not because they are online. A self-published newsletter which is distributed in print is unreliable for the exact same reason as a blog is unreliable. Ars Technica is not a blog, but rather a widely read online news source with editorial controls, which is why we can consider it a reliable source. The Suburban Express representatives on this talk page have been disparaging the online sources we use in the article as "blogs," while insisting that we use self-published material from the Suburban Express website. This just shows a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's reliable sources policies. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In terms of the specific use of Ars Technica there's probably little argument that it has some weight. My argument is tending towards the relative over emphasis on the online element of the article itself - rather than the legal cases which certainly have wider documentation and, I think we can be more certain about the POV status. Some of the other online sources are a *little* more dubious in my opinion - and, as I say, there's a fair element of "he said that she said that he said" running through the article in it's current state - mainly regarding the online mess that seems to have revolved around the company recently. There seems to be an element of op-ed running through some of them as well.

I can believe the Paxton Record is a local paper source - I'm thousands of kilometres away fwiw so ta for that. Having said that, the Daily Illini (I may have that name wrong...) is, I believe, a student newspaper essentially?

I would still strongly argue that sourcing starts from what we know is reliable. And that we give the article the weight it deserves - for example, I would argue that the second paragraph in the lead needs to emphasise the law suits rather than negative comments on specific websites - perhaps replacing that with a more generalist comment about negative online opinions or something. That way we get some balance rather than emphasising opinions expressed on social media sites. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Many of the quotes and the "he said, she said" I included because the quote itself was repeated in multiple sources and the tit-for-tat seems like the appropriate tone in this particular case. I see the issue differently. The problem is not that the sources are unreliable or advocacy-oriented; the issue is that the sources are covering internet-gossip and drama, which is not necessarily aligned with our editorial mission. Readers will presume the gossip is accurate, even if we describe it as gossip. It is also unlikely for the media to ever cover anything else about this particular organization, leading to a ONEEVENT issue.

However, I also realize the article is relatively unimportant and is already of better quality than most. It's locked now anyway, so... What is needed I think when it is unlocked is a bit of trimming to remove the gossipy parts and stick to the facts. CorporateM (Talk) 18:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I reckon that'd be a pretty good starting point, yeah. The second parag in the lead needs rewriting as well as a priority I would say. Potential to use a sandbox to do this perhaps? Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Links related to Controversy

Here is a list of articles about Suburban Express and it's controversies. I'm creating a section for it so others can contribute - please don't delete from it, though. It was started by AlmostGrad and moved to it's own section by NegatedVoid.

1. The Daily Illini (04/19/2013): Suburban Express lawsuits lead to controversy on social media
2. The Daily Illini (Editorial) (04/24/2013): Suburban Express mishandles student allegations
3. Paxton Record (04/25/2013): Bus company suing UI students for violating 'terms and conditions'
4. The Daily Illini (04/25/2013): Public addresses Illinois Student Senate regarding influx of student-aimed Suburban Express lawsuits
5. The Daily Illini (Opinion Column) (04/25/2013): Suburban Express causes its own problems
6. The Daily Illini (Letter to the Editor) (04/25/2013): UI should defend international students, disallow Suburban Express services
7. Ars Technica (04/26/2013): Express to Internet Hate: Bus company threatens redditor with lawsuit
8. The News Gazette (04/26/2013): Bus firm's lawsuits criticized
9. The Daily Illini (04/26/2013): Suburban Express lawsuits reach 125 this year; conversation continues on Reddit
10. BoingBoing (04/27/2013): Suburban Express bus-line sends bullying, cowardly legal threat to Reddit, discovers Streisand Effect
11. Popehat (04/28/2013): Suburban Express Took The First Bus To The Streisand Effect. Have They Disembarked In Time?
12. Techdirt (04/29/2013): Bus Company Threatens Redditor With Lawsuit, Meets Ken White, Runs Away
13. The Daily Dot (04/29/2013): Bus Company Threatens to Sue Redditor Over Bad Press
14. Paxton Record (04/29/2013): After backlash, bus firm pledges to dismiss all suits
15. The News Gazette (04/30/2013): Bus company promises to drop Ford lawsuits
16. Chicago Tribune (05/01/2013): Bus company's lawsuits anger students, parents
17. The News Gazette (05/01/2013): Bus lawsuits dismissed in Ford County
18. Paxton Record (05/01/2013): Suburban Express lawsuits dropped
19. The Daily Illini (05/01/2013): Suburban Express drops lawsuits and updates terms and conditions
20. WCIA 3 News (05/01/2013): Bus company drops civil suits against students
21. Ars Technica (05/02/2013): Nonstop to schadenfreude: Suburban Express’ u-turn on reddit lawsuit
22. The Daily Illini (05/02/2013): UIUC Subreddit hits front page, Streisand effect leads to increased attention for Suburban Express lawsuits
23. Kankakee Daily Journal (05/02/2013): Bus company drops lawsuits in Ford County against college student riders
24. The Daily Illini (Editorial) (05/02/2013): University administrators absent in Suburban Express incidences
25. Pieuvre.ca (05/02/2013): Le pouvoir des masses numériques, pour le meilleur et pour le pire (Translation)
26. American Bar Association Journal (05/03/2013): Cheap bus ticket included a trip to small-claims court for unwary students
27. Slashdot (05/04/2013): Redditors (and Popehat) Versus a Bus Company
28. Ars Technica (05/13/2013): Troll road: Bus company posts “dirt” on complaining passenger
29. Techdirt (05/17/2013): Suburban Express Goes Double Or Nothing On Their Aggressive Behavior
30. Ars Technica (06/19/2013): Bus company that threatened redditor with lawsuit tries to reopen suits
31. Techdirt (06/24/2013): Suburban Express Wants Round 3: Re-Files Against Customers
32. Paxton Record (06/25/2013): Suburban Express wants to refile some of its cases
33. Ars Technica (06/25/2013): Bus co. owner threatens redditor yet again, records users’ IP addresses
34. The News Gazette (06/26/2013): Bus company wants to reinstate some lawsuits
35. Uproxx (06/26/2013): Meet Suburban Express, The Bus Line Fighting A War With Reddit Over Negative Comments
36. The Daily Illini (06/27/2013): Suburban Express lawsuits not gone for good
37. WCIA 3 News (06/27/2013): Bus co. owner may refile lawsuits
38. Popehat (07/29/2013): The Popehat Signal: Suburban Express Doubles Down On Attacks On Critics
39. Paxton Record (07/30/2013): Judge grants motion to allow Suburban Express cases to be refiled
40. News Gazette (07/30/2013): Judge allows bus company to refile some claims against passengers
41. WCIA 3 News (07/30/2013): Bus owner in court
42. Techdirt (07/31/2013): The Popehat Signal Goes Out Against Suburban Express
43. Sohu.com (10/14/2013): 赴美留学：行前需多了解当地生活细节避免被骗 (Translation)
44. Sina.com (10/14/2013): 你不知道的導致中國留學生被騙的幾大細節 (Translation)

AlmostGrad (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on the available source material, I think the topic needs to be covered in greater depth. For example, multiple, credible sources discuss the lawsuit with Reddit, which currently isn't mentioned in the article at all. Per WP:LEAD, the controversy should be included in the lead, however, per WP:CRITICISM, we shouldn't have a dedicated controversy section. There is enough positive(ish) information in the article for a COI editor to expand on the controversy without creating a coatrack article, so long as it is not done to a distasteful extreme. CorporateM (Talk) 02:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps CorporateM should write an article about SLAPP suits, Freedom of Speech, etc. and use these citations in that article. Refrain from hijacking this article to advocate your position on First Amendment stuff. Thenightchicagodied (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)thenightchicagodied

The article is much improved with the additional detail. The controversy should also be summarized in 1-2 sentences in the Lead if anyone is up for it, as the lead is suppose to summarize the entire article, including controversies. The other thing that is needed is a Services section, detailing their routes, prices, buses, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 12:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a significant amount of advertising of Suburban Epxpress in the recent issue of the Daily Illini, but I'm not sure it would be appropriate to mention it on the page or the list of articles. Daily Illini New Student Guide Gulugawa (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

I updated the language in the competitors section last night to be more neutral and less advertise-y. I can't see any other egregious incidents of neutral POV being violated (though the level of detail certainly indicates the original author is somehow connected to the company), but I'd leave it up to someone else to review the notice at the top of the page. DarkAsSin (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note that Darkassin has a COI in that she was active in Reddit discussions about lawsuits, etc., consistently taking positions against Suburban Express. 108.119.159.153 (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm convinced that Darkassin DOES have a COI here. Simply holding a position does not constitute a COI, remember: "Beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest" (that's straight from the Wikipedia policy on COI.) As far as I can tell, Darkassin is not engaged in the legal matters (I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong; that WOULD constitute a COI in this case), and simply having stated a belief on a website such as Reddit does not, as far as I am aware, constitute a COI. Cam94509 (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, she hasn't added anything lately.184.215.242.242 (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have specifically stepped away from editing this article due to said potential COI, limiting my interaction to direct references to me as a user on the talk pages. I will note that my edit was very minor, largely limited to phrasing, and that I actually recommended a third-party reevaluation of the claim that the page violated neutral POV by being too favorable to the company. DarkAsSin (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

To the Editors From Suburban Express

(the previous heading of this section made no sense. this section does not contain communication from suburban express to wiki authors. it is just chit-chat among authors.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildwestend (talk • contribs) 4:15 am, Today (UTC+2)

I have undone the change. The comment made sense as there were edits made by and that continue to be made by the company. The conversation on the talk page has made quite clear the company is most notable in independent media coverage for the controversies. Thus, the "balance" the company affiliated editors want is not supported by reliable sources. The comment informs the company that they need to provide additional media sources that people can verify that show scope of interest in the company beyond the negative aspects. --LauraHale (talk) 4:26 am, Today (UTC+2)

Hello,

We currently note that in the article, there are only 2 sources (One of whom we dont see - If you could help us locate and access that, it would be great) not speaking against Suburban Express, as opposed to 5 sources doing so [I am not sure if there are any other sources speaking against the company that are not included though]. So in the view of balancing the entire article, I believe the lawsuits section should be increased, and the two others history sections be reduced, unless more sources are available speaking about the company in a non-negative light.

Which is why I ask you to put list all the sources you can locate about your company on this talk page (similar to how those criticising the company have done) so that all of us can look into those sources, and add them appropriately to make the full article balanced. Please note that unless we have more sources, the article cannot be balanced in the state it currently is.

Thank you, and hoping for a reply, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TheOriginalSoni. The legal problems oapparently are the company's main claim to notability and have generated more third-party coverage than everything else combined; per WP:WEIGHT we should cover the lawsuit in correspondingly great detail. Thus I have reverted back to TheOriginalSoni's version. Huon (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I was operating under the assumption that additional sources exist, but have been unable to find them in a quick search. I did some copy-editing/re-writing, but this seems fine for a large portion of the article to focus on what they are best known for. Though it irks me a bit, because the press has different interests than us and would be less likely to cover some of the boring historical aspects we might take an interest in.

I believe the argument made by the company editor that we would want to have some reasonable balance over-time is sound, in that regardless of sourcing, we wouldn't want the entire article to focus on a three-month period over a 30-year history. The problem is that the argument doesn't apply in this case. While the press coverage may be recent, they describe lawsuits taking place over ten years. CorporateM (Talk) 22:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring

Hi. Whoever removed content and rewrote my words, please do not do so. Refactoring comments is not acceptable, no matter what position you hold. If the business involved here thinks they are being unjustly treated, you can get in touch with me as a journalist through the e-mail me feature. I write for ]Wikinews, which feeds out to Wikinews. Otherwise, remember that people really, really, really dislike their words being changed to make it appear like they said something they did not. --LauraHale (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Streisand Effect

I think the Streisand Effect is central to notability and should be mentioned in the article. It is explicitly mentioned in references 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 19, 25, 26, and 27 listed in the Links related to Controversy section. I propose that the following sentence or some variant thereof be added to the article:

This incident has been called an example of the Streisand Effect by some, including Cory Doctorow of Boing Boing, Sean Gallagher of Ars Technica, and Ken White of Popehat.

The proposed sentence is not supported by the given sources; Gallagher never calls the incident an example of the Streisand effect but only cites White. Whether Doctorow does so is debatable; Doctorow's article only mentions the term in the headline without elaborating. Huon (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Huon, I hope this version is okay: "This incident has been called an example of the Streisand Effect by Ken White of Popehat." (with inline citations to the sources which have said this)

(I added the above with slight other variations of the text so that the sentence meshed properly with the surrounding text, and also corrected factual errors (the Reddit moderator was never sued, but the current version says he was sued and the lawsuit was withdrawn), but CorporateM has reverted my edit.) -- AlmostGrad (talk) 05:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm okay with that version: A third-party source reports White's use of the term. Huon (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Some of the comments in the current article are absolutely central to the story. The comment from a student about a racist bus driver is what started the whole thing and we definitely needed to spell out the Reddit comment ("and this") in order for readers to understand the sequence of events. I don't feel the same way about the lawyer calling it the Streisand effect. I don't feel this adds to the article or helps the reader understand the incident. There are also a lot of comments by the company owner in their defense that are verifiable, but we don't need to include everything that can be verified. Just the most important facts and the sequence of events. CorporateM (Talk) 00:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The latest Ars Technica story includes the Streisand effect in its summary of past events. I think the manner in which it is included suggests it is important enough to include. The article could still use a different headline for "2013 controversy" and expansion on the controversy in the lead. CorporateM (Talk) 12:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

FOIA Requests

On May 13th, the President of Suburban Express issued the University of Illinois a Freedom of Information Act request to seek information on the keywords "Suburban Express" as well as the students related to the 2013 controversy (Reddit moderator and student who stood up for the international student) as seen here:

http://www.foia.uillinois.edu/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=1298362

https://uofi.box.com/s/i11b7kiszsipen9jhwq1

Should this be added as it pertains to the 2013 controversy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illini1234 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The way it currently is, any mention of the same will be constituting WP:Synthesis, and is hence not allowed. Furthermore, this will be a primary source, making it highly unreliable. If any sources mention this request, then it might be considered for inclusion. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

As a heads up, I've changed the details which were added here. There are things which seem to be being linked to the company but where, for example, "alleged to have been" is used in the Ars Tech article. We'd struggle to justify those things I think - there simply isn't enough (yet) to show that they are so. The same is true over the reasons for the FOI request - someone saying that it's in order to "get" personal information in order to do something or other is, as in the article, opinion rather than fact. The fact is that an FOI request was filed in order to access communications. That's actually about all we can say if we're going to present it as fact. I think. And when we start to get into presenting more opinions we need to take care.

I'm not saying this is the right way to say this by the way. I'm sure it can be improved. But, although rumour, opinion and innuendo are the absolutely best thing, we really do need to stick to facts when it's a BLP issue. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express guy has come to Reddit and admitted all the things that were reported as "alleged" in the article. AlmostGrad (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I read the link - I'm probably just being thick, but where does that happen in the png linked to? Mind you, that's by the by really - we need a reliable, third party source, especially as we're in clear BLP territory. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

In the second comment from the bottom. If the Ars technica article reports it, not sure why you are deciding it's not okay to write it here and are deciding it is a BLP violation. That way any negative press coverage about anyone would be a BLP violation. The author of the article has looked at the primary sources and decided to write that, it has gone through an editorial review process, and then if you decide it isn't good enough for you, it is synthesis/original research. AlmostGrad (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Ars Tech article says some very, very specific things - for example, using the words "alleged to have been" rather than saying it was whoever it was supposed to be. I suggest you read *exactly* what the article actually says and then what our article says and what was there previously.

With regard to the screenshots, I have no idea who the user in question is. Do you? For certain? Can we prove it? That's exactly why this is a pretty huge BLP issue. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Addition of old material by IP without discussion on talk page

Material which was deleted from the older, ad-like/promotional version of the article after discussion and consensus on the talk page has been added back by an IP. Please take note and fix this. Including your usernames so that you see this entry - CorporateM, Huon, TheOriginalSoni, Blue Square Thing, KevinCuddeback, NorthBySouthBaranof, LauraHale, Thucydides411, Orangemike.

Also, I'd like to point out the following:

1. The current reference #4 (The News-Gazette, 2003)[22], about British Airways' Concorde shutting down services is an irrelevant reference and has nothing to do with the subject of this article.
2. I am not sure if reference #5 (Russell's Guide September 1999 - GLI Schedule 397 removed from publication) is a proper reference - it is a bus guide which is not archived in libraries and old issues are not available readily, and also the manner in which it is used seems like original research to me - alleged removal of publication of a certain route is interpreted as the bus service having stopped.
3. Reference #6 is a self-published document on the company's own webpage making claims about ridership figures.

These have all been discussed earlier on this page and were taken into account in the development of latest version of the article before the IP reverted back parts of the article, I'm just reiterating these points again. -- AlmostGrad (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I've asked OrangeMike to change the article to semi-protected. I'm not sure how the page got unprotected so quickly after a history of astroturfing, but hopefully we can fix that.

I think the problem with this article is WP:ONEEVENT, however the manner we normally respond to ONEEVENT issues with BLPs is to delete the article, and I don't see an AfD being successful here, so I'm unsure if there's a better way to handle it. CorporateM (Talk) 21:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion

I stated, "This is really a mess guys. It does not belong on wikipedi." For some reason a user named TheOriginalSoni deleted my comment. Why, specifically, does TheOriginalSoni feel it is appropriate to remove my contribution to the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.89.223.115 (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't *know* of course, but it was possibly a mistake to delete both the section and the AfD note. Twinkle does have a habit of encouraging deletion of consecutive edits by the same user when it's employed - and Twinkle was used to edit in that case. Certainly the AfD notice needed to be removed; I would suggest the actual comment probably should not have been. But that's only my 2 euros. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 June 2013

"subreddit" should be wiki-linked to Reddit since it's Reddit jargon and there's no prior link to Reddit. 99.8.184.43 (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Done with this edit. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 07:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

New Threats to Reddit Moderator

Given that Suburban Express has once again threatened the Reddit Moderator (as seen here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/bus-co-owner-threatens-redditor-yet-again-records-users-ip-addresses/), should we add this to the Wiki? Here is some more information as well: http://www.reddit.com/r/UIUC/comments/1h25xd/more_legal_threats_from_suburban_express_letter/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illini1234 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Corporate HQ

Where is the corporate HQ

• http://www.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController
  • The fields Entity Type File Number Corporation/LLC Name -> CORP OLD 56962972 SUBURBAN EXPRESS, LTD. -- Lead to Agent Patrick T. Fitzgerald, and President DENNIS E TOEPPEN (addresses redacted, User:Drmies) with secretary address being same
• But http://www.suburbanexpress.com/ - http://www.webcitation.org/6IAseYoIM - says "PO Box 4048 Lisle, IL 60532"

So which is it? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The address (address redacted, User:Drmies. The actual building was destroyed over a year ago. This address is false. Illini1234 (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Illini1234

An important clue can be found above, "OLD". When I look them up on the ILSOS corp/llc search, the name is Suburban Express INC not LTD. 99.67.249.1 (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)99.67.249.1 (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an answer for the HQ location, but based on this information perhaps the lead sentence should be changed to Suburban Express Inc. HtownCat (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Suburban Express website lists 714 S Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820 as an address, but I'm not sure if it is the company headquarters. When I walked past there earlier this month, the office appeared to be in use, but was undergoing renovation. -- Gulugawa (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Addition of material by a user without discussion on the talk page

User:Verdict78 has added material to this semi-protected article without discussion on the talk page. The version before their edits was arrived at by consensus reached on this talk page. They have used non-reliable sources, like a page on the company's own website (reference #9, "Lex Safety"). Please revert their edits. Attn. CorporateM, Orangemike, Illini1234, WhisperToMe, Gulugawa. AlmostGrad (talk) 05:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Ill take a look at the actual edit contents. An official website can be used to source info but it has to be used carefully. Also, semi protection doesn't mean all non-admin edits are always reverted. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I've attempted to reinstate some of the information, but none of the information regarding the website. If you could look at the edits that haven't been reinstated that would be a great help. Verdict78 (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• User:Verdict78, who has few recent edits outside this topic, has reverted Orangemike's edits and has been removing unflattering information about the company and adding material that tries to present the company in a positive light, using non-reliable sources like the Daily Illini opinion column. Please revert their edits and fully protect the article. Please note that this article has a history of sockpuppets editing it in favor of the company. This sockpuppetry on Wikipedia has in fact been covered in two sources listed in the Links related to Controversy section above - this Techdirt article, and this Popehat article.

Also, in this diff, the company has posted the lawsuits it has filed against its student customers, which is a BLP violation because these contain unsubstantiated accusations against those students.

Attn. CorporateM, Orangemike, Illini1234, WhisperToMe, Gulugawa. AlmostGrad (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

User: Verdict78 has recently made edits on the page which appear to be parroting statements made by Suburban Express. He also posted the name of a person involved with Suburban Express. I made some edits to make the article less biased and I'll leave it up to the admins to make any significant changes. (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 07:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulugawa (talk • contribs)

History Section

I'm attempting to improve the history section. I've just added some information regarding the companies rivalry with Lincolnland Express that was covered in the Daily Illini. Verdict78 (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that stuff from the Illini was from an editorial, not from news coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reused the reference but not gone into as much detail. I've tried to do this in accordance with WP:NEWSORG. I do agree that it isn't the best reference, so have tried to just state hard facts rather than expand on the rivalry. If anyone knows of any references about the LEX and Suburban Express Rivalry then please post it here so we can discuss further. Verdict78 (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and expanded the information on the LEX rivalry. I've used a couple of new articles, which discuss LEX entering and leaving the market. I feel this gives a better summary of when Suburban Express' rivals were in operation. It would be great if we could expand this further. Secondly, I've made a change to the services section. I think this section should cover the services aspect of the company. The issues with Reddit moderators is covered in the history. The reality is that the service in 2013 changed, when Suburban Express began to fine passengers for using the wrong ticket. This is what I've attempted to demonstrate with the latest change. Verdict78 (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the history section. I've expanded the early history section by talking more about Greyhound and the rivalry. I think this is key as it showed how the company became established. Secondly, I've changed the recent history. Not that there is anything wrong with the references, but they aren't the most neutral articles I've ever read. I think some of that bias has transferred onto the article, so I've tried to clean this up by stating facts. Verdict78 (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick comment regarding the latest updates from a couple of editors. Great to see this article is improving. Does anyone have any other suggestions on how this can be expanded out further? I think we should avoid turning this into a long rant about lawsuits however. Verdict78 (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The recent news coverage about Suburban Express has focused on the lawsuits and they are a key part of the controversy surrounding Suburban Express. As a result, discussion of the lawsuits needs to be a significant part of this article. Gulugawa (talk) 7:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Gulugawa has a strong COI, as evidenced by his numerous anti-suburban express posts on reddit. His edits are unprofessional and unconstructive. I propose that he be asked to cease editing this article at once. 195.50.135.211 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your proposal to stop me from editing this article should be disregarded because it comes from an unknown IP address. If you have a legitimate reason for me to stop editing this article, make it from a real account so that it is clear that you are not a Suburban Express sockpuppet. I have frequently criticized Suburban Express on Reddit, but they deserve the criticism due to their unethical business practices. Gulugawa (talk) 7:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to stop you from editing Gulugawa, but that would seem like you have a COI. Please attempt to stay neutral when editing, the fact that you are a Reddit editor and adding information regarding the lawsuit against Reddit editors doesn't look good from the outside in. Currently I think your work has been reasonable and neutral. However it's just a polite reminder, as I think you are acting in good faith currently. Regarding the lawsuits, I agree that they need covering, I'm not suggesting that it should be removed. Some of the content when I made the edits was very hostile towards Suburban Express. As an editor I tried to make it much more neutral. Thanks for your recent edits however, I do think they've moved the article in the right direction. Verdict78 (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Updating page

We should update the page to mention updated information about Suburban Express

• The judge in Ford County allowed many of the lawsuits to be reinstated.
• (BLP violation removed, User:Drmies)
• I saw an old newspaper article from the 1980s about Suburban Express and Greyhound and it might be a good idea to include a link to that article.

(link to likely copyvio removed, User:Drmies)

Gulugawa (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that news article could definitely be used, thanks for the input. The only issue with the cybersquatting activities is that it would be hard to prove he used Suburban Express as a front. It is also covered on the Dennis Toeppen page. Verdict78 (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"The judge in Ford County allowed many of the lawsuits to be reinstated," is false. According to Paxton Record article, the judge allowed the status of a handful of cases to be changed from "dismissed with prejudice" to "dismissed without prejudice". Changing from with prejudice to without prejudice does not constitute "reinstating". 2602:306:36FB:2029:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources and Reddit

This article appears to rely heavily on blog posts about a Reddit incident involving alleged posts by Suburban Express. Several of these blog posts by Ars Technica, The Daily Dot, Boing Boing, and Techdirt appear to be written in a way that "slams" the company, using terms like "dickery," "troll," "cowardly," etc. These blog posts comprise almost half of the sources in this article.

This company has been open since 1983. I'm not convinced that this Reddit conversation is notable enough to take up so much weight in the article.

Suggested edit for paragraphs 3-5 of the Recent History section: "In 2013, Suburban Express filed 126 small claims lawsuits against customers it alleged violated its terms of service.[10] An attorney for Suburban Express said some of the cases involved students buying their tickets online, then printing out multiple copies and distributing. Other cases involved students using tickets on the wrong dates, or altering the dates on the printed tickets.[11] The lawsuits were initially filed 30 miles away from the University, where students were unable to get free legal assistance.[1] [12] By May 2nd 2013, the company had dropped all 125 lawsuits that it had raised.[10]

In May 2013, after prior cases were dismissed with prejudice, Suburban Express hired a new attorney and attempted to reopen a number of the cases.[16] Owner Dennis Toeppen asked for the cases to be filed in Champaign County so that students could use Student Legal Services to defend their case.[11]" HtownCat (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with HtownCat. Although the company has been in operation since 1983, there are over 40 articles pertaining to this controversy. Meanwhile, there are only 4 articles relating to the company, 2 of which are from the company itself (Suburban Express and Illini Shuttle). Any content from these sources should technically be removed since they are not independent sources.

The article should be weighted based on the 3rd party publications pertaining to the company, and given the 42 articles relating to the controversy vs. the 2 articles (not including the sources linked to the company's own websites) relating to other significant parts of the company, the Wikipedia article should have 21x more weight dedicated to the controversy. However, as the article currently sits, Suburban Express is getting the benefit of the doubt since the weight of the controversy is far less than 21x of the total content.

If anything should be changed, more of the Suburban Express article should have information related to the controversy. 12.238.238.104 (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of conventional media sources is an order of magnitude higher than that of blog posts. Furthermore, a conventional media source is valid wherever it is posted. For instance, the Daily Herald article referenced from company's website is no less valid when retrieved from that location than from Newspaperarchive.com -- where it also resides.

The body count method of determining weight is without merit. A high count of low-quality blog postsis meaningless. I imagine that this company has had plenty of conventional media coverage in 30 years -- even if that coverage is not immediately available to those who have never set foot in a bricks and mortar library. 2602:306:36FB:2029:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There have been many articles mentioning the current controversy over the past year that have not been blog posts. For example, newspaper such as the Daily Illini, Chicago Tribune, Paxton Herald, and the CU News Gazette have talked about the Suburban Express controversy in their print editions.Gulugawa (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

If I remember correctly, initially User:OrangeMike added full protection to this page, but User:TheOriginalSoni persuaded him to unlock it, then I asked him to only semi-protect the page. IMO, the edit history of this page shows that a full protection is in-fact needed. I notice that since I last edited this article, the controversy has been watered down and mis-represented, with a lot of "according to Dennis Toeppen" and an excessive emphasis on Suburban Express' point-of-view. All the material that was most offensive to Suburban Express was chipped away at.

I also notice that many of these edits have been made by an SPA User:Gulugawa and a non-disclosed paid editor User:Verdict78, which is probably pretty frustrating for editors with a disclosed COI that are avoiding article-space edits such as User:AlmostGrad.

With so much COI participation, it's difficult to tell who the regular editors are. Since this article, and this company, have a long history of sockpuppetry and astroturfing, full protection seems appropriate. When a regular, disinterested volunteer editor takes an interest in the page, they can ask for it to be unprotected or use Edit Requests. CorporateM (Talk) 14:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM - there has been a number of poor edits on this page, the article was in a complete mess when I started work on it. To me proven by User:AlmostGrad and other editors, there are a lot of people who ride these buses who are editing this page. The content was basically a page of slander of the bus company. I didn't attempt to hide anything, merely state facts. If you go over my edits I'm sure that will become clear. Although I'm not very happy about an accusation like that with no substance. Verdict78 (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Given the new kind of watering down of the article that has been seen and the previous history of socking and alteration of the page by involved editors, I consider CorporateM's proposal to be correct, and request an uninvolved editor to alter the current article back to a version that fits the best portions of the current as well as the previous stable version of the article before an admin locks the article. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, look, the three musketeers are back, working in concert again: Gulugawa, his pal and reliable sockpuppet TheOriginalSoni, and their pal CorporateM. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• User:CorporateM, it appears that you have gone through the article and stripped away many reliable sources (newspapers) that added details about the company, then created a large section violating WP:UNDUE that cites a bunch of blog posts. A Reddit thread does not warrant several paragraphs. The material that was "most offensive" was not just "chipped away," but was written in a more neutral style and with additional supporting details to provide a balanced view. Wikipedia is not the place for the "most offensive" viewpoint to be represented. HtownCat (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The potential UNDUE issue was discussed extensively, with myself originally holding a similar position. The discussion found that this is what the company is most notable for and was an appropriate amount of weight. If editors want to overturn that, the same editors should be re-engaged to attempt to establish a new consensus that supports a different interpretation of proper weight for this article.

However, with so many COIs, meats and socks, it is difficult to imagine how the conversation could be practically carried out, as it would quickly deteriorate as we become overwhelmed by the task of trying to figure out which are actually disinterested editors. CorporateM (Talk) 21:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm glad to see someone has acknowledged by work rather than ripping it apart. As I stated before, changing something from slander to pure factual content, isn't watering down the article, it's improving it. For example, the 'name calling' that took place on a forum, do the words really need to be mentioned especially when the references are effectively blog sites. And from what I can see it was never proven, merely 'University hearsay'. However I do agree with the logic that an external admin needs to get involved and work some magic on the page. Verdict78 (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Even the Wall Street Journal posts "blogs", but we don't consider them as such really when they are written by professional journalists. I think what you mean is that the publications covering the issue are gossipy tech-rags that don't necessarily have the same editorial mission as Wikipedia, so we should use them with care and use good judgement. CorporateM (Talk) 17:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Venom from Reddit Users and Sockpuppets

I wanted to bring this to everyone's attention: http://www.reddit.com/r/UIUC/comments/1kxx1i/anyone_using_quad_day_to_canvass_people_not_to/ Can someone please tell me why these two are still being allowed to edit/vandalize this article? 99.147.28.113 (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Before accusing other people of vandalizing this article, you should look at the fact that Suburban Express sockpuppets such as yourself have been vandalizing this article. I looked up 99.147.28.113, and it is an IP address, that is owned by Illini Shuttle, which is owned by Suburban Express.

http://whois.net/ip-address-lookup/99.147.28.113

Gulugawa (talk 12:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Gulugawa - As is often the case, your statements have no basis in fact. There are no edits from 99.147.28.113. IP users are not, by definition, sockpuppets, as you claim. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

However, there are NUMEROUS edits from 99.147.29.158 (which is also owned by Suburban Express) as seen here. Don't manipulate what you have, and have not done on this page. 12.238.238.104 (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Conduct on this page

I have just removed a discussion from this page that purports to provide and/or link to the personal information of Wikipedia editors. This is very much against our policies, and I caution all editors here to refrain from personalising the dispute to such a level, responding to those who do personalise the dispute that way, or generally discussing personal matters on Wikipedia. Continued misconduct in this vein will lead to editing privileges being revoked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I talked with the Wikipedia user who posted a link to personal information about me and I allowed him to post it. [[User:Gulugawa] (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Gulugawa's comment above would seem to point to joint efforts being made in editing this article, ie sockpuppetry. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Investigating

I see that AlmostGrad, who has a disclosed conflict of interest made these edits from May to June. On June 24th, OrangeMike added pending changes protection to the page here. This effectively prevented all the amateur SPA IPs from the company from editing. One month later, a non-disclosed paid editor User:Verdict78 began editing. His editing is similar to prior edits by the company in that he added content using the company website as a source and re-inserted similar details (some of which IMO did needed re-insertion).[23] He used an edit summary here that was a misleading representation of the actual edits, a common paid editing tactic. (I'm also not the first one to point out his discreet paid editing operation and happen to know about it off-wiki) Shortly after, User:Gulugawa, who appears to have a real-life connection with AlmostGrad (is that vague enough not to be outing?) began editing both this page and the Dennis Toeppen article.[24] CorporateM (Talk) 03:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

My main purpose for editing this article was to deal with all the edits that sockpuppets have made over the past month. If you believe that my COI is an issue, I will restrict my involvement with this page to the talk page on the condition that paid editors such as Verdict78 are permanently blocked from editing this page. I think the best option would be to fully protect this page or prevent single-purpose accounts from editing this page.

Gulugawa (Talk) 07:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be surprised if the other registered user advocating for the company, User:HtownCat, also turns out to be an undisclosed paid editor. If you look at the articles they have created, you will notice that these are in-depth articles about a range of barely/marginally-notable businesses, businessmen, products, and software. How did this editor suddenly come across and become interested in a small business in central Illinois, starting at a time when this article wasn't making its usual rounds of appearances on SPI/AN pages? AlmostGrad (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I had not investigated User:HtownCat's contribution history yet, but their editing patterns do suggest a likely paid editing account. Attacking Wikipedia's editors, as the company did on Reddit, makes it even more apparent which accounts have an affiliation with the company, because of the consistency in behavior. CorporateM (Talk) 12:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM

CorporateM seems very insistent on adding fabricated material to this article. For instance, he today added a claim that Suburban Express FOIA requests included salary information. That is false. He also claims that Suburban Express attempted to reopen some cases. Also false.

CorporateM seems to like to rely on the lowest quality source he can find.

WRT the "reopen"ing of cases, the high quality sources have it right. For instance, News-Gazette correctly states that status was changed from "with prejudice" to "without prejudice". That is NOT equivalent to reopening cases, as CorporateM would have readers believe.

As for the FOIA requests, they are all public information, posted on the University of Illinois website. There is NOTHING about salary in any of them.

CorporateM has previously stated (ie in talk pages of other articles) that he works in PR and does paid editing. Given that his edits are of extremely low quality and his motives are suspect, I would suggest that he be barred from editing this page. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express: Based on your previous blatant ill-willed actions here and elsewhere, you cannot be regarded as credible in any of your accusations, comments, or suggestions. Therefore, all of your remarks here should either be taken lightly or not even taken into account at all. Your pattern of behavior is fairly consistent to the effect that you criticize anyone or anything that negatively exposes your company for what it truly is. Additionally, this is a public forum where everyone is able to see your behavior. It is quite easy to see the different tactics you have attempted on this talk page alone which only further substantiates this argument. I highly recommend you discontinue your antagonism towards Wikipedia moderators. 12.238.238.104 (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

[speculation about ip user identity deleted] is correct. The source says they filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain communications from the University press agent, then later published that same employee's salary information on Reddit. It does not confirm that the salary information was obtained through the Freedom of Information Request.

However, Ars Technica does says here that the prior case was dismissed "with prejudice." Because Ars Technica is a tech gossip rag, a news-gazette source may be more reliable in this case if such a source were to be provided. CorporateM (Talk) 17:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the impression that you're interacting with the owner of the company. There is more than one person here who cares about the wildly inaccurate information being posted by CorporateM on wikipedia.

ARS Technica blog posts are of extremely low quality. ARS posts regarding Suburban Express contain numerous unsupported statements which are often preceded by vague hedging.

You would be well-advised to stick to credible sources rather than relying on online trash. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

At no point do I say I am interacting with the owner, I explicitly state above, "Suburban Express". However, based on previous company history, such as on PopeHat via the comments, comments and accusations have been historically linked the owner. 12.238.238.104 (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

By all means, let's start using the comments section on blogs as a source for wikipedia articles. What could possibly go wrong with that? Internet comments are all factual, well-sourced, and never posted by axe grinders. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"then later published that same employee's salary information on Reddit" - You are either reading sloppily or whomever wrote this made an unsupported assumption. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM - Your words and actions are not consistent. For instance, you admit that ARS is a low-quality tech rag, yet you seem to be waging a campaign to inject as much of the ARS and other low-quality blog posts into the article as possible. The article edit history seems to include numerous instances of you replacing well-sourced content with blog trash. Newsflash: Bloggers are not journalists. They often do not answer to anyone and their articles need not be fact-checked. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Ars Technica piece is written by Sean Callagher, a professional journalist, formerly of TechTarget, Ziff Davis, CMP Media and other established news organizations. Anything written by a professional journalist usually meets our minimum threshold for inclusion. On the other hand, when a reliable author happens to work for a reliable source whos editorial mission differs greatly from Wikipedia's we have to use good judgement in discussions about weight and neutral writing. For example, IMO, even though the sources talk about the Streisand effect repeatedly, our interest in that is a little more limited than the media's. CorporateM (Talk) 19:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the edit that states that Suburban Express posted salary information. The cited reference states that the information was posted by "an anonymous poster who is alleged to be Toeppen." Reddit speculation does not create encyclopedic facts to be posted in a company Wiki article. HtownCat (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Blatantly False Edits by CorporateM

CorporateM's posts and edits should be scrutinized very carefully. They seem to be consistently inaccurate. For instance:

• Earlier today, he posted this: "and later posted that employee's salary information on Reddit", citing this blog post as the source of the information: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/bus-co-that-threatened-redditor-with-lawsuit-tries-to-reopen-suits/ But the cited blog post does not contain such a statement. Wisely, another user reverted his false post.

• Then later, he posted this, "The new attorney also filed similar motions in more than 100 of the previously dismissed cases" and cited http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/bus-co-that-threatened-redditor-with-lawsuit-tries-to-reopen-suits/ But again, the cited blog post does not, in fact, contain that information.

A newspaper article on the matter, written by a reporter who actually attended a hearing in an actual building - you know, those places with walls and doors and windows that contain real people - accurately reports the number of motions granted as twenty. Not one hundred. Twenty. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2013-07-30/judge-allows-bus-company-refile-some-claims-against-passengers.html

The best part: the edit was concealed as an edit favorable to the company. The description of the edit is: "the FOIA request is only relevant to various editorialized conjectures and speculation" But here is the edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suburban_Express&diff=573845779&oldid=573826965 The edit clearly bears no resemblance to the description of the edit.

Many, if not most, of CorporateM's edits include similar slights of hand, if not outright fabrications. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This source does say "with prejudice" despite claims by your other account/paid editor/whatever, that it says the opposite. However, it has some important clarifications. I am taking a look at it now and will make the appropriate modifications. CorporateM (Talk) 12:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

We have no control over the actions of others. You ar drifting very close to violating BLP policies, if you have not already done so. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Overnight, CorporateM has made a flurry of destructive and poorly-sourced edits. For instance, he has added a claim that a driver made a racial slur. That is false. One troublemaking student *alleged* that a driver criticized a passenger for not speaking english. IF true, and that is not a given, the incident does not constitute a "racial slur". What race is non-english-speaking, exactly? CorporateM's edit is needlessly inflammatory and is patently false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.113 (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is yet another example of a false edit by CorporateM. CorporateM inserted this text:

"The company said the incident did not occur and attempted to fine another student for disruption, who said he was trying to talk to the bus driver about their behavior."

The source does not make the statement that is attributed to it. And the edit description is dubious: "adding a new source". A more accurate description would be, "added random statement unsupported by new source". Additionally, the statement is not true.

Here is the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suburban_Express&diff=573909724&oldid=573845889 99.147.28.113 (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the documents, Suburban Express is correct in that there was not "another" student. However, it was only the original student who spoke up that was fined. It needs to also be noted that the student was fined for $570 due to "liquidated damages" ("liquidated damages" are not included in the current edit) as seen here.

Another important item to clarify is the order of the dismissals with prejudice until the motion to vacate. After the cases were dismissed with prejudice by May 2nd, Suburban Expressed waited until May 28th, once school was no longer in session and within the 30 day window, to vacate the dismissals with prejudice as seen here in an attempt to refile. This article also explicitly states that Suburban Express planned to refile the cases, "If the motions are granted, Suburban Express plans to refile the cases in another county, Toeppen said.".

12.238.238.104 (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The article also says: "He noted that “we do not desire to litigate any of the cases in Ford County” and “we will not necessarily litigate all of these (dismissed) cases.” �99.147.28.113 (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I added the "liquidated damages" aspect. As for the dismissals, you sort of lost me there. CorporateM (Talk) 19:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Another False Edit by CorporateM:

The student did not receive a letter demanding $570 for liquidated damages. The contract specified $500 liquidated damages for, among other things, disruptive behavior.

The diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suburban_Express&diff=573947756&oldid=573926939

The alleged source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130429/07194422871/bus-company-threatens-redditor-with-lawsuit-meets-ken-white-runs-away.shtml

As you can see, the source says nothing about $570. The source is primarily regurgitated crap with a dash of drama added by the author, who never had contact with any of the parties.

99.147.28.113 (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

False Source Attribution:

This statement: "In May 2013, Suburban Express hired a new attorney cite news| url=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/bus-co-that-threatened-redditor-with-lawsuit-tries-to-reopen-suits/ | work=Ars Technica

Is not supported by this, the cited source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/bus-co-that-threatened-redditor-with-lawsuit-tries-to-reopen-suits/

Furthermore, the subject attorney was not recently hired. Any such assertions are false. He is attorney of record on other company matters, ie in Cook County, which pre-date 2013. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express, you are lying/incorrect. As per this news article, the fine was due to "liquidated damages" as seen in Suburban Express' old Terms of Service, "...you agree to pay Suburban Express the amount of $500 for liquidated damages sustained by Suburban Express...".

Where EXACTLY is Suburban Express lying? Above, the statement that a student was sued for $570 liquidated damages is attributed to a blog post which does not, in fact, state that. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Another area where Suburban Express is lying/wrong, the demand letter was for the sum of $575.57 (to be exact) as seen here. This is a part of the Popehat article here 12.238.238.104 (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ken, you should know better than that - you read the lawsuit. The suit was for $500 per the contract plus expenses incurred. It is *not* accurate to say that he was "sued for $570 liquidated damages". He was sued for $500 liquidated damages PLUS expenses to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.113 (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed, the direct link above to the pdf in the Popehat article does not work. It can be found in the paragraph under the second grey box. 12.238.238.104 (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The current source probably just rounded; I am inclined to do the same. CorporateM (Talk) 23:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Reddit Moderator

Suburban Express threatened a Reddit moderator with a lawsuit. The Wikipedia article goes on to cover Suburban Express' point-of-view about libel and whatnot in substantial detail, but is now missing the moderator's point-of-view that was in a prior version. I was digging through the edit-history, but couldn't find it right away. Anyone know what I'm talking about? CorporateM (Talk) 00:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Does this help?

http://www.reddit.com/r/UIUC/comments/1d3qqc/my_correspondence_with_suburban_expresss_lawyer/

http://www.reddit.com/r/UIUC/comments/1h25xd/more_legal_threats_from_suburban_express_letter/ 12.238.238.104 (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately not; it needs to be in a press article or some other source that is acceptable by Wikipedia's standards. CorporateM (Talk) 01:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I found it: http://www.dailyillini.com/news/local/article_43a45b74-ae1a-11e2-9a0d-0019bb30f31a.html

12.238.238.104 (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a good source. I added some stuff from it, though it appears this source is from before the Reddit moderator was sued, so it doesn't contain his defense against the libel claims. However, the libel claims against the student that made the viral Facebook post and the Reddit moderator appear to be identical. I need to double-check to see if that is actually the case or if there is some confusion. CorporateM (Talk) 02:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Get your facts straight. Reddit moderator was never sued and and student was sued for not paying the liquidated damages owed as a result of his disruptive behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.113 (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express, at no point does the page say the Reddit moderator was sued. However, the page does accurately state that you threatened the Reddit moderator with legal action, as seen here, "'If you do not take corrective action to remedy the damages from your false and libelous postings by removing the items by April 27, 2013, Suburban Express has authorized the pursuit of legal action against you as a result of your conduct.'"

Suburban Express attorney communicated with moderator, not Suburban Express. In other words, that quote is attributable to a Suburban Express attorney.99.147.28.113 (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Then you do it a second time as seen here. The current page accurately reflects this. 12.238.238.104 (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

"Suburban Express, at no point does the page say the Reddit moderator was sued. " Ken, Where exactly does Suburban Express assert that the page states that the reddit moderator was sued? 99.147.28.113 (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

An attorney represents their client. There's no need to get super technical about it. CorporateM (Talk) 12:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

MORE Bad Edits by CorporateM

Wikipedia's greatest weakness: ANYONE can edit articles, regardless of their education, skill level, biases, etc. Exhibit B:

Version Critiqued:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suburban_Express&oldid=573991393

FALSE ATTRIBUTION #1

Wikipedia says: "Suburban Express has initiated more than 200 lawsuits against its own customers since 1994 and ten civil suits against competitors"

Cited source/cited source says: http://www.dailyillini.com/news/local/article_43a45b74-ae1a-11e2-9a0d-0019bb30f31a.html "Suburban Express filed 209 lawsuits since April 1994, when the first lawsuit was filed in Champaign County. Eighty-four of these lawsuits were filed prior to 2013."

Misrepresentation by CorporateM: Cited source does not say that 200 lawsuits were against customers.

FALSE ATTRIBUTION #2

Wikipedia Says: "In 2013, it filed 126[5] tort and contract damage lawsuits against customers it alleged violated its terms of service by printing out multiple copies of their tickets or using them on the wrong dates"

Blog source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/express-to-internet-hate-bus-company-threatens-redditor-with-lawsuit/

Blog source makes no mention whatsoever of customers being pursued for "printing out multiple copies of their tickets".

Misrepresentation by CorporateM: Cited source does not say that customers were pursued for "printing out multiple copies of their tickets".

2602:306:367E:C8B9:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like in the editing the original source for "printing out copies" got shuffled around a bit. I placed it back. IMO, this source appears to be still talking about the lawsuits against customers in the 200 number: "Suburban Express lawsuits filed against passengers this year increased from 44 to 125 since Monday...Suburban Express filed 209 lawsuits since April 1994" However, I changed it to "about" rather than "more than" since it may also include the 10 civil suits. CorporateM (Talk) 12:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You lack precision. The source does not state that lawsuits were filed against customers. That is apparently a flourish you added. And it is false to state that the source contains that information. 2602:306:367E:C8B9:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

In response to your comment, "Wikipedia's greatest weakness: ANYONE can edit articles, regardless of their education, skill level, biases, etc...", I agree Suburban Express. In fact, you have been using 3 IPs between editing this talk page and the actual wiki page: 99.147.29.158 - owned by Suburban Express and previously had multiple edits on the actual wiki page, 99.147.28.113 - owned by Illini Shuttle (which is owned by Suburban Express) and is making multiple edits on this talk page, 2602:306:367E:C8B9:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 - a Sprint cell phone IP also making edits on this talk page. How many more do you have? 12.238.238.104 (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken.

NetRange 2602:300:: - 2602:3FF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF CIDR 2602:300::/24 Name ATT-6RD Handle NET6-2602-300-1 Parent NET6-2600 (NET6-2600-1) Net Type Direct Allocation Origin AS AS7018 Organization AT&T Internet Services (SIS-80) Registration Date 2011-06-17 Last Updated 2012-03-02 Comments RESTful Link http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET6-2602-300-1 See Also Related organization's POC records. See Also Related delegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:367E:C8B9:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected in the service provider. Nevertheless, that does not negate the 3 total IP addresses used by Suburban Express:99.147.29.158 - owned by Suburban Express and previously had multiple edits on the actual wiki page, 99.147.28.113 - owned by Illini Shuttle (which is owned by Suburban Express) is making multiple edits on this talk page, and 2602:306:367E:C8B9:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 - which is AT&T but most likely an additional IP owned by Suburban Express. 12.238.238.104 (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express is editing from IP addresses registered @ ARIN to Suburban Express. 12.238.238.104 is not traceable. Who is being more transparent? 99.147.28.113 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, only after your sockpuppet accounts were exposed May 14th, the page was semi-locked barring you from editing the page yourself, and the paid editor you hired was exposed. This is now your last desperate attempt to revert the page to how you envision it. 12.238.238.104 (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The above statement is best characterized as wild speculation. The goal of Suburban Express, and this should be quite clear, is to ensure that the Wikipedia article contains only factual information and accurate attributions. This is not a blog which must generate a constant flow of trash which conforms with the melodramatic imperitive in order to attract an audience - regardless of the facts. This is an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.113 (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

By no means is that wild speculation. You (assuming you are Dennis Toeppen) confirm this on your very own website, Toeppen.com (moderators: this link is public information and on the Dennis Toeppen Page, reference #2. Please don't remove it). You even have a link to an extremely outdated version of this wiki page with the label "entry before it was vandalized by sad, lonely bloggers". The updates to the Suburban Express page have not been vandalism. In fact, they have been far from it. The edits have been an updated account of the large scale international (not just national) press that has resulted from your company's behavior.12.238.238.104 (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The editor above seems to be attempting to buttress wild speculation with more wild speculation and what seems to be yet another BLP violation. Characterizing blog posts as "international press" is an extreme stretch at best, or a pathetic attempt at self-aggrandizement at worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.113 (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Article #25 in the "Links related to Controversy here is from an editorial located outside of the United States, where Suburban Express operates. Hence, international.12.238.238.104 (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

An editorial. Hilarious 99.147.28.113 (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Advertising by Suburban Express removed

I have removed an intentional Suburban Express ad from the Reddit Moderator talk section per WP:PROMOTION. Please refrain from self promotion. 12.238.238.104 (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear how you are able to divine intent. As the TALK PAGE entry clearly stated before you deleted it, the facebook url was provided with an invitation to scrutinize Suburban Express contest rules. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

False. Here was the post before it was removed: "Don't miss the Suburban Express Sweepstakes http://www.facebook.com/s***************. Be sure to read the contest rules." Nowhere does it ask for feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.238.238.104 (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where any claim was made that it was posted with a request for feedback. Invitation <> request for feedback. Aside from that, in this context it means, "Hey conspiracy theorists, here's an excellent opportunity for you to obsessively waggle your neurons, and don't miss the rules as they are very complicated and peppered with stuff you'll want to gripe about."99.147.28.113 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. The intent of the post is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with this article either way. Wikipedia is not a place to organize protest. It is only a vehicle for documenting the debate. CorporateM (Talk) 14:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Editing

I feel there are some issues with the recent developments. CorporateM is allowed to edit the article even though he states he has a conflict of interest on many of the articles he edits. User:Gulugawa states that he also has a conflict of interest, but is still okay to edit. AlmostGrad, edited the article even though from the recent link from reddit shows he also wants to 'stop' certain editors, one of whom was myself. These editors are all allowed to edit the article. However even though I have no COI, I should be banned from editing this article because a few editors 'think' I'm a paid editor, based on the edits from this page and potentially one other. This was due to some disgruntled SPA was having a go at me, and may I also state he claimed two other admins were paid editors in the same rant.

Lastly, I've been doing some reading on COI. Whatever you think of Suburban Express, if they follow COI correctly they should discuss on here what is correct and incorrect about the article. The way they have been spoken to is nothing short of disgusting. A few editors on here seem to be pushing for editors to act ethically, well here's your chance. A company has come on to the talk page, trying to do things properly and is getting ripped apart because of it. All they seem to want is a factual article, like any company would. Please don't use Wikipedia as a battlefield for airing your personal views about the company. Any administrators viewing this article need to take action. Verdict78 (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Verdict78, you fail to disclose that Suburban Express has also been active in editing the Suburban Express page via this IP: 99.147.29.158 (and other sockpuppet accounts) despite a clear COI. 12.238.238.104 (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey all. I'm checking out for the back and forth sniping, but if anyone with a COI has a correction or clarification that they need a disinterested editor to consider, please feel free to ping me on my Talk page. The article looks "ok" and nobody with a COI on either side has been editing just recently. Keep in mind the Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for attacking editors, discussing Suburban Express in general, etc.. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 21:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm checking out as well. I think the article is now accurate enough. 12.238.238.104 (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit Discussion

I would like to know why [this edit] is considered non-notable. In my opinion, this information 1) adds interesting and important details about the company's history, and 2) is much more notable than a company's reputation on Yelp and Reddit, and how often a Facebook post got shared. HtownCat (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I would support allowing your edit to be added back to the page on the condition that you are not a paid editor, or distracting readers from the current controversy going on with Suburban Express.Gulugawa (talk) 4:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:HtownCat editing article again, without discussion on talk page

HtownCat, possibly an undisclosed CoI/paid editor, has resumed subtly changing the article to push it in favor of the company, much like they and Verdict78 (another paid editor according to CorporateM's assessment) were doing earlier. Their recentmost edit should be reverted. Deducing 125-44 = 81 is a straightforward calculation, not WP:ORIGINALSYN, so there is no reason to change CorporateM's version.

As I have pointed out earlier, articles created by HtownCat are all in-depth articles about a range of barely-notable/non-notable businesses, businessmen, products, and software from all over the place. How did this supposedly uninvolved editor suddenly come to know of and become interested in a barely-notable bus company in central Illinois, and become invested in advocating for it on Wikipedia? Not that editors are required to stick to their initially declared editing area of interest, but I don't see any match between their editing history and their declaration on their talk page "Hobbies include running, fitness, and computers, and my editing will probably reflect those interests.", even in their initial edits.

I propose that a request for full protection be made for this article in order to contain this long-term pattern of tendentious editing. AlmostGrad (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Reality Check: User CorporateM has admitted elsewhere to being a paid editor and his behavior suggests that he has a strong COI. User AlmostGrad has an admitted COI and is clearly tireless in her efforts to keep this article as far from NPOV as possible. Additionally, the quality of CorporateM's contributions is extremely poor, as documented above. This article needs some fresh blood, and User Htowncat should be welcomed, not attacked. 184.239.112.215 (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Call for New Blood

This article needs some attention from editors other than CorporateM, who behaves as if he owns the article. 173.113.30.158 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like it to be noted, both 173.113.30.158 and 184.239.112.215 are Sprint PCS IP addresses of which Suburban Express uses for its :buses. 67.175.155.121 (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Suburban Express buses and vans use ip connectivity from AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile. Please also note that these carriers have millions of customers. Suburban Express is speaking from the IP address which appears after the end of this sentence. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's relevant that the IP is from Sprint PCS, as there has been a continuing pattern of interaction by Sprint PCS IPs on this talk page reflecting a consistent point of view regarding Suburban Express, and that have in some cases engaged in questionable behavior, particularly as it regards other posters. However, without the individual signing off with an actual username, we can't make a determination one way or another that it is definitively SubEx making the posting, no matter how obvious it might seem from an intuitive standpoint. However, given that there has been synchronicity between some of the user-directed Sprint PCS postings and user-directed posts on Reddit, I would say that it's quite likely that, whoever the Sprint PCS person is, they definitely have a strongly pro-SubEx COI here. I would encourage said Sprint PCS user to either use their existing Wikipedia account, or create an account if they do not have one, and sign in in order to contribute constructively to the conversation. COIs are a lot easier to deal with if we have a consistent username (hence why I always log in to comment here). DarkAsSin (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Shoddy Editing By CorporateM

Wiki article says this:

"Suburban Express has initiated about 200 lawsuits against its own customers since 1994 and ten civil suits against competitors.[4]"

Here is the citation:

http://www.dailyillini.com/news/local/article_43a45b74-ae1a-11e2-9a0d-0019bb30f31a.html

The article does not say Suburban Express filed 10 lawsuits against competitors.

It says this:

In the past, Suburban Express has filed 10 civil suits, including lawsuits against Amtrak, Champaign-Urbana MTD and then-Lincolnland Express, better known as LEX.

The three named companies are competitors, but it does not logically follow that all 10 lawsuits were against competitors. Champaign County Circuit Clerk's website reveals that suits have been filed against non-customers who are not competitors, ie Pitney Bowes.

This is the game that CorporateM is playing: He is relying on the laziness of readers. He expects that he can say something that seems like it is true, but which is not actually true, and that nobody is going to actually check. He constantly lies in his edits, which are biased and not consistent with NPOV. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express is attempting to pay for edits in bad faith with a "bounty": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bounty_board#Suburban_Express . This should show the goals of Suburban Express with its accusations against good faith editors like CorporateM 24.15.78.1 (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

False. Suburban Express has posted a notice on the bounty board. Using a wikipedia construct within the rules established for same would seem to be precisely the opposite of bad faith. The bounty offer speaks for itself. CorporateM has in fact been inserting false statements and false attributions into the Suburban Express article as demonstrated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.113 (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I checked the source and made a small revision to more-closely conform to the Daily Illini source. They are useful for their "sweep of history" but they never claim/made a detailed analysis of all cases since 1994. I found that when referencing the history of "209" suits, the Illini never said exactly "against whom" the suits were brought--that they did characterize the more recent "126" as against customers/passengers/students but the chart and the text did not extend that to all 209. You'll see in the notes on my edits that the most that can be supported from the Illini is that the suits were (probably) against "non-competitors" (which I cast as "individuals")KevinCuddeback (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Globalize

Illinois-centrism and "Foreign" Student

While the original source repeats an "eyewitness" claim that a student was "foreign" and references to "campus" it would seem that to maintain a worldwide view that we need a better way of saying "foreign to whom?" in the lead and in the Reddit part and full-references to places.KevinCuddeback (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Its an article about a US company, that clearly states US cities where these events take place. Foreign seems pretty self evident to me. I fail to see how one would even go about globalizing such an article, about a company, that has no relevance outside of a handful of college towns Gaijin42 (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If it "has no relevance outside of a handful of college towns" I'd expect you to vote for the article being non-notableKevinCuddeback (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree with Gaijin, but then if there is an easy and sensible fix, we might as well. I was thinking "non-American" but that just sounds insulting. CorporateM (Talk) 03:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You could use the phrase "international student." "Foreign student" sounds a bit strange to my ear. DarkAsSin (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The worldwide reader would ask "Foreign to whom?" if the answer is "Foreign to me as an American [editor]" that's a systemic bias. You can't defend the word "foreign" as being "understood by the locals" without undercutting the claim that the article is of a generally notable subject. If we can make it clear that it is "foreign to the American witness" that's better. "international student" is the best I've seen so far (FWIW that's also how CNN would say it--they've banned the word "foreign" as their way of adopting a worldwide view)KevinCuddeback (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

In the alternative, the story basically works without any adjective at all, and let the bus driver's quote speak for itself.KevinCuddeback (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

International student seems to be the politically correct term so I've gone ahead and changed it and removed the template. SmartSE (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Dramafest article

Not to defend the immensely bad behavior by their employees at this article and related discussions elsewhere, (and I really haven't gained an understanding of who is doing what here) but at first glance, IMHO this article reads like a very negative drama fest. The topic seems to be "conflicts and controversies involving Suburban Express" rather than "Suburban Express". Probably the best fix would be to include more other info about the company and the rewrite the lead so summarize the expanded article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I came to the article with the same assumption and I was little defensive when I saw students with a COI saying the article should focus on the controversy per WP:WEIGHT. However, I searched for additional sources not related to the controversy and came up empty-handed.

We have 3 cites for its early history and 15 for the controversy (probably more cites that aren't being used as well). If we took WEIGHT as a literal calculation, the controversy would need to be expanded by an additional paragraph and there's plenty of material that could be added.

The article should not be "balanced" - just representative of the source material. However, that isn't to say that there is no possibility of something worthwhile being added to the early history. CorporateM (Talk) 12:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

In the fuzzy Wikipedia system, I think that there is some support for what you just said, as well as for what I just said, and they are somewhat in conflict. I'm not overly concerned on how this article ends up; I think that I just might leave after having made what I think might be a useful point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It's somewhat counter intuitive, but NPOV doesn't mean that articles have to be neutral. CorporateM is right that we need to represent the sources that discuss the company. If they are mainly known for controversy, then that is what should make up the bulk of the article. SmartSE (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Concur with User:North8000. The article scope should rather naturally include controversies and sourced history, of whatever kind if notable, but I think the point that the lede does seem to be rather WP:UNDUE relative to the weight of the controversies/lawsuits was worth making, and worth reiterating now. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict, responding only to Smartse) Actually, the provisions that you are referring to were incorporated into my comment. They are generally to cover cases where there are opposing viewpoints on an item, and not to have preponderance in coverage categorically dictate the overall structure of the article. For example, if somebody became famous for one thing, but there was an article on that person generally, if 99% of the WP:RS coverage on them is about that "one thing", that does not mean that policy dictates that 99% of the overall article about that person be on that "one thing", and the entire rest of their life compressed into 1% of the article. And wp:npov / wp:undue does not dictate such, which would be in conflict with building an encyclopedic article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

But what else is there to include? I've checked factiva and there doesn't seem to be anything else to say. It's not like we are going to find an in depth article about the types of bus it uses... For many subjects it is impossible to write a truly encyclopedic article as sources covering every aspect do not exist. WP:WEIGHT makes it clear that if 99% of sources discuss only one thing, then that is correct for 99% of the article to be about that one thing. I agree that the lead could do with some expansion however. SmartSE (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the answer lies in a balance of these things. Wikipedia does not share the same editorial mission as the media, especially the tech rags, and some compensating for their sensationalism and gossip is needed. However, the lawsuits span almost two decades, which is two-thirds of its history and weight cannot be completely ignored. Also, if WEIGHT were taken literally, the controversy would be larger, so a substantial amount of compensating has already occurred. While we can debate the precise weight of the article, I think it's current form is basically round-about where it should be.CorporateM (Talk) 12:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Responding to Smartse, I was more talking about a general direction, and then responding to your comment rather than saying I had a concrete idea / the sources to fix it. But one idea wold be to include more of the mundane information, including uncontested material from primary sources if necessary. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that this is a small company, there are few sources, and all or most of the criticism is aimed at one man, I'd be inclined to write it as if it were a borderline-notable BLP. That means excluding blogs and other social media, and not dwelling on negative detail: for example, the part about who-said-what in relation to the overseas student seems over-egged. (How many bus companies have drivers who have been rude to customers? Every single one).

I would go through the article with this in mind and try to produce something that summarizes the key criticism without dwelling on it, but that otherwise focuses on what kind of company this is, how it started, what areas it covers, and so on. I also wouldn't include the criticism in the lead. If I were writing the lead, I think I'd write something like this:

Suburban Express is a bus service, based in Lisle, Illinois, that specializes in transport for students traveling at weekends to the Chicago area from six universities in the American Midwest. It is a "virtual" bus company, contracting buses from other carriers. The company was founded in 1983 by Dennis Toeppen, then a student of the University of Illinois, who successfully challenged the local monopoly of Greyhound, leading to a price war that saw fares drop for both companies.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would be inclined to go with the more neutral lede that SlimVirgin just drafted above; would eliminate the WP:UNDUE emphasis on newsy negative coverage in the current lede. (of course, a thorough summary of the controversy, to the extent it is well sourced and not undue, would be included in the prose in the body of the article.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with SlimVirgin's thoughts. North8000 (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

In response to SlimVirgin saying it is common for bus drivers to be rude to passengers, I would ask: How many bus companies sue passenger(s) for "liquidated damages" for trying to prevent said rude bus driver from being rude to other passenger(s)? I don't think there are many companies who would do that, if any at all. This mainstream news then led the media to finding out about other lawsuits (over 200 in the last few years). How many bus companies sue 10 passengers? How many sue even 1? 24.15.78.1 (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You may want to take that discussion about other bus companies, and what and whether history might indicate about the number of small claims actions other bus companies may or may not have ever taken against customers, or by customers against the company, to either SlimVirgins' Talk page, or to a new section of this Talk page.

As it is, THIS particular section is about an attempt by editors to discuss, and perhaps develop consensus, on a lede that would not violate either WP:UNDUE nor WP:POV. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Even under the expectations of BLP rules, where we are careful to treat the article-subject's reputation with care (which we should do for companies as well anyway) I find it difficult to rationalize including a summary of the article that does not contain any mention of the controversy that dominates the source material. The lead is suppose to include any major controversies and be representative of the article. It is not undue, but rather due weight to include it. The challenge is to properly, neutrally and concisely summarize the entire issue. Something like, "The company has had many legal disputes with competitors and students" would work. Technically many of the disputes are not legal in nature, but I think this is the most important aspect. CorporateM (Talk) 02:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I entirely disagree with the whitewashed lead. In this case, the criticism of the company is a major factor in its notability. It would be remiss to not mention that whatsoever in the lead section. If we were to add something like "The company has been the focus of significant criticism for lawsuits it has filed against customers and alleged aggressive practices", that could work. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Concur. Seems like the emerging consensus here is to have something about the legal disputes in the lede. So I have inserted your suggested text in the lede of the article. It is mentioned in the lede now, but does not give excessive detail and leaves that for the body of the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for addition of Streisand Effect and FOIA requests, and more

Though Suburban Express has taken CorporateM to AN, I think CorporateM has in fact excluded certain key points regarding the controversy. I also don't think the current watered-down lead section accurately reflects the content of the article, and is somewhat vague in its wording ("involved in arguments with customers").

Streisand Effect and FOIA requests

I think that the Streisand Effect should be mentioned in the article - I have brought this up here for discussion earlier and a consensus was reached in favor of adding it. CorporateM should not override consensus reached on the talk page because he considers it unimportant (his opinion is subjective); he has deleted it twice - here and here.

Also, the sourced mention of FOIA requests that the owner of the company made to the University of Illinois in order to obtain personal information of redditors was deleted by Verdict78 without any discussion on the talk page and without even an edit summary. It was added back by CorporateM, who then changed the wording so that it no longer accurately reflected what the source said, and then deleted it with an edit summary saying it was all "editorialized conjecture and speculation".

Therefore, I think mentions of the Streisand Effect and the FOIA requests should be added back to the article - well-sourced, accurate versions of the content to be added are contained in the various diffs and links I have provided above.

Response to SlimVirgin's BLP violation concerns

Regarding SlimVirgin's response to DGG on AN, how is this article a BLP violation if the content is well-sourced and the tone matter-of-fact? The controversies and lawsuits are the company's primary claim to notability - this article has been through AfD twice before this year's controversy, and barely managed to survive, with some double voting from IP socks.

Response to SlimVirgin's enquiry about errors and false citations

Regarding SlimVirgin's enquiry about errors and false citations - if you can manage to read through this mess of a talk page, you will see that that is a frivolous claim - and wouldn't Suburban Express have brought up any egregious mistakes on AN if they indeed existed, instead of promising this elusive list of blatant errors and false citations that will finally "expose" CorporateM's biased editing?

If you read this talk page, you will see that the alleged "errors and false citations" are trivial things like this:

1. In one of the lawsuits, the student was charged $500 for liquidated damages plus "expenses incurred", which brought the total amount to $570. CorporateM initially wrote "he owed $500 in liquidated damages". Suburban Express complained about this in a section with the dramatic title Blatantly False Edits by CorporateM. CorporateM then "corrected" it to say "he owed $570 in liquidated damages".
2. Suburban Express said that they did not communicate with the Reddit moderator, their attorney did, hence the statement "The company threatened to sue a Reddit moderator involved for alleged "false and libelous" statements." was inaccurate. Corporate M responded by saying, "An attorney represents their client. There's no need to get super technical about it."‎.

If you examine this talk page carefully, you will find that all their claims are of this nature. There has been a lot of discussion on this talk page, and this article as it stands is largely accurate, except for maybe a few benign examples like the two above for which CorporateM has been given quite some grief by Suburban Express. Even those kinds of "issues" have been fixed when they were pointed out here on the talk page. AlmostGrad (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a danger of inadvertent BLP violations when writing about borderline-notable people, simply because not much has been published about them. Imagine an article about yourself that dwells on that shoplifting allegation from 1972, but doesn't mention your charity work or all the times you've helped little old ladies cross the road, because no sources have written about the latter. The article would be accurate, but unfair.

When there's a danger of this, the only way to deal with it is to reduce the negative, even when it's correct and well-sourced. Having glanced through this it seems to rely heavily on social media (though I haven't looked carefully and I'm assuming the sources are policy-compliant; I have a lot of faith in CorporateM as an editor). Perhaps the way forward it to err even more on the side of caution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

AlmostGrad is correct. I opposed adding the Streisand effect as general editorializing, but there was a reasonable enough consensus to include it because it was heavily cited in the source material. I even gave in after a new piece of coverage came out that summarized the entire incident, which also included it. I have put it back in at least for now, until/if/when a new consensus is reached not to include it that overrides the original.

You'll have to forgive me if I lose track even of my own edits, but I put the FOIA back-in. The source says the request was made specifically to intimidate students, but I think speculation as to its motives is not something we want to cover, even if sourced.

Though other editors seem to be, I am not convinced by the BLP angle. Even if it were a BLP, that should only encourage us to get it right, not to openly violate NPOV and due weight because we feel sympathy for the subject. We have a journalistic duty to our readers more so than the article-subject. CorporateM (Talk) 23:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources

I noticed the sources below on the Talk page of the Suburban Express user page. The fact that the articles are hosted on Toeppen's website is unimportant. On the contrary, it's valuable that he/they provide access to historical sources that are otherwise difficult to access. I notice there are 8 here and only 3 in the article.

On the other hand, I seem to remember that at least some of the sources were just brief mentions, but it would be worthwhile for someone to cross-check any valuable citations missing from the current page. CorporateM (Talk) 07:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Daily Herald Release: http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-release.pdf

 Not done This first one appears to be a letter giving permission to repost the article on the website, as oppose to an actual article

1. Daily Herald Article re: Fare Wars http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-fare-wars-toeppen.pdf
2. Daily Herald Article re: University of Iowa Service http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-uiowa-se.pdf
3. Daily Illini release: http://www.toeppen.com/di-release.pdf
4. Daily Illini article re: New cut-rate bus service: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1984_0128_new_cut-rate_bus_service.pdf
5. Daily Illini article re: Greyhound Predatory Pricing: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1985_0216_greyhound_predatory_pricing.pdf
6. News-Gazette release: http://www.toeppen.com/gazette-release.pdf
7. News-Gazette article re: Go Suburban - leave the driving to the entrepreneur: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1990_0408_news-gazette_article.pdf

Text-source integrity issues?

I've been talking with the owner of the company via email. Are there some WP:Text-source integrity issues with the article as the owner suspects? I see that "Afterwards, the student received a letter from Suburban Express saying he owed $570" is not verified in the source that is cited. Is something wrong with that bit of content? Or am I not understanding how it is OK? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I would also like it to be noted that user Biosthmors may continue to have somewhat of a COI with Suburban Express given that he previously accepted a reward in the amount of $300 issued by the company, but has since rescinded. Just something to be noted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reward_board#Suburban_Express 24.15.78.1 (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It might need to be better worded, but certainly the "meat" of the content is in the article. The source does not specifically say the notice of the fine came via a letter, but certainly that isn't a big stretch. The owner of the company has made repeated accusations of uncited content, and in every case I have investigated, the content was sourced (although wording could in some cases be tweaked)

• In Jeremy Leval's case, he was fined $570 for creating a disruption on the bus he was riding. The "terms and conditions" had warned fines could be issued for disruptive behavior.
• The next source in the article "Four days later, Leval told the Daily Illini, University of Illinois' student newspaper, about the incident. He received an e-mail from the company that said he was being fined $500 for "liquidated damages"

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express objects to inaccurate statements of all kinds - large and small. It is not the case that Jeremy Leval was pursued for $570 in liquidated damages. Period. The correct number is $500.Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You may be perfectly right, but that is WP:OR. (Although there is a second source that says the $500 number). Are you aware of other secondary sources that discuss the amount? Is the primary source available from a reliable source (IE, is it in the public record of a court case, where it can be WP:Verified to be the real one?) Per Wikipedia:Conflicting_sources we should list both numbers unless we can find an authoritative source. For future content/source disputes, it would be helpful if you specifically identify which portion of the content you dispute vs just saying a statement is wrong. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This article, by a well established newspaper in Central Illinois, explicitly states the charge was for $570: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2013-07-30/judge-allows-bus-company-refile-some-claims-against-passengers.html 24.15.78.1 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, here is a link to the court document filed in Ford County: http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/LevalComplaint.pdf 24.15.78.1 (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Page four of the "court document' refutes the claim that Leval was sued for $570 in liquidated damages, rather than supporting it. Page four explicitly states "$500 - liquidated damages". Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Page 1 shows the amount demanded by the Plaintiff as $575.57, this is the amount the lawsuit was for, not $500. I do however suppose the demand letter sent (and this clearly demonstrates that there indeed was a letter sent) was for the amount of $523.57 as shown on page 4. So maybe it would be proper to say a demand letter was originally sent for the sum of $523.57, which later became increased to the sum of $575.57 in the form of a formal lawsuit". 24.15.78.1 (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The lawsuit was for $500 in liquidated damages *and other expenses*. It is not accurate to say that the lawsuit was for $575.57 or $523.57 in liquidated damages.Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The formal lawsuit, as clearly shown on page 1 in the link sent from the Ford County court records, is for the sum of $575.57. To ensure the article is accurate, I believe that 3 numbers should be shown:

• The original fine was for $500
• The demand letter sent was for $523.57
• The formal lawsuit was for $575.57

This would clear up any ambiguity. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The principal amount due from Leval was $500. Collection expenses of $23.57 were included in the initial demand, and they are broken out in the demand letter. When suit was filed, filing fee of $52 was added. Neither the collection expenses nor the filing fee constitute liquidated damages. I suggest you re-read the pdf. The word "fine" does not appear in any of the court documents. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Analysis:

• Version reviewed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suburban_Express&oldid=579892268

• The Wikipedia article states: "Afterwards, the student received a letter from Suburban Express saying he owed $570[13]"

• The Wikipedia article cites: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2013-07-30/judge-allows-bus-company-refile-some-claims-against-passengers.html

• The source says "In Jeremy Leval's case, he was fined $570 for creating a disruption on the bus he was riding. The "terms and conditions" had warned fines could be issued for disruptive behavior."

• The source does not say Leval received a letter. The source does not say that a letter said he owed $570.

• Additionally, this source is garbage: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130429/07194422871/bus-company-threatens-redditor-with-lawsuit-meets-ken-white-runs-away.shtml It contains content (in quotation marks) which is regurgitated from elsewhere. IMHO, the citation should point to the source of the quoted material, not a blog post which regurgitates it.

• It is true that the $500/$570 issue is not relevant to the above. Nevertheless, there are errors. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The ultimate source is http://www.dailyillini.com/news/campus/article_026b7ab0-a89e-11e2-a046-001a4bcf6878.html No objection to sourcing the bulk of the information to that article, but we should keep the other sources as signs of WP:N. You are making mountains out of molehills. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The error and evidence above speaks for itself. I agree with your suggestion that a conventional-media source should be cited. I disagree with your assertion that the existence of blog posts makes a story which is covered by conventional media more notable. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS says: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ..."

And WP:BLPGROUP says: "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group."

Perhaps the first step should be to remove anything that's arguably fancruft, e.g. that the company called a student a brat, what the owner of a blog said, how many likes something got on Facebook. Then check that everything that's left is sourced to mainstream reliable sources, and if there are discrepancies such as $500 versus $570 the writing can be tweaked to make the claim more general. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Biosthmors accepted Suburban Express' paid editing offer

It should be noted that User:Biosthmors accepted Suburban Express' paid editing offer on the Reward Board on October 27, with plans to discuss payment options by email. They withdrew the offer on November 3, with the edit summary "i withdraw my offer (it is now open for any takers), and i plan to make some edits to the talk page instead".

I don't agree with the dismissive attitude of some editors towards online happenings and online sources as unimportant and unreliable, respectively - many of the real-life lawsuits and legal threats originated from criticism that customers posted online, and are thus integral to this article. For what it's worth, we are here writing an online encyclopedia. Dismissing online altercations as unimportant social media spats, and online sources as opinions of blog owners is inappropriate, in my opinion - those altercations and sources are central to the subject's notability. Fancruft is a subjective concept; the fare war with Greyhound also falls under that in that case - many people find that uninteresting and unimportant. In fact, the second AfD nominator's nomination statement was "Non-notable company with poor references that do not ascertain why this is notable, other than the owner started the business and had a feud with Greyhound." AlmostGrad (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, I understand that you do not appreciate the regulatory environment in which Suburban Express began, and that you do not find fare competition to be unusual today. Nevertheless, it is a fact that Suburban Express exploited a regulatory loophole in a novel way and that the exploitation of the loophole destroyed Greyhound's monopoly in the campus-to-chicago suburbs and eventually caused them to exit the market. It is also a fact that conventional-media sources covered same. Please provide a list of the "many of the the real - life lawsuits...originated from criticism that customers posted online." That statement seems to have no basis in fact, as far as I can recall. I can only think of one filed suit, Champaign County, IL case 13CH000205. Finally, your statement that the offer on the Reward Board was withdrawn has no basis in fact. The offer is still open. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

tl;dr but i'll note #Paid editing. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

False Article Text re: FOIA

• Wikipedia article reviewed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suburban_Express&oldid=580241459

• False Statement; "The company's owner also filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the university in order to identify Reddit users.[18]"

• Article Cited: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/bus-co-that-threatened-redditor-with-lawsuit-tries-to-reopen-suits/

• Article Text: "Dennis Toeppen, once a notorious domain-squatter, filed a FOIA request with the University of Ilinois requesting "Any and all communications to which Joel Steinfeldt of Office of Public Affairs is a party which mention, relate, or pertain to to Suburban Express, Matthew Finnicum, Murph Finnicum, or Jeremy Leval, for the period 1/1/2013 to present." A link to the electronic files generated in response to the FOIA request was then posted to reddit."

• Falsehood: "in order to identify Reddit users."

• User responsible for inserting false text seems to be CorporateM. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suburban_Express&diff=579672730&oldid=579612274

I trust that someone will correct this error. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What you are claiming is a "false statement" is: "The company's owner also filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the university in order to identify Reddit users.""

The cited source says: "And he's trying to intimidate redditors by filing Freedom of Information Act requests with the University of Illinois in an attempt to expose their personal data."

North8000 (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That sentence was overlooked. I would characterize it as speculation. The FOIA requests were very specific:

http://www.foia.uillinois.edu/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=1298362 http://www.foia.uillinois.edu/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=1306841 http://www.foia.uillinois.edu/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=1312492

The purpose of the requests was to determine the extent of involvement of University employees in Suburban Express matters during their paid workday.Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

If that were true, why did you include specific names in the FOIA requests rather than simply "Suburban Express" and "Illini Shuttle"? You also used the term "or" rather than "and" when listing the specific names and Suburban Express/Illini Shuttle thereby making the aforementioned names mutually exclusive to "Suburban Express" and "Illini Shuttle" in the request. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read the act. It is online. Pay special attention to the word "categorical". Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I note that you edited your comment above after I responded. I will no longer respond to your comments as a result. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

False Article Text re: Lawsuits

• Wikipedia article reviewed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suburban_Express&oldid=580241459

• Wikipedia article text: "Since 1994, Suburban Express has initiated about 200 small claims actions against individuals, as well as civil lawsuits against four competitors.

• Article Cited: http://www.dailyillini.com/news/local/article_43a45b74-ae1a-11e2-9a0d-0019bb30f31a.html

• Cited Article Text:

"Suburban Express lawsuits filed against passengers this year increased from 44 to 125 since Monday."

"Suburban Express filed 209 lawsuits since April 1994, when the first lawsuit was filed in Champaign County. Eighty-four of these lawsuits were filed prior to 2013."

"Since 1994, the bus company has filed 209 lawsuits in Champaign and Ford counties combined, according to Champaign and Ford counties circuit court records."

"Champaign County Circuit Court records also show that Suburban Express brought a civil lawsuit against the Peoria Charter Coach Company in 2009. In the past, Suburban Express has filed 10 civil suits, including lawsuits against Amtrak, Champaign-Urbana MTD and then-Lincolnland Express, better known as LEX."

• Falsehood: "Since 1994, Suburban Express has initiated about 200 small claims actions against individuals" The maximum number of suits filed against *passengers* ("individuals" is not supported by the source) that is supported by the source is 125.

• Comment: Many of the suits filed in the 1990's were collections suits filed against Net66 customers for non-payment, and as I recall, some of the delinquent accounts were businesses, not "individuals". Net66 was a dba of the Suburban Express until Net66, Inc. was incorporated sometime in the late 90's.

• User responsible for inserting the text seems to be CorporateM. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suburban_Express&diff=573989309&oldid=573989185

I trust that someone will correct this error. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Censorship and Suburban Express

It is not disputed that Suburban Express takes issue with people who post false statements online. As noted above, Suburban Express did, in fact, file a suit seeking an injunction against a passenger for false statements posted in a Yelp review.

Undertaking defensive actions against persons who seek to harm Suburban Express by making false statements online is hardly "Internet censorship".

A recent edit attempts to cast a simple demand letter pertaining to false and defamatory statements (some of which the recipient of the letter subsequently remedied) as Internet censorship:

The letter: http://imgur.com/a/OYasT

The diff - see edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suburban_Express&diff=580252816&oldid=580241459

The quality of the source cited is low, and defensive actions taken in response to false and defamatory statements simply do not rise to the level of Internet censorship. Suburban Express does not take issue with expressions of opinion. Suburban Express does take issue with false statements misrepresented as fact.

Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

When reading the text in the above image of the letter to the reddit moderator, it is important to note that no so-called "false and defamatory" comments are explicitly stated anywhere in the text. All the statements are vague, ambiguous, and grossly violate Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act http://www.dmlp.org/section-230. Therefore, one can only deduce that such a letter was intended for censorship. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As for the act, the link you provided contains this statement "You will not lose this immunity even if you edit the content, whether for accuracy or civility, so long as your edits do not materially alter the meaning of the original content." It should be clear from the letter that *one* of the issues was material alteration of meaning. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As I stated above, the so-called "false and defamatory" comments and "material alteration of meaning" are not explicitly stated anywhere in the letter. Everything is vague and ambiguous.

Furthermore, you sent an additional legal threat letter to the Reddit Moderator intended to censor him and Reddit: http://imgur.com/PHiKMM3,tUSPPiF#1 http://imgur.com/PHiKMM3,tUSPPiF#0 to which he responded again that he was not breaking any law: http://murph.cc/subex/subex-letter-response.pdf. Again, one can only deduce from the first and second letter that you intended to censor any discussion about Suburban Express. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not correct. The second letter to the Reddit moderator was *extremely* specific. It took issue with Reddit moderator's banner ad which stated something like, if you ride Suburban Express they are likely to sue you. That statement is false. We filed 100ish lawsuits out of something like 200,000 riders. 100/200,000 is the opposite of "likely". In response to the second letter, the Reddit moderator removed the false statement. Your use of the word censorship to describe that interaction seems inflammatory and inaccurate. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Refer to the response by the Reddit moderator. The context is accurate. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That does not refute my prior statement nor does it seem to advance the argument. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

In the Reddit Moderator's response, he even reaffirms the statement was of his opinion and correct in the context to which it was written. I think everyone who reviews these documents will see a clear accurate account of what occurred. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 07:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The Reddit moderator claims that since another bus company does not sue cheaters and Suburban Express does, it is likely that Suburban Express will sue you. The most obvious problem is that "likely" is not dependent on the actions of other bus companies. It is either true that it is likely Suburban Express will sue you or it is not, regardless what other companies do. insofar as 100/200,000 is not likely, the statement is false. Second, Suburban Express does not use a lottery to determine who to sue. Rather, Suburban Express pursues cheaters. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line is that if you or CorporateM are looking to make a poster about censorship, you're looking in the wrong place for a model for your poster. We respect the right of individuals to express their opinions. Suburban Express reserves the right to take whatever action we deem prudent against persons who intentionally seek to cause damage through false statements published in any medium. Our position has been quite consistent and it has not and will not change. I have no intention of having an infinitely long argument about this. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

So using fine print to sue a passenger who complained later for "disruption" is "We respect the right of individuals to express their opinions". But I digress. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hardly fine print. The contract customers enter comprises a few short paragraphs and appears in LARGE RED TYPE (approximately 3/8" tall on my monitor) on the payment page. Customer must check a checkbox affirming agreement in order to complete order. The disruptive customer you speak of knew exactly what he was getting into. I see no connection between enforcing a paragraph of our contract and free speech issues. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As described by Ken "Popehat" White, a well-known and well-respected Harvard educated blogging lawyer:

"Suburban Express' threats, as the Reddit threat suggests, are highly problematical. Suburban Express plays fast and loose with the difference between allegedly false statements of fact — which can be the basis for a defamation claim — and statements of opinion, which are protected by the First Amendment when they do not imply false statements of fact. Courts are much more likely to view statements on the internet as opinion rather than fact. For instance, Suburban Express takes issue with a statement of Reddit that they are "likely to sue you," saying that given their number of riders it is actually statistically unlikely they will sue you. But given Suburban Express has sued at least 125 people in 2013, this is the sort of statement that will almost certainly be taken as an opinion or rhetorical flourish rather than a false statement of fact. Second, Suburban Express doesn't seem familiar with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects hosts (like, say, Reddit or a Reddit moderator) from the words of guests (like people who comment on Reddit or a blog.). All of Suburban Express' defamation threats I have reviewed are either very vague (which, as I often say here, are a reliable hallmark of meritless thuggery) or target protected communication. Suburban Express may not be familiar with Illinois' anti-SLAPP statute, which would provide a mechanism to dismiss the defamation lawsuits early and secure fees for the defendants. In short, Suburban Express' defamation threats are highly dubious." (http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/28/suburban-express-took-the-first-bus-to-the-streisand-effect-have-they-disembarked-in-time/)

I think this speaks for itself. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That is a self-published blog post by an author who clearly benefits from clicks and attention. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that the hair-splitting on "likely to sue you" is avoiding the points. First most would read the statement as saying that there is a much higher likelihood of getting sued if you choose this bus line, not a claim that over 50% of bus rides on that line end up as a lawsuit. Second, the Wikipedia statement is not the likelihood statement, it is that the person said it. Not that that per se justifies inclusion, but it does say that the arguments against inclusion so far are not valid. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Moot point. The Reddit editor removed the false statement. If he'd wanted to say that you are more likely to be sued if you ride Suburban Express and cheat than if you ride company X and cheat, then he should have said that. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

So this leads one to believe that what you categorize as "disruption" you also categorize as "cheating". 24.15.78.1 (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Conventional Media Source List

• Daily Herald

1. Daily Herald Release: http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-release.pdf
2. Daily Herald Article re: Fare Wars http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-fare-wars-toeppen.pdf
3. Daily Herald Article re: University of Iowa Service http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-uiowa-se.pdf

• News-Gazette

1. News-Gazette release: http://www.toeppen.com/gazette-release.pdf
2. News-Gazette article re: Go Suburban - leave the driving to the entrepreneur: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1990_0408_news-gazette_article.pdf

• Daily Illini

1. Daily Illini release: http://www.toeppen.com/di-release.pdf
2. Daily Illini article re: New cut-rate bus service: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1984_0128_new_cut-rate_bus_service.pdf
3. Daily Illini article re: Illini Union Board budget matters - Greyhound commissions down by $15k (Translates to $150k sales decrease) http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1984_IUB_budget_impact.pdf
4. Daily Illini article re: Greyhound Predatory Pricing: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1985_0216_greyhound_predatory_pricing.pdf
5. Daily Illini article re: Suburban Express using novel method to pursue cheaters: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1996_0117_bad_checks.pdf
6. Daily Illini letter to editor re: Bad checks article: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1996_0118_di_letter_to_editor_re_badcheck_article.pdf
7. Daily Illini article re: Students who thought they could do better... http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/2000_0823_6th_Wave_Opens.pdf
8. Daily Illini article re: ...but who arguably failed: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/2000_1030_Sixth_Wave_Screws_Up.pdf

Article scanning is not complete as of 11/5/13. Updates to list will be made as articles are scanned. License agreements are included to satisfy anyone who is curious about copyright issues. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC) There are about 10 more articles Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional Materials

Here are some letters and other materials from our archive, which help illuminate some of our history.

1. Illinois Commerce Commission Cease and Desist Letter sent following investigation urged by Greyhound: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1984_0304_IllCC_cease_and_desist_not_timely_received.pdf
2. Suburban Express attorney's opinion letter: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1984_fall_carraway_opinion_letter.pdf
3. Greyhound letter again urging ILL Commerce Commission to investigate Suburban Express: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1984_0920_GLI_Letter_to_ILLCC.pdf
4. Illinois Commerce Commission determination that Suburban Express is exempt from their jurisdiction: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1984_1231_IllCC_ruling_in_our_favor.pdf
5. Greyhound urging drivers to do their jobs properly: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1985_1119_GLI_memo_to_drivers_to_arrest_slide.pdf

Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Relevant Content Removed, Suggest Restoration

On 10/27/13, SlimVirgin posted this proposed language and included citations to support the text:

"Given that this is a small company, there are few sources, and all or most of the criticism is aimed at one man, I'd be inclined to write it as if it were a borderline-notable BLP. That means excluding blogs and other social media, and not dwelling on negative detail: for example, the part about who-said-what in relation to the overseas student seems over-egged. (How many bus companies have drivers who have been rude to customers? Every single one). I would go through the article with this in mind and try to produce something that summarizes the key criticism without dwelling on it, but that otherwise focuses on what kind of company this is, how it started, what areas it covers, and so on. I also wouldn't include the criticism in the lead. If I were writing the lead, I think I'd write something like this: Suburban Express is a bus service, based in Lisle, Illinois, that specializes in transport for students traveling at weekends to the Chicago area from six universities in the American Midwest.[1] It is a "virtual" bus company, contracting buses from other carriers. The company was founded in 1983 by Dennis Toeppen, then a student of the University of Illinois, who successfully challenged the local monopoly of Greyhound, leading to a price war that saw fares drop for both companies.[2] Jump up ^ Suburban Express, accessed October 27, 2013. Jump up ^ Rozek, Dan (October 20, 1985). "Fare wars". Daily Herald (Arlington Heights). SlimVirgin (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)"

On 11/2/13, CorporateM removed accurate and highly relevant language, in spite of SlimVirgin's thorough and accurate citations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suburban_Express&diff=579885063&oldid=579679078

CorporateM posted this edit summary: "Was this prior text supported by a source? I know that is one of their routes, but dont know if they "specialize" in it)"

The question is answered by looking at the sources.

Since weekend transportation for college students is the ONLY service Suburban Express offers, and this is quite clear to anyone who visits our website (SlimVirgin's first citation), I would propose that someone revert this edit.

Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the Suburban Express site, the statement "weekend transportation for college students is the ONLY service Suburban Express offers" is incorrect. Anyone can purchase a ticket on the site it appears, not just college students. The site even says "virtually all of our customers are college students" implying not all are 24.15.78.1 (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

False. The website states "Suburban Express specializes in weekend transportation for college students. Because we focus on a small market niche, we provide the best possible service for college students travelling home for the weekend." Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The site has my (or should I say your) exact quote: "virtually all of our customers are college students". Nowhere does it say "we only allow students as our passengers" or something similar http://imgur.com/bMOYJpJ 24.15.78.1 (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Paid editing

Just a note that I haven't been paid to post anything to the article or to this page yet. So any silly Wikipedian-drama-fest blabber from the shortsighted, ignorant, and idiotic anti-paid editing lobby can go take a hike. (tl;dr anything more than what would take 1 second above). Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Update at Wikipedia_talk:Neutrality_cabal#Paid_editing. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Biosthmors has made an edit on the Wikipedia page despite claiming he would only make edits to the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reward_board&diff=580092420&oldid=578980115 24.15.78.1 (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Facts change, but talk pages are for discussing content. Got ideas? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is fragmenting and going off on tangents

This discussion is fragmenting and going off on tangents. May I suggest tat to get on track, folks discuss potential changes to existing text in the article or specific proposed additions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Are there WP:Text-source integrity issues or WP:NPOV violations? Those are my concerns. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

If you agree, then I think that you would agree that it's time to get specific. Specific problems with specific sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I just counted....you have to go about 6,400 words up from the end of this talk page to find some discussion on a specific proposed content change. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express attempting to intimidate Talk editors

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think that a message like this should be noted http://imgur.com/B8YHHbF. It's purpose is unspecified. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC) I'd suggest that you reveal your COI right here and now.Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC) I do have a COI given my associations with those involved with Suburban Express on Reddit, hence, I have not edited the article. But, that does not excuse the above message being sent 24.15.78.1 (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC) You are not revealing your true COI. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC) ? What is my "true" COI? 24.15.78.1 (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC) If you are or were a defendant in a lawsuit, for example, that would create a COI. That sort of thing. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC) As well as associations on Reddit as I have stated. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC) There is NO requirement for revealing that. Doubly so for someone who is not editing. Further, pushing for that is tantamount to pushing for outing an editor, which is an immense issue. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Please direct me to the relevant rules and policies so that I can do my best to respect local customs, even when others seem not to be. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC) That certainly looks like an attempt to intimidate an editor, I suggest that you desist from that Arri. Shritwod (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Arri at Suburban Express, I just looked at the link provided at the beginning of this section. Most would consider that partial outing, which is a very serious offense which could get you (including potential future alternate accounts) banned from Wikipedia. I SUGGEST THAT YOU BACK OFF SEVERAL NOTCHES IMMEDIATELY, and stick to specific content discussions. North8000 (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• User:Arri at Suburban Express warned. Harassment and suggestions of outing are not acceptable. If the IP and Arri at SE cannot control their tempers, they will both be blocked. This is well within my discretion as an admin: there will be no fighting in the war room. Y'all's previous encounters you can discuss over lunch; it is not a matter for here. That there is an interest, and most likely a COI, on both sides is clear, and the uninvolved editors will know how to deal with it. Remember, IP and Arri, this article does not need either one of you. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Good Strangelove quote. Would you please direct me to the relevant rules and policies so that I may endeavor to respect the local customs? Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:OUTING WP:DE WP:HA WP:CIVIL WP:CRUSH WP:COI WP:RS WP:V WP:NPOVGaijin42 (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look at those carefully. I apologize for my frustration with the IP with the undisclosed COI. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Biosthmors' conduct

As I noted above, User:Biosthmors accepted Suburban Express' paid editing offer on October 27, with plans to discuss payment options by email. They withdrew the offer on November 3. The article subject-paid editor relationship existed, at least officially on Wikipedia, for at least a week, during which time the parties had been communicating by email. Biosthmors did not disclose this connection on this talk page when they started editing here. They claim they have not been paid yet, but the Reward Board offer didn't say they would be paid in advance.

In the light of this, is it appropriate for Biosthmors to edit the article at all, even under the guise of "only adding tags", especially when it defaces the article by splitting hairs on trivial issues? They also said earlier that they would only edit the talk page, but seem to have since changed their mind.

Regarding the part of the article they tagged - there was a fine, an amount demanded in the demand letter, and an amount demanded in the lawsuit - all amounts were between $500 - $600. How important is the exact amount, and which of the three it corresponded to? Is it worth defacing the article with tags over this? I think the company is wasting everyone's time on trivial issues like this and badgering and harassing CorporateM, who has taken up the thankless job of trying to moderate this discussion, and has been trying to edit the article neutrally and accurately on the basis of talk page suggestions.

I find this edit by Biosthmors uncivil: "any silly Wikipedian-drama-fest blabber from the shortsighted, ignorant, and idiotic anti-paid editing lobby can go take a hike".

Also, I would like to point out that Suburban Express has used outing (on Wikipedia, and of course off-wiki too, but that is irrelevant here) as a harassment and intimidation tactic earlier too, against at least two other editors (other than the IP they tried to out and intimidate today). AlmostGrad (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

COI disclosure: I also have a COI there where I have the most edits. I must be a bad person. Also, a paid-editing warning: all accounts in this category are paid editors. AlmostGrad, do you make a habit of supporting monopolies? I find them a bit suffocating myself. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

BRD on recent lede changes by CorporateM

Requesting this discussion per WP:BRD. Better to discuss, especially on an article that seems is still having a lot of discussion on the Talk page, rather than start an edit war.

I recently made a Bold edit to the lede (diff), but it was not apparently too controversial as both the summary of the legal disputes, and the creation of a new paragraph for the legal disputes topic, withstood scrutiny on a very busy (multi-editor-involved) article for about three days, including during edits by CorporateM. That was on 2013-11-02.

I then made a second, and very limited, Bold edit to the lede on 2013-11-05 (diff). This edit merely linked the economic concept behind the words that were being used in the lede for some time, words of some other editor, that Suburban Express entering the market with local monopoly provider Greyhound "leading to a price war that saw fares drop for both companies." Those same words are in the body of the article, and are supported by a reliable source. Here is what the lede looked like after my second fairly minor edit:

Suburban Express is a bus service, based in Lisle, Illinois that provides transport services for students at six universities in the the American Midwest. It is a "virtual" bus company, contracting buses from other carriers. The company was founded in 1983 by Dennis Toeppen, then a student of the University of Illinois, who successfully challenged the local monopoly of Greyhound, leading to a price war that saw fares drop for both companies.

The company has had many legal disputes with competitors and students.

In a series of a couple of edits on 2013-11-05 (diff), User:CorporateM made further edits, that while not technically a revert, did a virtual revert to my previous two edits. Fair enough. I assume good faith. But since the two of us apparently have different views on that, thought I should open a discussion here, and avoid an edit war at all costs on an already contentious article (based on the phosphor spilled above).

The lede as it exists now, as I find the time to write up this BRD, looks like this:

Suburban Express is a bus service, based in Lisle, Illinois that provides weekend transport services for students at six universities in the the American Midwest. It is a "virtual" bus company, contracting buses from other carriers. The company was founded in 1983 by Dennis Toeppen, a student of the University of Illinois and successfully challenged the local monopoly of Greyhound. The company has had more than 200 legal disputes with students and competitors.

Proposal:

1. Make the legal dispute summary in the lede into a new paragraph. It is a new topic. And WP:MOS supports up to four paragraphs in the lede. This article would have only two if my proposal is accepted.
2. Change the description of the competitive environment that ensued after Suburban Express began offering services relative to the established incumbent bus service, Greyhound, back to "leading to a price war that saw fares drop for both companies.", which had been in the article for a long time prior to CorporateM's edits, and is supported by prose, and by source, in the article body.
3. Link the price war concept to Competition (economics), as I illustrate in the bullet immediately above. That article, Competition (economics), is pretty standard Econ 101 treatment of the economic notion of competition, and the margins on which that competition typically occurs, including price. And it seems to me that we owe some sort of a clarification to our broad Wiki-readership who may not be familiar with the esoteric economic concept from market economic systems; thus, the link.

Overall, not much change. But important ideas, methinks. What do other editors think about any of this? Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's weird to have a one-sentence paragraph, but I don't feel it's important either way. As a minor editorial issue "seeing" price reductions is a metaphor, but it also borders on repeating almost all the information in the body of the article, rather than summarizing it. Sorry - I didn't notice I was reverting. I've just been glancing over at it when it pops up on my watchlist and keeping an eye out for any actual corrections. CorporateM (Talk) 04:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not following the above exactly but you both do good work and I don't think that there is any disagreement. I saw things a bit differently than CorporateM on one point and later realized that they were right. Since coverage of the lawsuits and similar actions is extensive in sources, it should be substantial in the article, and the lead should reflect the article and so include that as well. I think that in the edit in question they were just adding such info to the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input North8000. But since I think you might have one (minor) misimpression, I thought I should clarify:

1. First, I have no issues with CorporateM either; and I, too, believe CorporateM does good work. I just thought these particular edits should change, and I saw the Talk page as much too charged right now for me to risk just Boldly editing CorporateM's changes further, to what I thought would be a better lede.
2. Your take on "the edit in question they were just adding such info to the lead" is not quite correct. It was actually removing info from the lede (but not very much). It was just changing the long-standing presence of the line about the price war with Greyhound (which, as an economist, usually brings about good things for consumers by providing consumers more options), and reducing that to lose the idea about that aspect of the change in the competitive environment completely. Sincerely, N2e (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we just stick to the content.... I would lean towards something like this:

Suburban Express is a bus service, based in Lisle, Illinois that provides weekend transport services for students at six universities in the American Midwest. It is a "virtual" bus company, contracting buses from other carriers. The company was founded in 1983 by Dennis Toeppen, a student of the University of Illinois. It challenged the local monopoly of Greyhound, leading to price wars and reduced fairs for both companies. The bus service has had more than 200 legal disputes with passengers and competitors and has gotten into conflicts with students that post criticisms of the company online.

That would address the metaphorical language and include the price wars, while restoring some balance to the Lead given the controversy's weight in the source material. In the prior discussion there were three editors saying "UNDUE" and three editors saying "DUE WEIGHT" and I think the updated Lead was not quite on-target as a compromise between both perspectives. CorporateM (Talk) 12:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Please support your claim. Who are the three editors who argue UNDUE weight and who are the three editors who argue DUE WEIGHT? Your proposed edit eliminates two novel attributes: virtual company, started by student.Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

N2e got it right: price wars in the 1980s are notable (and what make/made Texas Air Corporation highly notable) and his single-sentence paragraph best captures that the article has a section devoted to "public disputes" and given their diversity (court/threat/reddit/mean things said), no specific number is possible (so "many" is preferred). This is so because, the "Lawsuits" section has morphed beyond its title into a catch-all, it should be re-titled "Public Disputes" since it devotes only 35% "200 Small Claims", about 25% "bus driver said/ and 1 legal threat"; 25% Reddit/Streisand; and 15% juvenile side-chatter (things with any legal implication are barely 40% of the "Lawsuit" section)KevinCuddeback (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

KevinCuddeback—a portion of your paragraph relates to the subject/scope of this BRD (price war), but much does not. I suggest you take the discussion of the lede section on "200" vs. "many" to a new section. Articulate your view, and proposal; then see what happens in the great emergent blender of Wikipedia. If you do so, I will try to get over there and provide my view on your proposal, as I'm sure many others will. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ari, why don't you just stick to content instead of grilling people on sidebar items? It would be more productive and less nasty. For your last post that would mean leaving out the "who are the three editors" stuff and expanding on what you think should be in there and why (virtual company, started by student etc.) North8000 (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask an editor to support a claim. I notice that CorporateM just changed the lede of the article to his proposed language, although the discussion above had not converged on a mutually-agreeable solution. CorporateM reverts other editors for not engaging in discussion on the talk page, yet he often does precisely that. Please take a critical look at CorporateM's behavior rather than reflexively attacking me. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm just recommending more focus on specific content in discussion here. North8000 (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey @user:N2e. The lead now includes all three proposals (the price wars, a separate paragraph and the wikilink), but with some tightening and balancing. Let me know if you'd like my input on something else, but also feel free to edit boldly. I will do my best to avoid reverting you accidentally. The article keeps coming up on my watchlist from all the Talk page comments and each time it does I tend to look at the article and make quick edits on things that jump out at me. CorporateM (Talk) 18:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, things are flying fast and furious on this page, and much discussion in this section seems to be rather unrelated to the subject/scope of this section: a very narrow WP:BRD discussion on three (relatively minor) points I articulated, above.

I don't know exactly what changes were made by who in what order, and I don't have the time to research it all, but as the proposer of the BRD, I would say we now have resolution on each point of the BRD. I proposed three (minor) changes to the way the article had been changed (in a minor way, and perhaps rather inadvertantly) by CorporateM. All three of those changes—new para for the legal disputes; keeping the "price wars" concept (per sources) in the lede; and linking price wars to the Competition (economics) article to help the less-economics savvy reader—have now been changed back to the way they were prior to CorporateM's edit. Moreover, CorporateM has said s/he is fine with each of those three changes.

There will, no doubt, be many other issues to discuss in the future as this article is improved. But those can be, and really should be in order to make the discussion of each point be most productive in a rather highly-charged Talk page environment, handled in other Talk page sections, on other specific topics.

So I consider this BRD discussion  Done! Thanks for everyone's engagement on the questions I put forth. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)