Talk:Green Tortoise/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
link to old changes
see edits before this change to track the changes behind this archived page.
Contents |
shout out to 67
I was surprised to see that one of my groups had been linked to from this article. Not that I'm complaining, but I was wondering when that happened. According to the archives, it was linked to by 67.163.61.212 on December 25. Whoever you are, over at Comcast, thanks. We'll do our utmost to live up to that vote of confidence.
Rocdad/Rockdad's edit, reversion remarks
I might not be who you think I am. My internet service provider, Netsource Communications in Naperville, uses dynamic IP. Any disputes you have with 65, whoever he is, are with him. All I share in common with the guy is our very popular local ISP, the only one based in Naperville, Illinois, a city of 140,000. I hold no views on Hellenic Paganism, being more than a little surprised to learn that it still exists, the germanicness of Alsatians or whatever else this guy argued about. I do hold a view on the practice of vandalising wikis as an act of personal revenge, however. People may argue about exactly what NPOV means, but when you have a user running at random through Wikipedia vandalising a user's entries in order to get even with him over a perceived slight, I can't believe that this qualifies as NPOV.
This all arose on ePlaya after Rocdad (who posts there as "Rockdad") lied about remarks made by one Prof. Van Romero of the New Mexico school of mining. A user on the board calling himself "Dustbuddy" pointed out that Rockdad had misrepresented Romero's remarks, providing relevant links. Rockdad has been on the warpath ever since, doing everything and anything he could to harass anybody who might be Dustbuddy. In practice, that has worked out to be anybody who uses the same ISP. You can find the whole pathetic story here.
On behalf of burners everywhere, I'd like to apologize to the authors of this article and the users of this site for the damage done to their work and for any disruption our misbehaving community member will bring into your day. Our infighting has become a source of trouble for you, and that stinks. All I can say on our behalf is that this guy is acting out on his own, and that few of us endorse this kind of behavior. I wish that I could offer you better than that.
BTW, Todfox's reputation is under attack on ePlaya, as he can see by looking at this post. Thought that somebody might want to know.
unintentionally deleted remarks
removed irrelevant discussion, see old version if you must. ∴ here…♠ 22:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
dirty hippies
Removed from article:
Participants are mostly hippies, and europeans.
While many many be, I think we can find a better wording for this. - UtherSRG 16:00, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I essentially put this back in with a new opener reading
- The company was founded over 30 years ago operating a counterculture bus line. It has maintained a character of mixed appeal, popular with hippie, backpacker, and burner subcultures, but unpopular with a perhaps larger audience unsatisfied with the service.
- Comment if issues. ∴ here…♠ 20:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
65 comments: "Original research" issue already raised in the history
in the course of a revert - comments about the overall popularity of
the GT among these subcultures is speculation unsupported by a reference,
and thus is in violation of the "no original research policy". Also, I
wonder if the word "hippy" would fit. Maybe it would, but offline I've
talked to people who've observed that the Green Tortoise customers they've
run into have tended to be young or at least youngish. If somebody was 18
during the summer of love in 1967, then he was born in 1949 and would be
56 at present (in 2005).
I wonder if "neo-hippy" wouldn't be more accurate? Moot point, perhaps,
because it's just another unpolled population on this subject, but I throw
this out for what it's worth.
- I feel confident about the subcultures mentioned.
- Backpacking (travel) is undisputible (please..)
- the roots of the company are in the old-style hippie community. I had a few of the truest hippies I've ever met school me on The Farm (Tennessee) and Wavy Gravy at the hostel, appalled that I hadn't heard of them already (apparently, I'm the neo-hippie).
- Burners, come-on now, you are the ones arguing for the category inclusion... ?
- Is this really original research, or widely established and accepted fact? ∴ here…♠ 02:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Ahh, the Farm's tofu pot pie recipe is fantastic as long as you add liberally to its suggestions for spices (it reflects the era in which it was written :).
Anyway, I think I feel comfortable including some references to all 3 groups in the article. In my opinion, it is justified for the reasons Here mentions. However, we should try to find some references for this as it would be good if the article continued to have good quality sourcing. Kit 04:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Footnotes & NPOV
I edited this page to add proper footnotes instead of the numbered links which were present before. Also I removed a 'see also' comment from the body of the text and added it to a See also section. I think this page probably needs some more editing and maybe a bit of NPOV work still. Kit 22:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
(comments by 65.182.172.92): The work on the footnotes looks nice, but as for NPOV, what you see in the text is, aside from some oblique defense of the Tortoise inserted by another user, simply what the sources say. No original research, remember?
I'd also point out that Todfox and I have had a dispute regarding the links section of the Burning Man article, during the course of which Tod behaved in a somewhat unethical fashion and got called on it, and that this smacks of a little bit of payback.
- I am suggesting, then, that some further research should be done and viewpoints such as the one suggested in the source I added to 'See Also' should be incorporated into the article. I think you did a good job on this page and it has been greatly improved. I am not sure why you think my work to improve this article is 'payback' or what exactly you see me needing to pay you back for. Although I agree that the anonymous editor (currently editing from 65.182.172.92) and I are engaged in a dispute on Talk:Burning Man I see nothing in my actions here that is vindictive. If you feel otherwise, please point it out so the article can be improved -- in fact, I congratulated you for your work here on Talk:Burning Man and came here to improve upon your already good work. Wikipedia is an ongoing process, and articles rarely remain static as I am sure you know. Kit 21:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- I did some more research and positive reports are hard to come by, most are like this one: http://www.channel4.com/4car/gallery/gallery/green-tortoise/route-1966.html which talks about the reporter being ankle deep in beer cans and muddly clothes. Yum. It seems like making the article reflect a balance of both positive and negative would be difficult. Kit 22:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
65 writes: Yipe. Beer cans, huh? Sounds painful. Hope he got out of
there with his skin relatively unsliced. I'll have to take a look.
Still NPOV?
I tried to improve the NPOV status of this article. While nearly all reports on the 'net I've dug up seem to be negative, Wikipedia shouldn't be seen as taking a stance on the topic. Does it seem better now? Kit 04:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Kit/Todfox - Does what seem better, now? I'd have to take serious issue
with the way you're reading the NPOV policy. NPOV does not mean that we
disregard sources in order to lead our readers to a common state of bland
indecisiveness, thinking that all views are equally reasonable. It simply
means that we report what the sources said, and let the readers draw their
own conclusions.
That is what I did. You, yourself, have said that finding a report that
cast the Tortoise in a positive light was difficult, so it seems a little
strange to me that you're suggesting that some kind of bias is implicit
in the act of pointing readers in the direction of sources portraying the
Green Tortoise in much the same light that you say that it appears in
almost everywhere else.
Are you suggesting that we bias the sampling of views in order to promote a
preconceived nonjudgmental view on the part of those reading? Because not
only is that not mandated by NPOV, it's not even logically compatible with
NPOV.
Read some more and ... ummm, no. While the "breach of contract" issue
raised by one of the authors cited may not fit in with the "nonjudgmental"
(read: pro-Green Tortoise)
spin doctoring somebody is trying to push, it is a relevant issue and to
ommit it is to do violence to that which we are reporting. For all the talk
of this being done in the name of NPOV, there is a very definite comment
about the author of the piece being hinted at, and to deny his side of
the argument a hearing in the article while giving the other side a chance
to have its spin get heard is not NPOV. POV by hint and innuendo is still POV.
Guys, you know better.
Please do not revert or remove the NPOV tag without consensus of other editors. I know you seem to think I am out to get you, but in fact if you look at the History the NPOV tag was added at the response of another editor to deal with the complaints of a visitor to the site. Although I agree with you that most reports of Green Tortoise make it sound like an unpleasant experience at best, we can't be seen to take sides -- acting as though a single sources views reflect ours is doing so.
If you'd like to make improvements on the article please continue doing so, but the NPOV flag needs to stay until the consensus of the editors is that it can be removed.Kit 14:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Kit, to be exact, you already established a willingness to use libel as a
tool of debate over on the Burning Man external links discussion, so let's
lose the innuendo and stop suggesting that I'm being paranoid just because
I don't trust you. You're a total stranger who has acted in a dishonest
and manipulative fashion in your past dealings with me, and has then buried
the evidence in the archives. None of this earns much trust, and oh, isn't
it a remarkable coincidence the way you and a friend have come by to chop
the life out of an article I've written, right after I've criticised a
change you introduced into another.
Arguing in favor of removing almost all of the links other than those going
to the official Burning Man site and saying that you were doing so for the sake of
promoting a diversity of views was priceless.
Right now, you're trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth. You state that
most sources cast the GT in a negative light, yet try to argue that the fact that
a reader might walk away from the article with a negative impression of the GT
implies bias in the editing. This is absolute, self-contradictory rubbish; bias
would produce a distortion of the consensus of the outside sources, and you,
yourself have indicated that no such distortion is present. I have yet to see
you respond to this one basic point with anything other than a roundabout way
of saying "is not".
So - yes or no - is it our job as editors to distort what other people have to
say, just to lead the readers to the conclusion (or lack thereof) that we want
them lead to? I point you in the direction of the "no original research" policy.
Not only is merely telling the reader what the author said, instead of trying
to filter it through our own POV allowable, it is mandatory. What you are seeking
to do, then, is set aside the "no original research policy" in the name of that
which Wikipedia itself states is a misreading of the NPOV policy, as you can see
just by going to the article on NPOV. (See "what is the neutral point of view")
I quote:
"A point here bears elaboration. We said that the neutral point of view
is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual
point of view that is "neutral" or "intermediate" among the different
positions. That represents a particular understanding of what "neutral
point of view" means. The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that
the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to
our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not
to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into
believing) that any particular view at all is correct.
Another point bears elaboration as well. Writing unbiasedly can be
conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them,
rather than engaging in them."
Thus, by filtering our choice or coverage of our sources in order to lead
the reader by the nose to the blandly inoffensive wiashy-washiness you
want this article rewritten in order to promote, not only are you not
upholding NPOV, you're in direct violation of it, because that very
blandly inoffensive wishy-washiness is, itself, a POV, which you're
actively trying to promote.
Like I said, it's our job to keep our job simple. We find the sources, and
we give a non-misleading summary of what the sources say, and leave it at
that, letting the reader draw his own conclusions. Whether we can anticipate
what most of them will conclude is immaterial. Do we delete links to Geography
departments because we know that most of the readers won't support the
Flat Earth Society's POV on the shape of the earth, or soften their remarks
about the earth's shape in order to give the flat earthers a boost, or do we
accept that it isn't our place to try to distort our coverage in order to
make the level of public support for a view into more of a tie than it would
naturally be? Take a look at NPOV, Tod; Wikipedia is not supporting that
practice, as much as you might try to pretend that it does.
NPOV, part 2
Former conversation unwieldly at best, new section started.
It is still overwhelmingly negative. Further sources sought. ∴ here…♠ 20:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Expanding the article, npov or not
All this activity leads me to add a few thoughts about the company I worked for in Seattle over the summer of 2004.
The company is really made up of three independant ventures:
- The San Francisco hostel, since early 90s, run by Gardner Kent.
- The Seattle hostel, since 1993, run by Rex Baldwin.
- The bus company, started by Gardner (1974), now operated by Gardner's son Lyle. (information corrected by Gtwebmaster. See http://www.greentortoise.com/gkent.driver.html, http://www.greentortoise.com/adventure.bus.drivers.html)
The three ventures should each have their own sections, without necessary overlap in experience reports. While a certain character is maintained across the branches, they are essentially independent.
Looking for sources, particularly historical. ∴ here…♠ 18:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Added a bunch, still looking for sources. Will likely contact Rex and Gardner after this gets cleaned up and neutralized a bit to see if they have anything to add. How are 1st person (owner/operator) sources treated? ∴ here…♠ 20:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
And everybody who didn't think too highly of the way your former employer
did business is insignificant and can be ignored? If I didn't know better,
I'd think that you were trying to write ad copy.
Frowned on, if you're getting at what I think that you're getting at.
Wikipedia is not here to provide your former employer with free advertising,
"Here".
- (Kit: I'll assume you deleted the following on accident?) Why are you complaining about my reworking of the article when it still reads as strongly biased /against/ the company? All I did was clean up the divisions of the company that belong in this article. Be specific about changes you dispute, or sections you'd like to change. I think the organization is a wonderfully dysfunctional counterculture (adj) travel company, of which there should be more. I do think they deserve an article. I don't have any intention of it being positively biased. Please do jump in and help make sure it isn't. Best ∴ here…♠ 22:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not Kit. Breaking something this small into sections might be a little
premature, but no big deal. Note that I haven't gotten rid of the sections.
But you were trying to do more than introduce sections, and I think that
you know that, all wonderfully double meaninged and purposefully vague
phrasings aside. :)
Yes I did not notice deleting the above comments, my apologies. But also note, 65.*, that I am not 'here' and I have had nothing to do with breaking the article into sections. Kit 22:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. Do you need a program to keep the players straight yet, Kit? :)
I'm not "here", any more than I'm Todfox/Kit.
I think that as long as any information provided by the company is purely factual it would be hard to dispute -- like if we said they were founded in 1975, and they responded to let us know it was actually 1972, or we mispelled the founder's name and they let us know it would be hard to argue POV. But other contributions seem likely to be contentious. I do think that the company website can be one source of a positive viewpoint on the company, including the positive testimonials that are posted there (I doubt they were all fabricated) but there should be more sources if we are to reflect this positive viewpoint in the article.
I think the ideal for this article would be to reflect both positive and negative aspects of the company. I can only assume there are many positive experiences because the company has been successful enough to last 30 years. Without happy customers this seems unlikely. Additionally, at least one article I read included a specific mention of old-timers (repeat customers) and how they become almost assistant tour guides on the trips. Obviously, they enjoy the Tortoise experience.
The problem now is finding sources that reflect these positive experiences, and then giving the article a relatively even weight between the two.
- Please see my comment below at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Green_Tortoise#here.27s_pro-tortoise_link
I don't have any axe to grind or any investment in this article reflecting either viewpoint: I have no relation to the Tortoise beyond what I've already mentioned. I think you did an excellent job in fleshing this article out, 65.*, and I hope you'll help us continue to improve it. Kit 04:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Bus Line vs Hostels and Intro
The bus line is /not/ the hostels. The name green tortoise means 'hostels' to many who know it and have no idea that it even has a bus line.
Please do not delete Table of Contents categories (bus line, etc). Please discuss variations on introductory statement including both aspects of the business. removed all disputable language. ∴ here…♠ 22:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Category:Burning Man and GT
The following has been copied from Talk:Burning Man as being relevant here:
- *Green Tortoise, remove. The green tortoise is not a burning man organization. They happen to run two busses there once a year, but otherwise are focused on running their hostels and busses.
- ∴ here…♠ 21:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
::I went ahead and removed Green Tortoise. We can use Category_talk:Burning Man for further discussion of what should or should not be included. I'd love your thoughts on the Pictures discussion above and my most recent thoughts in the second Links discussion, too. Thanks for jumping in. Kit 21:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
65.182.172.87 comments:
Comment: The Green Tortoise runs the shuttle at Burning Man, which is
the primary means by which participants reach the neary communities
of Empire of Gerlach to resupply. Its buses arrive in such numbers that
not only is the Green Tortoise one of the largest camps at Burning Man,
but part of BRC would be hard to recognize without the GT's signiature
shade structure. While the Tortoise has a life outside of Burning Man,
the same might be said of almost every other group of participants.
The link should stay in.
Just to clarify, 65.* and make sure we are on the same page, this is a discussion over whether Green Tortoise should be part of Category:Burning Man, not a discussion of the 'See Also' link to the Green Tortoise article in Burning Man.
Comment by 65: We are on the same page, now. I was under the impression
that "see also" was the issue.
However, I am inclined to agree with you on this matter.
Comment by 65: Ok, actually it's more like me agreeing with you,
since I was talking about the "see also" link, but I guess that
the same arguments apply to the choice of category, so I concur.
I will put Green Tortoise back in Category:Burning Man. Please take any further discussion of this or other items in the category to Category talk:Burning Man or Talk:Green Tortoise as appropriate, as it is not really on topic for this page. Kit 21:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
:I strongly disagree with this categorization. The green tortoise's involvement in burning man is a miniscule part of it's operations. Furthermore, the impact the Green Tortoise has /on/ burning man is miniscule, a medium to small sized theme camp of somewhat ramdon assembly (bus riders need not even bring their own food!) I find this somewhat akin to putting the article for porta-potties in the burningman category. Should the Green Tortoise also be in a category for the Oregon County Fair? How about Alaska? Perhaps Yosemite? They do run busses to all of those places. This conversation should be moved to GT. ∴ here…♠ 22:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I do think GT is one of the most recognizable fixtures at Bman and so I can see the argument for inclusion in this category, similar to the fashion with which David Best is part of Category Burning Man despite being an artist who works outside the festival as well. Likewise, we've included Gerlach-Empire, Nevada despite their existence outside the festival. IMO, this is the reason articles can be in multiple categories. On my first Burn ('02) I heard people referring to the Tortoise without knowing what it was. Including GT in Cat:Bman is a way of helping people in that kind of situation. I don't feel very strongly about this though, so I won't object if consensus seems to sway against including GT in the cat. Since we seem to be expanding and reworking this article, perhaps we could add a slightly expanded section on the Tortoise and their involvement with Bman as justification? Kit 23:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I don't feel too strongly about this either, though I am
inclined to side with Kit on this one, and would offer the (perhaps
unnecessary) reminder that categories at Wikipedia are not hierarchical:
articles can belong to multiple categories, even in cases in which
one category is not a subset of another.
The Tortoise is much more than just their BM trip, no doubt, but that
is one of their bigger trips and they are a major presence at BM
- I'll take these responses as enough to keep GT in the category. I feel like I'm arguing 65.* 's side about it being advertising, but we'll leave it alone for now. I suppose if theme camps will be in this category, the GT counts. ∴ here…♠ 02:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that if an individual theme camp is deemed encyclopedic enough to have an entry, then it belongs in Category:Burning Man. We can always create a theme camps subcategory if this becomes so overwhelming that the main cat is swamped, but I don't see that happening any time soon if ever.
It would be great if sources on the GT as theme camp/Black Rock's bus line/etc. could be incorporated into the article, IMHO. Kit 07:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
