Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:07, 22 September 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Buses Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 November 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

This article and the talk associated with it is a shameful display of everything that is wrong with Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C561:A599:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think this article and the talk associated with it is a shameful display of everything that is wrong with Dennis Toeppen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.176.186 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages entry since at least 2009".
     This Misplaced Pages entry was created by the company itself - The user who first created the Suburban Express page, Fairmont-m19, 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 contains a link to the 7 March 2013 version of the "Suburban Express Misplaced Pages 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) - 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 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), 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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) 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-- 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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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. Misplaced Pages 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. You called a Legoktm and Thucydides411 (both users with hundreds of edits) Sock Puppets. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages - 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 in which he posted the lawsuit threat 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 Misplaced Pages but not good enough if it is on other sites like reddit to make it a credible Misplaced Pages-level source, but I wanted to address this anyway since yet another Suburban Express account/representative 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 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 Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages 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) ]. Finally, pdfs of two Daily Herald articles can be found at toeppen.com. The older one is indeed an interesting read, as an earlier author (dualfreq) mentioned. — 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. See http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-uiowa-se.pdf — 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 Misplaced Pages article - these details are not relevant or noteworthy by Misplaced Pages 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 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), 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 http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-fare-wars-toeppen.pdf and http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-uiowa-se.pdf. 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 "" 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 "".
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 Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 . 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. 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: http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-fare-wars-toeppen.pdf, http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-uiowa-se.pdf, 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/search/?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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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
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

1. PDF's, apparently of the lawsuits being reinstated: Lawsuit PDF's— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.249.1 (talk) 04:43, 30 July 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 Misplaced Pages 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 . 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), 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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"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  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, 306 W CHURCH ST, CHAMPAIGN, 61820 and President DENNIS E TOEPPEN 313 E GREEN ST CHAMPAIGN 61820 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: 313 E Green St. no longer exists. 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
• It may be a good idea to mention cybersquatting in the article since Dennis Toeppen uses Suburban Express as a front for his cybersquatting activities. See http://www.inert.com/
• 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.

Article link: http://toeppen.com/daily-herald-fare-wars-toeppen.pdf

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. 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. The lawsuits were initially filed 30 miles away from the University, where students were unable to get free legal assistance. By May 2nd 2013, the company had dropped all 125 lawsuits that it had raised.

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. 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." 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages user who posted a link to personal information about me and I allowed him to post it. (talk) 12:11, 19 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). 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. 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages moderators. 12.238.238.104 (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Toeppen 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 Misplaced Pages'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/search/?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/search/?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/search/?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...".

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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

1. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2013-07-30/judge-allows-bus-company-refile-some-claims-against-passengers.html

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed company articles
• Unknown-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles
• Start-Class bus transport articles
• Low-importance bus transport articles
• WikiProject Buses articles
• Start-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Illinois articles