Jump to content

Talk:Suburban Express

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 162.220.89.246 (talk) at 21:33, 8 August 2014 (→Links related to Controversy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

International

  1. Pieuvre.ca (05/02/2013): Le pouvoir des masses numériques, pour le meilleur et pour le pire (Translation)
  2. China News (10/14/2013): 赴美留学：行前需多了解当地生活细节避免被骗 (Translation)
    Syndicated to: Sohu.com and Sina.com

National

  1. Ars Technica (04/26/2013): Express to Internet Hate: Bus company threatens redditor with lawsuit
  2. BoingBoing (04/27/2013): Suburban Express bus-line sends bullying, cowardly legal threat to Reddit, discovers Streisand Effect
  3. Popehat (04/28/2013): Suburban Express Took The First Bus To The Streisand Effect. Have They Disembarked In Time?
  4. Techdirt (04/29/2013): Bus Company Threatens Redditor With Lawsuit, Meets Ken White, Runs Away
  5. The Daily Dot (04/29/2013): Bus Company Threatens to Sue Redditor Over Bad Press
  6. Chicago Tribune (05/01/2013): Bus company's lawsuits anger students, parents
  7. Ars Technica (05/02/2013): Nonstop to schadenfreude: Suburban Express’ u-turn on reddit lawsuit
  8. American Bar Association Journal (05/03/2013): Cheap bus ticket included a trip to small-claims court for unwary students
  9. Slashdot (05/04/2013): Redditors (and Popehat) Versus a Bus Company
  10. Ars Technica (05/13/2013): Troll road: Bus company posts “dirt” on complaining passenger
  11. Techdirt (05/17/2013): Suburban Express Goes Double Or Nothing On Their Aggressive Behavior
  12. Ars Technica (06/19/2013): Bus company that threatened redditor with lawsuit tries to reopen suits
  13. Techdirt (06/24/2013): Suburban Express Wants Round 3: Re-Files Against Customers
  14. Ars Technica (06/25/2013): Bus co. owner threatens redditor yet again, records users’ IP addresses
  15. Uproxx (06/26/2013): Meet Suburban Express, The Bus Line Fighting A War With Reddit Over Negative Comments
  16. Popehat (07/29/2013): The Popehat Signal: Suburban Express Doubles Down On Attacks On Critics
  17. Techdirt (07/31/2013): The Popehat Signal Goes Out Against Suburban Express
  18. Courthouse News Service (01/10/2014): Just a Darn Minute, AT&T
  19. Ars Technica (07/10/2014): Update: Bus co. owner who threatened redditor with lawsuit arrested for cyberstalking


Regional

  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. The News Gazette (04/26/2013): Bus firm's lawsuits criticized
  8. The Daily Illini (04/26/2013): Suburban Express lawsuits reach 125 this year; conversation continues on Reddit
  9. Paxton Record (04/29/2013): After backlash, bus firm pledges to dismiss all suits
  10. The News Gazette (04/30/2013): Bus company promises to drop Ford lawsuits
  11. WILL News (04/30/2013): Bus Company Serving College Students Drops Lawsuits Against Riders
  12. The News Gazette (05/01/2013): Bus lawsuits dismissed in Ford County
  13. Paxton Record (05/01/2013): Suburban Express lawsuits dropped
  14. The Daily Illini (05/01/2013): Suburban Express drops lawsuits and updates terms and conditions
  15. WCIA 3 News (05/01/2013): Bus company drops civil suits against students
  16. The Daily Illini (05/02/2013): UIUC Subreddit hits front page, Streisand effect leads to increased attention for Suburban Express lawsuits
  17. Kankakee Daily Journal (05/02/2013): Bus company drops lawsuits in Ford County against college student riders
  18. The Daily Illini (Editorial) (05/02/2013): University administrators absent in Suburban Express incidences
  19. Paxton Record (06/25/2013): Suburban Express wants to refile some of its cases
  20. The News Gazette (06/26/2013): Bus company wants to reinstate some lawsuits
  21. The Daily Illini (06/27/2013): Suburban Express lawsuits not gone for good
  22. WCIA 3 News (06/27/2013): Bus co. owner may refile lawsuits
  23. Paxton Record (07/30/2013): Judge grants motion to allow Suburban Express cases to be refiled
  24. News Gazette (07/30/2013): Judge allows bus company to refile some claims against passengers
  25. WCIA 3 News (07/30/2013): Bus owner in court
  26. The Daily Illini (08/21/2013): Assessing this year's most important events
  27. Paxton Record (12/31/2013): Memorable quotes from 2013 ...
  28. Paxton Record (12/31/2013): Most-viewed posts on Paxton Record's Facebook page in 2013
  29. Paxton Record (01/01/2014): The Paxton Record's Top 10 stories of 2013
  30. News Gazette (07/16/2014): Bus company owner charged with online harassment
  31. Paxton Record (07/16/2014): Bus company owner charged with online harassment

Daily Herald

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

News-Gazette

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

Daily Illini

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

Restored links deleted by bot 173.141.182.177 (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found these newspaper articles from the 1980s and 1990s to be helpful in bringing out the notable monopoly/price-war/predatory-pricing aspects of the immediate "post-deregulation" era. As stated in earlier votes/discussions of the notability of Suburban Express (whether to have an article or not at all), price-and-capacity "wars" were new and notable in the USA "back then". KevinCuddeback (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subject's Self-Published Sources (from Archive.org)

Because the subject itself can be the source, some historical Suburban Express web pages from the Internet Archives, as suggested, should be referenced because they make un-exceptional claims about the "starts" of things along the company growth-path (usually +/- weeks, and near-always within 1 semester). It would be entirely "in character" for a bus company to accurately describe its services as-then-offered, and out of character to describe a phantom service.

I agree with the basic premise above; such sources can be used to support basic claims and data about the company and its products. I work a good bit on spaceflight-related articles and such sources are typically what we use to source the basic specs of launch vehicles and spacecraft. I'm agnostic on the specifics of the following list. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I have used these to support the start-year of kiosk ticketing (I selected 2002, as the "official" start, rather than the 2001 "trial") and service to University of Iowa.KevinCuddeback (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 1983 Brochure with self-headline of "Thanksgiving Express" (02/10/2003): Thanksgiving Express!
  2. (still, sadly, a 15-year gap here)
  3. 1998 website launch: SuburbanExpress.com (12/12/1998): Suburban Express Home Page
  4. 2001 Introduction of self-service ticket kiosks (06/07/2001): Self-Service Ticketing
  5. 2002 First offer of O'Hare/Midway service (connecting only) (04/07/2002): O'Hare & Midway Service
  6. 2003 9 buses in company-owned fleet (02/10/2003): Some Trivia...
  7. 2004 Illini shuttle "Beginning October 6" & first functional illinishuttle.com (09/24/2004): Illini Shuttle - O'Hare & Midway Schedules
  8. 2004 Illini shuttle "Now Up and Running" (10/16/2004): Illini Shuttle - O'Hare & Midway Schedules
  9. 2007 UIowa gets "Introductory" fares extended (2/9/2007): uiowaspring07.pdf
  10. 2010 First Free Wi-Fi claim (on 13 buses) (03/05/2010): Suburban Express (index UIUC)
  11. 2010 at least 13 buses in company-owned fleetbased on Wi-Fi claim (above)
  12. 2010 Service to Perdue "resumes" in August (08/20/2010) : Suburban Express (index UIUC)
  13. 2010 Wi-Fi fleet claimed +2 to 15 buses (09/19/2010): Suburban Express (index UIUC)
  14. 2010 at least 15 buses in company-owned fleetbased on Wi-Fi claim (above)
  15. 2011 Claims 55,000 passengers per year (7/16/2011): Some Trivia...
  16. 2012 "Now Serving Joliet" on Thursdays, Fridays & Sundays (02/09/2012): Suburban Express (index UIUC)

Can anyone who knows how to use Archive.org see if there's an "introductory" for other current schools? KevinCuddeback (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the article is about the company, Suburban Express, and thus Suburban Express is the subject of the article. I believe you meant the founder or company head dude by whatever title he might go by. If you agree, you might want to modify the title of this particular Talk page section. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this talk section is correctly titled: It covers materials in which the subject of this article, Suburban Express, talks about itself as author/publisher of its own website (www.suburbanexpress.com).KevinCuddeback (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Checks on Website (1996)

Can someone without a COI post more about this article supplied by the President? It explains in detail that Suburban Express posted social security numbers and addresses of its customers on its website. Please refer to the 3rd paragraph. 50.103.178.155 (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also would need context, but once you understand the context, it becomes omitable. Any NPOV presentation would require too much context to be "worth it". The article's significance is that a "standard merchant practice" (for the 1990s) for handling bad checks has moved to the internet. But bad checks were/are a big deal in campus communities. Back then folks were just starting to take SSNs off checks and driver's licenses --which had gotten there by default--or the insistence of the state DMV/RMVs ("everybody" had the SSN on both). (It is strange enough having to explain the significance of the bus strike that led to SE's founding), but back then merchants posted bad checks (sometimes in shop-windows) so each-other could be warned off bad-check-writers. There were no easy credit checks, and data was just starting its acceleration, and practices with regard to SSNs were changing. When customers ordered checks at a bank, many pre-printed their SSN on the check itself as part of the address, because you knew merchants would ask for it on the check before they accepted it. Driver's licenses also used a SSN as the ID by default (then it became optional, and finally states imposed alternative numbers) In the 1990s, if you presented a check to a merchant, you *had to* (by widespread understanding, regardless of what the law said) write your SSN and show your Driver's license (which had your SSN). (Also credit card use was rare: (MBNA was still getting going and merchant-acceptance was rare). Lawsuits have the same meaning throughout the ages, but bad checks and check-validation cannot be used in an NPOV way without all that context. KevinCuddeback (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CorporateM suggested this addition

In the early 1990s there was a debate among local college students regarding Suburban Express' practice of publishing personal information about customers that paid using a bad check.[1].

Actually, from the article, it is more like bad check-writers and some students and professors took issue with what the ACLU called the "not uncommon" practice in which merchants have "the right to publicize the customer's name and check" In short (the ACLU spokesman said) "If you don't want to be on the Web, don't write a bad check". As a "controversy" this would be NPOV only if it were clear that the ACLU took Suburban Express' side. As it is, except for "Several Internet newsgroups" it isn't clear how wide or deep the "debate" was, and no evidence at all that it wasn't basically a blip as both history or controversy.KevinCuddeback (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions of May 13

Good faith edits by CorporateM sought to implement WP:CRITICISM by integrating some "business practices" passages into the History section. I saw the following problems:

  • WP:CORG foresees/accepts the need for "controversy" sections (and is the applicable subpart of WP:CRITICISM
  • The "debate" about bad checks is based on a single source--and for all we know, a single article. Can't call it "in the early 1990s", more like On January 17th, 1996 (article publication date)(more above), but either way it doesn't work as chronology because we can't say it was part of the company's "unfolding story" --or a strange blip (perhaps even a meaningless one, not worth junking up a chronology)
  • The Lawsuits ...some against competitors has a span of 20 years, but if you were to characterize those 20 years, the source shows they were "mostly quiet"
  • The "against some competitors" part of the lawsuits tally is actually redundant in the history section (because, as noted and sourced in the History section), the "against competitors" legal actions were the back-and-forth in the fare war with Greyhound.
  • The in the "209" article makes it clear that a "normal" historical year might have had 0 to 4 law suits (the mode-most years--had 0 and the median is 2). As history, you'd have to tell it more like "In about 1/3 of years, Suburban Express sued nobody, and in 80% of years it brought 10 or fewer actions to enforce its terms and conditions. 2013 was unusual in that it saw 125 cases. The public reaction to this spike in litigation caused the company to change its policies and bring actions in a forum where students would have legal aid."
  • So as history the 20-year "block" screws with the unfolding "years", and makes the litigation look both too spread out "20 years" and misses "the spike" and its reddit-storm, and the company's business-practice changes (like choice-of-venue) that followed.

KevinCuddeback (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "against some competitors" I am left a bit clueless, because I did not make any edits along those lines. The others don't really seem important enough to debate - either way is fine. I don't think it matters if there is only one source. It is a marginally notable company and we don't need multiple sources to add stuff (I noticed you added stuff using primary sources, which are much weaker), however I just noticed now that it is the student paper, which is not an RS. CorporateM (Talk) 21:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here [1]this is the revision in question in which you took the chunk with the phrase "against some competitors" and put it up in the History section. In the "Business Practices" section it was an elegant summary by another editor, but as re-located it loses its context and its elegance and is a random, near-meaningless statistic.KevinCuddeback (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link you provided as a diff says at the top "no difference". Also, when I look at the current and previous versions of the article, I don't see that text anywhere. So I'm still left confused... CorporateM (Talk) 21:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the link (the exact words are "while four were against competitors") I'm concerned that during your edit-storms, when you say things like [2] "please take it to Talk and let me finish giving it a read-through" that you are using the live article for Sandbox functions and you are not really looking closely at either the sources or what you are making them say KevinCuddeback (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this little revert triplet,[3], you say "The lawyer is speculating about their motives, but we do not cover speculation even when sourced". But the lawyer is only giving a Chronology...any speculation about motives is *yours*. The source confirms a chronology that looks like request for investigation, decline investigation, Greyhound raises prices slightly KevinCuddeback (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Edit storms", yah, ok. Anyways, the diff you provided shows "while four were against competitors" in both versions, both before and after the edit. Regarding the speculation by the lawyer, to say "after X, B happened" is obviously intended to suggest causality. The source also has tons of information about every little price modification and I don't see a need to include all of that - just a price war that led to prices halving is enough. Anyways, I'm all done doing some routine copyediting, trimming, etc. and am scooting over to the next article I'm working on today. My suggestion would be to seek a third opinion informally and go with whatever they suggest, as I don't expect I'll change my mind. CorporateM (Talk) 22:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About 75 buses a day isn't what the source says

This edit changed "on up to 75" to "or about 75", but that appears to misrepresent the source. It says that the company only ran 75 buses 3 times that year. We need something like "up to" put back into the sentence. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 02:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Biosthmors. I urge reversion of CorporateM by any 3rd party (not me as the most-recent editor) and close review of all his work. I found CorporateM's changes to be un-Talked, and so fast that I'm not surprised to see a loss of connection to the sources. I also think that the attribution to the company was useful. I feel the same need for attribution about the edit immediately prior which replaced one inferential chronology with another--and at best replaced one bias with another. It seems the best synthesis of his work and mine would be: KevinCuddeback (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In February 1985, the company, by then called Suburban Express, asked the Department of Justice to investigate predatory pricing, claiming Greyhound's ticket prices were was below its costs and designed to drive competitors out of business. The Justice Department did not investigate, but according to Suburban Express' lawyer, the Department did send a letter to Greyhound, after which Greyhound raised prices.[2][3] KevinCuddeback (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by User:CorporateM

Many/Most/All recent edits by this user seem to be inconsistent with statements contained in cited sources. I have therefore reverted them. I suggest that CorporateM reach a consensus on the talk page before engaging in, as one user put it, edit storms. 2602:306:C561:A2A9:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the silly bit is that recent users have hacked out as badly-sourced parts where the "bad-sourc-ed-ness" is due to CorporateM's edits disconnecting the article from its sources. The sources were fine and so was the article before the May 2014 changes. The proper fix is not to take out the text, it is to revert CorporateM's changes and see that things were pretty good. Back in this version (in a part of the Services title not written by me) we find the sentence "According to the company, it hires only non-smoking drivers, has free Wi-Fi on most buses,[12] and in the year prior to April 2013 carried around 100,000 passengers, on up to 75 buses a day." Which first CorporateM hacked out the "According to the company", and then then RedPenOfDoom hacked entirely as being self-sourced, when, if it had just stayed as it was it was a reasonable attributed statement which contributed to a balanced article. KevinCuddeback (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing by COI User Gulugawa

COI Editor Gulugawa is strongly cautioned against editing in the article space. Suggest changes here.

2602:306:C561:A2A9:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making any edits to the article, I'm just reverting the article back to the way it was before you changed it. Due to the large amount of controversy surrounding this article, unregistered IPs should not be making edits, since they may be have a COI. Right now, I trust CorporateM more than you, since CorporateM has an established history of making positive contributions to Wikipedia, while you don't. Gulugawa (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are a COI editor. You also seem to be an SPA. You should not be editing the article under any circumstance. Rather, you should suggest changes HERE, in the talk section. Kapish?

2602:306:C561:A2A9:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making any edits. This article should only be edited by people with an established history of contributing to Wikipedia, so I'm undoing your edits to allow them to do their job without disturbances. Gulugawa (talk) 21:50, 25 May2014 (UTC)
If this article should not be edited by IPs, it would be semi protected. If you think it should be semiprotected make a request. An edit being made by an IP is NOT a valid reason for reversion, and if you persist in disruptive behavior you will end up blocked. If there are a rpblem with the edits revert on solid grounds, or state your case here. Stop edit warring, especially without a valid complaint. WP:IP!=VANDAL WP:IPHUMAN Gaijin42 (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the IP has been blocked as a purported sock of Ari. I think the evidence is pretty flimsly, and looking at the edits the IP made, none of them seem particularly POVish, but it is what it is. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flimsy indeed. By the logic propounded in the block discussion, all IPs that stop by here should be blocked for block evasion. Yeesh. 174.146.29.31 (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected

Administrative note: I have temporarily full-protected the article to stop the burgeoning edit war. I'd like to remind everyone that edit warring solves nothing in a dispute, and that COI policy discourages but does not disallow article editing. If someone feels that another editor's COI is an issue to the point that editing shouldn't be happening, you need to take that to the relevant noticeboard (WP:COIN or WP:ANI, depending on severity) or to Arbcom privately (if discussing the COI would involve revealing private information about the user). Hash things out on the talk page here, take it to a noticeboard, take it to Arbcom...do anything but keep reverting each other. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ars Technica

Ars Technica is amusing and a favourite of mine, but I don't believe it should be used as the main source for the subreddit argy-bargy, as it does not establish significance in any real sense. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 26 May 2014

Concur. It may provide sourced insight on aspects of the matter however. N2e (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Click-dependent blogs like ARS, BoingBoing, TechDirt, etc. do not strike me as good sources for encyclopedic content. 174.146.29.31 (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits by 2602:306:C561:A2A9:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186

It looks like the edits by 2602:306:C561:A2A9:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 are still remaining. Should the article be reverted back to how it was when TheRedPenOfDoom made edits? Gulugawa (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probable block evasion by 174.146.29.31

174.146.29.31 is probably be a sockpuppet of User:Arri_at_Suburban_Express, who was permanently blocked for harassing another user last November. He is probably also be a sockpuppet of User:Thenightchicagodied, who was also banned for being a sockpuppet and harassing users.

I have reported the user and included more evidence here Gulugawa (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is IP editing prohibited? Does User:Gulugawa WP:OWN this article? Maybe the rule just applies to this article and others that User:Gulugawa owns? 174.153.124.20 (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
174.153.124.20 (talk) is another sockpuppet.
The traceroute information for 174.153.124.20 and 174.146.29.31 returns almost identical information for each IP.
http://www.domaintools.com/research/traceroute/?query=174.153.124.20
http://www.domaintools.com/research/traceroute/?query=174.146.29.31
WHOIS also returns nearly identical information for both IP addresses.
http://wolfsbane.toolserver.org/~overlordq/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?lookup=174.153.124.20
http://wolfsbane.toolserver.org/~overlordq/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?lookup=174.146.29.31
I don't see a problem with IP editing, but sockpuppets such as yourself should not be making edits.
Gulugawa (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vast conspiracy? No. Dynamic IP addressing? Yes. 174.146.117.235 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, your edit did not fairly summarize the content of the article and had the effect of whitewashing the lead section. The lawsuits concerned alleged violation of their terms of service, and the lead should so state. Coretheapple (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, they were enforcing their contract terms. You are incorrectly using the term whitewashing to describe a minor edit that had no impact other than to make the lead more concise. My edit summary was not misleading. 174.146.157.248 (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as you know perfectly well, since you clearly are employed by the company, saying "enforce the terms of the contract" could mean virtually anything. It could mean nonpayment. To be clear, we need to say that these suits were over supposed terms of service violation, as the body of the article says. Coretheapple (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shortly after the above comment was posted, there was section blanking of unflattering information at the Peoria Charter Coach article by an IP address registered to Peoria Charter Coach. Do you know anything about that? This place is a house of mirrors.174.153.41.80 (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made one small edit to the article to tighten up the language of the lead and that makes me an employee of the company? I guess your reverts make you an employee of the company's competitor then? 174.146.157.248 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have made multiple edits to the Peoria Charter page, which is a competitor to Suburban Express. You have also made questionable edits to this page using your other IPs. Gulugawa (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have made multiple edits to both pages, and an edit to Peoria Charter page was just made from an IP registered to Peoria Charter. If there is any evidence of wrongdoing here, it would seem to point to you. 174.153.41.80 (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Enforcing" vs "Alleged Violations"

I attempted to put this heading above the last two entries, but user:coretheapple seems to want to revert every edit I make. So I'm moving the heading down to appease him. This section is for discussing the issue of wording in the second lead paragraph. "Alleged violations" is not NPOV. I believe "Enforcing" is more concise, accurate, and neutral. 174.146.157.248 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a diff. Why is the use of "alleged violations" non-neutral and "enforcing" more neutral? I am not a lawyer, but I suppose some students might have somehow at least partially admitted guilt by paying fines, and in those cases the word "enforce" would seem to fit. In other cases, if someone disputed a lawsuit it seems "alleged violation" would be appropriate. Perhaps the sources use a third or fourth option that would please all. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 02:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paying fines does not equal admission of guilt, partially or otherwise - most people pay the fines to avoid the hassle, inconvenience, and unpleasantness of a lawsuit. As this Chicago Tribune article says:
* ... the timing and location of the suit against her son were inconvenient ...
* "How many of those kids actually just paid to avoid this inconvenience?" she said. "That's what I think (the bus company was) hoping for."
* At least one passenger decided that fighting the company would be more trouble than it was worth. ... "We sent in a money order because, you know, hiring an attorney or driving down to Champaign, it's, like, $50 in gas," ... "No one has the time to deal with this." AlmostGrad (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits from 2014

Suburban Express has filed more than 40 lawsuits this year, and the article should be updated to reflect this. You can see the lawsuits filed by to the small claims section here and doing a search with "Suburban" as the last name. What do you think of adding another sentence at the end of the "Business Practices and Lawsuits" section mentioning that Suburban Express has filed more lawsuits this year? Gulugawa (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only see 10 from 2014; it's not clear how comprehensive that database is. Can you find a better source? – SJ + 06:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the court's site is that as a primary source (WP:PSTS), it is silent on how "like" or "unlike" past lawsuits the new ones are, so its dangerous to use the court records for a "further lawsuits" narrative. I've softened the "likeness" assertion by calling them "subsequent" and went back to the sources to see that a big part of why Ford-vs-Champaign was important is this question of UIUC's free legal aid. Sources show that the outcome of the dismiss-and-refile chaos was that "the action" shifted from Ford to Champaign and sources thought it notable that part of this is that Students got legal aid in the process KevinCuddeback (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sj, the 2014 lawsuits have the following case numbers: 14SC000273-14SC000291, 14SC000523-14SC000532, 14SC000694-14SC000704, 14SC000742-14SC000749 - the cases are not listed in order on the court's website. Though a primary source, I think the court website can be safely used as a reference for this information, per WP:PRIMARY, since each case record clearly shows who the plaintiff is, and this source not need any expert knowledge for interpretation. -- AlmostGrad (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this edit should be undone, as it shifts emphasis from the fact that students were ineligible for free legal aid in Ford County, which was what much of the controversy was about, and focuses on the fact that the refiled lawsuits in Champaign county made students eligible for legal aid. -- AlmostGrad (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's precisely the problem, AlmostGrad: in a balanced article, the whole story cannot be "bad then=bad now," when "then" and "now" are different on "legal aid" If the story is "lawsuits are always controversial" than legal aid matters little and should be omitted. If the story was "Ford County=No Legal Aid" (and you and I agree it is) then a balanced article has to cover that the "old gripe" about "Ford=No Legal Aid" is no longer part of the SE business practices (which is at least half of what this section is about). A primary (court) source says there is "new" litigation, but even 2013 (secondary) sources "predicted" that cases in Champaign would be notably different than the old stuff. If my change is reverted to better explain "what the fuss *was* about", then it only increases the need to balance it with how responsive SE was or how not-applicable the old gripe now is. I preferred to keep it short and "business practice" focused. Also, this kind of the BLP problem...they keep living and the "whole" NPOV story changes as it unfolds KevinCuddeback (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to improve the text. Sadly, we don't have access to Ford County records online so we can't see if the filings there have stopped. There has certainly been a steady new stream of suits in Champaign County - 55 since late 2013.
I see no reason to think the new cases are different. They're all suits for contract money damages of under $250, generally $20-$40. They are often dismissed before the hearing date (typical for cases filed mainly to pressure the defendant into settling). On the rare occasions when the defendant shows up they tend to prevail (that's one of the few suits that was refiled; most of the 20 whose dismissals were vacated were not refiled in Champaign County). All of this matches exactly the reported m.o. of the plaintiff from the mid-2013 reports. – SJ + 13:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but let's stick close to the reporting by Will Brumleve in (East Central Illinois') The News-Gazette. In Brumleve's reporting he's got a credible, neutral set of what the complaints were (but SE and its passengers) and the order & causality in which the mutual responses unfolded. KevinCuddeback (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Owner's July 2014 Misdemeanor Arrest

I removed this arrest (discussed in an Ars Technica article) because there's no connection in our only source to Suburban Express other than "owner", and no source that the incident arose from Suburban Express business or had any impact on its policies or services. Mr Toeppen may be a wonderful exemplar of all kinds of things, as Ars Technica points out (like cybersquatting or the Streisand Effect) but all these are irrelevant here. If he were an exemplar of charitable giving of $1m per year or looking young at 50, it'd be irrelevant too (even if sourced in great detail). If you think it should be added back *PLEASE* be careful with legal terms like "and charged" sometimes *persons of interest* are arrested and turn out to be witnesses and not charged. and review the BLP warnings at the top of this Talk pageKevinCuddeback (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Tribune has linked it to Suburban Express now. I'll re-add it after waiting for some discussion. There should be more info coming out soon, it appears the (grand jury?) date is tomorrow. tedder (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so badly informed that you believe that a grand jury would be involved in a class b misdemeanor, then you should immediately recuse yourself from editing *anything* in this section 162.220.89.246 (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Not sure what to do with these, but sometimes talk here is "sourced". Rather than edit people's talk, are they a bug or a feature?KevinCuddeback (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1996_0117_bad_checks.pdf
  2. ^ Taylor, Barbara (16 February 1985). "Greyhound pricing illegal, bus service official claims" (PDF). Daily Illini. Retrieved 9 April 2014.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference farewars was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Use of the word "monopoly"

There is some dispute about whether it is appropriate to refer to Greyhound's service in the 1980's as a "monopoly" (and Suburban Express as a monopoly-breaker). It's generally accepted that for a company to have a monopoly, there must be high barriers to entry for new firms and the product or service being supplied must have no close substitutes. There were not any unusual barriers to entry in the bus market and I would maintain that there were close substitutes (although this second point may be disputed).

Examples of substitute goods could include train travel or possibly automobiles/carpooling. It could be argued how "close" other forms of transportation really are to bus service.

In the article's current form, it says, "Dennis Toeppen, then a 19-year-old student at University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign (UIUC), and later Suburban Express' founder, chartered 6 buses, sold tickets through a local travel agent, spent $600 on advertising, and undercut Greyhound's fares by $4 to $8." This makes it pretty clear that there could not have been significant barriers to entry in the market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CS1494 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit. The sources clearly supported the prior wording. Your changes moved the article away from the sources. Editors should seek to converge with sources rather than trying to diverge from them. You argument regarding substitute modes is irrelevant. Greyhound held a monopoly in *bus transportation* between UIUC campus and Chicago area.
Further, there were high barriers to entry at the time. It was necessary to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity, which cost tens of thousands of dollars and was granted only if the potential new company could demonstrate that the incumbent (who was previously granted an economic monopoly) was not adequately serving the market. Suburban Express sidestepped those regulations by offering its service to a pre-formed group. Since pre-formed groups were not subject to the jurisdiction of the Illinois Commerce Commission, they were able to operate. As the sources indicate, Greyhound initiated two Illinois Commerce Commission investigations to try to squash their new competition but failed. 63.146.62.222 (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Greyhound held a monopoly should be emphasized in the history section of this article. In the 1980s, Greyhound was the only company approved to provide bus transportation from UIUC to Chicago and their ability to sell seats for a significant lower price than Suburban Express shows a large barrier to entry. Also, the things that 63.146.62.222 mentioned as barriers to entry are significant. Gulugawa (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. 63.146.62.222 (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both Gulugawa and the IP: In 1983, InTERstate buses had only been deregulated for about a year (by the Federal Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982 (sometimes "BRRA") (see http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1984/12/v8n5-7.pdf), so you still had Greyhound & Trailways operating routes that they had secured monopolies on--some were profitable and some were not (the context suggests UIUC's was profitable) and you still had states enforcing/protecting state-granted inTRAstate monopolies (the meaning of Federal pre-emption and deregulation was still being explored for years afterword). Given that Greyhound twice sued Suburban Express in the IllComCom,the most logical reading is that Greyhound had secured both Federal and state monopolies, but even with the Feds out of the picture, Greyhound expected the IllComCom to exclude competitors and enforce its state-granted route monopoly. The Sources likely got it *exactly* right: Greyhound likely had an inTRAstate monopoly, granted by the IllComCom to operate as a common carrier (serving all-comers), and Suburban Express (as the IP above suggests), got around this enforceable monopoly by saying "we're not a common carrier", but an alternative like a charter group or a student travel club (these defined terms, in fact, arose at a time when discounts could not be offered to "the public" by airlines or buses) This also fits with UIUC's refusal to sell Suburban Express' tickets initially (something the sources make clear (and I put in--and also represented a serious barrier to entry) but which CorporateM probably cut KevinCuddeback (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suburban_Express&oldid=620425692"