Talk:Rail Users Ireland

message: I have removed the following paragraph as it is not relevant to a discussion of the bluntness of Platform 11's PR. 
::However, in recent times this opinion has been proven generally correct when Frank McDonald of the Irish Times using the Freedom of Information Act showed how paragraphs of the original McCann Report, which were critical of the Western Rail Corridor were deleted by sources unknown. These included statements that there was no proven case for railfreight on the Western Rail Corridor, and that passenger numbers would be less than 750 a day.
This information would be more relevant to the Western Rail Corridor page. Curtains99 13:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blunt PR

message: A number of edits have been added by Derekwheeler which do not conform to the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. This user has added a a number of lengthy edits in good faith, however many of the changes are merely opinions stated as facts. It is not enough to add statements that are true: they must be based on verifiable sources. Without verifiable sources, they can't be added.
For example, the following text was added:
::A huge problem exists within Irish Rail, in dealing with complaints and the provision of a suitable, customer focused, standard of service
While this may be true, there is no accompanying verifiable source provided, and without a source, this sentence is just a matter of opinion.
::Most recent plans for a metro have revealed a much changed project, due in no small part, to the work of platform 11.
source?
::Platform 11 never criticised the campaign in the west of Ireland, in its media work, but was subsequently subjected to a diatribe of ill-judged criticism from campaigners in the west and rail enthuasiasts
This language is not encyclopaedic. The phrase is opinionated.
::Through development and education, the organisation, has evolved to become an entity that now has a greater understanding of the political landscape in relation to the development of rail based transport. Furthermore, it fully appreciates its important role of using its knowledge to represent rail users across a wide spectrum 
This text is full of assumptions and opinions.
::The much trumpeted issue of "secrecy" is now well and truly unfounded and considered to be a very outdated and ignorant view of platform 11.
Where is the proof that it is well and truly unfounded? (just saying it isn't enough). Who considers secrecy an outdated and ignorant view?  
As a result, I have reverted these edits.
Curtains99 10:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted POV edits by Derekwheeler

message: This section has been deleted on the basis that quotation not from a press release as quoted -> misleading and inaccurate to quote as such. However, this paragraph did not state that that the quotation was from a press release, rather that it was a PR statement. The quote is from a user on boards.ie called P11 Comms, who appeared to be issuing communications on behalf of Platform 11. Did I misunderstand this? 
This section clearly stated that the 'Blunt PR' only applied to early statements. Wikipedia entries are meant to include notable relevant information and Platform 11 certainly stood out from other lobby groups a few years ago given that its PR officer was making statements like this.  Curtains99 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blunt PR again

message: This sentence is POV Claims of secrecy are unfounded.I happen to agree with it but it's still POV. Let the facts speak for themselves and please remove this sentence. 
Also, Mark could you sign your edits rather than making them from an anonymous IP. It is very difficult to make NPOV edits to articles about yourself or your own organisation but it helps if you don't do it under the cover of an anonymous IP. Curtains99 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Secrecy

message: Platform 11 used to have a section on its site called Rail Bashers, in which it criticised Kevin Myers and Seán Barrett for being anti-rail. Now you have removed this information along with the supporting reference to the page on your site. Why did you do this? Curtains99 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a place to communicate with RUI. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Adversarial Approach

message: Excessive external links of an organisation are inappropriate per WP:ELNO.  Its the job of the organisation's website to make these clear from its home page and not Wikipedia.  Some may be re-introduced as in-line citations where a primary reference is appropriate for a non-controversial and non WP:OPINION content claim.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links