Talk:Monon Trail/Archive 1

Archive 1

Biased article

This article does not appear to be very neutral. It reads as if someone has taken some negative talking points about the railroad and cobbled them together to create an article. I am not familiar enough to say if any of it is true, but would suggest creating a criticism section in the article and rewording it to make it read less biased. Moorematthews 18:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article could have a "controversies" section that in a neutral way, explains some of the controversies, giving equal weight to both sides. The text that was inserted is very biased and is a copyright violation of a criticism site. It might be a good idea to write the controversies section here on the talk page first, get consensus of the other editors, and then add it to the article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --rogerd 00:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What is controversial here is that you leave the entire rails-to-trails link alone although much of it is biased. But when I add information about how the trail came into existence, you immediately remove the information and claim bias. The Monon Trail entry should be removed altogether if its history can not be included. Tharleman 16:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying that the "history" cannot be included, but rather it should be included in a way that is neutral. Furthermore, if you want to include the information that you are providing then include it in a controversies section. There should be no complaints because it appears as if you have at least attempted to include references for the information. Moorematthews 17:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, my last entry was in a controversy section, I removed what I thought you or someone considered non-neutral, and it was still deleted. I'll revise the entry fact by fact and reinsert it.Tharleman 17:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete the your last entry, but I can see why it was deleted. For example, the line "...constructed on land condemned...from adjacent landowners who could not individually afford to defend themselves.", does not sound very neutral. Instead leave out the part after landowners, and it would at least appear to be more neutral. Another thing, you might want to try putting that section on this page first, as was suggested above, getting a consensus on it and then putting it in the article. Moorematthews 17:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

---

A few issues:

• You provided no meaningful references, just links to the home pages of the entities you have mentioned. That is not helpful.
• "The Monon Trail was constructed on land condemned by Carmel, Indiana, from adjacent landowners who could not individually afford to defend themselves." - A good part of the trail is in Indianapolis/Marion County, and how do we know that the landowners could not afford to defend themselves? Parts of this trail go through some very expensive neighborhoods, and presumably the landowners are not indigent.
• "...for selling property and rights they didn't own" - If this were true, then the no legitimate court would have let this happen. I think the courts have ruled to the contrary, but again, we need real verifiable references
• Raising the issues of the Carmel mayor's intent is POV.
• If you think the rail trail article is biased, then you should go there and work on that article.
• The proposed additions would be larger than the rest of the article, which would slant the article further.

Again, the controversies section needs to be balanced and not contain just a single point of view. I 'short controversies should be included that is properly referenced and balanced should be included, as well as a link to the web site that is critical of the development --rogerd 18:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

---

The court did not "let" it happen. CSX ultimately lost the case. Carmel's intent is public knowledge and documented in the link to Carmel. The Controversy section is not a point of view. It is what happened. Hopefully you will see this as informative and not combative. Thank you for your pointers.Tharleman 18:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is entirely too much detail. The whole thing needs to be boiled down to a single paragraph, or two at most. Mentioning individual's names is not needed and is a violation of their privacy, since they are not public figures. None of the links you provided are even related to this case, except the citation of the law. The rest are just links to various parties' web sites, which is not helpful. This needs to have references that refer to this specific case. If someone wants all these gory details, they can go there. This has no mention of how it was eventually resolved. Also, this has no mention of the other side of this issues, only the angry property owners. --rogerd 21:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Indianapolis and Carmel links point to sites that are not neutral; sites that are maintained by non-governmental special interest groups.Tharleman 15:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because it is maintained by non-gov groups does not make it biased. It is just information about the trail. It doesn't even address the controversies. Besides, you can put a link to the anti-trail site if you want. You haven't addressed the concerns I raised on May 10 about the size and balance of the controversies section. --rogerd 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

---

The Controversy section was deleted without comment. This site should be relabeled {{NPOV}}. The site is really incomplete without an explanation about how non-governmental groups aligned with rails-to-trails encouraged government leaders to acquire the trail and how government officials got the property from the rightful owners; Indianapolis' bypassing eminent domain and Carmel's eminent domain effort forcing adjacent landowners to defend land rights in dispute (Clark vs. CSX). I believe any attempt to "neutralize" the information will never make it palatable to those who love rails-to-trails. Mainly because people with alternative trail viewpoints are not organized whereas rails-to-trails associates are organized and are vigilant to protect their viewpoint.

• wikipedia:User_talk:BradCuppy - rogerd conversation with originator of article.