Talk:Gautrain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ssteedmans sticky POV tag (again) removed because first two links (To Gautrain Corporate site and Bohlweki EIA site) contain ALL the hard documentary evidence related to the project. Please read this (all 2000 plus pages) before venturing an opinion on the POV neutrality of the postings. Also being closer to the project would help.
4 January 2006: RSA taxpayer
An anonymous IP removed the POV tag - as he or she did not bother to explain themselves here, and as I still believe this to be a one-sided article, I am reinstating it.
- POV tag removal should be done after discussing it on the talk page. Links may carry a lot of information - is it neutrally summarised in the wikipedia article ? Wizzy…☎ 11:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Point of view check
I’m not well-acquainted with anything about this project apart from the trains it is to use, but this article seems quite heavy on the opposition to it, and rather overconfident in denying public support for it; can anyone more familiar with the situation shed light on the issue? David Arthur 21:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
im sure. nothing about the number of jobs it aims to create, or that property values around station precincts will go up. it must have been written by one of the opposition! someone should add that additional information so people can decide for themselves. We all know politicians love blowing hot air to please their constituencies. Greensalad
Well, maybe 75% of public debate in the press and 90% of the comments I've heard personally have been negative, however, as you mention, there are some positives - getting third party support for this information is very difficult. Artagra
- I am not well acquainted with the project. I do think that the article has a negative bias. South Africa desperately needs public transportation infrastructure - any - and this is a first step. In JHB you simply cannot get around without a car - black taxis require you to go in to town and out again, and most white South Africans and tourists are wary of taking them. I think that the successful 2010 soccer world cup bid depended on the Gautrain ?? I think a lot of the negativity is from NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard - the people who would be affected, not the people who would benefit. The timescale for 2010 is very tight - any hesitation and it won't make it. Wizzy…☎ 05:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree 100% that their is a desperate need for good, clean, public transport in JHB. However, it's this very desperate need for public transport that means we have to be 100% sure the Gautrain is the correct choice. In terms of 2010, it's unlikely the full system will be ready by 2010, and it was infact never a 'set in stone' date - additionally, the system is independant of the soccer world cup - although the Airport-Sandton link would obviously be very useful at that time (While the media linked the initial proposed finish date of 2010 to the world cup bid, it was never a condition of the bid). Personally, while the 2010 world cup will be a big economic event, the Gautrain should be independant of it. I'm not convinced that the people desperately needing public transport are likely to be effectively be served by the Gautrain, due to limited capacity and limited routes. While the Gautrain would most probably operate at full capacity, and while it would most likely operate at a loss that, for a rail system, is deemed acceptable, we have to look at what else could be purchased with the money - ie, the opportunity cost. Spending the same money on a light bus system, reforming the taxi industry, or building a better rail network that service Soweto are all things that come to mind. Of course, there are plenty of arguments for the Gautrain - it will be used by a lot of people, and it may well revitalise the stations along it's routes (to me, the Midrand, Rosebank and CBD stations will in particular be beneficial.) If succesful, it may become a source of national pride. Artagra 10:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
OK - now we know why there is a perception of lack of neutrality and frequent use of the NPOV tag - heard about the project from a family member in governmnet involved and all that....... and of course there is of course no posibility that a massive public project involves much more than rails, stations and carraiges .... details about these things will not necessarily "balance" the article but yes - ad them - especially the record on price as presented to the public over the last five years. But all is hard to judge though because your family member (and her cronies in provincial governmnet) never engaged in a public debate with taxpayers regarding the project, also probably thinks an EIA is a public consultation process that meets the requirements of section 6(1) of the GTIA..........
5 January 2006 RSA Taxpayer
- We are writing an encyclopedia, not trying to win an argument.
- It sounds like you know quite a lot about the Gautrain.
- We have plenty of commentary already about the price. No more on that, unless it is wrong. Not in the article, or on Talk.
- We have a piece about the EIA - is it correct ?
- Please add an item about the GTIA (whatever that is) ?
- Can you add any information regarding JHB public transportation as background to this ?
- What is the link between 2010 soccer world cup and Gautrain ?
(Also, can people add comments at the bottom, so the discussion can be followed easily ?) Wizzy…☎ 07:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV Removal
Correction required: Supplementary documentary evidence is supplied - yes - but merely supplying the information does not automatically render an article neutral. Whilst the sources cited may themselves be neutral, even the most casual reader can see that this article is slanted (given that the Criticism paragraph dominates over 70% of the article). The article needs to be neutralised - more information needs to occupy other aspects of the article (such as details regarding shareholders and development strategies) before it balances out. Simply supplying a link to 2,000 page document does not make the matter more neutral no more than reading a encyclopedia miraculously completes a schoolkid's project. There is a manner of translation involved from cited source to presented text, and this has not been adequately fulfilled in this instance.
Please also take the time to note that the NPOV tag disputes the *article's* neutrality, not the sources or even the nature of the article itself; just the article.
I do not wish to get involved in a flamewar, but, if you wish to remove a NPOV tag, please discuss it first in the talk page! You'll note that there was some talk when the tag was instated, and so far pretty much everyone has gone along with it.
Yours,
Ssteedman 20:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kudos
Well done, Wikiwizzy... the sub categorisation of the 'Criticism' section is more readable and splits information up in a meaningful way.
Ssteedman 11:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks - I still think there is over-emphasis on the negative side, but press reading appears to back this sentiment. Remove the NPOV tag ? Wizzy…☎ 12:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, NPOV removal is justified
[edit] Heading: Gauteng's Gautrain..
The inclusion of this heading is a bit clumsy, I think.. Can't we use other headings to deal with each issue, ie Cost, Construction, Alternatives, Integration etc..? Gregorydavid 10:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Map
Can there be a map included of all the stations? Think it would add some information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.243.2.69 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
- You can see a map over here:[1]. I'll see if I can create a map for this article, but I can't just copy theirs because it it copyrighted. —Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 09:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)