This article was nominated for deletion on 4 September 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kristian Jenn I wonder whether it might be better to move the "Political positions post-privatisation" out of "Privatisation of British Rail" into the "Impact of the privatisation of British Rail" in order to keep this article about the impact, current political discussion and future possibilities and keep the other page about the historical process of privatisation Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 12:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Impact of the privatisation of British Rail. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The article relies partially on sources which are not impartial. The British railway is depicted as leading in Europe, although other sources ( [1]) rank the UK on place eight. -- Mathmensch ( talk) 08:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
An excellent source is [2] - their points should at least be considered. -- Mathmensch ( talk) 09:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Haven't quite followed exactly what you've done as I'm using an ipad at the mo., but it appears that you've changed a graph expressed in subsidy per passenger to one expressed simply as a national total, as you believe that the former isn't neutral. It is really not done to make a change of that sort with a little editing comment, so if I have understood correctly please explain here. Have you also changed UK to British? Gravuritas ( talk) 20:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
It should be noted that Mathmensch tried to add the same graph (unnormalised for inflation) to Privatisation of British Rail but I reverted it. Once again, I would ask Mathmensch to point to any areas which are not neutral or should be deleted, or to suggest content that should be added, so that we can work together to improve the article. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 16:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
You say that "railway operators choose to permit many more people to use the trains" as if this is a bad thing, despite it bringing in higher revenue from passenger fares. Could you explain this more? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 16:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The main article is still not neutral and does not include many of the criticisms of privatisation, e.g. lack of drivers, abandonment of popular routes due to pressure from TOC's, stealth subsidies, profit shifting, reduction of services, poor unkempt services in many areas outside London, failure of electrification in much needed areas, the continued use of high polluting diesel engines, TOC companies walking away from contracts and poor services and vastly overcrowded trains some due to a lack of the required amount of carriages. Vast investment was put into some of the local London bound lines (Kent, Surrey, Sussex) from the late 1990's onward bringing improved trains, stations (London Bridge, St Pancras etc) and Cross Rail (eventually) underlining another criticism of a very London centrist mindset by the Department of Transport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinc1000 ( talk • contribs) 00:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the RfC was no consensus to include or exclude the diagram on the state subsidy for the railway primarily because the RfC lacked a clearly worded neutral question. Editors recommended a new RfC with a neutrally posed question like "Should the article include a diagram that I created that shows state subsidies?"
Recently, I strove to make this article more neutral by inserting a diagram which plainly shows state subsidy, instead of dividing out the passenger kilometers which is increased to help the operators gain more money, with the effect that passengers must travel in more crowded trains. In this way, it would become apparent that state subsidy for the railway (which is what the diagram says it measures) has actually increased by a dramatic amount; this fact is hidden in the way the current diagram is "normalized". I urge bypassers to remind the coauthors who have obstructed myself of the principles of wikipedia, in particular WP:NPOV, which indicates that diagrams should not be used to make a point for the privatisation by "massaging" them so that the increase in subsidy seems less severe. -- Mathmensch ( talk) 11:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment - The bot sent me. Firstly, no matter who owns the trains, there will always be delays. Rain, snow, drought, the trains get delayed. Secondly, see WP:RFC. You need a question, preferably a neutrally posed question. But I do see what you're going through. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
At the risk of reopening old wounds, are there any outstanding issues that need to be fixed or can I remove the neutrality tag on this article? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 22:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Impact of the privatisation of British Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Impact of the privatisation of British Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Ednamode5700: thank you for updating the graphs on this page. Would you mind adding a marker to show where privatisation occurred - it's difficult to see the relevance of this graph to the article without it. Also I think the graph I added (with pence per km rather than % change from 1995) is easier to understand as it's a more understandable measure, especially as before 1995 the percentage change was negative, which is not intuitive to someone looking at it for the first time. Anyone else have thoughts? Bellowhead678 ( talk) 15:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 September 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kristian Jenn I wonder whether it might be better to move the "Political positions post-privatisation" out of "Privatisation of British Rail" into the "Impact of the privatisation of British Rail" in order to keep this article about the impact, current political discussion and future possibilities and keep the other page about the historical process of privatisation Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 12:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Impact of the privatisation of British Rail. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The article relies partially on sources which are not impartial. The British railway is depicted as leading in Europe, although other sources ( [1]) rank the UK on place eight. -- Mathmensch ( talk) 08:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
An excellent source is [2] - their points should at least be considered. -- Mathmensch ( talk) 09:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Haven't quite followed exactly what you've done as I'm using an ipad at the mo., but it appears that you've changed a graph expressed in subsidy per passenger to one expressed simply as a national total, as you believe that the former isn't neutral. It is really not done to make a change of that sort with a little editing comment, so if I have understood correctly please explain here. Have you also changed UK to British? Gravuritas ( talk) 20:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
It should be noted that Mathmensch tried to add the same graph (unnormalised for inflation) to Privatisation of British Rail but I reverted it. Once again, I would ask Mathmensch to point to any areas which are not neutral or should be deleted, or to suggest content that should be added, so that we can work together to improve the article. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 16:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
You say that "railway operators choose to permit many more people to use the trains" as if this is a bad thing, despite it bringing in higher revenue from passenger fares. Could you explain this more? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 16:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The main article is still not neutral and does not include many of the criticisms of privatisation, e.g. lack of drivers, abandonment of popular routes due to pressure from TOC's, stealth subsidies, profit shifting, reduction of services, poor unkempt services in many areas outside London, failure of electrification in much needed areas, the continued use of high polluting diesel engines, TOC companies walking away from contracts and poor services and vastly overcrowded trains some due to a lack of the required amount of carriages. Vast investment was put into some of the local London bound lines (Kent, Surrey, Sussex) from the late 1990's onward bringing improved trains, stations (London Bridge, St Pancras etc) and Cross Rail (eventually) underlining another criticism of a very London centrist mindset by the Department of Transport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinc1000 ( talk • contribs) 00:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the RfC was no consensus to include or exclude the diagram on the state subsidy for the railway primarily because the RfC lacked a clearly worded neutral question. Editors recommended a new RfC with a neutrally posed question like "Should the article include a diagram that I created that shows state subsidies?"
Recently, I strove to make this article more neutral by inserting a diagram which plainly shows state subsidy, instead of dividing out the passenger kilometers which is increased to help the operators gain more money, with the effect that passengers must travel in more crowded trains. In this way, it would become apparent that state subsidy for the railway (which is what the diagram says it measures) has actually increased by a dramatic amount; this fact is hidden in the way the current diagram is "normalized". I urge bypassers to remind the coauthors who have obstructed myself of the principles of wikipedia, in particular WP:NPOV, which indicates that diagrams should not be used to make a point for the privatisation by "massaging" them so that the increase in subsidy seems less severe. -- Mathmensch ( talk) 11:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment - The bot sent me. Firstly, no matter who owns the trains, there will always be delays. Rain, snow, drought, the trains get delayed. Secondly, see WP:RFC. You need a question, preferably a neutrally posed question. But I do see what you're going through. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
At the risk of reopening old wounds, are there any outstanding issues that need to be fixed or can I remove the neutrality tag on this article? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 22:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Impact of the privatisation of British Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Impact of the privatisation of British Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Ednamode5700: thank you for updating the graphs on this page. Would you mind adding a marker to show where privatisation occurred - it's difficult to see the relevance of this graph to the article without it. Also I think the graph I added (with pence per km rather than % change from 1995) is easier to understand as it's a more understandable measure, especially as before 1995 the percentage change was negative, which is not intuitive to someone looking at it for the first time. Anyone else have thoughts? Bellowhead678 ( talk) 15:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)