Talk:Green Tortoise

found one (maybe)pro-Tortoise link
To be exact, it appears to be a list for people who've enjoyed travelling with the Green Tortoise and would like to talk about how to get the most out of the experience. It seems to be run independently of the Tortoise. I think this addresses the concerns of many of those who've worked on putting this article together, so I'll put that group into the external links section, if nobody minds. (unsigned comment by 67.163.61.212 on 2005-12-25 17:48:44)


 * Normally I dislike Yahoo! Groups links in Wikipedia External links, but in this case I think it is merited given the dearth of pro-Tortoise links seemingly available. Thanks. Kit 18:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

pro-tortoise links

 * I'm surprised you all had such a hard time finding positive references to the Tortoise. (Although, I'm the first to admit, to some people, "They don't have a toilet on the bus" automatically counts as a negative review.) Here's an offhand list of positive links. This is a mix of both passenger webjournals and articles by professional writers:
 * http://nomoss.com/tortuga/
 * http://www.gonomad.com/transports/0507/tortoise.html
 * http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19990516/ai_n10518007
 * http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1594/is_n3_v9/ai_20581510
 * http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0820/is_n217/ai_17169763
 * http://www.anchoragepress.com/archives/document281a.html
 * http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/1997/04/lieberman1.html
 * http://www.travelhead.com/trip/journal/gt/
 * http://www.gaetanlee.com/GreenTort2005.htm
 * http://realtravel.com/loreto-journals-j802153.html


 * If I dig through my archives I can come up with many more of these. (I am the webmaster of greentortoise.com, I get a lot of these.) Seeing as how this is my first time ever using wikipedia, I'm not sure what the process is, so I'm not going to insert these into the GT wikipedia article myself, I just saw that nobody seemed to have this information so here it is. If someone wants to provide some guidance as to how they should be handled or what to do with them, it would be appreciated. Gtwebmaster 22:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)



Rewriting
This article needs some serious rewriting. The section on hostels seems very choppy and the sentences don't flow at all. I tried to help out a bit by removing some original research and clearing off an unverifiable source and some merging of the opening sections. Cowman109 Talk 00:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving of 65.* related material
I am removing the extensive discussion with the anonymous user 65. You can find the discussion in full on this old page ∴ here…&spades; 16:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

History of Green Tortoise and FAQs
What I would like to know abot the Green Tortoise is more info about it's history and how and when it started. Who founded the service and what was the reasoning to do so.

From what I understand is that the Green Tortoise was founded in the 1960's in the San Francisco Bay area. Presumably it was found in Berkeley or San Francisco. And the reason it is called the "Green Tortoise" is a play off the namee of "Greyhound" the main stream travel bus company. It would be nice to get further depth on these things and other aspects of their history.

I would also like to know more about their Los Angeles/San Francisco/Portland/Seatle commuter bus service which is what I believe was thier inittial bus service. Presumably the commuter line service was started as a result of the dynamics of the 1960's and the interest of cheap travel with open minded bus service, such as being animal friendly, and catering to "hippies" and the "flower children" with stops at hostels which and perhaps "crash pads"(circa. 1960's).

Presumable the LA to SF to Portland and Seattle commuter bus service was inspired by the Merry Pranksters and thier Acit Test tours of those same cities.

If anyone has further details and/or picturs of the early Green Tortoise, please include it in the article. Thank you. Asynaps 17:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-authoritative references
Removing the statement about trips being "reportedly" clothing optional and it's associated link. "Reportedly" is a weasel word and the supporting reference provided is to a first-person narrative, similar to an editorial or blog post, titled "field research" and dressed up with superficial sociological terminology, footnotes and "references" to attempt to appear scholarly but without employing any research methodology. The page seems to have been written primarily to air grievances and complaints about a single unpleasant vacation experience, and disguised as "research" to lend a false air of authority. For instance, see "footnote" 5: "I decided that my opinion of Jake could not improve sufficiently to tolerate any kind of interaction with him. Instead I decided to ignore him. While this was a daunting project because of our restricted quarters, nevertheless, we were able to maintain an impressive distance for the remainder of the trip." This isn't scholarly research or an authoritative factual source, it's a lone individual with an axe to grind - even if he happens to be a professor. SteubenGlass (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

prod
Someone recently added a prod to this article. The topic was covered in the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal. I thought that made it notable. The prod placers concern was one which I think should have triggered a discussion of a rewrite, not a nomination for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please add those references to the article. It would help greatly for its notability to have some reliable sources. It badly needs some. (Travel commentary columns in newspapers do not count, as they are influenced by page advertisers.) It does no good just to state that there are some reliable news sources, without listing the actual references. Xme (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And which of the criteria for deletion are you asserting this article met? Articles on topics that merit inclusion should not be nominated for deletion because a contributor thinks they are poorly written.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)