Talk:Arvada, Colorado

Untitled

Water rights were at a premium in July 1884 when wealthy Rancher,William M. Allen shot and killed Amos Stone Samson who was denying Allen access to his (Samson's) water. Allen claimed self defense, although Amos Stone Samson was, the famous, well respected, "Rattlesnake Dick" reknown for shooting a rattlesanke at a distance and saving a friends life.Had he aimed for Allen fist, he would have killed him.

Samson was a colorful character, who had been an Indian Scout. He spoke the language of the Arrapahoe and Cheyenne Indians. He had owned a theatre called the, "Samson Corral".

Samson was known to be thoroughly honest in his dealings and generous and liberal to a fault. He was, at one time, a man of considerable wealth, but he gave a great deal of his money away to his friends and associates.

Anyone interested in more of this bit of Arvada history may find newspaper articles in the archives of Denver library; "The Daily Register-Call", dated: Tuesday, July 1, 1884. Or E. Mail: lparksrae@aol.com

"Police scandal" section is libelous, biased and does not have proper attributes, making it one man's opinion

The attributions the writer has provided do not support the statements of the writer, making this section libelous. It also makes it purely the writer's opinion, and not a proven, verifiable fact.

The writer states: "Arvada was home to one of the largest police scandals in Colorado in 2010 ..."

No attribution is given that proves it is "one of the largest police scandals in Colorado" thus making this statement the writer's opinion.

The writer states: "... when a neighboring police agency was needed and requested by the chief of police to intervene in the criminal conduct of Arvada's police force."

This is libelous, as the writer accuses the Arvada Police Department of "criminal conduct" when the entire attribution (17) is not about convictions but about charges and allegations. Because no one is convicted in the link the writer provides, it is his opinion, not a fact.

The writer states: "Arvada's city council had chosen not to intervene in the previous criminal conduct of several members of the Arvada police, despite a cost to the city of close to half a million dollars defending the criminal actions of one police officer alone, during a period of budget crises."

Please show us in Attribution 17 where it says that "several members of the Arvada police" were convicted of "previous criminal conduct."

Please show us in Attribution 17 where it says that it cost the city "close to half a million dollars defending the criminal actions of one police officer alone ... " If you do not have an attribution, it is only YOUR OPINION.

Attribution 17 is below, for your review. Nothing in that attribution supports any of the libelous content you have submitted on the Wiki page.

17--Julie Hayden Investigative Reporter 8:34 p.m. MDT, September 9, 2010

ARVADA, Colo. - Three former Arvada Police officers find themselves on the wrong side of the law, charged with misdemeanor crimes involving a case of excessive force and cover up.

The Jefferson County DA today charged 29-year-old Whitney Bauma and 28-year-old Noah Rolfing with failing to report, official misconduct and false reporting. 31-year-old Charles Whitney was charged with misdemeanor assault as well. All three officers have resigned.

The allegations stem from a January arrest, where police thoroughly documented suspect Kelly Etheridge being combative and spitting on an officer, but none of the officers reported seeing Humphrey allegedly punch Etheridge in the face.

Fox 31 has learned that Hunprhey is involved in at least two other cases of alleged brutality that resulted in lawsuits being filed against Arvada. Those lawsuits cost Arvada taxpayers $430,000.

The first case involved a call on a noise complaint at an Arvada home. The family says it turned into a "police riot" with a cell phone taping officers tasing and beating one of the family members. A Jefferson County Judge said the Arvada officers illegally entered the home and illegally took family members into custody.

The third case involves a man who filed a lawsuit against Arvada Police, claiming they illegally entered the home where he was a guest and transported him to a hospital and medically treated him against his will.

Police say a larger internal investigation continues into other issues and officers within the department. The Chief has said he will not tolerate misconduct and will take appropriate disciplinary action if necessary after the investigation is complete.

These are just the first few sentences of your "contribution." The entire section is poorly written and not supported by facts or attribution. That makes it the writer's opinion, and it is libelous.

It must be removed or you MUST provide attributions that prove your statements are not just your opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmetz1 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the edit war that's happening on this page, I really don't have a side in this. However, before any changes are made to the page, all the parties involved *must* come to a consensus. Until then, the status quo of the page has to be maintained. Wikipedia has clear policies about what has to happen if an edit war continues: formal mediation. Before that has to happen, the parties are supposed to go through informal mediation. However, the edit war cannot go on. — D. Wo. 08:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I ENCOURAGE formal mediation. (Redacted) I have gone to great lengths to come to a consensus, providing example, after example, after example (see my talk page). He is unable to see the difference between fact and opinion. Nor does he feel he needs attributions to support his statements. Worse, he has an ax to grind with the Arvada Police Department and he is using Wikipedia to perpetrate it.

I have finally tired of the "edit war" as you people call it, and decided instead to WRITE HIS SECTION FOR HIM.

Really, I didn't realize what a horrible joke Wikipedia was until this recent editing issue with Tucker454. That he has been allowed to keep plastering his personal vendetta on a Wiki page is disgraceful. It makes me question the validity ALL content found on Wiki pages now. And sadly, most Americans do not have the knowledge to know that they should question it; they will read it as fact, and spread it to others as though it is.

I am also appalled at how horrible Wiki's system of communication is. I have no idea where to post my communications on this issue. It seems every day I find a new place where someone has posted something about this page.

Bring on the mediation.

Fmetz1 (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Fmetz1 - I am ok with the page as it is now, as it clearly states that a police scandal had a large effect on the city, which it did. It also names the involved parties, although it does not include the fact that the police chief requested another county to intervene because of a former lack of action by the city council - I may add that later.

Wikipedia is about facts, and historical events. You seem to have a personal connection to this issue given that most of your editing since you joined a couple months ago has been focused on this page, and only a single section of it. I stated nothing untrue, nothing unsupported, nothing libelous. These events happened - as your own rewriting shows.

I have no idea why you have chosen to focus on a single section of a single article out of many millions, unless you are involved.

Significant events belong in a page about a city, can't get more simple than that.

If you are not involved (haha) stick around and edit some of the pages and/or sections that really need it. There are many articles that deserve 1/10 of the attention that you have devoted to this page. Find and correct them.

Tucker454 (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the validity of the statements made, I think that there is a serious case of undue weight of this issue in the article. Arvada has been around for over 140 years - should one-quarter of the article be devoted to this one incident in its history? Ground Zero | t 22:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Fmetz1, sorry I haven't had an opportunity to respond earlier. I'm glad to see that we all are making progress here. The rewrite of the section looks good and is going to be an excellent start for future collaboration. Two things that I noticed. First, you seem to be upset that you “wrote his section for him”. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Nobody owns the article. Don't think of it as his section; think of it as yours, mine and ours. Don't be upset about contributing to the project; rewriting the section is what should have happened from the start. When an article needs improvement, we improve it. We don't need to blank entire sections of articles as long as they can be improved. The other thing that I've noticed is your choice of language. On this talk page, you've called someone an “idiot” and, in an edit summary, you called someone an “uneducated fool”. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. In short, personal attacks are never tolerated anywhere in Wikipedia. Please keep that in mind as you continue to edit this page and any others. — D. Wo. 01:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The article on the police scandal is relatively long in the Arvada page, but it is more due to the lack of information in other categories that it seems so long. As Dwo stated, no one "owns" an article, it is a project to provide information. Arvada does have a long history, although being honest it has been a small community for most of that time, with "most" of the history being relatively recent. The facts that a scandal occurred, with relative silence by the city up until another police department conducted an investigation is a SERIOUS event - and being relatively recent it carries more weight. There isn't undue weight being placed on this event. I don't have "an axe to grind" as you seem to believe, I just can't see any circumstance where this information doesn't belong in the page - which has seemed to be your goal from the start? If I had an axe to grind with the Arvada PD, there would be plenty I could add, such as the fact they arrest children at school for drawings, can't find kids before they die a few hundred yards from their house, etc. But those are just single events, that really don't mean much. A significant portion of the police force being charged with criminal activity, being removed from duty, external police departments being requested, etc - that IS a serious event.

Arvada is certainly more than a police scandal, but you should ADD this other information rather than blanking sections. If you want to add, add the low crime rates we enjoy here, add the festivals, etc. Tucker454 (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fmetz1 - these events happened, as even your rewrite shows. Seriously, look up the word libel.

Tucker454 (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's go over this one last time on the remote chance you might finally understand the difference between fact and opinion.

I rewrote the contribution using ONLY information that I found on the Internet that supported the contribution. I did not add anything to the story that could not be verified through a reliable source. YOU, on the other hand, wrote a contribution that DID add content to the story that could NOT be verified through a reliable source, making it YOUR OPINION. You said things like "... when a neighboring police agency was needed and requested by the chief of police to intervene in the criminal conduct of Arvada's police force."

This is libelous, because you accuse the Arvada Police Department of "criminal conduct" when no criminal conduct has been proven in a court of law. Even the officer who is alleged to have done the hitting has been found "not guilty" by your peers. Because no one is convicted in the link you provide (or ANY link ANYWHERE on the Internet), it is your OPINION. If you had used the phrase "ALLEGED criminal conduct" you would be more on track.

You also wrote: "Arvada's city council had chosen not to intervene in the previous criminal conduct of several members of the Arvada police, despite a cost to the city of close to half a million dollars defending the criminal actions of one police officer alone, during a period of budget crises."

The "close to half a million dollars" was NOT spent "defending the criminal actions of one police officer alone." The money was spent settling OUT OF COURT so that the accusations had no opportunity to be proven as fact. A "criminal" is someone who has been CONVICTED of a crime. So there cannot be "criminal actions" unless someone has been convicted of a crime. There CAN be "alleged questionable actions," which is what you should have written.

When you post hateful things about others that is just your opinion, that opens you up to a LIBEL SUIT. If you do it in a blog, and you make it clear that you are expressing your opinion and not facts, you can say whatever you like there without much fear of libel. But when you post to a site whose premise is encyclopedic content, you cannot just post what you THINK. You must post what can be VERIFIED. Do you understand this very basic principle? Please read it again if you don't, because I'm done trying to educate you.

Definition of libel (I encourage you to visit the link and read all its contents): http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-libel.htm

Libel involves false statements knowingly presented as fact. In the United States opinion is protected as a tenant of freedom of speech, falling outside the purview of libel. Citizens retain the right to comment on public figures and entities, including government and officials. Entertainment, parody, editorials and criticisms that may arguably misrepresent facts are not libelous so long as they are presented for amusement or stated as mere opinion.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

How to prove libel: There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen.

________________________

My "personal connection" to this page is entirely--ENTIRELY--to attempt to show you the difference between FACT and OPINION. You are unable to be objective about the content you are writing because you have a personal, emotional feeling or opinion about it. Because of this, you HAVE NO BUSINESS contributing to Wikipedia, and it's my OPINION that you should be banned from doing so.

You do not get to choose which articles I will contribute to and which I won't. I chose this article because I live in this city, and when I came to visit this page I saw your horrible, personal vendetta up there essentially trying to make the entire city look bad because you've had a bad experience with this particular police department. After checking out your attributions and finding you had written many statements without facts to back it up, I went on A MISSION to try to educate you. Clearly, I have failed. In my opinion, YOU and people like you are what is wrong with this country right now. But that's just my OPINION.

I think that just for disclosure, you should tell us all what YOUR experience was with the police department so we understand WHY you have such a personal vendetta against the police department and the city.

Fmetz1 (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC) ________________________

And GROUND ZERO, I agree. He has given it this much weight because he has a personal vendetta against the Arvada Police Department and has decided to use Wikipedia to propagate it.

DWO: I am annoyed at having to re-write "his" story, because he is seemingly the only one who feels it has to live on this page. I think it should be deleted from this page entirely and instead, he should create another page and add only a link to it from this one. His motives are most definitely in question, which is the basis for my objection.

Fmetz1 (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC) ________________________

Tucker 454 wrote: The article on the police scandal is relatively long in the Arvada page, but it is more due to the lack of information in other categories that it seems so long.

No. It's long because for you, it's the most important thing on the page.

Tucker 454 wrote: As Dwo stated, no one "owns" an article, it is a project to provide information.

You make an excellent parrot. But you left out the word "factual" between "provide" and "information."

Tucker 454 wrote: Wikipedia is about facts, and historical events. You seem to have a personal connection to this issue given that most of your editing since you joined a couple months ago has been focused on this page, and only a single section of it.

Yes, YOUR section. That's because nothing else was wrong with this page. I think the only thing I found was "Kipling Avenue" when it should have been "Kipling Street." But YOUR section was poorly written, filled with libelous statements, and did not contain proper attribution. No other section on the Arvada, Colorado page had these problems.

I did not join "a couple months ago." Where did you even get that? I've been editing pages for about 4 years now.

Tucker 454 wrote: I stated nothing untrue, nothing unsupported, nothing libelous. These events happened - as your own rewriting shows.

???? Have you read ANYTHING I have written here? As I have pointed out to you countless times now, MANY THINGS you stated were untrue, not supported and were libelous, and I have proven such by using many examples. SOME of the events you wrote happened, and if I could find attributions to back it up, I included it in the rewrite. If I could not find attributions, I did NOT include it in the rewrite. My argument to you was never "these things never happened." My argument to you has always been: PLEASE PROVIDE ATTRIBUTIONS TO BACK UP THE STATEMENTS YOU HAVE MADE HERE AS FACTUAL.

Tucker 454 wrote: Arvada does have a long history, although being honest it has been a small community for most of that time, with "most" of the history being relatively recent. The facts that a scandal occurred, with relative silence by the city up until another police department conducted an investigation is a SERIOUS event - and being relatively recent it carries more weight.

Carries more weight than what? The entire page?

And can you find nothing else worthy of contributing to the Arvada, Colorado page?

Tucker 454 wrote: There isn't undue weight being placed on this event. I don't have "an axe to grind" as you seem to believe, I just can't see any circumstance where this information doesn't belong in the page - which has seemed to be your goal from the start?

The "circumstance" is--AGAIN--that you have offered OPINION as FACTS.

Tucker 454 wrote: If I had an axe to grind with the Arvada PD, there would be plenty I could add, such as the fact they arrest children at school for drawings, can't find kids before they die a few hundred yards from their house, etc. But those are just single events, that really don't mean much. A significant portion of the police force being charged with criminal activity, being removed from duty, external police departments being requested, etc - that IS a serious event.

This last statement of yours just proved my statement that you have an ax to grind. Thank you. And please provide links that verify your statements that: "they arrest children at school for drawings," that "a significant portion of the police force" is "being charged with criminal activity," or even that they are "being removed from duty."

Tucker 454 wrote: Arvada is certainly more than a police scandal, but you should ADD this other information rather than blanking sections.

It is not MY job to provide attributions for YOUR ridiculous statements.

Tucker 454 wrote: If you want to add, add the low crime rates we enjoy here, add the festivals, etc.

Why don't YOU do that, to make up for this horrible "police scandal" that you think is so vital to this page.

Fmetz1 (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fmetz1 - anyone can look up your contributions, or deletions, as they usually are. You have been on here for LESS than a MONTH, not for 4 years as you state.

Libelous would be if I stated a police scandal occurred when it in fact did not. Stating FALSE statements as true, would be libelous. The events I added to this page did indeed take place, and there were at least 6 police officers removed from duty by the Arvada PD.

Please, find another page to focus on, or at least CONTRIBUTE to this page rather than just go around blanking sections and removing information that you find offensive.

Tucker454 (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)