Talk:Boulder, Colorado

Untitled

Wondering how to edit this City Entry?
The WikiProject Cities standards might help.

"Culture of Rioting"

Can the anonymous user who keeps vandalizing the page with obviously false information and a heading "Culture of Rioting" stop? On one of the paragraphs which says "no students were suspended", the source link, when followed by a Daily Camera subscriber states: "CU also is proceeding with disciplinary action against 15 of its students. Several have admitted their roles in the riot, and one already has accepted a four-year suspension"

The number of times the alleged riots times varies with each vandalizing, and as a resident a few blocks away, I can recall maybe 3 times the police were sent to the hill in the past ten years.

reply:

Ken,

Your recollection is poor. Or you deliberately want to suppress the facts about the neighborhood near where you live.

Here's a timeline of rioting from the Daily Camera.

URL: http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/city_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2422_3298089,00.html Boulder's riot history November 2, 2004

February 1971— About 50 people "attacked" officers on University Hill.

May 1971— For three days, rioters rocked the Hill in an action that had no apparent connection to social protest.

May 1972— For several days, anti-Vietnam War protesters closed the Hill with a sit-in. Beat poet Allen Ginsberg calmed down the demonstration.

November 1984— Police used tear gas to break up a group of demonstrators near 28th Street and Baseline Road.

Early 1990s— The Hill was twice the site of Halloween trouble. Between 1992 and 1997, there were at least six additional riots.

April 1992— Local riots coincided with the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles.

May 1997— Three nights of rioting resulted in at least 33 arrests.

Halloween 1997— Hundreds of revelers set bonfires the Hill.

January 1998— After the Super Bowl, fans on the Pearl Street Mall and the Hill lit bonfires and jumped on cars.

February 1999— Police used tear gas to disperse about 400 fans gathered on the Hill after the Super Bowl.

Halloween 1999— Hundreds of revelers set bonfires on Hill streets, damaged parked cars and fought with police.

August 2000— About 1,000 partiers ignited a bonfire, damaged four vehicles and hurled objects at authorities.

September 2000— About 200 people assembled around a burning couch and other debris at 14th Street and Euclid Avenue.

October 2000— Police arrested 10 people, issued 33 tickets for alcohol offenses and shut down several parties. People threw things at police and set fires.

December 2001— Students rioted after the CU football team won the Big 12 Championship.

[Halloween 2004]

— Compiled by Camera Staff Writer Aimee Heckel

Copyright 2005, The Daily Camera. All Rights Reserved.

---

Anonymous user: writing a headline "A Culture of Rioting" is editorialism. And no, my recollection is fine: "Police used tear gas to disperse about 400 fans gathered on the Hill after the Super Bowl." is not a riot. If you want to expand the content in the section that's fine, but I shouldn't be able to tell what the opinion of the writer is. Obviously, I can.

Writing despite a Colorado law requiring disciplinary action against rioting students, none were suspended was actually contradicted by your own source -- the Daily Camera reported that police and school administrators were unable to identify many of those responsible, although one student was suspended as a result of the Halloween disruption. It isn't as though there is complacency on the part of the school. Calling Princeton Review "pseudoscience" is also quite unprofessional and actually kind of confusing.

I originally added the remark in the "Boulder Riots" because its omission in the wikipedia article seemed foolish.

Ken:

Go check Colorado law for definition of riots. 400 people is a riot. And, I watched the December 2001 riot--that was the real thing, Ken. Boulder City Council members and the paper always struggle to avoid calling riots what they are. You and they use words like disturbance, melee, fracas, etc. They're riots; it's easy.

I'd say that your biases are that Boulderites should be able to thumb their noses at police on Thursdays and smash windows, overturn cars, and burn things in the street without police intervention. Your bias comes through loud and clear in your posts, which, by the way, is not liberalism but closer to libertarianism. In the 1997 riot, someone dropped a cinder block on a police officer's head, which ended her career. That's not harmless fun.

A Culture of Rioting really gets at Boulder's culture of lawlessness. But, I can give that up.

I would like to suggest that you add some riot pictures to the site. That would enliven it. I don't know how to add them.

As for CU, they are completely complacent in all of this. Here's a recent example: after the Nebraska game, when the student sections were cleared, how many students were actually disciplined? Read the newspaper archives carefully; how many students get disciplined after riots, when the smoke has cleared.

As for the Princeton review, their social science sucks. Maybe I should have said sucky-social-scientific?

Correct me if I am wrong, but you don't own this article, do you Ken? You don't own the true picture of Boulder. That's the whole wiki idea.

---

Anonymous user: everyone owns this article, but the point of Wikipedia (not just a wiki) is an encyclopedia that everyone can edit. Inserting paragraphs that get at some perceived social ill is not the purpose of a wikipedia article, unless the article is specifically on that social ill.

I thank you for at least not putting their science sucks in regard to the Princeton Review link, but calling it pseudoscience isn't much better. Another example is that you expanded the 1997 paragraph to be three days, when in the article linked to as a source (the one I originally used), it clearly states that the problem last for five hours, not three days.

"Evidence" suggests that fraternities aren't enforcing their rules regarding alcohol at in-house parties? I wouldn't be terribly surprised if some of them didn't, but his isn't the place for editorializing or speculation.

To resolve this, I've asked that the article be protected, as this thread isn't helping anyone.

-Ken user:kkinder

Okay, so the admins told me that the problem hasn't been going on long enough to warrant protecting the article. As such, under wikipedia's Edit wars policy, we should really try to work it out to everyone's satisfaction.

Every opinion has at least two sides.

• Culture of lawlessness? Among the lowest crime rates in the country.
• City's attitude/culture at fault? Most students aren't from Boulder.
• Police under-reacted? They probably don't want to get sattled with a lawsuit.

See what I mean?

Here's my issue. Your first edit said 12 instances of rioting, then it was 10, then 8. Where did any of these numbers come from? I agree that 400 people rioting is a riot. A dozen people with a bonfire or some war protesters doesn't constitute a riot to me.

There is probably an opinion that the city and the school didn't do enough to punish those involved, but again there's also the fact that they can't prosecute anyone without evidence. The city is in a position of enforcing a federal drinking age on one of the largest universities in the country -- so if there is an argument about complacency on the part of the university, it's just that -- an argument, not a point of fact.

I think saying there have been X many disruptions is fine, but mentioning a massive riot followed by a statement that implies such an incident has been repeated dozens of times is misleading.

See Wikipedia's article on Neutral point of view. I have no quarrel with you -- just please stick to citing sources, not making opinionated remarks.

--user:kkinder

Ken,

I don't have time to respond fully now, but a couple of points: I've always said 10 riots. If you start with 1997 and count to 2004, there were 10. I said 8 after you split out the 1997 and 2004 riots. 10-2=8. Ten is the correct number.

There have been no war protesters between 1997 and 2004. None of the ten riots includes 12 person bonfires.

As for sources, I would like to work through some of your text later on. There are no sources sited for a number of things.

Note the IP addresses for recent edits. Someone else was editing the riot text last night. I edited and someone else did too. You're conflating the two of us. I will say that I liked that editor's addition of a comment about the alcohol ban in the frats; they passed that and then ignored it. I think you should just eliminate the ref to the ban, or we could add an item that shows they ignored it. Long before Gordie Bailey they were drinking in the frats.

And finally, I changed the 2004 riot date to 30-31 October because that's when it was. It started on Saturday evening--see the new story--and lasted until Sunday morning. The news stories came out on Monday the first.

Any chance you can add a riot picture?

---

The issues with adding pictures are copyright. There are photos on the city's website, but we can't use them without permission. If you find you can use (ie, it's licensed under creative commons, whatnot or you get permission), you can upload it with a user account. See Wikipedia:Uploading_images.

--user:kkinder

---

There does seem to be an ongoing cycle with someone (or some people) wanting to express their opinions about Boulder via wikipedia.

Wayne Laugesen

How many Wayne Laugesen opinion peices should be linked to in one wikipedia article?

However, some, including columnist Wayne Laugesen, argue that Boulder's liberalism sustains racism.

(A negative view of Boulder regarding property rights was articulated here, in a Boulder Weekly editorial.)

Is it really good style for an uncyclopedia to give one man such a voice? Wayne's a vocal critic of Boulder - everyone who lives here and reads BW knows he doesn't like this place. It's like point-counterpoint, with links to the ci.boulder.us pages as point and links to Wayne's idiotic editorial in a weekly tabloid as counterpoint.

Birds

The Wiki article excludes the restrictions on killing wild birds. Wild birds are protected under Boulder County laws. http://ci.boulder.co.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1856&Itemid=593

Kudos to 71.208.110.28 ...

... for adding some noted, respectable academics to counterbalance the ridiculous Churchill and Tracey.

Paul 14 November 2006

Deleted spam link listing

I deleted the commercial link spam - bestofmytown-boulder-com

Boulder, Co

Why no info on health care in Boulder, Co? One bit of info I was really looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.30.30 (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Boulder Cruiser Ride

This event has no place on this wikipedia page, it is a local event for those who wish to have fun and enjoy the biking cultural of boulder. The entry on this page is discriminating on that and bringing attention to something that is run by locals and should propagated by those alone.

I'm somewhat inclined to agree...has the event attracted attention from third-party sources beyond the ones currently listed in the article? DonIago (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What? discriminating? against who?

from "bringing attention to something that is run by locals and should propagated by those alone" it sounds like you want to WP:CENSOR wikipdia. It very clearly has coverage in WP:reliable WP:secondary sources. CombatWombat42 (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for Culture sub-sections

I gather from edit comments that John from Idegon and CombatWombat42 don't think that eTown and Conference on World Affairs should be included in the Culture section (at least not in the way they were originally included). Theses Boulder specific things at least are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. Other items in this section are less clearly notable or are not as Boulder specific. Does someone want to propose a criterion for inclusion in this section? ~Kvng (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have no problem with those being included, they just need to be sourced. I do wonder if the article is not a little too long and couldn't benefit from some trimming of the fat. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I added sources but then John from Idegon removed the sections again with the following edit comment, "Neither item needs its own section...And you have not indicated in any way why it should be here. DISCUSS BEFORE REPLACING please." So here we are. ~Kvng (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I did. The first part is self explanatory. As for the second part, if it isn't noted in sources not connected to the subject of the article, it isn't important enough to be included. Note that you did not link either event in your edits. Upon investigating the links you now provided, I no longer have any objection to the Conference. Etown as it stands would not survive a deltion discussion, but I have not done my BEFORE research yet. As far as the subheaders go, I see that is how the section is written. That should be fixed, and I am in complete agreement with the Armored Wombat that the entire article suffers from a considerable amount of bloat. And since these items have articles, unless you can cite sources discussing their importance to the city, merely a brief Wikilinked mention is all that is needed. John from Idegon (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems like there's consensus that it's appropriate to mention eTown and Conference on World Affairs here so I'd like to restore this material with my citations. I don't have a problem with the section being reworked to be shorter and without subsections but I think that improvement can be handled as a separate issue. ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You have consensus for the Conference. Please provide out of town sources for eTown and you have consensus for that too. John from Idegon (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-local coverage is improtant to establish notability of the free-standing article eTown. I don't think this is required to justify a mention here in Boulder, Colorado. Lots of coverage of eTown in Boulder and Denver press and I have included a new reference from Colorado Springs, 100 miles from Boulder. ~Kvng (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Out of town sources are important for events to show that they have interest outside the community. We do not write settlement articles for the residents of the local community; and we certainly don't write them to publicize events. Per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK. John from Idegon (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with John from Idegon, If out of region sources cannot be found for e-town, it shouldn't be included. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)