Talk:Boulder, Colorado/Archive 3

Economy and industry - Additions

Hello,

Any thoughts on adding to the "Economy and industry" section of the Boulder page. It seems awfully uninformative for how much there is going on here with the influx of large technology companies, the startup climate, and the headquarters of the gigantic accelerator Techstars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMoskowitz9 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Music

Could add popular music section: Boulder Theater, Fox Theater, Tulagi, Boulder's Coast, perhaps other venues. 70's music scene: Eagles, Joe Walsh, Zephyr, Fogelberg, Caribou Ranch studio client guest appearances in town. Folsom Field shows w/national acts like Stones, Fleetwood Mac, Grateful Dead, McCartney 1993. Local bands that made the big time incl. Firefall, Samples, String Cheese.

We could expand Boulder, Colorado § Music. Do you have any souces? Folsom Field § Concerts is incomplete and not well-sourced. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"Culture of Rioting"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wayne Laugesen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Warren Hern

Warren Hern deserves to be on the notable people list for Boulder. Magnolia677 and John from Idegon have been engaging in disruptive edit warring over this and have been claiming that they are removing his section due to lack of sourcing. Do the Guardian, NYT, Daily Camera, and CU Boulder's own website suddenly not count as sources? So their justification for removing material is completely unfounded. Hern's notability is not in question either, as he has his own page and it is properly sourced. So what exactly is the problem here? If they can't properly defend their actions I will continue to add his section back in, as there is literally no reason for it to be removed as of yet. Bluedude588 (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bluedude588: As I mentioned on your talk page, WP:USCITIES#Notable people advises that the "notable people" section be a list of "any famous or notable individuals that were born, or lived for a significant amount of time, in the city". I have been unable to locate any source supporting that Warren Hern lives in Boulder (though he definitely works there). For example, if a notable person lives in Malibu, but works in nearby Santa Monica, they cannot be listed on the notable people list at Santa Monica (even if they are the mayor of the city). Not everyone lives the same place they work. Moreover, due to the nature of Hern's work, and the fact armed agents travel with him all the times, it is unlikely any source will divulge his home address. Unless a reliable source says he lives (not works...lives) in Boulder, then he cannot be added to the notable people list. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous policy, especially when there are plenty of people that have very good reasons to not divulge where their home address is. The city in which Hern is most connected to is Boulder and as such he should be listed there. If the policy gets in the way of this, the policy should be rewritten. Bluedude588 (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody's asking for home address, just home city. It doesn't seem as though it should be a challenge to find a source establishing that Hern lives in Boulder if that's the case. If your concern is with the policy itself though, then you're welcome to initiate a discussion at the appropriate Talk page. Just my two cents. DonIago (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems a bit ridiculous to me to remove well-known and verified members of the community because they are not verified to have a home in the city. I have found a reference to restore Kimbal Musk. Dr. Hern will be much more difficult since, for obvious reasons, he doesn't want anyone to know where he lives. Can we make a policy exception here? Can you tell us where this appropriate talk page is? Can we restore the entry for now and put a {{cn}} on it? ~Kvng (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

A consensus of editors have already agreed that going to school someplace, or working there, or even dying there, does not make you notable in that city. Why should this be an exception? Magnolia677 (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The appropriate Talk page would be the talk page for the guideline that Magnolia linked to above. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, that unless Warren Hern can be verified as a resident of Boulder, he should not be listed. The 'notable people' sections too often have spillover of people slightly associated with a place. If Hern is not in fact a resident, he could still be mentioned alongside his business elsewhere in the article/subarticles. ɱ (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I have posted an inquiry at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Notable_people_and_privacy. ~Kvng (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Boulder Shooting

Hi, just wondering if the King Soopers Shooting from March 23rd will be mentioned, or if there will be another article on it. Thanks for all y'all do, a frequent Wikipedia user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.125.213 (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

There is certainly another article about it (Wikipedia wouldn't be Wikipedia if there weren't): 2021 Boulder shooting. Moncrief (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)