Talk:Marvin Heemeyer

BROKEN LINKS

THE LINKS TO THE AUDIO RECORDINGS HE MADE ARE NOT WORKING. IF ANYONE CAN HELP....

Stop putting on the NPOV!

This article is fine the way it is. The events is written in a way that the highest number of people can agree on. The cops lied about the incident, and as a result, most negative media reports were inconsistent. The article paints an accurate portrait of Marvin Heemeyer.

All of you POV adders, just notice that there have been no edits for weeks every time a POV is added. Therefore, most people dont even think there's a problem with the article.

That's right. Just stop changing the article. It's written neutrally the way it is now. If those Heemeyer haters are determined to change the article, why dont they edit it instead of constantly putting in that the thing is in need of improvement. Heemeyer was a hero, nothing less, to all American workers.

I agree. The article is fine. Leave off the POV.--R.E.S.A. 20:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted a NPOV a few weeks ago after having done a great deal of research into the life of Marvin Heemeyer. After reading the article in its current state I believe it is finally neutral. It is however extremely important for this articles contributors to remember that not everyone holds the "American workers" point of view (as described above), and that although many people may consider Heemeyer a hero, that viewpoint is not neutral. --OlJanx 08:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

ZA WARUDO

The only way Marvin Heemeyer could have improved on that would have been by striking a dramatic pose on top of the Killdozer and shouting "WRYYYYYY" at his foes.

I'm pretty sure he should have used a steamroller for that. --Pewpewlazers 10:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

More like "steamLOLler," am I right?

---

Guy deserved a medal

Seriously, he had a good business and due to beurocracy and probably not being one of the "good old boys" and having the right connections and kiss the right asses they destroyed his business and refused to help him in any way.

Our entire society is a lie, it isn't the best and brightest or hardest working that make it, simply people that have the right connections.

He also destroyed the city hall and a bunch of other stuff, the consequence of which was probably that the town suffered a good deal and has had to do substantial rebuilding. He may have been wronged, but I don't see how someone could consider him a hero. Everyking 11:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Marvin should get a metal higher than the congressional medal of honor for defending the truest American values. He lost his life to defend the people against tyranny and corruption.

God rest his soul.

And thats why you're a fucking moron. The MoH is for MILITARY personell only. He destroyed a fucking library aswell. How does *that* make him a hero?--Kross^Talk 22:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Marv was a hero

Marvin was a hero for all Americans. He stood up against tyranny, and should be honored like the members of the Boston Tea Party.

God rest his soul.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.13.94 (talk • contribs)

Please add new threads to the bottom of the Talk Page --Richard 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This Article is As Completely Without Bias As Possible

No article is completely without bias, and most of the information contained are facts gleaned from many news sources. I'd like to know why people think there is anything at all wrong with the article.
(1)Initial reports said that Marvin deliberately avoided injuring anyone. Eyewitnesses corroborated with those facts. Subsequent reports that Marvin was intent on injuring anyone is not affirmed by people who saw the incident. Marvin clearly had the ability to kill, but he didn't. He only wanted the country to learn of his plight, so that Americans realize that the injustice could affect any hard working American.
(2)Marvin is regarded in large areas of the United States as a modern day hero. Few people say that he was filled with malice. Most people could understand why he did what he did.

I'd like to see the dspute closed because there is nothing wrong with the article.

Removing NPOV Template

I do believe, sorry to the above, that it is still biased. I also believe that NPOV with any article is possible. The best way to NPOV is to list facts instead of implications, ie "Bob was found guilty of murdering Tom" Vs. "Bob murdered Tom." We do not really know if he really murdered Tom or not, (implication), however, it is a fact if he was found guilty of it (court records), hence that's what you put.

I'm going to run through it and add "some bellive"s and such to the controversial portions to make it NPOV, and change the template. Then, if no one minds, say a week or so later, I'm going to try and take down the template completely. Sim 17:52, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Despite Claims, Article Both Biased and Poor

In addition to this article being biased -- not only does the author include absolutely no potentially negative information or sources, but phrases like "monumental effort" (by Heemeyer to save his business) abound -- it is, quite simply, poorly written. Ambiguity and/or downright inaccuracy are contributed by several assertions; for example: "When Heemeyer requested to extend a sewer line across eight feet of the plant's property, he was denied. This resulted in a $2500 fine that Marvin had to pay." Does the author really mean to say that requesting the extension of the sewer line resulted in a fine? That's ludicrous; almost certainly, any fine actually levied would come from actually violating a code (or at least not from merely requesting a permit).

The NPOV tag is more than justified. I am also adding cleanup and deletion tags to ensure that this terrible article (in its current iteration) vanishes from wikipedia as soon as possible, hopefully to be replaced with a reasonable, unbiased, well-written piece. This is without question a newsworthy event and one which needs to be described on wikipedia, but any relevant article absolutely must conform to some minimal standard of quality. Rbmoore

Yeah, it's bad. At least now it only says he is viewed by a hero by some Americans, whereas before it said most. Everyking 23:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I dont think the article is too biased. Most sources view Marvin Heemeyer positively. Sources have been provided in "External Links". Absolutely every article viewing Marvin Heemeyer negatively, at least on the internet is inconsistent with one another. Anti-Heemeyer publications have lessened their credibility by posting articles that refute one another. Example:

Right after the incident, many publications claimed Marvin deliberately avoided injuring everyone. Then after some time, the same publications claimed that Marvin tried to kill at random. The facts are clear and the witnesses for Marvin Heemeyer are consistent, unlike those who attempt to malign him. Marvin only had a pistol inside his cab (affirmed by firefighters, distorted by Granby officials to make him appear like a madman) to end his own life. Marvin was nothing less than an honest, upright, highly skilled American who was destroyed by his tyrannical, greedy town. More and more Americans, if they care to review recent history, and glean from multiple sources, can learn the truth about all the lies leveled against Heemeyer. The NPOV should be removed immediately. This article is impartial because it only relied on good sources, not the liberal media.

60.107.63.177

Please sign your posts, and please provide some evidence for your claim. Russell 00:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I am from Russia and i wont say: god bless Marvin`s soul, very russian soul. Hi`s a hero for us - russian people.

The author is somewhat biased I will agree, but much of the article's bias IS because the subject and the information surrounding it are biased, there isn't really a lot to be said for views opposed to Heemeyer, because apparently nobody can agree on facts detracting from his actions. I belive some minor revision is in order, but I don't really think this article is "biased" or "poor". I think it's a decent article and that the author just needs to remove things that are opinionative in a few places. It doesn't merit the kind of harassment some people seem to be levying here. Note to the author and in general: It's alright to have an opinion, it's hard not to with any story, just don't write your opinion in. Perhaps find facts that support your opinions, but don't make inferences about others based on yourself and as much as you support your opinion, do your best to support those opposed to you if possible, because in the end it makes your own even more plausible by the fact it stands against opposing opinions in full strength. Nathaniel 13:43, 27 October 2005 (EST)

NPOV

"Some Americans now consider Marvin Heemeyer an American hero, believing that he sacrificed himself to promote American values, expose tyranny, and fight corruption, following the path of the American founding fathers."

Who believes this stuff? Is this a mainstream view, or even close to it? Is there some kind of reference we can see? I mean, following the path of the founding fathers? He wrecked a town out of a personal vendetta and then shot himself. Everyking 05:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

God Bless Marvin

Someday I will see you in that big welding factory in the sky, you are a hero to me and my children. Your single act of courage has inspired many across the globe to stand against corruption. You are missed...

NPOV, again

Well, I attempted to edit the new Corruption in Granby section to make it less POV and to actually correspond with the cited source. The quote of "everyone be glad he's gone" doesn't exist in the citation, for one, and the "turn it into something fun" statement is clearly speculation by the ABC affiliate source. There's also no citations to support the city's attempts to minimize what happened to this fellow -- besides the one, and one citation does not an argument make. In all fairness, I think the guy probably got a bad shake from a possibly corrupt small town, but the section I edited (and which was subsequently reverted by the editor who added it) is quite POV as it stands now, and I'm not going to bother with a revert war. As such, I'm tagging the section NPOV and adding some citation requests and dubious notes. --FreelanceWizard 04:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Give this guy a medal" amen!

After hearing the other reports making this guy out to be a monster, I'm glad some journalists came to thier senses. This guys life was torn apart by a bunch of scumbag buericrats. The same scum I have to deal with on a daily basis. Something simple, like getting a sewer permit, or putting up signs turns into a total nightmare when you have to deal with city council men and women. As far as I'm concerned those Jerks who ruined his life got off easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.96.154 (talk • contribs) 01:48, August 1, 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this is Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Free Republic can be found elsewhere. Thanks. --Calton | Talk 02:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what the forum, corruption is corruption. Kudos to 24.99.96.154. Ex-Nintendo Employee 03:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does matter. This is supposed to be an NPOV encyclopedia, not a right-wing wankfest. Free Republic? That way. Go wallow in it there. --Calton | Talk 13:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Given your rather vehement comments regarding this individual, it seems that you ought to look inward when trying to erase POV, rather than at this article. Ex-Nintendo Employee 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph ought to stay deleted:

However, after the event, rather than attempt any acknowledgement, the town of Granby has since gone to great lengths to dismiss any legitimacy towards his suffering and plight.

This is unsourced and POV. "Refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of his suffering" could easily be spun the other way as "putting this terrible occurance in the past".

Rather than using the occasion to consider or address the underlying issues of the act, the date of his death has become a "everyone be glad he's gone" celebration, with the town holding ice cream socials and "old fashioned baseball games", in an attempt to "turn it into something fun" [1].

According to the article cited, the celebrations are to commemorate the town's 100th anniversary. As far as we know, the connection between the two originated with ABC News. "Everyone be glad he's gone" is hardly encyclopedic language and is clearly a subjective interpretation.

-- Scott e^iπ 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Everything that you've stated is wrong. Granby HAS gone to great lengths to erase Heemeyer's influence; there have been literally thousands of dollars dumped to the town in order to eliminate what Heemeyer did but absolutely NO discussion onto why it happened. No inquiries, no discussion- it was completely buried. Secondly, the "event" being "an attempt to turn something tragic into something fun" is already properly cited and factual. Thirdly, Granby was founded a significant period of time before the date they've selected as the "100th celebration" day. Erasing the paragraph may "satisfy" you, but you're eliminating a legitimate part of Wikipedia. Ex-Nintendo Employee 22:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It Was The Mayor!

That explains a LOT about why the "town council" was trying to erase Heeymer. Turns out in a news report that the mayor was in the pocket of the very company that destroyed the man.

"Heemeyer's rampage, as press and news media have widely reported, was precipitated by a four year losing battle with the town council of Granby, who, despite widespread opposition from residents, altered town zoning codes and ordinances, to allow Mountain Park Concrete to build and operate a cement batch plant next to Heemeyer's muffler shop, a move which forced Heemeyer out of business due to the dust and pollution of the plant. Mayor Wang presided over most of the council's forceful actions"

"Many residents have been and still are contending that Wang and the Granby Town Council accepted bribes and payoffs from Mountain Park Concrete"

"At least two Granby residents have said, on the condition of anonymity, that Wang and council members have refused to acknowledge whether or not they have received any financial contributions to their election campaigns."

"It has been confirmed that Heemeyer does not have any criminal record, so it remains, "Why does the Colorado Bureau of Investigation have a file on Marvin Heemeyer? Is it for a concealed carry gun permit? Or, as some concerned citizens have said, 'Wang, the town council and certain Grand county authorities have created an 'enemies' list of the people who are politically outspoken and who have opposed various actions of the town council or the county commissioners."

The actions of the town council are a proven attempt to eliminate culpability for Mayor Wang's actions. http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-12405.html

Ex-Nintendo Employee 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The article only appears biased because (I would hope) the readers are biased against money grubbing pencil pushers with no sense of accountablity. Facts are facts, if the expression of those facts shine an unsavory light on the parties involved, there is a reason. Anyone who denies this man was wronged is delusional. The sad part is that the building were insured and the town got to upgrade. 68.227.242.182 22:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Simon

Free clue: "POV" means "point of view"; that is, a personal viewpoint you keep crowbarring in, no matter how much you rant, rave, and wave your hands about "reliable sources". Which you fail, anyways, since your direct source for your semi-libellous claims is ranting on some message forum that fails the Reliable sources standard by a wide margin, and the actual reliable source you employ as ass-covering supports none of the mud-slinging you attempt to insert.

Here, we have basic fact-checking and neutrality-of-presentation standards: your inability to understand this is not my problem, but your attempt to insert your opinion disguised as fact is, and will be reverted. --Calton | Talk 05:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to calm down. The edits clearly state that allegations of corruption have been levelled at the Mayor, which they have. The news report comes from a reporter at a site called NobsNews and did directly quote CBS in discounting the news reports from the other sources. I think Calton you really should do a little more than the surface skimming you've been doing. This isn't even the first time that the mayor has had allegations levelled against him- Martin Lindstedt (who was later a candidate for governor) made the same allegations of corruption against the Mayor and Town Council in 1998. I already had gone over the paragraph to erase any POV language that might be present in order to satisfy Wikipedia's policy. However, you can't just erase the entire paragraph itself, when it's a clearly factual text. The fact that the original source from NobsNews is now defunct doesn't make it any less. Ex-Nintendo Employee 07:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to calm down Riiight, you're just the person to giving out such advice.

The news report comes from a reporter at a site called NobsNews .. Free clue #2: not a reliable source -- or are you using some strange new meaning of "reliable source" missing from Wikipedia specifically and the English language in general?

I think Calton you really should do a little more than the surface skimming you've been doing. Ah, mind-reading. I think you ought to start using some reliable sources instead of Frootbat Message Forums: note that "research" entails looking for all verifiable facts, not just random stuff that confirms yor prejudices.

However, you can't just erase the entire paragraph itself, when it's a clearly factual text. If it's unsalvagable nonsense, of course I can. And "clearly" and "factual"? Two more words you seem to be having trouble with. Free clue #3: "clearly" does NOT mean "I really really believe it".

The fact that the original source from NobsNews is now defunct doesn't make it any less. See reference to ACTUAL meaning of "reliable source". A bad source claiming to base itself on a good source is still a bad source.

I already had gone over the paragraph to erase any POV language that might be present in order to satisfy Wikipedia's policy. NO, actually you haven't. That you think you have -- or think you have to do so merely to keep within the boundaries of rules about fairness and, so it seems, no further -- tells me that you really DON'T understand NPOV -- or the point of NPOV -- at all. --Calton | Talk 13:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Stop right there. Step back form the keyboard, keep you hands in sight.

OK, hurling insults is not going to solve anything. Let's get back to basics here: everything which is added to this article needs to be verifiable from reliable sources. Any statements made by individuals need to be attributed by name, and those individuals need to be of objectively provable authority. This person is dead but the officials named and alluded to are not, WP:LIVING applies. As long as everything is cited and supportable no problem, but uncited or poorly sourced information about living individuals should be removed immediately from the article, and its talk page, and this is explicitly exempt from WP:3RR.

Nothing should be added to the article at this point without consensus here, anything deleted which is critical of living individuals must not be reinserted without full and authoritative attribution, and you should as a matter of urgency get this into some dispute resolution process which will attract more eyes. Just zis Guy you know? 14:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on this article

Hi, I got here via the RFC process.

First of all, this article is a mess perhaps as a result of the POV edit warring. The "Background Information" section is not "background", it's an overview. As a result, you wind up reading about the rampage twice. The "Family and Friends" section could be named better. The "Rampage" section contains a couple of sentences that should be in a separate section. etc. etc. In general, the narrative is choppy and does not flow well at all.

Also, I have scanned the comments on this talk page briefly. It's clear that there are different POVs regarding whether Marvin was a criminal, a nutcase or a hero. However, as a result of the POV debate, none of these POVs are represented thus making one wonder whether Heemeyer was notable at all. The failure to discuss this issue severely impoverishes this article and diminishes its value as an encyclopedic article.

NPOV does not mean "No POV". It means "Neutral POV". This means that all significant POVs should be represented with a neutral tone.

In other words, you shouldn't say "Most normal people thought he was a nutcase but some idiots think he was a hero".

You should say something like ...

While the authorities sought to cast him as mentally and emotionally disturbed, there are a significant number of people locally and nationally who considered him to be a hero. As a result of televised news coverage, there arose a national debate over whether Heemeyer represented the "frustrations of the little guy contending against the implacable forces of government" as opposed to being just an irrational response to the normal operations of government. The debate continues to this day.

--Richard 18:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The heemeyer story

well i can see we arent all going to agree on this, but after reading a bit into this guy, after seeing a video from a news report on a site i regularly visit (gprime.net) i descided to research into him. From what witness accounts i could find, and friends and family views, it seems that this potrail of him and his actions are correct... but that doesnt mean this is not bias.

I... like the view portrayed here, it seems to make out that heemeyer was a hero, a decent guy fighting the power, something that probably made quite good TV over in America, and i bet you were all glued to your sets while it was on, tho i dont know if this is the REAL portrail of the man. Considering not much insight is given into his background here, i believe before we start editing orrr censoring what has allready been writtin, lets focus on gathering, and posting, as much information as can be obtained reliably.

Here comes the problem, what is classed as a reliable news source? please do not come to me with your naive opinions that main stream media is the gospel it proclaims itself to be, every news source must be under a certain level of doubt for authenticity, these are not machines writting these articles, presenting these shows or printing these papers, they are humans, fact is, and allways has been, a matter of opinion.

As in any instance, truth is the illusion we present ourselves when we believe we have an understanding.

In summery, i believe gathering the largest amount of available information on this subject should be established as our highest priority before any major or constested changes begin. Juno NH 21:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Has ANYONE found any reliable source stating that the people responsible for his murder (namely Mountain Park Concrete and the City Hall) weren't involved in corruption? No. Nothing at all. No one can even argue that this man wasn't destroyed by a greedy council. Hell, even the mayor was given money by Mountain Park Concrete. A most loyal town member was destroyed by greed and corruption, and that's the bottom line. That's why this article ought to remain the way it is. No sources are even needed to prove that Marvin is viewed as a hero. Back here in North Dakota, nine out of ten people who know Heemeyer or at least read about him say that they are proud he's from the state. There are internet forums dedicated to his valiant act, but none that degrade him.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.13.94 (talk • contribs)

All debating aside, this is probably the most blatant argument from ignorance I have ever seen. -- Scott e^iπ 01:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Extra ignorance points: the guy was from SOUTH Dakota, not North Dakota. --Calton | Talk 17:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten, copyedited, tweaked, removed the detailed bulldozer information as it's already in a separate article, inserted sourcing for information where possible, added new cited information, and removed the quotes from his brother and friend, which I couldn't find a source for. The stuff about his younger years/fiancee etc. still needs sourcing though. — ripley/talk 16:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We've also got a few different types of citation style operating in this article that should be cleaned up. I'm terrible about that sort of thing so I'll leave it to someone better at that sort of organization; at least the cites are there now for the most part. — ripley/talk 16:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Plan to Revert The Entire Article

The article in its current incarnation is significantly more disjointed and lacking in sources than its predecessors, as a result of a few people here who are singlymindedly trying to discredit and slander Marvin Heemeyer and the positive influence he has had toward Granby and America as a whole. The sections have no connection with each other, and critical information such as the corruption [has] been left out. Words such as "hurt his business" convey the impication that his business was only minorly damaged and could have survived the relentless onslaught brought about by unbelivably outrageous and blatant corrution. The motivation section makes it seem as if this hero got his motivation from God, but the two hour long tapes clearly show that his primary reason was anger at the destruction of the only thing the man loved in life- his Muffler Shop. This article has become a shame of this entire website due to all the "POVs" instigated by people who support corruption, Big Government, liberalism, and the unAmerican way. I am deeply disappointed by two people here in particular who I am even beginning to suspect may have ulterior motives to prevent the dissemination of facts. In all honesty, Marv was the definitive martyr for all Americans, the true American hero, and his loss is a massive loss for the culture, historical independence, and legacy of all Americans. The original article supported these facts under the cover of complete neutrality, and this neutrality has been ruined by people who have no sources but have mislead and misrepresented Marv. My plan is to go to the original version a week back and add every clear source for every single statement.

GOD BLESS MARVIN HEEMEYER, YOU ARE MY IDOL, THE CANDLE UNDER YOUR PICTURE IN MY ROOM WILL NEVER GO OUT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.207.49 (talk • contribs)

No, please don't do this. It will undoubtedly lead to an edit war and require dispute resolution. You are welcome to debate specific sentences and paragraphs but a wholesale reversion will not be acceptable. --Richard 20:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's really better if you don't. But I doubt it'll require dispute resolution; rather, it'll likely require a judicious report to the three revert rule noticeboard. Remember, editors who revert an article more than three times in a 24 hour period can be blocked temporarily. Also, please remember that what you say here gets disseminated far and wide -- don't make accusations about other peoples' characters that could be potentially libelous and place both you and Wikipedia in a compromised legal position. — ripley/talk 20:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes because libelous against a dead man doesnt really count as libelous. Juno NH 13:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the potential libel that E. Ripley is talking about is the claims of corruption on the part of the mayor of Granby who is still alive. --Richard 13:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. The anon poster above's screed included many potentially damaging claims about various people who are very much still part of this mortal plane. — ripley/talk 23:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Background" moved here

Because the "background" information has been sitting for a few days with no source, I'm moving it here to the talk page. If someone can find a source for the information, please do so and put it back in.

Heemeyer was born in South Dakota. He was described as an obedient, honest, and loving man. However, prior to his rampage, his family life was also falling apart. Heemeyer's father died in a South Dakota hospital on March 31, 2004. In May, Heemeyer traveled to Castlewood South Dakota, where he grew up, to help clean his father's house and get it ready for an auction scheduled for June 19. Heemeyer was also engaged to be married, but he called off the wedding when he caught his fiancee cheating.

— ripley/talk 21:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

First class

I've just got to say that I really enjoyed reading this talk page; it was very entertaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.17.211 (talk • contribs)

Glad to have you at Wikipedia. Have you tried editing some articles yet? It's a lot more fun than reading old talk pages. :) — ripley\^talk 13:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Marvin Heemeyer as folk hero to "some Americans"

User:Inshanee removed text that asserted that "millions of Americans" revere him as a hero. I agree that "millions" should be removed. The remaining question is whether mention of him as being deemed a hero by "some Americans" should be mentioned in the intro paragraph. My argument is that, were it not for this folk-hero status, Heemeyer would not be notable and so I believe this belongs in the intro to explain to the reader why he/she should bother reading about Heemeyer at all. Please note that the wording should be strictly NPOV. We are not saying that "Heemeyer" should be a folk hero nor should we say that he should not be a folk hero. All we are saying is that he IS a folk hero to SOME Americans. How many Americans is "SOME"? We don't know. We haven't seen a survey that attempts to determine the number.

--Richard 21:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the entire sentence is best left out. It's weaselly, hyperbolic, unsubstantiated and already addressed in a more proper fashion elsewhere in the article. — ripley\^talk 00:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What damage did Marvin do? Not enough, not enough for even an article if he was only notable for doing damage. Ray Nagin did more damage by cancelling a car scrapping deal that would have brought money to the city and signing another deal that would actually cost the city millions of dollars (50 or so million to be exact). And that man is still the mayor. Heemeyer is notable because he was a hero to millions of Americans. His singular act of bravery will persist long after his death, and has provided inspiration for millions of working men and women in the United States. No large agency has bothered to conduct a survey, since they dont want to stoke the rage of the government. They are all cowards, Marv is a hero and we have an annual celebration here to mark his nobel sacrifice.

--Marvin

Please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes in a row (like this: ~~~~ ) -- that will automatically fill out your username and a time and datestamp, which are important for keeping track of who said what when. Thanks. — ripley\^talk 19:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Marvin Heemeyer was greater than a hero, he was a martyr

Despite all the venom that has been thrown his way in the article, Marvin does fit every definition and sense of the word martyr. Instead of moving away and letting the town continue to falter under corruption, he took a stand against the town for years, and finally made one last valiant act after EVERY other option was exhausted. He is not only a hero, but a martyr. He stood up to for the middle class, and looking at his kind working-class face brings tears to my eyes. Marvin will live on, till eternity. His deeds will never be forgotten, but will only become more celebrated with every passing June 4. I think the article ought to reflect the admiration that Heemeyer has brought in all corners of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.84.160 (talk • contribs)

Please cite some reliable sources that provide evidence for your assertions. Magazine articles or newspaper articles that qualify as reliable sources will suffice. --Richard 23:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Marvin sacrificed his life and would rather fight and die than suffer under the tyranny of Ted Wang, the Concrete plant owners, and their minions. That makes him a martyr, a very noble one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.89.200 (talk • contribs)

Removed the video's again

On of the clips was set to heavy metal music in the form of a music video, and as such it was non encycplopedic. If I'm not mistaken, the guy in the bulldozer was eventually killed wasn't he? The second was a direct copy from some TV newsmagazine show (as was presumably the first which had heavy metal rather than the announcer's voice), and was a copyright violation (both were probably copyright violations). The video was interesting, I'll grant that but It doesn't qualify for inclusion in the form that it was in. Reading the talk page, it is obvious that there are two very different viewpoints here. Those who feel that heemeyer was the victim of corruption and whatnot, are going to need evidence (and sources) if they want to advance that claim. The concrete plant giving money to politicians isnt by itself evidence of corruption. The supreme court itself validated a town taking private land for business interests (a decision I disagree with intensely btw) but this goes toward whether their behaviour was unusual. If you want to say Heemeyer was justified, then you need real evidence. Going through town on a killdozer, is in itself, evidence that he snapped and had some sort of breakdown. In the end, I came here neither to praise heemeyer, nor to damn him. I am just fixing a copyright vio and inappropriate links. Caper13 17:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Caper13. I agree. Now that I understand your rationale, I'll feel on more solid ground in backing you up if the links to the videos are re-inserted.

--Richard 03:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Marvin is a hero!

Marvin was a hero! Only people like Marvin was protect the world from american "democracy" when government bureaucracy can do with people what they want. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.238.197.197 (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Correction. Martin was an hero.--Pewpewlazers 10:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Disposition of the bulldozer not precise

As I am knew to Wikipedia, I would like input on how to correct something in the article related to the disposition of the bulldozer. The article (and I'm paraphrasing) states that many wanted to turn the dozer into a tourist attraction but the "town" decided to have it dismantled, and cites a news article for the source. However, that is not really what happened. It was the decision of the District Attorney's Office to have the bulldozer destoryed under Colorado Law that allows condemnation of property that is used in a felony. The DA's office was never requested (nor would have entertained such a request) to allow it to be a tourist attraction. Under Colorado law, there were only two options 1) public auction to the highest bidder or 2) destroy it. The decision to condemn and destroy it was made by the elected DA the week following the incident, and the town was not involved in the decision (although they did support it). The cited source is simply inaccurate on that point, and quotes people who spoke out of turn. The reason I know this is because at the time, I was the Deputy District Attorney who filed the condemnation action in the District Court for Grand County. Obviously I can't put that in because as I understand original research policy here would prohibit it. Nonetheless, that point is simply incorrect and could mislead a reader into believing there was some issue about the disposition of the bulldozer. 70.243.159.119 03:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The source only says "several" people wanted to turn it into a tourist attraction. That could be three people out of the entire town. That doesnt translate to "many" but suspect that mentioning the ideas of 'several' people as opposed to the rest of the town gives undue weight WP:WEIGHT to that position, out of proportion to its actual influence. The way its written, it almost sounds like the wishes of a sizeable group were ignored by the town, and I suspect that was not the case, rather just a couple of people. Additionally, the source only makes casual mention of the fact that a few wanted to turn it into a tourist attraction. Casual mention in that case is fairly weak as a source other than to confirm at at least somoene wanted to do this, but it by no means proves a sizeable number did, and in that sense, doesnt support the assertion. If I was you, I would just edit the article yourself to reflect the true state of affairs, adding the information you have. If you were Deputy DA, you should know where to source the information you presented about the rules for disposition of property in these cases, even if the sources are not available on the web. That wouldnt be original research if you refer to the appropriate legal codes or guidelines. Thanks for adding your expertise to this article and I encourage you to edit the article yourself to correct any inaccuracies you find. Caper13 03:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll have to look up the exact section of Title 16 of the Colorado Revised Statutes that I relied on when I filed the papers, and then just simply edit the article to reflect that after the incident the DA's office filed the action. It's public record in the District Court now anyway. JimZDP 04:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Took me a while to get back to this, but changed the disposition of the bulldozer and the related weapons to accurately reflect what happened. Additionally, change an earlier section that stated one the buildings destroyed what the former mayor's, when actually it was the home owned by a former judge's widow. JimZDP 00:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of POV text

I have now twice reverted User:Paruta's POV edits. Other editors have also reverted similar edits.

It is inappropriate for this or any other Wikipedia article to characterize Marvin Heemeyer as a hero. If you have reliable sources that verify that some people think he was a hero, then that can be included in the article. If all you have is your own personal opinion, then that constitutes original research which also violates the Wikipedia NPOV policy.

Please stop this inappropriate POV-pushing.

--Richard 17:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a source that says Heemeyer is a folk hero. It's a pretty good source, at least in my opinion. I think you would agree with my source, too. At least, most people do... What is my source, you ask?

Why, it's you.

Ex-Nintendo Employee 18:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Good try. Wikipedia is not acceptable as a reliable source. BTW, I defended keeping Heemeyer in the Folk hero article some time ago. Check the talk page. You bring up a good point. There is currently no reliable source cited justifying his inclusion in that list. Perhaps you would like to find one so that we can justify keeping his name in that list. --Richard 18:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My my, so you wouldn't consider yourself to be a reliable source? What about the Boston Globe source that you so eloquently put forth? It would seem to me, my good man, that if Heemeyer is indeed appropriately placed on the Folk hero page here, especially with the references you provided, that it makes quite the case to consider him a folk hero. As you yourself said before, "he fits many of the characteristics of a folk hero". Care to continue arguing with yourself? Either he is, or he isn't, and his mention on the folk hero page might seem to indeed be tied as to whether or not THIS page can maintain calling him one. Ex-Nintendo Employee 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

OK, you got me. I forgot that the Boston Globe article mentioned Heemeyer's status as a folk hero. That one line is a slim support but it is a reliable source. The Boston Globe article should be added as a citation to support Heemeyer's inclusion in the Folk hero article. That will help defend against the next person who wants to remove him.

To answer your first question: No, I do not consider myself a reliable source. I have published (alas!) darn little and thus cannot be considered a reliable source on very much.

To address your last point: No, absolutely not. No assertion on a Wikipedia page can be used as firm support for any assertion on another Wikipedia page unless the first is adequately supported with citations to a reliable source. Heemeyer's entry on the Folk hero page fails this test but you can fix it by adding a citation to the Boston Globe article above.

--Richard 18:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you have convinced me. I would support removing Heemeyer from the Folk Hero page, or at least modifying the entry to indicate that his support for folk hero status is a fringe opinion. Caper13 18:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I agree. We can make the appropriate changes here and in the Folk hero article. --Richard 18:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it help those of you who want the "Folk Hero" tag on this incident to know:

1) Yes, Heemeyer got screwed by the government (although it was all legal); 2) When he hit the Granby Town Hall, at the time, it was connected to the Granby Library - which at the time was conducting a kindergarten and elementary school reading hour, fortunately they got the kids out before anybody was hurt; 3) One of the homes he wrecked was not the home of a "former mayor" (I've corrected that), but the home of an elderly (80 yrs+) judge's widow and her daughter, who ruled adversely to him in his cases against the county and town (fortunately they weren't there); 4) He hit the newspaper offices. That was related to the position that they took opposing bringing casinos into Grand County, which was an intiative of his that many in that tourist community opposed (I think there is something about that in the 1st Amend, but I'd have to check); 5) He fired a .50 caliber into giant propane tanks, which, thanks to great mountain ventilation, did not explode and kill a lot of people.

I point these thing out, not to demonize Heemeyer or open a debate on his actions, but to illustrate how stating that Heemeyer is a "folk hero" does NOT improve the article, because there is much evidence to the contrary. My understanding of Wiki is that it describes and illustrates the topic in as neutral a point as possible. I'm new, I could be wrong JimZDP 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your points are irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is a folk hero. To be precise, your points may be factual and might be worth including in the article if they can be verified and cited to a reliable source. However, your argument is about whether or not he SHOULD be a folk hero. I think the vast majority of people do NOT consider him a folk hero. However, there is a minority of people who DO consider him a folk hero. A Google on "Marvin Heemeyer" will yield a crop of websites that memorialize him and his "noble sacrifice". In characterizing him as a "folk hero to some", we are not trying to say that he SHOULD be a folk hero but rather that he IS a folk hero to "some". We're not sure how many "some" is but I feel confident that it is more than 10 and probably more than a few hundred. If nothing else, his status as a folk hero is an Internet "meme". --Richard 06:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct when you say that the argument is whether or not he should be a folk hero, and I was simply pointing out that there are many reasons NOT to consider him a folk hero; thus it's better for the article to stay away from that. Everthing I stated can be verified by Grand County SO reports and court filings.

No, you misunderstood me. I meant that "YOUR argument is about whether or not he should be a folk hero". That should not be the role of Wikipedia here. The fact is... Heemeyer is NOT a folk hero in most people's eyes. As far as I can tell, he is only a folk hero in the eyes of a few.

I'm OK to add in more information about why he should not be a folk hero. You make some important points and I've seen most of those before. If you can source the points, add them in. However, the tone of the article (IMHO) should be "this is what he did... some people (not necessarily a lot) consider him a folk hero...you, the reader, make up your own mind" --Richard 08:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We could end up with a "he's a folk hero because of this" and "he's not a folk hero because of that" and then the article would distract from what happened. As I understand Wiki, and I admit I'm new to this, that shouldn't be the purpose of the article. In all fairness, I can see why he did what he did, and at the same time argue he shouldn't have done it that way. Perhaps the page would be better if we did expand it in such a fashion, and put it into the context of eminant domain, government abuse, etc. If you're willing to flesh it out that way, I will certainly be glad to participate.

No, I agree that the sort of "back and forth" argument that you describe above is the kind of thing that belongs in a Wikipedia article. It makes for very difficult reading.

I think we have to ask "Why are Heemeyer's actions notable enough to be documented in Wikipedia?" Do we really want to document every example of somebody getting a screw loose, going off the deep end and committing heinous acts? There was a news story some years back about a truck driver who got road rage and started using his 18-wheeler as a weapon on the highway. Is that story in Wikipeida? (It could be... I don't know).

I think Heemeyer's actions were notable because his actions were a spectacular example of someone coming unhinged on nationwide TV. However, the details around his particular situation also fueled a certain admiration among people who made him a folk hero. Note that the article does not say that Heemeyer is or should be a folk hero. It says that Heemeyer is a folk hero to some people. Except that it would be a POV statement, I would change it to say "Heemeyer is a folk hero to some anti-government libertarian nutcases." But I can't do that so I left it the way it currently is written. If you hang around this article for a while, you will see people come in and try to make a case for Heemeyer being a hero, not just to some but "a hero", plain and simple. In contrast to those edits, "a folk hero to some" is meant as an NPOV compromise.

--Richard 08:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

With that background, your point makes very good sense, and is a reasonable compromise. As I said, I'm new to Wiki, and hoped to contribute something. I don't mind getting into it with a drvie-by vandal, but you seem to have worked it out, so I'll step back. If you would like to expand this article as I suggested above, I would be glad to work on it as well. 69.155.30.148 09:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to log in and sign correctly JimZDP 09:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It takes nothing more than a search online to determine how Americans feel about their great hero. 00:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed pointless comment about Heemeyer's Health

The sentence stated that some speculated that Heemeyer had a terminal disease, but his autopsy showed good health. The statement does not really contribute to the article. There was a lot of "speculation" about what happened. But that sentence was about as helpful as "Some speculated that Heemeyer didn't clip his toenails that day, but a careful examination of his feet reveals he did." All it does is stray a reader from what happened that day. JimZDP 02:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The speculation about Heemeyer having a terminal disease ran to an argument that he was suicidal since he had "nothing to lose". The text that you removed debunked that speculation. I don't feel that debunking the speculation was critical to the article but it was much different from "clipping his toenails". --Richard 06:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but it overlooks the fact that he 1) didn't have a terminal disease and 2) he spent 18 months doing some VERY HEAVY lifting to turn the 'dozer into a tank (pretty unusual type of work for somebody who is terminally ill). There were all kinds of rumours about the man, most of them nothing more than guesses by people who knew nothing about the matter. I didn't believe it really added anything, but I'm not married to it, so if you believe that piece of gossip is somehow more worthy than all the other gossip than put it back it. It's not inaccuate, I just believed it to be gratuitous. JimZDP 07:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Heemeyer is a hero

There are many sources. 5 of the first ten top Heemeyer sites agree,