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. The man is an idiot. 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)