Talk:Boulder, Colorado

Untitled

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

City Leadership

I updated the Mayor and Deputy Mayor as they just changed. I am wondering if it is really necessary and notable to have the "town meeting moderator" listed? I don't believe that it is a big deal either way however I can't find any mention of a Daniel Howard on the City of Boulder website. I left him on there in case I am missing something but if not maybe it should be removed. --Samuronin (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Needs 'Criticism' Section

Surely Boulder is big enough to handle some of that.

66.227.84.101 (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Topic for Criticism Section: Mistreatment of People with Mental Illness in Boulder Due To Overzealous Public Safety Efforts

Here's a criticism for you (that is missing from the article)--

Boulder, in its zeal to become a "safe city for women and children", has created a systemic atmosphere of hysteria directed towards people with mental illness.

By succumbing to a 'safety crusader' mentality, people with visible or known mental illness in Boulder and Boulder County have been subjected to widespread patterns of discrimination in housing, employment and in some cases, social services because little effort is made in Boulder to understand that the vast majority of people with mental illness are harmless.

This problem in Boulder pits the more strident wing of the local feminist community against a lot of innocent people (especially disabled Men but also some Women who also have been victimized by these public safety campaigns), the University of Colorado at Boulder being a particularly notable seat of systemic and aggressive safety hysteria in the City.

Violence against Women is a serious problem worthy of serious attention, as is Boulder City and CU campus safety in general. It is certainly a real problem that needs to be responsibly addressed. But very few among the Boulder "safety first crowd" ever bother to learn the equally important facts about the extremely low incidence of violence or other offense patterns in the disabled/mentally ill population, not to mention the importance of discerning the difference between the vast majority of people with mental illness who are safe and the comparatively tiny percentage of people who are dangerous.

Guess who almost always loses in these situations-- not the highly organized and intellectually impermeable "safety crusader" set in Boulder, including some overzealous professionals. No, its the easily isolated, easily targeted and easily marginalized mentally ill population that is being methodically and in some cases very righteously driven out of housing and employment in Boulder County who pay the real price.

Sadly, Boulder being seen as a "cutting edge trend setter" in some quarters, has inspired these over-reactive and discriminatory practices to be copied by other Colorado municipalities with the accompanying hysteria spreading beyond the 'progressive community' in Boulder, available to be employed by anyone in Colorado who doesn't want to bother to understand mental illness better.

I am going to add some source articles on this topic to help develop a sub-section for this under 'Criticisms':

Here is the first source article that could be drawn from (I will have to list more articles as time allows)--

Article on Lawsuit in Boulder along these lines (Click link to see): http://www.gardlawfirm.com/article_BHA.html

Sean7phil (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What about the Plutonium bombs?

I am a bit suprised that the former bomb assembly and the radioactively irridated area of the former factory is mentioned nowhere?! as far as i know every plutonium bomb trigger ever built in the us was assembled there. also the billions of damages boulder got in proceedings.

That wasn't in Boulder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.128.45 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Its Rocky Flats and they did at the very bottom it is now Rocky Flats National Wildlife refuge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.98.178 (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hack Job

Whoever this "Junky" guy is who's going through deleting massive sections of the article without first discussing them, cut that out! If you feel the article is too long, please discuss what you'd like to remove instead of just removing the contributions of dozens of people from the article without asking. What you have done is extremely rude and borderline destructive , and if you keep it up, I'll get moderators involved. Joegoodbud 08:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, chill out and remember to assume good faith. Junky was just being bold in cutting back what really is a bloated article. — Laura Scudder ☎ 09:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is insanely bloated with needless trivia and minor events. I felt like I was being generous with what was left in, it probably needs pruning beyond its current state. Do you honestly think a two second shot of a church in Boulder in About Schmidt is encyclopedia worthy? And the address of the house used for exterior shots on Mork & Mindy? Or precisely which minor celebrity attends a minor conference? Give me a break. The article is severely bloated and packed full of needless info. --Junky 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, among other things, you deleted Happy Thursday. I found out about Happy Thursday through Wikipedia and I've participated in it ever since. You justify it as:

I've participated in Happy Thursday, but it's a minor event that's not even held every week. It's not noteworthy enough to be in an encyclopedia. I could name a half dozen weekly frat parties and a weekly poker game that draw more participants, but these aren't encyclopedic either. Fringe events shouldn't be in, it's not culturally relevant at all unlike Kinetics or the Bolder Boulder. --Junky 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just your opinion, and there may be more people like me who didn't know about Happy Thursday until reading about it in Wikipedia. It's part of Boulder's culture, and who are you to say what events are too insignificant to share with the world? I don't mind you pruning the movie and TV crap, but it sounds like you have an overly zealous view of what's important that many don't agree with. Please, just discuss that sort of thing here before deleting rather than afterward. Joegoodbud 06:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Junky, I politely asked you to discuss the sort of massive deletions before making them, yet you immediately deleted a large about of content I reverted! What is up with you? If you persist in this sort of behavior, I will report you to my friends in the anti-vandalism group. It is my opinion that you are vandalizing the article. Joegoodbud 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

69.41.144.205 19:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)I feel the same way about what Junky did to the rioting section. It was valuable, accurate, and pointed to a real problem in Boulder. But, Junky is being a troll and discarding anything that he does not like.

Yes, the address of the house used for exterior shots on Mork & Mindy is encyclopedia worthy. Mork & Mindy is one of the most common associations that people around the U.S. have with Boulder. Centromere (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Centromere

Transportation

Edited the Transportation section to correct errors about bus system.

Dash, Skip, Jump, Stampede, and Bound are all owned by RTD and operated by First Transit. The original entry had included several of these routes with the Hop as being operated by Go Boulder.

• Regardless, those routes are an important and integral part of Boulder transportation, and are very popular and prominent. I've put them back in, but left their managerial details unspoken-for. Feel free to add details about who operates/owns them but do not remove them. Thanks! --The silentist 06:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I know this isn't vital information to get right, but technically, the RTD now partly funds the Hop, and the University of Colorado Student Union has long been a financial partner in it. In fact, they apparently pay for all of the Night Hop service [1], which explains its existence as late night buses never serve enough people to get tax money. Also, I know the Bolt is operated by RTD, but the other routes are not. So somehow we need to word this more generally because each bus route was a totally seperate creation and negotiation, with financing and operation varying accordingly. --Laura Scudder | Talk 18:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The link for the advocacy group for restoring streetcars goes to a patio furnature website and not where it is supposed to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.245.16 (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Funding and Operation

I originally added the statement about GO Boulder's management and funding, which I based on information I got from the bus driver. To clarify regarding the Hop and GO Boulder's lack of commercial advertising, I emailed the city and here's what I got:

From: Cris Jones

Hi Ken,

The HOP is operated by a non-profit organization called Special Transit (www.specialtransit.org). The service is paid for through a partnership between RTD, CU, and the city of Boulder. RTD passes are accepted on all the named bus routes. Interior advertisements on all buses beside the HOP are handled by RTD's advertising contractor Lamar Advertising. We do not provide interior ad space on the HOP route for anything other than non-profit organizations.

Does this answer your questions?

Thank you!

Cris Jones

I was asking specifically about how funding works for The HOP and why GO Boulder buses don't have any commercial advertisements, as I wasn't aware at the time that other points of fact were in dispute.

- Ken

Notable people

According to nobelprize.org, no person named "Joel" or "Button" ever won an award, so I'm removing that name.

The best known Charles Boettcher (unambiguously called "Charles … III" in one source) was born in Germany (1852); his grandson Charles Boettcher (called by one source "Charles … II") was born in Denver (1901). Claudius Kedzie Boettcher (son of the German-born Charles and father of the Denver-born Charles) was born in Boulder (1875). Another source says "Charles … III" owned the Denver Falcons ice hockey team in 1950; German Charles died in 1952, so this may be him, the grandson, or a third Charles. Anyway I'm removing Charles Boettcher from this section because of all the uncertainty.

I'm also removing the years, since it's not obvious what they mean (they're not all dates of birth).

—Fleminra 23:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"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.

Happy Thursday

One of the tenets of the wikipedia as I understand it is no orginal research. Are there sources for the Happy Thursday section, particularly for the 250 figure?

A different anonymous user removed Happy Thursday completely. I put it back. While I think it's silly and even annoying--the event, that is--it's part of Boulder's culture. I created a new section though, called Amusements, since Happy Thursday seems not to be about transportation but about fun with an undercurrent of anti-authoritarianism.

I was glad to see that earlier in the day the advertisement for the Bar dropped out of this item. This item could still use a source, though. I'm not sure that Happy Thursday happens are regularly as the authors want everyone to think.

I've participated in Happy Thursday, but it's a minor event that's not even held every week. It's not noteworthy enough to be in an encyclopedia. I could name a half dozen weekly frat parties and a weekly poker game that draw more participants, but these aren't encyclopedic either. Fringe events shouldn't be in, it's not culturally relevant at all unlike Kinetics or the Bolder Boulder. --Junky 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Junky, your comparison of Happy Thursday to a frat party is insulting, as are your repeated deletions. I will continue to revert any deletions of this subject you make, as they are clearly hostile in nature. I'm sorry, in your case, I simply can't assume good faith as you clearly have an agenda to push by the various sections you have deleted from your article and from your deletion log, it's clear people agree with me.

Were it not for the Wikipedia entry on Happy Thursday, I would never have found out about the event, and it has since become a weekly ritual for me. In that respect I consider the entry in Wikipedia to be a useful resource for people such as myself, and I am frankly outraged at your attempts to remove it. Your edits to the article as a whole have sought to remove things which you are not personally interested in, but again, your views are not reflective of the majority of Boulderites, or what they wish the article on Boulder to be. Cut it out! Joegoodbud 03:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's super that you found out about it that way and have become a fan, but it's still a minor event that's not encycopedia-worthy. But I see that you are a participant and now understand why you want more recognition for this minor event. I'm not sure why you find a frat party comparison insulting, but the point stands. There are several weekly activities with more participants and more cultural value than Happy Thursday, and it's not even close be being able to be called a Boulder tradition on par with something like Kinetics.--Junky 18:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Far more people have been involved in riots on the Hill than with Happy Thursday. Plus, the Daily Camera just announced the other day that Happy Thursday is over for the year. So, the paragraph was not only trivial but wrong, too.

Yep, sounds like it's over, possibly for good. I hope that settles this silly revert war. --Junky 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

junky, when was the last time you saw a frat party mentioned in a nationally syndicated magazine? there are two articles showing that the event has received media attention, both locally and nationwide. it seems pretty obvious a lot of people want the cruiser ride mentioned in the wikipedia article, and so far the only person who seems to think it should be deleted is you. 71.212.128.102 07:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the media attention it's received alone make it notable. Junky, you're using a newspaper article to justify its non-notability? Doesn't that seem a little hypocritical to you? Sure the Cruiser Ride doesn't compare to Kinetics, but Kinetics happens once a year while the Cruiser Ride is a weekly event. In the end, Junky, I don't buy your arguments 24.8.179.172 23:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Cruiser Ride is noteworthy because it's a weekly event which has received media attention from a number of different outlets, including a nationally syndicated magazine. Furthermore, besides Junky I have not heard anyone else express that it is non-notable. I believe it should stay. Tarcieri 02:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a small event done by a handful of people craving attention. If this is encyclopedia material then so is my annual chili cookoff and pool party.

Topics Needed

There's nothing in this piece about the Bolder Boulder, Jon Benet Ramsey, the fabulous weather, or about the high-quality athleticism of Boulderites. Anyone care to add these?

JonBenet in University Hill.

THe Ramsey house is in the University Hill neighborhood. How can anyone deny that?

See: http://www.co.boulder.co.us/assessor/asrproprecords/assess_propdesc.asp?accountno=R0005995&uniq_acctno=1&occ=1

---

According to the city's couch ban, the hill's boundaries are Baseline, Nineth, and Broadway. However I don't think saying "was murdered in" is good form, as the case is unsolved and where she was murdered is speculation, even if it's what most likely happened. I did say their home was in University Hill and gave the appraisal you link to. Ken

That's utter B.S. She was murdered. She was murdered in her house. Her house was on University Hill. Who is this guy who is sitting on this page like a troll? Do you think she was not murdered?

---

Of course she was murdered, but where she was murdered isn't known. Do you have any specific objections to how it currently reads? Also, please assume good faith and be nice. :) Ken 19:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Economy

The economy section could use expansion. For example, I think I've heard the percentage of government workers is remarkably higher, and there could be some history of economic events -- the real estate collapse in the early 80s, IBM's arrival, Access Graphics and downtown, etc. Ken 19:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the curent article about Boulder is full of irrelevant baloney, and seriously lacking in information about important things like the economy - important things about where people get their jobs and earn their money, and major economic movements like the arrival and/or departure of major companies. When did Boulder obtain electric power, and what is the electric power company now? It is amazing how many important things are taken for granted in Boulder, but people do pay attention to some Japanese-Korean-Taiwanese tea house, or something like that.

There is no mention of whether Boulder has a hospital, or ever has had one.

I also noticed that there is absolutely no mention of telecommunications in Boulder - nothing about radio and TV stations (or where signals might come from other cities). Nothing about when the telegraph system and the telephone system reached Boulder, and nothing about what the telephone company is or was, and nothing about CATV.

There is nothing about any other highways besides US-36. A reader could deduce that there isn't any way into or out of Boulder besides that one highway. Nothing about inter-city bus service. Nothing at all about any airport(s) in the area. Nothing about the cessation of railroad passenger service to/from Boulder. I am sure that there isn't any now, and the closest passenger railroad service is via AMTRAK in Denver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.52.117 (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Structure

Current events seem to be distributed throughout the article. Should these be grouped? Where do you draw the line between history, politics, and current events? Ken 19:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Good Faith

You ask for good faith, Ken, but here's what is not good faith about your insistent editing. You eliminated some vandalism about goats. That's fine and thank you. But then you also take out a legitimate argument contra your own, namely the argument that Wayne Laugesen and others have made regarding Boulder's alleged liberalism. The argument, put simply, is that Boulder's liberalism masks an exclusionary racism that has served to exclude people of color from Boulder. I know that some of the law professors at CU--Delgado I think his name is--have written about this too. So, Boulder may be an enclave of white liberalism that (here's the flip side) makes people of color feel unwelcome and thereby excludes them.

You might also read Jon Caldara's argument that people move to Boulder in spite of its liberalism.

I believe that you have repeated this pattern often--you fix vandalism and then at the same time take out an argument that you do not agree with. That's passive aggressive, it seems to me.

Likewise, the stuff that you have said about University Hill has been maddening. First you denied that the police had been called to the Hill more than three times or so in the past ten years. You were shown to be wrong. Then you denied that there had been more than two riots. Wrong again. Then you switched to denying that the riots were riots. That's wrong again. Then you said that the Ramsey house was not on the Hill. Wrong again. Then you switched to saying that we don't know just where the murder took place but once you faced the assessor's record that says "University Hill" then you finally capitulated to the truth of the matter. I think you also said that there can't be a district within a neighborhood; well, University Hill is mostly residential and has a commercial strip (district?) on 13th.

Waiting for an official record to confirm that the Ramsey House was on the Hill might be fine if you were consistent in that approach. But, take a look at Happy Thursday. You have never provided any sort of source that Happy Thursday is a real event. And the other day, you elevated it from an amusement to a tradition. If I edited like you, then I'd delete that every single morning. But, Ken, I am assuming good faith with regard to the existence of "Happy Thursday." I'd like you to start assuming good faith with regard to arguments that are not quite as sanguine as yours regarding Boulder's "liberalism." I suspect that the vandals are frustrated by your domineering POV, and I think that if you showed more good faith, the vandalism would likely decline.

---

Anon.

Well, I'm not entirely sure Laugesen's theory about the purpose of Boulder's green belt being racially motivated is worthy of inclusion in an ecyclopedia, but you're right -- it wasn't vandalism and I should have taken that up on the talk page.

As for the rest of this. Please understand that, (1) I'm not the only person who edits this page, (2) from my (and others') point of view, you sometimes are using Wikipedia as a soapbox, and (3) some (not all) of your edits have not sourced material. For example, the hill being a "scene of multiple rapes, murders," etc. By comparison, Denver doesn't have paragraphs about crime on Colfax Avenue (and for that matter, neither does the main article on that street.)

I added a source for Happy Thursday and renamed it to Traditions because I'm not sure 10k race is an "amusement". I'm not sure why that's controversial. As for the Ramsey House -- it is closer to Chautauqua than the hill, but point taken. Ken 18:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ken:

That all seems reasonable. One small point--There seem to be several anons. editing the page. I'm just one of them, and I'm not the author of bicycling goats and hill murders etc. But, I can see why the anons. merge into one big Anon. That's perfectly understandable.  :-)

Ok, I'm glad we could work things out. I take it you're somewhat satisfied with the current content? As for the content of hate crimes at CU -- I commented on the Talk:University of Colorado at Boulder page. I also think that because Laugesen's article was on the same topic as the Rocky Mountain News one below ("White Flight"), it should be moved there. Do you have any objection to that?

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.

Race

The part that says "However, the more affordable communities surrounding Boulder, such as Longmont and Louisville, are actually less diverse than Boulder" is a bit misleading. If you click on the link for Longmont, Colorado you can see that it is more diverse than Boulder in that it is 84.76% white whereas Boulder, Colorado is 88.33% white (according to the wikipedia articles). Also, if you examine other surrounding communities such as Westminster, Colorado (84.19% white) or Superior, Colorado (86.84% white) you will find them more diverse. It seems like this portion of the article is more opinion than fact as the evidence doesn't back it up.

Yeah, that isn't accurate on Longmont, although it is for Louisville. According to the US Geological Survey, Boulder's closest neighbors are, in those order: (I'm excluding little mountain towns like Ward and James Town, because they while close, are separated by mountains and not really part of Denver-metro.)

• Eldorado Springs, Colorado - 94% white (probably less affordable, however)
• Louisville, Colorado - 91% white (affordability arguable -- cheaper houses, but fewer low-income opportunities)
• Niwot, Colorado - 95% white (sort-of an affordable area of Boulder)
• Lafayette, Colorado - 86% white (more affordable and more diverse)
• Broomfield, Colorado - 89% white (more affordable and less diverse)
• Longmont, Colorado - 85% white
• Erie, Colorado - 90% white

The big deficit in Boulder's population is the African-American block. Compared to the national average of about 12%, Boulder's 1% is quite low. Longmont, however, actually has even fewer African-Americans at about one half of one percent, which was the reason for my comparison.

I move that we take out the paragraph about Wayne's gentrification theory. If there's a more credible source that actually includes some studies, maybe that should be included. Ken 19:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly fair to compare towns like Eldorado Springs (pop. 557, not a town but a census designated area), Niwot (pop. 4160) and Erie (pop. 6291) to Boulder. Louisville (18,937) and Lafayette (23,197) are larger but nowhere near the size of Boulder (94,673). Broomfield is larger at 38,272 but very close in terms of diversity (discrepancy of 0.3% white people ... it's misleading when you round up) These places may be geographically close, but are essentially hamlets and suburbs. The best comparisons for race need to have size accounted for. Some better comparisons might include Thornton (pop. 82,384; 82.71% white), the previously mentioned Longmont (pop. 71,093; 84.76% white), and Westminster (pop. 100,940; 84.19% white). You can't just define "diversity" to mean "African-American." Diversity means variety of cultural/racial backgrounds. Now I realize all these numbers and statistics are bordering on original research, but that was my point to begin with. Commenting on the diversity of some areas over others using self-determined criteria and self-conducted demographic research constitutes "original research." There may in fact be a valid point at the root of it all; however, you really need to cite a source of some sort to support your claims. -S

This cached Denver Post article by Cindy Rodriguez has some information that sounds more credible than Laugesen. See: http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:3TjmD-yX6JYJ:www.denverpost.com/rodriguez/ci_3436977+denver+post+pseudo+liberal&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&lr=lang_en

Someone in the school of education has just written a Ph.D. dissertation about the race and liberal university towns. Maybe that person would come edit the page a bit?

That article has expired from Google's cache.

Umm, no it hasn't.

I cleaned up the Race and Ethnicity section, though I'm not really all that satisfied about it. It's not very encyclopedic. What is the nature of the Hispanic community in Boulder? Is it poor? Is it "ghettoized" into a particular area of the city? What is the racial history of the city?

These 2005 incidents don't seem all that historic, either. I would really like to see a solid, concise summary of the current racial/ethnic environment of Boulder and a brief historical survey of incidents. --D Wilbanks 18:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Teahouse

The article lists the Dushanbe Teahouse as being completed in 1990, but it hadn't put together (and they were still arguing about siting) when I graduated from CU in 1994. Anyone know when it actually opened? --D Wilbanks 18:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's probably confusion over opened vs when it was donated. I'll look into that. Ken 04:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The Teahouse is open and running see http://boulderteahouse.com . The Teahouse opened for business in 1997. CheyenneWills 03:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Prairie dogs

Wikipedia is not the place for activism, nor for distributing personal contact info for politicians interspersed with political rants.

I would suggest removing the sentence: "However, the city has recently begun a controversial and experimental program which allows elementary school children to hit the prairie dogs with hammers in a "whack-a-mole" style extermination." since it is probably not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.90.3 (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Pumpkin run

The Pumpkin run is a minor event in which maybe half a dozen people participate and hasn't even been held consistently, not even as noteworthy as an annual frat party. It's nowhere near relevant enough to go in here, and the article keeps growing with extraneous info and being vandalized. It should stay out unless this ever becomes a notable event. --Junky 17:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My, aren't we opinionated on Boulder

Does any other city article on Wikipedia contain multiple accusations that the city is full of racists?

The article on Drew, Mississippi, does not mention Emmett Till or any racial difficulties, nor does the article on Sunflower County, Mississippi. In the article on New York City, why are we told nothing of Bernard Goetz or Howard Beach? Even in the article on Sandpoint, Idaho, we see only a passing reference to the murderers of Alan Berg -- gosh, it's a shame people think of Neo-Nazis when they think of Sandpoint, Idaho.

Surely, with an article like this one, Boulder must be the most racist city on earth.

Does any other city article on Wikipedia contain multiple paragraphs characterizing the residents of the city as lawless?

In the article on Bogota, Colombia, there is not even one such remark. The article on Medellin contains only a passing reference -- gosh, it's a shame people think of cocaine when they think of Medellin; things are better now, of course. The articles on Las Vegas and New York City contains no mention of the mafia or organized crime; the article on Chicago also does not mention the mafia and contains only a passing reference to gangsters. The article on Denver contains no hint of any crime problems. Even the article on Colfax Avenue contains only the usual passing reference -- gosh, it's a shame people think of prostitution when they think of Colfax Avenue; things are better now, of course.

Surely, with an article like this one, Boulder must be the most lawless city on earth.

The article on Boulder contains multiple links to newspaper editorials by Wayne Laugesen, a man who has made his living by bashing the city, often in tongue-in-cheek fashion. Why are these rantings relevant to an encyclopedia entry? Do any other city articles contain comparable references?

Just how much vitriol regarding the character of a city can be crammed into one city article in Wikipedia?

Does Neutral Point of View mean anything, or is it an utter joke?

Paul 13:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right Paul, the bizarre political/bashing nature of this article is out of control and needs to be cut out. --Junky 16:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

~~The riot section is a very useful one. During the spring and summer, unsuspecting out-of-staters buy houses on University Hill and then discover just how out-of-control CU students are during the school year. An encyclopedia article that includes an honest section about the riots might prevent the tension that occurs when people discover to their horror that they just bought a $500,000 house in a riot zone. Plus, does any other city have as many riots as Boulder? There's a whole wikipedia section on riots.

There have been two "riots" in its entire history, and I doubt dozens of tourists buy houses on a whim that then get burned down in the waves riots that you seem to think happen every year. It's so far from being the city with the most riots that I think maybe you're just trying to be funny. Riots should stay out. Are you a UHNA member trying to push an agenda or something? --Junky 19:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the wikipedia article on Riots, together with some of the examples cited. By the standards represented by that article and by comparison with the examples, the city of Boulder has never had a riot. Using the term much more loosely, the University Hill commercial/fraternity neighborhood has had (just as Junky remarked) two riots in the last 12 years, plus one or two more during the Vietnam War era. Boulder has never had a riot, by any stretch of the meaning of the word, in a residential neighborhood, not even in the residential portion of University Hill.

It is easy for newspaper hyperbole to be mistaken for solid information. When drunken frat boys haul a couch into the street and set it on fire, that is not a pleasant event, but it's not particularly noteworthy either. Paul 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

~~Paul and Junky. I think what you mean to say is that because the rioters where white students, they were not really riots. Isn't there a Wikipedia article on student riots? You're like Ward Churchill. You put aside truths that are inconvenient to you. Boulder's students have have several recent 1000+ riots as well as a host of riots with hundreds of students. But, you think they are little campfires with couches. A critical look at race at riots might turn this piece into something other than a fantasy puff And Junky, I'm in Pasadena, what'a UHNA?

~~Didn't we go through this a few months back? [kkinder] made the same arguments but when presented with facts about the riots, he relented. Now come some new trolls to sit on the page and shape it with their own POV, namely that Boulder has no race issue worth talking about and that CU students don't riot. Sheesh. What is this--the Chamber of Commerce article about Boulder?

Once again, what other city article contains similar material about "riots" and "hate crimes"? This material is utterly out of place. Yes, there is a Wikipedia article on student riots. I cannot stand Chamber of Commerce material either, but there is no reason to post one's baseless fantasies here about the supposed evil of a city. Check the articles on Denver, Fort Collins, Longmont, Greeley, Atlanta, Chicago, New York City, etc. -- show me where they have something comparable and I will relent.Paul 05:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

~~Check the Madison, WI entry for a long discussion of its party culture. Or check the entry for Los Angeles, which does not shy from mention of riots there. Having watched a couple of 1,000+ person riots on the Hill, I don't know what you mean by "baseless fantasies."

You're going to need to demonstrate that there has been even one riot in Boulder in the past ten years according to the definition of "riot", not by your anecdote and made up criteria. --Junky 20:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

~~Junky, my friend, start here: http://web.dailycamera.com/buffzone/riot.html and then read above on this page. In the Halloween riot of two years ago, 1,500 or so student rioted. They flipped cars over and threw cinder blocks at the cops. In December 2001, roughly the same number of students were out. Before that, riots of 3-500 students. I want you to ask yourself, 1) if you live in Boulder, why do you not know about these; or 2) if you do not live in Boulder, why do you not think these are riots?

Do you work for the Chamber of Commerce or the University of Colorado?

Diderot2

I saw the December 2001 "riot" and the Halloween "riot", as well as being in downtown Denver after the '98 Super Bowl and the '05 NBA all star game. Both the events in Denver were much larger, resulted in more property damage (and actual looting, unlike in Boulder), and required more policing than the Boulder events, yet nothing is mentioned about them in the Denver article. They weren't riots, and hardly even newsworthy. --Junky 16:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Los Angeles page barely makes mention of the Watts Riots, not to mention the other riots that city has had. The argument of, "out of state real estate buyers should be warned" is patently absurd. Wikipedia is not a real estate guide. I didn't "relent" after being "confronted with truth" -- I reverted a version that lead with "A Culture of Rioting" and negotiated a compromise with someone who obviously had some kind of weird agenda. Ken 00:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

~I just rolled back a couple rounds of changes because someone broke the infobox. Also, if you're commenting here, please sign your comments. Finally, the "riot" arguments here are hilarious considering no one has even added a single line about the Halloween Mall Crawls of the 1980s.--D Wilbanks 04:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

~~Thank you whoever is at 24.8.140.159 for depoliticizing some language and removing the bit about Boulder High School officials encouraging orgies, or whatever that stuff meant. --Ucbuffalo81 08:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How to construct paragraphs out of a litany facts?

The history section is littered with dates and statements of fact. They don't really flow together and right now they're sort of floating paragraphs. Should those be compiled into some kind of narrative or just made into a list? Ken 01:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to 71.208.110.28 ...

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

Paul 14 November 2006

Education

Many of the other city articles have info on the local public school system and private high schools. We should stick something on this in here.--Velvet elvis81 07:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Jimbo Herndan 05:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Added some more. --User:Ucbuffalo81 31 May 2007

The ramsey case

Can anyone believe that the Boulder article did not even MENTION the JonBennet Ramsey case??? I added it in, though. Cheers, --Jimbo Herndan 05:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I included a reference to "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town", the made-for-TV movie that came out several years ago, under Boulder in Popular Culture. I was going to put it under People, but I thought this heading was more appropriate. -- mmiller 22 June 2007

FAC

There is a fac tag on this talk page, but a FAC has not been submitted to WP:FAC. Pls submit, or remove tag, thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

PS - since the article is not nearly ready for FAC, my recommendation would be to remove the tag and submit the article instead to peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has had long-continuing problems, some of which persist to this day. If there is some category that is the opposite of FAC, maybe we could nominate it for that. Paul 02:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry- my bad

Sorry about the FAC tag. I'm still relativley new to Wikipedia. Could someone add it please? --Jimbo Herndan 23:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable Boulder people

I see that Ace Young has disappeared from the "People" section for whatever reason (don't really care). I guess the notability threshold for listing people in this article is different than the notability criteria for Wikipedia itself (don't really care). So, along with Young, here's my Hall of Fame of B-list Boulder people:

• Joan Van Ark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fleminra (talk • contribs) 09:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Goodbye to Ace Young, and good riddance -- what are game-show contestants (apart from -- perhaps -- Ken Jennings, Charles Van Doren, and Herbert Stempel) doing in an encyclopedia? Of course, some game-show contestants went on to distinguish themselves in other ways -- Dr. Joyce Brothers comes to mind -- but if the show is one's only claim to fame, why are we bothering?

As for Joan Van Ark, a fairly well known television actress a few decades ago, I (like you, I suppose) don't care whether she is included or not. Paul 09:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Change Picture

I think that the article needs a better picture for the box at the top of the page. Just a map is pretty sad as it shows nothing about what boulder looks like and most other pages about cities have a picture of the city at the top. Maybe a picture taken from an overlook above the town would be appropriate. --K1000 23:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There used to be a nice picture of Pearl Street in the snow, but I don't know what happened to it. I like the idea of a picture from the overlook. Logawi 16:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The next time I drive by a good overlook I'll try to remember to take the picture and post it. --K1000 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I like that picture too. I put it back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.166.29.168 (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

I think that picture is ugly, brown and too far from anything interesting looking. How about a nice picture with good color?

How about this? This shows the town, trees, and a tiny bit of the mountains. I don't think a picture of just Pearl Street Mall is representative of Boulder.Hustvedt (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Boulder in fiction" vs. "Boulder in popular culture"

The Boulder in fiction and Boulder in popular culture sections are completely redundant. They should be combined. Plazak 14:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

View from Fairview

Which picture is better for the view from Fairview: or or . --K1000 22:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC) The last one: View from Fairview, Close Up. Definitely. Aruhnka (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone interested or can advise on Gunbarrel?

I'm working on the Gunbarrel, Colorado article and would like to connect it with Boulder in some way while keeping it semi-independent - Gunbarrel is both an incorporated Boulder subdivision and a built up area of Boulder County - e.g. you might live there and be a Boulder citizen but your friend in the house across the way lives in the County and is democratically represented in a totally different way. As such it's a strange governmental entity, with a contentious political history and many areas of overlap and dual control and I think this merits separation. The Boulder country club is there, as well as a residential population that differs politically (more "red") from the rest of Boulder (especially in the unincorporated areas). It is also the location of the Celestial Seasons plant, Tyco Healthcare Valleylab, and has technical facilities belonging to Ericsson, Lockheed-Martin and Micro Motion - all but the last are in the city's areas. I'd love any help or advice. Ucbuffalo81 01:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

In 1974 the Boulder City Council passed Colorado's first ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Boulder voters, however, repealed the measure by referendum within a year. In 1975, Boulder County Clerk Clela Rorex was the second in the United States to ever grant same-sex marriage licenses, prior to state laws being passed to prevent such issuance. [5] In 1987, Boulder voters reversed their 1974 vote, and the city became the first in the United States to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation by a direct vote of the people.

This doesn't make and sense. 'Boulder voters reversed their 1974 vote' implies that they voted to remove the ordinance prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, while "and the city became the first in the United States to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation by a direct vote of the people" implies that they voted to retain the ordinance. So which is it?193.195.75.20 (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me. In 1974, the City Council passes the ordinance but Boulder voters repeal it. In 1987, the Boulder voters re-instate the policy they had originally repealed back in 1974. So yes, they voted against the ordinance, and they voted for it. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

One problem is the ambiguous use of "their" in the phrase "their 1974 vote" - whose vote was it - the City Council or the voters? It was the people's vote that was reversed, and I think the sentence does say that, but it's easily misunderstood. Making the matter a bit harder to understand is that the article says that the Council vote took place in 1974, but doesn't say that about the referendum - "within a year" from some date in 1974 also includes part of 1975. I can understand the meaning, but it could be worded a bit better. Merenta (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The article goes off wandering into such minor things - but it never mentions once what form of local government that Boulder has. Does Boulder have a mayor? Some cities do and some don't. What about a city manager? Some cities do, and some don't. Does Boulder have a City Charter granted by the State Legislature, like lots of really large cities do, but some medium-sized cities do and some don't. Cities with charters get some degree of "home-rule" (the ability to run their own business), but lots of other cities across the country have to rely on the permissions of their County Commissions, or even the State Legislature to do very much at all - such as assessing city taxes, setting up and running systems of land zoning, establishing school systems, and so on and so forth. Some counties have "home-rule" of some degree, but others have to take every little thing to the Legislature. I find it rather amazing to find that nobody said if Boulder has a City Charter or not. For example, places like New York City, Chicago, Atlanta, Nashville, Birmingham, and so forth, do. Denver probably does, but I am not sure. The Wikipedia does say that Denver City and the County of Denver have some form of a unified government, but it wasn't 100% clear. On the other hand, there are places in Virginia, Tennessee, Florida, and other places where the Legislature has explicitly unified the city government with that of the county that contains it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.52.117 (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The information you're looking for is in the infobox and in the very first sentence of the article. Merenta (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

someone fix the dates at the beginning of this section 98.240.86.35 (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

4/20

The largest Boulder area newspaper calls the 4/20 celebration an "annual and renowned event" [2]. Yes, it is a community tradition regardless of your personal opinion of marijuana use. Encyclopedias are supposed to be objective. 75.71.116.195 (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of one's view of marijuana use, 4/20 or 4:20, did not originate in the Boulder. Moreover, the 4/20 event is relatively new, not steeped in tradition that any local historian would associate with the town. It is true, that the event has received increasing media attention over the last 4 years but it was considered a casual and little visited event before that.

Massive list of magazine articles

In the last few days there was a deletion, and then re-addition, of a massive list of various mentions of Boulder from a wide range of magazines. Most of these are "top-10" style "awards." This seems to be absolutely useless information. Is there an argument to keep this in the article beyond marketing the city or the magazines? Cheers, Pugget (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Since no one seems to have any comments, I'm going to kill the list. Cheers, Pugget (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted spam link listing

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

Main picture

Come on, this picture makes Boulder look more like Los Angeles--not at all a representative photo of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutorq (talk • contribs) 07:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Peaks in the Boulder Area

I was a little afraid to edit the "Outdoor Sports" section of "Culture" myself, in case I am missing something, and since I don't really know how to edit pages, but South Boulder Peak is actually the tallest peak in the "area", and it's not even mentioned. It should be included, since its summit is only about a half mile south of Bear Peak, and it is higher than Bear Peak.

1. South Boulder Peak - 8,524 feet (see http://www.mountainzone.com/mountains/detail.asp?fid=915545) 2. Bear Peak - 8,461 feet (see http://www.totalboulder.com/resources/42.html) 3. Green Mountain - 8,144 feet (see http://www.totalboulder.com/resources/69.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.49.221 (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

--Edit: Never mind, I changed the Boulder page to reflect this info. Someone please check to make sure my work is solid; this is one of my first attempts at editing Wikipedia. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.49.221 (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Below information has been removed from the article after being tagged for needing sourcing for at least several months. Please feel free to reincorporate this material into the article with appropriate references. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Why was the information I added regarding radio stations, including NPR affiliate KCFC, removed from this article by Doniago? Simply because I did not provide footnotes to sources?? Both KCFC and KRKS-FM are licenced to Boulder by the FCC. I also mentioned a powerful progressive talk station KKZN which has its transmitter located 15 miles east of Boulder, and identifies as "Thornton-Denver-Boulder." BlueMesa171 (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw those changes and did not revert them because the removed information was uncited and appeared to be of dubious notability. --Kvng (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I also notified BlueMesa on their Talk page, where they've received multiple messages about adding unsourced material previously. BlueMesa, I highly recommend that you review WP:V and provide reliable sources when adding material going forward, per WP:BURDEN. Doniago (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Advertisement

Did the Chamber of Commerce write this or what?67.190.86.13 (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Well that was just a knee-jerk reaction to the culture section; reading further, it's worse that I thought. Culture and growth management should be deleted. Top rankings should be incorporated into other sections. Education and Transportation should be halved (individual bus routes, WTF?). Finally, that directional doodad in Geography is a real eye sore, I'm deleting that post haste.