Talk:Eureka, California/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Eureka, California. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What is the overemphasis on the Negative, including the Methamphetamine issue and the Wiyot Native American Slaughter in Eureka?

ISSUE 1.

Here is a statement from the beginnig overview of liting... "Over the past decade, the city has been dealing with an increasing methamphetamine problem."

Please identify a city in California that is NOT having this experience? By far there are other examples and yet only in the Eureka listing is this supposedly such a big enough deal to mention it in the overview section. In San Francisco, for example this problem is light years worse and no mention whatsoever, Please put this in perspective and give Eureka at least the same break as SF or even Oakland...just imagine that not a word was mentioned about Oakland's current and ongoing problem with methamphetamines. By comparrison, the word "crack" does not occur in the Oakland listing at all. Why? Because its not the focus of a brief online encyclopedia to beat up a municipality for its shady past. All municipalities have unpleasantness and tragedy in there pasts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norcalal (talk • contribs) .

It is not the responsibility of every editor of the Eureka page to make similar edits on the Oakland page or of any other page not directly affected. I'm not especially familiar with Oakland; I am with Eureka. This city is experiencing major drug abuse issues and it is not the job of Wikipedia to act as a tourism bureau or to otherwise exclude information less favorable towards the worldview of some public relations agency. Charles Douglas 17:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In 2006, Humboldt had 49 drug overdoses, 2003 had 50. In 2003, which was 18x the national average. [1], the rate likely being highest in Eureka. This is a worthwhile stat for anyone planning to move here, whether he/she is at risk, has kids at risk, doesn't like to make friends who are at risk, or doesn't want to be a victim of drug related crime.

216.102.9.150 18:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Russell Hopf

ISSUE 2.

I see that the Law Enforcement section is approximately 50% of the size of the History section. The crime section in Oakland, the 8th most dangerous city in the nation is less than half the similar Law enforement section in the Eureka listing. Various issues and scandals over some tragic issues within the police department gets major billing. This is unnecesary in this kind of online publication. By comparison, there is no mention whatsoever of the constantly scandalized police department in Los Angeles. Why is there not a littany of citations over specifics on the corruption of the LA Police over many years. In fact there is no mention of the word "corruption" in the listing and yet the history of the LA DPW is riddled with it. In fact there is no mention of the notoriously heinous LA Department of Power and Water.

Whom does this litany about Eureka's problems serve? This is noth the place for it. Why is this the focus solely on the article on Eureka? Wikipedia is not a specialized law review publication as clearly demonstrated in dozens of other cities I looked at. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norcalal (talk • contribs) .

It is not the responsibility of every editor of the Eureka page to measure the amount of space dedicated to a particluar section against the page of some other city. If Oakland's section on law enforcement is puny, than it is the responsibility of those editors to fix it, not of ours to censor ourselves to the lowest common denominator. Eureka has been rocked by scandals involving the police use of force this year and for a topical analysis of Eureka's current affairs to ignore this would be to leave impartial readers in the dark. If you feel other sections should be enhanced and enlarged then do so, but this need not come at the expense of this branch of inquiry. Charles Douglas 17:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the shelter part is a bit wordy too, Charles. It should be more concise, maybe limited to my testcase. I don't need a trial by Wikipedia, the judiciary, esp. the Ninth Circuit, will decide. 216.102.9.150 18:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Russell Hopf

My response to the editor above in his page... What is the point of this detail over a current scandal in a permanent entry of the culture and history and government of Eureka. What are you trying to accomplish? Why is trying this here and not in the local papers...your paper. Why do you insist on trying such a dissaster in an online encyclopedia?

The following is my response to your response in the Eureka webpage: What is the point of details of such scandal herein? This is not a court or a newspaper, but rather a place to highlight various details of culture and history and political aspects of a community. The history and cultural trends over the decades best serves a community profile such as this one. It seems the editor so vested in the minute detail of recent tragic law enforcement issues has an axe to grind and can do it here for free. I am a six generation native of Humboldt and maintain property there and where I currently reside nearby so my concern over this is merited as much as anyone. In any case this focus on a current scandal in this forum is absurd. But most of all, it is unnecessary.Norcalal 04:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

These events serve a forum as this one when perspective has been achieved over time...and a reference to such an event is best when tempered by distance and when in the context of the forum one is in.

How about a sweeping article on "Violence and upheaval in a monoculture." These issues are common to locales that had a one horse economy and now the horse is dead. The drugs, social disadvantage and fear of authorities has been played out over and over again in many places....Eureka's sad story on these issues is the result of a region convulsing over the inability to solve its problems. I think it would serve us all to determine this in the light of a this aspect of human behavior under the stresses that are experienced by a locale such as Eureka. I see the frustration of concerned persons who want to play out such detail in a forum so inapropriate for that as another casualty of such strain.

In any case, go ahead and bash the police and the authorities and locals of Eureka all you want. Nohing, however, will change until time and circumstances change the region and provide it with the hope an vigor that can only come from economic success. Norcalal 04:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Norcalal 04:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply - I started the law enforcement section out of a desire to inform people wishing to move to Eureka what they're actually getting into if they make a move here. That's a major decision in people's lives, inclusion makes Wikipedia much more utilitarian, and the 2 police killings of 2006 in a city of 26,000 are evidence that eigther the cops or criminals are out of control. When I was here in '92-'93, Eureka already had the highest crime rate in the state for a city of it's size, and that's when PALCO had just been taken over by MAXXIM, and was using junk bonds to cut down trees right and left.

I am also the litagant working to get EMC93-02 struck down under Jones v. City of Los Angeles. The housing shortage forced me to move into my van. Roughly 8 years ago, several homeless froze, and the City of Eureka set up a "homeless shelter" to avoid a multimillion dollar wrongful death settlement, as they're facing now in the cases of Cheri Moore and Chris Burgess. The bad news about the settlement was that people got evicted so that others could move in, including those who chose drugs over rent during the year. My housing prospects were poor (how do you get a reference from Floyd Squires[2]Floyd Squires?), and rents were escalating beyond my ability to pay, so I got a van, in the hopes of finding a place. Worst case, I was about to turn 50, five years I'd be 55, able to find senior housing. Not my idea of fun, but acceptable. Before and after the Jones case the cops would come after me at 3AM, when I was sound asleep, with 6 bright flashlights. I once woke dreaming that hunters were about to shoot me. Then they banged on my van until it shook like a gong, not a pleasant experience, as I was only semiconcious, and scared out of my wits. After that, I started believing what others had told me, that the cops were creating mental instability and alienation. Let people read these entries, and make their own decisions before deciding to move to Eureka.

137.150.100.111 23:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Russell Hopf

ISSUE 3.

The Rich history of the area barely receives notation in an artical that is primarily 15 paragraphs about ethnic cleansing. Again, there is nothing unusual about what occured to the local indigenous population. These experiences were the rule and not the exception throughout the nation.

MY FINAL POINT.

Who wrote this trash? This is ridiculous. All the while so much beauty in and around Eureka is missed or overwhelmed. Also its struggling transformation in the wake of diminished fishing and logging is overlooked by the tone of this lopsided diatribe. The rich culture and much more meaningful historic role as the primary source of Redwood in the entire world and this regional city's conversion to a refuge for artists and a magnet for amazing cottage industry is not discussed at all.

Shame on who wrote this and shame on Wikipedia for publishing such overkill of the negative. Not even the article on the Battle of the Little Bighorn (aka Custer's Last Stand) contains such vitriol as this article on Eureka, This little city is California's most beautiful and alive little northern coastal Micropolitan center. I believe it deserves better....at least as good as other listings! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norcalal (talk • contribs) .

IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE HISTORY OF THE WIYOTS IN RELATION TO EUROPEANS< PLEASE PLACE THOSE IN A SECTION THAT DEALS WITH THAT. THERE IS NO NEED IN PRESENT TIME FOR THE THOUSANDS WHO LIVE IN EUREKA AND THOSE THOUSANDS WHO ENQUIRE WITHIN TO BE EXPOSED TO THIS DIATRIBE. ITS RIDICULOUS WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT MOST PERSONS LOOKING AT THIS INTERNET RESOURCE ARE CONCERNED WITH BASICS. DOES ANYONE BELIEVE THAT REHASHING THESE HORRID DETAILS HERE WILL ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING THAT PROMOTES PEACE AND A BETTER FUTURE? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norcalal (talk • contribs) .

In response to Norcalal: These are significant issues/subjects that deal with Eureka directly. Yes, the city has its good points, so why should we leave out the bad ones? It's the truth. It's significant to Eureka.

The section on Eureka history is entirely appropriate to discuss the only genocide which occured within the city limits; indeed to exclude this mention would be tantamount to holocaust denial. Considering the great lengths the city government has gone to in the last few years to repair relations with the Wiyot community, to suddenly start to deny a history our own City Council has admitted to would be delusional. I see some of the details of this massacre have been moved to the Wiyot page and this seems acceptable to me as long as a substantive summary is still given on the Eureka page. In case you haven't clued in yet, the Eureka page is the result of a number of contributions from dozens of different editors. To issue a blanket condemnation of everyone who has made a contribution is not in keeping with the values and traditions of Wikipedia, and further attempts to pare down the less spin-friendly facts in favor of some tourist-friendly pulp will not be accepted by me or by other editors of the Eureka page. Charles Douglas 17:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)