Talk:Eureka, California/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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