Talk:Candelas, Colorado

NPOV

This article appears to have some POV issues. Ostensibly it is about a planned development, but like 90% of the article is discussing the neighboring Rocky Flats legacy site. The article also makes heavy use of activist websites (where the claims are sourced) that are not neutral or reliable. VQuakr (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

1) I can rewrite everything I have written to address a POV/TONE issue. Regarding the contentious nature of what I wrote, controversial subjects include scientific facts which are the foundation for controversy, this can not be avoided, and should be allowed when chartered under a heading which states the controversy stems from....

2) References: I sourced government documents where available, newspapers including The Denver Post, The Boulder Daily Camera, BusinessWeek, and I believe the L.A. Times. Certain media outlets fail to archive the articles which are referenced, providing myself with an inability to have a url with a current accessdate, I sourced other websites (which apparently included Activist websites) whom had sourced the originals. Each and every source ties to an original scientific finding, government document, etc.

3) 'Controversy' and 'Radionuclide Testing' Subheading/Subsection(s): Again, I was planning on doing a vertical timeline for the primary body of the date-specific information regarding sampling results which would drastically (my opinion) limit the extent of each explanation (if that makes sense) while concurrently addressing POV/TONE.)

4) Weather - The subdivision is located on the border for the Jefferson and Boulder County lines (Colorado). Weather which impacts Boulder County affects Jefferson County in an equal to manner. I would have preferred a link to the Jefferson County website, however their Office of Emergency Management does not cite the disasters they are prepared for, nor history. As a Meteorologist, I can state this, but how do I reference it? I will include an appropriate info box which would show via those WikiMaps (don't know what they're called) the location, within the county.

5) Rocky Flats Legacy site versus Subdivision. Every single piece of scientific data I included linked cause and effect. The cause obviously being certain events at the Plant, the effect being the sampling which would occur. I only included/cited results specific to the massive plot of land which is the subdivision/master planned community, and the events which were scientifically attributed as to causing the contamination to occur.

Finally, (as you may have gathered I am somewhat verbose) any POV/TONE in the article with the exception of the Highway 93 reference (it is included because it is one of only two north-south corridors available to the residents of the community) is trying to shed light without emotion, to the reader, that this community is dealing with radioactive particles that have half-life in terms of million, and billions of years. Speaking to an Engineers point of view, I am trying to relay to the reader, that if a structure has a 4800 ton direct load bearing upon its footings, the simple fact that any one of those footings is only supporting a hundred tons at a time, does not magically erase the other 4600+/- tons of weight. Weight doesn't disappear, neither do radioactive particles. ZoomJag (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Before I started removing content, I reviewed what you had written. Essentially every paragraph had major issues such as out-of-context information, unreliable sourcing, unsupported conclusions, and overcoverage. Even if the content were rewritten, re-including all of it would still constitute undue coverage. For material to be included, it needs to be related to the Candelas development per WP:SYN. This is true for meterological and traffic information as well as Rocky Flats-related content. The best way to go about this is to review a little bit at a time IMHO; where would you like to start?

As we discuss, it may be useful to reference this revision for comparison since that is the most recent version before I removed anything. VQuakr (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The revision link does in fact help. Question, is there a tasteful/appropriate way to publish this old version on my User Page as a Personal product while I am addressing the primary article? My goals and views are slightly modified after reading about a dozen WP articles. The only scientific data which I have referenced from the US DOE, US EPA, US FWS, US DOL, are the results pertaining to the plot of land for this Candelas community - you can not allege those primary references are biased or out of context - if so, please explain further...70.59.27.161 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You can copy and paste an old revision to your user space, but the reason needs to be for improvement of this article, not to create a "fork" as addressed at WP:FAKEARTICLE. There were a number of other claims posted in the earlier revision which were not based on peer reviewed literature or had no source at all. Even amongst the portions that were based on reliable sources, WP:NPOV was still being violated in a couple of ways. One, the proximity to Rocky Flats was being given undue weight; and two, sources were being uses that did not mention the Candelas development. VQuakr (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed yet another revert that added back in material not related to Candelas and material that was unsourced or poorly sourced (ie a blog). Feel free to discuss, but please do not re-insert without discussion; see WP:BRD. VQuakr (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the United States General Accountability Office is not a verifiable reference... Stop playing games and let's get other people's opinions heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.144.94 (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Re "playing games", please assume good faith. I have explained why this material is problematic and it has nothing to do with games. That said, thanks for engaging in the talk page! Please note that per WP:BRD, we can re-add information back onto the article once there is a consensus to include here on the talk page. You mention the GAO report, which is indeed a reliable source. But it is being used to support the following statement: "Burrowing animals located in the center of the Refuge, such as the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse, other mice, and prairie dogs native to the Refuge are free to roam and burrow on the land north of, and connected to Candelas. In burrowing, animals are able to collect radioactive contaminants and chemicals underground on their bodies, and bring them up to the surface of the soil, allowing for new top-soil and airborne contamination." in a subsection entitled "Foreseeable Risks in the near future to Candelas". This has several problems. First, the title of the section is not neutral. Second, the GAO source, while itself reliable, does not contain the information in the quote above. The GAO source does not mention Candelas at all, and actually says that while a biointrusion layer was considered in parts of Rocky Flats (RF), it was not included because the State of Colorado, the EPA, and the DOE agreed that the layer was not necessary. Saying that the lack of a biointrusion layer presents a risk to Candelas (based on this GAO source) is quite clearly not tenable.

I suspect, since you have exhibited strong feelings about this article, that you will disagree with me. There are several methods available to us to help resolve content disputes. The simplest is third opinion, which a is fast, lightweight, and nonbinding dispute resolution method. I recommend it as long as you are willing to listed to an uninvolved third party. We could also use WP:RFC or WP:DRN, but both of these methods are more time-consuming. VQuakr (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate those who have stepped in to reclaim some of what I wrote, and engaging in the Talk Page. I apologize for my absence. Please note my intention is to ultimately move all of this into a subheading for a new Page which will cover the area known by the EPA/DOE as the Rocky Flats Operable Unit 3, Offsite Area (the whole area) - Candelas will be a subheading, with such a transition allowing me to better reference many more government published documents referencing contamination readings throughout the OU3 area as a whole, and not just limited to Candelas. Also, 70.59.27.161|70.59.27.161 is my IP (occasionally my computer logs me out.) ZoomJag (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back, ZoomJag. Please review WP:COATRACK; the purpose of writing an article is to faithfully summarize the reliable sources on a topic, not to "allow" you to better advance a specific point of view. In regards to your "reclaim" language, please note that you do not WP:OWN any article, and your contributions are released under the CC-BY-SA license when you hit save. VQuakr (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Suspected Edit War, Vandalism, Bias

VQuakr you have failed to explain your just cause in your vandalism of this article. You have deleted 16000+ characters that were thoughtfully and carefully crafted with reinforcing citations including numerous written references from the United States Government, you state I am violating a bias point of view. How exactly is that? I have listed without a point of view from myself, the author, what the two sides of this argument are. I support the FACTS with references, which if memory serves, was one of the points of an encyclopedia.

You appear as a vandal. Nothing more. You have zero interest in explanation nor rationale in this page. The page itself, the topic if you will, is the subject of much controversy to the residents in the metropolitan Denver area. I am not responsible for that, nor are you. With such interest, articles/entries are allowed to become more in-depth, and Wikipedia ensures we are not limited in the amount of data we use. You have, in lacking objectivity, deleted and dismissed at your WHIM the facts pertaining to this topic.

I will escalate this issue as necessary and fully encourage third party review as needed in this. ZoomJag (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@ZoomJag: you may want to review WP:AGF, WP:VANDNOT, WP:GREATWRONGS, and WP:BATTLE. Reversion of this series of edits, to which you refer, was an easy call - the edits quickfailed on verifiability - ie changing "...have expressed concern that the radioactive and toxic contaminants from both plant operations and accidental releases have not been sufficiently remediated." to "...have expressed concern that the radioactive and toxic contaminants from both plant operations and accidental releases having had no remediation..." counter the the existing source; unexplained removal of content that does not fit your POV such as at the end of the "Proximity to Rocky Flats" section; and inclusion of large sections sourced to a blog.

I would be fine with pursuing dispute resolution if you would be willing to tone down the rhetoric and work collaboratively - so far it seems that you are coming in with the same "force it in" mentality as in March. That don't work here - this is a collaborative project. Possible alternatives that might be helpful include a third opinion, the NPOV noticeboard, or a request for comment. VQuakr (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@VQuakr:

1) Please ensure you are neutral in suspecting COATRACK. This entry focused on the history in the last 40 years of the land. Again, only that specific land is the topic. Not the neighbors land, not the land in a different city, not a hypothetical similar city. Just that specific tract of land. No author should be accused of bias, if in relaying the history of the land, the READER is left with an opinion. Facts are facts. Opinions are individual.

2) Verifiability - You are incorrect on this referenced example. You changed the wording yourself and created this error. The FACT (I also must apologize for capitalizing, I'd prefer to bold these words, but you're not a fan of my formatting) is not a single act of remediation occurred to any land in the OU3 area, specifically the tract of land now plotted and existing as Candelas. Not a single remediation method. I encourage all to find a single document in existence which purports ANY remediation method was performed to this land.

3) Deletion of ending to "Proximity to Rocky Flats" - YOU edited the end result of that, which was not applicable for at least two reasons I see from a factual standpoint. First, continued development of land at 64th & Quaker was not applicable to this parcel of land several miles north also owing to the fact that the article further revealed the accepted contamination map the Government used (Krey Map) showing 64th & Quaker was no where near contaminated. Second, continued development of land around Standley Lake was either in error or never brought up in public, nor documents available (implied: no further development occurred). The Standley Lake land was already well established at its maximum allowed density with the exception of one small in-fill niche development several miles from the topic/subject land.

3) Rather than delete content because you disagree with a blog, why not allow the author a chance to correct the reference with something more applicable. The revised finished product had 35 sources. Was there one blog referenced, two? Easily correctable if it is that much of an issue.

To reiterate, I am concerned that you are focused on deleting historic facts relevant to this article under the guise of COATRACK, while respecting your citation of it, I still suspect some sort of underlying bias in the matter. ZoomJag (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You can use colons or double paragraph breaks for format cleaner; I took the liberty of doing so in the post above.

2) Remediation of the substantially contaminated areas reduces the probability of future contamination of surrounding areas, such as OU3. The sentence as written, "Environmental groups have expressed concern that the radioactive and toxic contaminants from both plant operations and accidental releases have not been sufficiently remediated." is supported by the provided source. The burden is on you to identify a reliable source that states that surface remediation should have been performed in OU3 - but this is a tall order since that is the opposite of the EPA's decision.

3) The quote is, "Continued suburban expansion is also anticipated in the area south and southeast of RFETS, primarily around Standley Lake, and in western Arvada along the 64th Street corridor."[1]. Correct me if I am wrong, but is Candelas not immediately south of RFETS? The kind of second-guessing of an EPA source you are doing is not going to carry any weight around here, again per our policy on verifiability. While improving on an edit as you suggest is a great way to go, it was not really an option here. The great majority of what you added was not acceptable, for such a wide variety of reasons that we have not even covered half of them here yet. I did go back and capture the straightforward ones after the initial revert, however, so they are included in the article.

More generally, this is an article about a housing development. Not Rocky Flats or its environmental legacy, for which we have several other articles. It would be overcoverage to include 16kB of "dust in a basement" sections even if the sourcing issues could be fixed. WP:IKNOWITSTRUE is not a particularly influential essay, but the arguments within do apply quite well - please consider giving it a read. To be clear, the EPA does not to my knowledge contest the fact that detectable plutonium/etc contamination exists in the Candelas area and other areas both within and beyond the historical boundaries of the plant. The EPA's position is the the region is in a condition protective of human health without remediation, because of the low concentration of the contamination. VQuakr (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr in response to: The great majority of what you added was not acceptable, for such a wide variety of reasons that we have not even covered half of them here yet. I did go back and capture the straightforward ones after the initial revert, however, so they are included in the article. More generally, this is an article about a housing development. Not Rocky Flats or its environmental legacy, for which we have several other articles.

-Okay, while I reply to your response as a whole, go ahead and make a concise list of ANY and EACH of the "wide variety" of reasons - I am determined to see this page reach resolve. Since you wish to devote your time to this, so will I. I find it slightly alarming that for someone who has such a grasp of the subject matter, each one of your end-result edits has resulted in an article of misinformation, broken citations, and at risk of deletion if left to your devices. But I digress. It's all in good faith, though, right?

The article is about the tract of land plotted as Candelas. Nothing more. I don't have a single reference which points to land outside of those boundaries. Not a single one. This is a history lesson, which happens to involve the controversy over the developments existence. Also, I'd like to add that in the Scientific realm, we're required to list our conflicts of interest when publishing subject matter, and while Wikipedia doesn't have such a burden, allow me to express my conflicts and interests in this subject: I, like many people in the Denver metro area find this topic fascinating and of great conversation value. Books are being penned right now about the topic, and my stakeholder interest in this article consists of nothing more than I get to see the protesters at the site every day they are there, just like every other motorist who drives Indiana Street. ZoomJag (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr Actually stop. I have reviewed my published product, again. I have reviewed your comments, your flow, and your edits....

I am outsourcing this for further review and am going to request additional outside comments on some things that have caught my attention in this matter.

Thank you for your time this evening. ZoomJag (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the terms of use linked right above the "save" button do require disclosure of financial conflicts of interest (paid editing). Re your "concise list," no the burden is on you to learn our editing guidelines. I have tried to bring up the issues as they become germane to the discussion, but given the overall problems with weight in your proposed edits, it would be a waste of time to bother with the minutiae. Re "outsourcing this for further review," please read WP:CANVASS and WP:MEAT. Short version - flouting Wikipedia's open system by coordinating edits in a private manner is problematic. If by "outsourcing" you were referring to Wikipedia's internal dispute resolution processes that I linked above, go ahead and I can assist if you would like. VQuakr (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Candelas, Colorado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305215813/http://boulderoem.com/natural-hazards-mitigation-plan/301-history-of-hazards-in-boulder-county to http://boulderoem.com/natural-hazards-mitigation-plan/301-history-of-hazards-in-boulder-county

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)