Jump to content

Talk:City of Bell scandal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a hot mess!

[edit]

It lacks flow, there's no sequence to the narrative, a lot of the content is choppy and incomprehensible, and the summary is insufficient.

I'd fix it myself if I had a clue what had actually happened. Which was the reason I came to the article in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.209.52 (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I'm sure one or two of the editors who have been on top of this situation will take a fine Sunday afternoon to reduce and refine the article—throw it into their Sandbox, take a fresh look and a deep breath and begin to pare it down for the edification of all information-seekers. Good luck, you guys! Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Yeah, well—I have to add that I can't do it myself because I am busy updating all the articles on Los Angeles City Council members; it is taking a while, but it is kinda fun to see what L.A. city dads and some moms have been up to over the years. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive critique

[edit]

How easy must it be to cruise in from Canada and anonymously leave a scathing critique with no helpful suggestions. There is one (1) editor that has consistently worked their ass off on this article. There IS no summary in this ongoing saga. Incomprehensible? Example please. This editor works 24/7 and has no leisurely Sunday afternoons. This editor has taken a Wiki-break because of just this kind of unhelpful crap (Hot Mess?). As I am TOO familiar with this story, helpful suggestions are welcomed. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My dear DocOfSoc, most every lengthy article gets unwieldy and a bit cumbersome with time, when new events demand to enter into it. You are to be commended in your persistence, so you will find a barnstar atUser_talk:DocOfSoc#Barnstar_._._. It is quite possible that this is not yet the time to make a massive overhaul, so just keep on keeping on. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Nevermind... just saw the non-partisan comment.  :) I can't believe Rizzo got only 12 years.
Will CA be deducting the cost of his stay from his $100,000 annual pension once they move him to a state prison? Thanks! Darr247 (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


With all due respect, what's wrong with being from Canada? And what's wrong with being anonymous? News flash, people are allowed to edit anonymously. I know that what I said was harsh, but it was accurate. The fact that there is only one editor working consistently on this article doesn't mean it should be held to a lower standard than articles with multiple editors. You must only do as much work as you can do on Wikipedia without getting your ego involved. And guess what? Perhaps my words will spur some lurker to step in and help you. And if you want to speak further about this with this 'anonymous' editor, call me up in Canada at {telephone number deleted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.209.52 (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article

[edit]

I have moved article title from "City of Bell salary controversy" to "City of Bell scandal" in accordance with Wikipedia:Article titles, and particularly the policy to use common names

  • The term "scandal" was used much more commonly used in the media: see ABC News, CNN, NY Times, and NY Times again. (This makes sense, as the whole affair was not so much a controversy (since nearly everyone agreed it was outrageous) but an actual scandal).
  • The new title also reflects the topic of the article much better: The page doesn't deal only with the high salaries, but also with other related scandals (misappropriation of funds, irregularities in the 2009 election, the ensuing criminal charges, etc.)
  • Running some Google searches (excluding Wikipedia results) shows that formulations with "scandal" are more than three and a half times more common than formulations with "controversy":
"City of Bell salary controversy” (33,300 results)
"City of Bell controversy" (3,210 results)
"Bell, California controversy" (358 results) --> Total: ~37,000 results
Compare with:
"City of Bell salary scandal" (39,600 results)
"City of Bell scandal" (81,800 results)
"Bell, California scandal" (6,350 results) ---> Total: ~128,000 results
Thanks, Neutralitytalk 23:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TY for updating the title . Nice edits overall. it is wonderful to see some interest in editing this article. I think when the trials are over it could be "GA" status. There has bee an enormous amount of work put into this article, esp. when the change were day to day. Thanks again. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 08:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update2012

[edit]

Further update needed: http://www.kcet.org/updaily/1st_and_spring/commentary/the-city-of-bell-the-never-ending-scandal.html — DocOfSoc • Talk • 08:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive suggestions

[edit]

The article turned out fairly well do to the work of DocOfSoc. But here are some suggestions (sorry don't have time to work in it).

  • Include table of people involved with a column including their status
  • Include a summary of what resulted from all the investigations (was the "breast cancer" money found?, did Rizzo go to jail?)
  • Remove material that now appears to be more wikinews than wikipedia material. (having a hearing/investigation that resulted in nothing, etc.)
  • Consolidate sections ("Corruption hearings" + "Hearing" => "Corruption hearing", "Police Chief" + "More police caught in scandal" ==> "Police caught in scandal")

--MarsRover (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Party Affiliation?

[edit]

Apologies if this is contra to any Wikipedia rules that I've missed, not being a massive contributor myself, but is there any reason why you don't give party affiliations for the various individuals? Just seemed a bit odd to me. Or, not being American, do politicians at this level of government in the US generally not run as a part of one? Thanks. —Siberia (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In California all local elected officials are officially nonpartisan. Elections in California Calwatch (talk)
I just added a sentence about this to the page for clarity since I'm sure many will wonder this, especially since there were a number of opinion pieces alleging they were all Democrats, based on no evidence. - Maximusveritas (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on City of Bell scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on City of Bell scandal. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

population

[edit]

As of 2018-03-25 the Wikipedia article on Bell, CA begins, "Bell is an incorporated city in Los Angeles County, California, near the center of the former San Antonio Township (abolished after 1960). Its population was 35,477 at the 2010 census, down from 36,664 in the 2000 census." Meanwhile this article says it's a "working-class city of 40,000". I'm changing the number to 36,000. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Probst

[edit]

This is probably the retired police chief killed by intentional vehicular homicide in Las Vegas in 2023. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.14.159 (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:City_of_Bell_scandal&oldid=1199927847"