Talk:2022 Los Angeles City Council scandal

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

Moving page back to 2022 Los Angeles City Council controversy[edit]

The page was moved without discussion therefore I am moving it back. Please don't make a unilateral move without some basic discussion. The problem with the new title is that it is atypically long for a Wikipedia article and fails WP:COMMONNAME. Second, unless the "audio recording" is at the heart of a scandal, such as the News International phone hacking scandal, we should not focus on the recording itself. We don't need to include the method of memorialization (audio, video, phone, written word, etc). Therefore, the most WP:COMMONNAME way to describe this event is as a controversy regarding the L.A. City Council. Thanks. @Reppop: courtesy ping - Fuzheado | Talk 21:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I just thought that it was too vague, although I can see where you're coming from. reppoptalk 21:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 October 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Withdrawn. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 21:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Los Angeles City Council controversy → 2022 Los Angeles City Council political crisis – I think "controversy" is terrible for an article title. It conveys no information (what sort of "controversy" is it?) and impairs neutrality as discussed in WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. "Political crisis" is more neutral and it indicates more clearly what is happening, as potential resignations are in play. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a crisis in that nobody has resigned yet, so that's a better description. I don't think the racism is controversial--even those who said the comments have denounced the comments. The controversy would lie in how these were private conversations and California is a two party consent state. The recordings are illegal. If this wasn't the unfair and brutal court of public opinion but an actual court, they could be omitted from evidence, on that basis. Granted, saying crap like what Nury said at work, even if in a private conversation, would and should get anyone fired, no matter if you are a Walmart greeter or the Walmart CEO, but the recordings were still illegal. Crisis is the most apt descriptor because it seems like those racists want to suck at the public teet for as long as possible and are refusing to leave, because they're basically unemployable once they leave office. BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/wait for now. The way things are evolving, the "crisis" label may be warranted, but we are not seeing that headline being used widely in WP:RS at this point. We do need to observe the WP:CRITERIA policy. That said, there are Wikipedia articles about similar topics that use controversy, scandal, and crisis, with some form of consistency. Examples:
In these article titles, "controversy" seems applicable to unplanned occurrences and the complex fallout that results from them. In this sense, the vagueness of the term controversy could be seen as a feature and not a bug in that it can be used to describe a situation still in flux or still developing before a conclusion has been reached.
"Crisis" is more relevant to decisive points in time, and immediate dramatic consequences if something is not resolved. In the above examples, these would be a deadline to pass legislation or there is no budget to pay employees, or an electrical blackout to large regions of California.
Finally, something may rise to "scandal" proportions if it is shocking and systemic, and requires a significant legal or grassroots response.
My advice would be to keep "controversy" for now, but definitely consider crisis in the coming days, as there have been loud protests and disruption of the Los Angeles City Council meetings, and an emerging impasse as to whether the three councilpersons will step down. If the Council is at a standstill and cannot conduct its business because of the fallout, then I think "crisis" would be warranted, but we should keep our eye on reliable secondary sources. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 06:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My assessment of news coverage and headlines is that most sources have referred to the event with some combination of "racist", "remarks" or "comments", and "audio" "leak"/"leaked" or "recording". Following the sources, I could support a move to some combination of those. Relatively few sources name the event by applying a less specific label like controversy, crisis, or scandal, although among them "scandal" seems to be somewhat more common than "controversy" or "crisis". Anyway, it's all tentative, as events are likely to develop further. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree there's no easy answer right now. One of the complications for this topic is the lack of a clean and common label - is it a City Council scandal, a more general political scandal, a personal scandal for each individual, a race relations scandal, or a combination of all of these? For that reason, at this point there is no common phrasing in mainstream reliable sources. "Los Angeles City Council scandal" isn't quite right because it's not a scandal of the council, but of these particular individuals. For these reasons, it's best to stay with a more general title now until we see a more consistent pattern in WP:RS. We want to follow, not lead. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See the requested move below for a more updated proposal. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to close/withdrawl - Muboshgu there does not seem to be much interest in this proposal and much more in the next one. Can we close this one out and focus on the one with "scandal?" Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, fine, withdraw. This probably needs more discussion first. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 13 October 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Unanimous support for moving. Fuzheado | Talk 09:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Los Angeles City Council controversy → 2022 Los Angeles City Council scandal – I feel that we should sorta specify (lightly) in a way for the title. Using "controversy" is okay, but I feel putting "scandal" is a little bit more descriptive while still not completely specifying down to the last word. Now especially since a council member resigned (Nury Martinez) over it, I think it is more than a controversy now. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen "scandal" appear in WP:RS especially now that the California district attorney will be probing the situation. I'd suggest we do a more systematic survey of headlines from prominent publications, starting with the LA Times. I'll start below. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of media sources[edit]

Regional media[edit]

October 15[edit]
  • LAT - How L.A. City Hall became so corrupt: A recent history of bribes, kickbacks, scandal, leaks - October 15 [1]
  • LAT - Gil Cedillo, a champion for immigrant rights, imperiled by leak scandal - October 15 [2]
  • KTLA - L.A. City Council meeting canceled as pressure mounts for 2 members to resign amid racism scandal - October 15 [3]
October 14[edit]
  • LAT - How the Nury Martinez scandal strikes at the heart of Latino identity - October 14 [4]
  • ABC7 - LA City Hall racism scandal: Councilmen Kevin de León and Gil Cedillo resist resigning amid uproar over audio leak October 14 [5]
  • LA Magazine - "the damning headlines and attention the scandal is generating around the world" - October 14 [6]
October 13[edit]
  • LAist - How Black-Brown Unity In LA Can Survive City Council Racism Scandal - October 13 [7]
October 12[edit]
  • LAT - Nury Martinez resigns from L.A. City Council in wake of audio leak scandal - October 12 [8]
  • LAT - California attorney general will investigate L.A. redistricting in wake of scandal / California attorney general will investigate L.A. redistricting in wake of leaked audio (front page headline different than that on the clicked article) - October 12 [9]
  • KTLA - Final mayoral debate dominated by scandal plaguing L.A. City Council - October 12 [10]
  • KNBC - Nury Martinez Resigns From LA City Council After Days of Protests and Public Pressure - "The recorded October 2021 conversation at the center of the scandal involved Martinez" - [11]
  • CBS Los Angeles - City Council Controversy: Everything we know; "The Los Angeles City Council was rocked by scandal over the weekend..."- October 12 - [12]
  • Los Angeles Daily News
    • Nury Martinez resigns her City Council seat amid deepening LA scandal - October 12 [13]
    • State attorney general will probe LA redistricting in midst of City Council scandal - October 12 [14]
  • OC Register - Nury Martinez resigns her City Council seat amid deepening LA scandal - October 12 [15]
October 10[edit]
  • LA Blade - On LA City Hall scandal, Democrats it’s time to meet the moment - OCtober 10 [16]

National media[edit]

  • VOX - The Los Angeles City Council’s racist recording scandal, explained - October 15 [17]
  • Bloomberg - "amid the deepening scandal over racist comments she made last year" - October 14 [18]
  • NPR - What the city council scandal reveals about LA's racial divides — and solidarity - October 14 [19]
  • NPR - Questions remain about who recorded the audio that led to LA City Council scandal - October 14 [20]
  • CNN - Los Angeles City Council member takes leave and labor union leader resigns amid scandal involving racist remarks - October 11 [21]
  • CNN - LA City Councilmember Nury Martinez resigns from office, two days after stepping down from leadership post - "first meeting since the scandal broke." - October 12 [22]
  • USA Today - Former Los Angeles City Council President Nury Martinez resigns amid protests over racist recording: Updates - "Acknowledging the nationwide attention on the local government scandal, O’Farrell defended Los Angeles’ diversity and culture." - October 12 [23]
  • Axios - Headline from Google News (different than actual article headline): Nury Martinez resigns from Los Angeles City Council in wake of leaked audio scandal; "The council has struggled to perform its duties in the wake of the scandal..." - October 12 - [24]
  • NBC News - Scandal used multiple times: "Odilia Romero said the scandal doesn’t surprise her... since the scandal broke... But now after a scandal exploded" - October 12 [25]
  • KCET/Democracy Now - "A political scandal is unfolding in Los Angeles..." - October 12 [26]
  • AP - Los Angeles leader in racism scandal resigns Council seat - October 12 [27]
  • NYT - Who’s who in the Los Angeles City Council scandal - October 11 [28]

No use of scandal[edit]

  • WSJ no use of scandal, but say furor, outrage - October 12 [29]
  • Bloomberg - no use of scandal - October 12 [30] Started using scandal
  • NPR - no use of scandal - October 12 [31] - Now uses scandal
  • KPCC/LAist - no use of scandal - October 12 [32] Started using scandal
  • LA Weekly - no use of scandal - October 12 [33]
  • LA Magazine - no use of scandal - October 12 [34] Now using scandal
  • ABC7 - no use of scandal, using controversy - October 12 [35] Started using scandal

Survey[edit]

Use this section to either support or oppose with a rationale that supports your opinion. Extended discussions go in the next section.

Discussion[edit]

Add additional comment(s) here. Bulleted opinions go above in the survey.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Background and context[edit]

An open secret among Democrat insiders is the hostility and rivalry between Hispanic and African-American politicians and their voting blocs, especially in places like Los Angeles. This article probably should include that context and background to this scandal but, unfortunately, the mainstream media, including political mags like Politico, don't seem inclined to report on the issue. I believe the LA Times may have reported on it in years past, but not recently. 108.18.156.124 (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is part of the conversation and dynamic happening now that should be in this article. A lot of television news and radio outlets are doing the best work here but are harder to use as WP:RS. The "print" media are taking a bit longer to get it down. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the crux of this was racist comments toward all groups, including indigenous hispanics. I mean, even Armenians were included (and sadly not the Kardashians). Somehow, though, I think we can find a way to blame white supremacy and Trump/Jan 6 for all of her comments. In all seriousness, I think this is only reportable if you have a very cynical perspective on these things. Usually, these race rivalries are restricted to street and prison gangs. Perhaps it is just an anomaly that it seeped up to city hall. I don't think this should be reported unless there is absolutely indisputable proof that this is a longstanding, endemic, and basically permanent pattern in city politics. I think it's more likely that these were just scummy people that got caught, and that there are plenty of black and hispanic politicians who don't operate in such a cynical way, who may replace those losers. BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These may be your opinions, but we go with verifiable statements from notable voices in reliable sources. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right. My opinions and no sources, just like every other comment on this thread. Thanks for the info though. BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources. They're not real great, but hopefully there will be some follow-up reporting on this aspect of the issue: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. 152.130.1.16 (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"changuito"[edit]

BottleOfChocolateMilk - Responding to this edit summary;

Couple points; 1) most importantly, the source doesn't call it a "slur" so we shouldn't either, 2) less importantly, my better-half has near-native level spanish and she told me "changuito" was a common term of endearment in spanish, similar to something like "little rascal" in English. I don't want to sound like I'm defending Nury b/c most of the stuff she said was obviously pretty unsavory, but at the same time, we shouldn't be trying to inflate the controversy by adding our own, potentially poorly translated, interpretations to her words. NickCT (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Los_Angeles_City_Council_scandal&oldid=1196914733"