Talk:The Stentorians

How to clean up the heading

Now that it's on the mainspace, how do you clean up the heading? CaptJayRuffins (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Will help

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please remove categories from talk page, thank you

I can't figure out how to do this...

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any of the categories should be removed. They're talk page categories added by the WikiProject banners and group pages by meta-information such as assessment or WikiProject. Huon (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Citations added, User Deb should specify why this was disputed so that it can be impartially reviewed. If the dispute is regarding resolution by LACity Council of april 12, 1994; or non-existence of factors preventing promotion of minorities, both have been litigated to the satisfaction of the org whose mission statement this is. To be clear, just what is it that you are disputing, facts, or the inclusion of their mission statement. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

For a start, you've made it quite clear from the wording that you are writing from your own point of view rather than that of an impartial reporter (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Every section must have references, and every statement that could be disputed must be referenced, and, most importantly, they must be referenced from reliable and impartial sources (which excludes anything published by the organisation itself. Believe me, there's a lot more work to be done on this article to bring it up to standard. If you want me to tag every statement that's short of a citation, I'll be happy to do so. Deb (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree on your assessment, if you are saying this is not neutral because it states that discrimination exists and continues to do so regardless of the positive outcomes of the litigations (see citations) requiring the Stentorians to be vigilant vs there is no discrimination, I can add a dozen more citations to every sentence of their mission statement. So what will it be, a dozen citations proving that there is ample published lit for that position, or you claiming that because the statement is what they claim as their 'mission statement' shows that it's not a neutral point of view? I expect an article that can be referenced without a dozen citations to prove what should be a patently valid statement. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"A lawsuit was filed, and the city reportedly settled it for roughly $1.4 million in 2007. It's been a long road to the top for the two African-American men at the helm of Los Angeles' two major fire departments — and it's possible that both of them could attest to the hurdles they had to jump over to reach the top." (Not my writing, an impartial reporter's). The mission statement should be paraphrased as I did not write it in my own words. I do however, feel the title indicated that. That section is the Mission statement, and presented impartially... CaptJayRuffins (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that you've written it as an insider, rather than an outsider. That's not writing from a neutral point of view. Deb (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

And I've pointed out some more areas where you need citations.Deb (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You should stop now. You took issue with the mission statements lack of citations and when citations were put up you've jumped up to the Stentorians to press for more citations without noting where in the first sec you flagged they were necessary. The places you cite in the stentorians section are cited in the integration of the LAFD section under nightly hazing rituals and I will double cite them if it so pleases you. However, before you make any more notes, RTFD. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't try to accuse me of racism or bias when I'm only trying to help you improve your article. As it stands, it's in a very poor state, despite all the time I've spent on it in the past. I wouldn't normally give an editor this much assistance, except that I understand your personal circumstances and that it's difficult for you to follow the guidelines. All citations must come from independent sources. As for hazing, it's a term uncommon outside the US - I've got a pretty big vocabulary but I had to look it up to find out what it meant, so it needs elaboration. I've added a link to help you.Deb (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, you can't use other wikipedia articles as references, so I'll be removing those too. Deb (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't find the link you added, but I've got quite a few that do much to spell out the vast scope of the un-reported level of the lawsuits inflicted on the LA community because of the efforts of the last few years to increase the number of minorities and women in the two depts. Each article delves into the history and adds another layer until the links and citations tend to overburden the article as a whole. But you are correct, each section should be linked to reliable sources. Review the links and if they satisfy, please go ahead and remove the citations needed, if they don't leave it and I will add more citations from the list of articles.

I have to make a mea culpa for the referenced link, apparently you took it as a claim that you're biased. Not the intention, it was to make the mission statement stand out as still valid after 20yrs, the 90's & aughts were overfilled with lawsuits that stemmed from the vigilance called for in that statement, it was not directed at you but I can see how you may have thought it was a indirect dig at your making requests for addl references. It was to say, should the statement be added and a link to the article referenced for the quote to show the mission statement to be correct? Also, some see things quite differently, I, for one, will never forget my personal hazing experiences, you have stated you had to look up the meaning. For those not too familar with hazing rituals, the 'pile on', male bonding or other quirks of the locker room mentality, I placed a link to a recent lawsuit that explains the practice as done in the LAFD. (see $1.43 Million settlement thrown out). FYI - Both chiefs were Stentorians. I didn't include a section for the lawsuits, this is the story of the stentorians and their founding. The suits are an article that would be linked showing cases in every major city in the US where similar groups have filed and won, yet not made significant gains in integrating the fire service nationwide. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)