Open main menu
WikiProject California / Los Angeles (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Journalism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Senate Denies General Officer PromotionEdit

Would Your News Agency be interested in a story about the U.S. Senate denying a general officer a promotion from one star to two stars based on a Department of the Army (DA) Inspector General (IG) investigation in Wiesbaden, Germany, if there is a cover-up?

Hi— I’m contacting your news agency because I’ve tried to provide this story to larger news organizations and I believe their postal mail, email, and text messages are being censored. A similar story about a Navy admiral took years to get in the news, so I’m not terribly worried. The basic story will eventually break (basic story: In 2016 the U.S. Senate denied a general officer a promotion based on an IG investigation and, wow, is U.S. Army Europe/USAREUR still doing a lot to cover it up). I used to work in Wiesbaden, and I was there when the general had his promotion denied. I sat in a session in which civilian employees were essentially asked if they were being forced to do things they didn’t want to do, and I am fairly certain that’s how the DA IG investigation report will read – once we get our hands on it (I've been trying to break this story for the past two years). If you can obtain a copy of the DA IG report, please post a PDF copy of the report online along with the story when you break it. I can expand on the story once it hits AP newswires. I’m sure it will be redacted, but I can fill in a lot of the blanks. Feel free to call U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) Public Affairs Office (PAO) at this number: +49-611-143-537-0005 or 0006 Outside Germany, add your country's International Direct Dialing code plus "49" before the desired number. It’s usually 011, but some telephone carriers have different ones; so, normally dial the whole number like this: 011-49-611-143-537-0005 or 0006 Keep in mind that anything the USAREUR PAO says may be part of a cover-up. For instance, if they don’t confirm the basic story, they are perpetuating a cover-up that’s been ongoing since 2016. For some reason they really, really, really do not want the DA IG report to get in the news. Don’t know if this is Pulitzer-level stuff, but it might be.

Current Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request status and how-to: If you would like to be the first news agency to break the story:

  • Email the DA IG FOIA Office here: usarmy.pentagon.hqda-otig.mbx.saig-zxl@mail.mil
  • Ask for a copy of the “calendar year 2016 IG investigation report that caused the United States Senate to deny promotion to major general officer rank (O-8) for the Deputy Chief of Staff for U.S. Army Europe, headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany (DA IG FOIA Records Release Office knows the name of the general officer, because I emailed them the name).
  • An alternate method to obtain the IG report would be to re-initiate the FOIA request by going here and using a Department of Defense (DOD) IG FOIA account to request the report: https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home
  • I initially requested the Wiesbaden report through DOD IG FOIA, and they responded by re-directing me to the DA IG FOIA Office. That’s how I know the report is at DA.

I’ll contact your news agency to talk about the cover-up after the basic story finally gets in the news. -- The reason I’m asking for assistance in obtaining the IG report is because I believe my FOIA requests have been blocked as part of the cover-up. Whoever you talk to can say whatever they want, but the key to this story is the DA IG report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:9BD8:C141:81E1:A85E:A969:7ECD (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Expansion attemptEdit

This article still needs to cover some of the ill-fated expansion attempt (e.g. San Diego, East Coast editions). gK 12:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Liberal/ConservativeEdit

I think that the liberal/conservative opinions on this article really reflect the paper's history and current position. Anyone more knowlegable about it that can clean this up? --Mr Anthem 03:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. What needs cleaning up? -Willmcw 03:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I have been following the LAT for many years. It was once an extreme-rightwing paper, but in the 60's swung over to the extreme left. Former columnist Robert Scheer is described as a "liberal," but is fact a marxist. The paper's poor relationship with the local Jewish community and its aggressive attacks against community leaders during the al-Marayati campaign have contributed to its decline. Few on the Westside of the San Fernando Valley trust the paper any more and see little reason to subscribe.Scott Adler 02:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Many articles on newspapers now have a "Political leaning" section. It'd be great if that could be placed here as well. Xiner (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup issuesEdit

I find this article to be horribly written and poorly organized. I tried my hand at cleanup by merging sections together, but it still need a lot of work. For instance, I'm not quite sure what info needs to be put in under History. Since I've grown up with the LA Times, I'm concerned about my new age" bias; you know, including things that may be trivial in the entire scope of its history. But among the things that I think should be expanded:

  1. Putilzers. I know that the LA Times won some for their King/Drew coverage, and that they've been generally good at raising outrage and leading to action (such as the recent UCI furor and Skid Row)
  2. Writers. Bill Plackate mentioned, should there be more (like Steve Lopez), or should they be deleted
  3. "Decline." I know there's a lot more important stuff that I am unaware of.

There's a lot more but I can't think about it now. Hbdragon88 03:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for expanding the article, and those sound like good topics. Try to avoid deleting information if you can. Otherwise, be bold! Cheers, -Willmcw 08:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are some topics I'd like to see expanded, along with some supporting sources I'd like to mine. I'll try to chip them down a bit in the coming weeks, but anyone is welcome to join in.

  1. The Times coverage of Gov. Schwarzenegger.
    1. The Kennedy School of Government has nice write-up.
  2. How the purchase of Times-Mirror by Tribune Company has affected The Times
    1. The American Journalism Review wrote this up in length
  3. The internal turmoil during the Carroll-Baquet controversies
    1. This was recorded in pretty good detail by Frontline's News War
  4. The paper's future business strategy, at least pending any shakeups from Sam Zell
    1. It's not authoritative, but David Hiller's recent panel discussion on CSPAN might be informative.
  5. What is up with the likely new owner, Sam Zell?
    1. There's a Washington Post article about his opinions of online news.
    2. The New Yorker recently profiled him.
    3. A New York Times article about what the new owner means for the LAT, especially with the preceeding turmoil over Carroll and Baquet.
  6. The internal "Spring Street Project" that critiqued the paper's online efforts
    1. It looks like you can read a lot of it online at LAObserved.

I'd also like to suggest that the history section be reorganized so that it's divided by the different ownership teams (Chandlers->TribuneCo.->SamZell), with the lengthy Chandler era divided up by management teams (ex. publishers, generations of the Chandler family).

Then, if that's done chronologically, it might, or might not, make sense to work the controversies and other events into the timeline, rather than break them off into a different section.

Finally, it would be nice at some point in the future to flesh out the biography pages of many of the paper's big players, especially the current ones, like David Hiller and Jim O'Shea.Hollis I. Mulwray (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    1. The circulation of the LA Times is shown here as being fourth largest in the USA. The Houston Chronicle Wikipedia article indicates that paper is third largest behind the Los Angeles Times and New York Times, as of April 2016. Something is amiss here, with the Times' article, or the Chronicle's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bd64kcmo (talkcontribs) 19:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"The Times"Edit

The Times is either the British paper (The Times) or on a national level, the New York Times.

I don't think that anyone would argue those points. However in California, "The Times" is the L.A. Times, and in the context of this article it is entirely appropriate to refer to the paper as "The Times" as a shortened version of its formal name. -Will Beback 22:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Why would anybody think otherwise? Shorthand terms are often used after the first use of the long version. GeorgeLouis 10:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Spring Street ProjectEdit

I've taken the liberty of adding the Spring Street Project paragraphs in the modern history section. I see that someone has disagreed with my decision to break off the authors into a separate page/list and dumped it at the bottom there. I'll defer to their judgement on whether or not the name list deserves its own page. Though now I wonder if perhaps the Spring Street Project itself should be broken off into another page, which would perhaps be a better home for that list. Is that a dumb idea? What I'm thinking is that maybe it would work to distill the three or four graphs I drafted into three or four sentences, and then refer the reader to a more detailed page on the Spring Street Project if they want more detailed information.Hollis I. Mulwray (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made those changes. I distilled what I'd written yesterday about the Spring Street Project into one brief paragraph, and moved all the detailed stuff into a new page. Everybody cool with that? Hollis I. Mulwray (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Ownership Changes in 2018 for LA TimesEdit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/los-angeles-times-owner-will-sell-paper-ending-a-long-troubled-relationship/2018/02/06/60f5f42e-0b5f-11e8-95a5-c396801049ef_story.html?utm_term=.bf0d2b0ac293

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/06/los-angeles-times-newspaper-395926

On February 6th, 2018 Washington Post and Politico reported that Patrick Soon-Shiong a pharmaceutical executive will get ownership of the LA times and San Diego Union Tribune. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:429F:87FF:FE0B:3663 (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"Gropegate"Edit

I created a new "Gropegate" sub-section, as I had a "scandal" to move in from United States journalism scandals - I have just pretty-much duplicated the text. Clearly the story needed to be mentioned here if it is mentioned there, and if it actually is a proper "scandal" (also I notice it has been requested above). I directly moved all the text, as, per an AfD, that longer-list "article" may be merged into the simpler list of linked scandal-titles here: List of United States journalism scandals. This new text will no-doubt need editing. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Involvement in the 2008 Presidential raceEdit

I have heard on October 17th of that year, the Los Angeles Times--along with its major rivals the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune--has endorsed the Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. Before possibly adding a new section in this article, please consider giving discussions about this story. --Nebula2357 (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally articles on newspapers in WP do not cover their endorsements. Articles on campaigns do cover such if they are noteworthy to the article. Collect (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper archivesEdit

What is the website that offers archives of old LA Times articles? If I remember correctly, it's a local university that has taken photographs of many pages. Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 05:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is Proquest. Check with your local library, which may have a subscription. You will need a local library card. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Proquest has an archive that goes back to the 19th century.   Will Beback  talk  06:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Proquest was a Times generated effort to capitalize income from their printed content and goes back to the start of the newspaper about 1870/80--it operated after the 1850s established Los Angeles Star/Estrella folded. You can read Proquest for free a very short sentence or two of the articles on line on their site or subscribe to it and of course copy the complete article. I use it as a cost cutting reference source for the older stuff to locate which articles may be of interest then go to the library and look them up on old style film. If you are someone else's dime then you just might want to cut out the second activity and go right to subscription. The time distance between the older stuff and the newer indexing does seem to give greater ability to find stuff that the older families could have seen disappeared when it was originally published in places other than the main story areas or just a few sentences that you could miss it amongst the line adverts of lost and found or for sale.GinAndChronically (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

ContributorsEdit

An editor deleted the list of contributors , with the note:

  • Blanking. Many of these were not contributors but were staff members or were syndicated. [1]

While I agree that syndicated columnists who aren't primarily associated with the paper don't belong, some of the entries were regular columnists or reporters who are best known for their work at the paper. For example, Jack Smith or Steve Lopez. Would it help if we renamed the section "Notable contributors and staff"? I'm not sure I understand why that's an important distinction. Would "Notable writers" be broad enough to include all the relevant people?   Will Beback  talk  06:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A contributor doesn't have to be a part-time employee. Staff members are contributors to the success of the newspaper. If must, he should change the sub-heading. Ucla90024 (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is one of terminology - within the news publishing business, "contributor" is often used to mean someone who writes for the :publication, but isn't on its regular staff. To the general reader, it may have the same meaning, or more broadly indicate anyone who writes for the paper, whether on a staff or freelance basis.
The danger of misunderstanding is small, I think, but Will Beback's suggestion of changing the title to "Notable writers" neatly avoids it.
I have been looking at a number of other Wiki articles on newspapers and there's no consistency in how this section (if present) is entitled; Toronto Star (while absurdly over-detailed) interestingly separates out staff journalists from external contributors. Barnabypage (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It would really help if the list were divided or organized by dates. This list is heavy on the more recent staffers, but really lacks in the earlier years, or even the years of the mid 20th century; where, for example, is the acclaimed Matt Weinstock (1960s) or the noted Lee Shippey (1923-1958)? Also, the list should include only people who were directly on the Times payroll; that is, it should not include mere "contributors", or people syndicated from elsewhere. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

KTLAEdit

Not sure what this means, so I removed it from the article: (Now that station is owned by Fox through Newscorp, and another local station, KTLA, shares a corporate parent with the Times.) What is the corporate parent? Tribune Co.? Why do we have anything about modern KTLA in this article anyway? In puzzlement, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mideast ConflictEdit

As is the case for many large newspapers and publications, information on the Los Angeles Time's views on the Mideast conflict would be rather useful. ADM (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there any sources for their views? it would be original research for us to characterize them on our own.   Will Beback  talk  16:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Really minor, considering all the political stands the LAT has taken in its history of more than a hundred years. It would have to be a spectacular change of policy (like the presidential endorsement of Obama) to warrant a mention here. But what do I know? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The times may still have a DC correspondent or bureau. at least they did during Otis' time when he sought to make the times the newspaper of record for California as well as the west coast.GinAndChronically (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Editorial policyEdit

"For most of its first 80 years, the Times had been known as an unabashedly conservative paper, reflecting the stance of Harrison Gray Otis. Under the Chandlers, however, the paper gradually adopted a more centrist [or liberal, as one editor would have it] tone." Who says? This is why we need SOURCES. If anybody is interested, I am sure there are articles in newspapers and magazines that can be quoted. Unless somebody finds a source for statements like this within a reasonable time, I will challenge and delete. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Like many articles on print and broadcast media, this was probably added by editors who saw it as common knowledge. I'm sure we can find some sources for it.   Will Beback  talk  00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the voice of reason! Cheers . . . GeorgeLouis (talk)

Here's a source for the views of the old Times:
  • It was intensely, virulently partisan. The Times was not an organ of the Republican Party of Southern California, it was the Republican Party. [2]
In fact, that book, The Powers That Be by David Halberstam, covers the history of the paper in great detail, especially the struggle to move the paper from its reactionary beginnings.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's a source for its relatively "centrist" phase in the 1980s
  • ...the Los Angeles Times, a moderate Republican paper...[3]
That's Who Deliberates? By Benjamin I. Page.   Will Beback  talk  01:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
And another:
  • The Times is a highly regarded newspaper that has taken relatively moderate positions in recent California politics.[4]
That's Brown tide rising By Otto Santa Ana, ISBN 0292777671, published 2002.   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This one uses the word "centrist":
  • The newspapers that have been studied for the United States include the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. All three newspapers are centrist and do not represent a wide political spectrum. .. Politically, there is not much difference between them. Yet, I ranked the New York Times as the most conservative, followed by the Washington Post, and third, the Los Angeles Times. [5]
From Transboundary Environmental Negotiation By Lawrence Susskind, et al. ISBN 0787960616, 2002. I don't think it would inappropriate synthesis to use these sources to support the assertion that the paper used to be very conservative but now is centrist.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Terrific work! When do you find time to have a life? GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It didn't take that long. I've ordered a book from the library and I'll try to provide a better summary of all of this once it arrives.   Will Beback  talk  19:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I cut my journalistic teeth on the L.A. Times 50 years ago, and my most recent ex-wife still works there. My last stint with them was about 10 years ago. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • We miss the old timers. Ucla90024 (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead doesn't follow WP guidelinesEdit

The leed as it stands today does not cover the entire article, focusing too much on the Pulitzer Prizes. Anybody want to make the effort to recast it, moving the Pulitzers below, where they belong? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Cite consistencyEdit

Los Angeles Times Spanish-language VersionEdit

Los Angeles Times will announced plans to be launched a Spanish-language version daily newspaper El Times will be replaced Hoy Los Angeles. La Opinión will still Spanish-language daily newspaper published which continues to the present. Ronaldmolina20 (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

When it happens, will you kindly add the info to the article, with the necessary citations? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

CrosswordEdit

There's no mention of the LA Times' crossword in this article. Isn't it the second biggest/most syndicated behind the New York Times'. Doesn't it warrant at least a section in this article, and possibly even its own article. Not that I feel I know enough about it to do the necessary.

41.174.53.104 (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Political stanceEdit

Why is it that all the major British newspapers have a specific info box section for political affiliation (e.g. right, left, etc.) -- see Daily Telegraph, London Times, The Guardian -- while the LA Times (or New York Times for that matter) do not have such labels? Interestingly, the New York Post does have a specific label in its infobox as conservative...--达伟 (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that newspapers in the UK are much more explicit about supporting a particular party. US papers did that a long time ago, but in the past 50 to 70 years they have tended to avoid being connected to parties. I can't answer for the Post.   Will Beback  talk  07:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
In the US it was common during political elections to start up a newspaper if only to last the election. Obviously in some areas the newspapers continued after the election. Political association was inherent but not necessarily had to be publically stated because everyone at the time knew. When some newspapers would switch from issues championed by a particular party to another then they sought out to be non-partisan. The times was never non-partisan always championing conservative business and social issues until Otis Chandler sought to increase the base of the paper from conservative Republicans. Otis had to contend with his mother Buffy not wanting in the same section as the society news as the cinema ads of the newspaper because that section included showing schedules of the burgeoning porno theater industry. No one in the world can convince Nancy Reagan that the political cartoonist for the times was a universal supporter of her husband. But bringing on board that particular political cartoonist was a move to show that the times wanted to represent a greater base than the Republicans. The times would really not endorse any Demo political issues/candidates until Otis's time.GinAndChronically (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times in the 21st centuryEdit

Unless there is strong and consistent objection, I plan to begin an article titled Los Angeles Times in the 21st century, so we can move most of the detailed modern stuff over there and get the article into some kind of encyclopedic shape. Give me your thoughts here. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The article has been created. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Times Mirror CompanyEdit

Times Mirror Company redirects to this article's page, but it doesn't mention anything about it. What is its etymology? Other things such as this need to be included.Curb Chain (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. I came here with some history about the larger company Times Mirror and was surprised to be redirected to just the newspaper. It seems like it deserves a full article as it owned many properties besides the newspaper. Jaldous1 (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

BiasEdit

The following addition was removed: The LA Times was cited in a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College, Press Bias and Politics, that investigated the issue of media bias. In addition to 116 other mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers stated that the Times tends to favor liberal viewpoints.<:ref name=Kuypers>Professor's Study Shows Liberal Bias in News Media – 09/17/2002</ref> One problem is that the reference did not mention the L.A. Times at all. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC

yes, good point. i was taking the IP's word that the study that the article cited is about does mention the times, and trying to suggest in my edit summary that if anything about it is going in the article it should come from the actual study. no matter what, though, it doesn't seem to me that it's on the level of an entire section. in my next edit, i'm going to munge the <:ref> tag and remove the reflist template, if you don't mind, because it always stays at the bottom of the talk page and makes the discussion unclear if new sections are added, but i'm doing it in a separate edit in case you don't like it, so you can just revert.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don';t know what munge means, but then there's a lot I don't know. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

it just means to mess it up in such a way as to keep the computer from processing it, so that the humans can look at it. in this case, a colon before the ref in the opening ref tag leaves the whole thing visible but doesn't require a reflist template, which gets cumbersome if anyone wants to put a ref in another section. anyway, good catch that the cited source didn't even mention the times.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Television and other Times-Mirror propertiesEdit

There is now a Television section within this article, which shouldn't really be there. Information about other Times-Mirror properties should be placed within a separate Times-Mirror Company article, which does not really exist. If you click on the link above, well, as of today it brings you right back to Los Angeles Times. Not being terribly interested in the other properties (the paper mill, etc.), I am not going to try to start one right now, but maybe somebody else will. Thus it is in the land of Wikipedia. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

complete agreement with you. I am working on articles around the history of book publishing and was readying about Times-Mirror purchase of New American Library and was surprised to find no article. Jaldous1 (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

2,731 for los angles timesEdit

On a search for Los Angles Times there are about 2731 hits that include as publisher or newspaper "los angles times" or some association of angles with times. Is there a way to isolate just "Los Angles Times" the newspaper/publisher so that they can be in one move changed to the proper spelling of "Los Angeles Times" and any references of "ANGLES" in article heading be eliminated?GinAndChronically (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how this has anything to do with Wikipedia. Thanks in advance for explaining further. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
How can citations that list as the publication or newspaper "Los Angles Time" not have anything to do with WP? Who ever identified the source as "Los Angles Times" more than likely typed it wrong as it should be "Los Angeles Times". Why would it be the "Los Angeles Times"? Well, maybe they were Los Angeles based articles. Is that enough of an explanation or does it require more brick and mortar?GinAndChronically (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Los Angeles Times. 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}}).

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 04:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Link was dead and has been so marked. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Los Angeles Times. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 05:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Los Angeles Times. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 11:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained revertEdit

AuthorAuthor, you need to explain this edit. Reverting edits without explanation is appropriate only when the edits in question are vandalism. My edits were not vandalism. The first edit was a minor formatting change, which removed a space between a word and the following citation. The change in question was in accord with Wikipedia's rules and should not have been reverted. See MOS:PUNCTFOOT: " The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space". The second edit was done in accord with WP:EL, which is a widely accepted guideline. It should also not have been reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The citation used in the edit I reverted was a satirical blog and therefore not considered a reliable source per Wiki guidelines. Also, you used the source in both the text you added and in the citation for that text. In other words, the text appeared to cite itself. As for not including a summary in my revert, it was an omission and a mistake on my part, and I apologize to you now for that. I intended to include a summary but I inadvertently failed to. Again, my apologies for not including one. Also, the minor formatting change should not have been included in my revert. My error all the way around. Thank you for pointing it out to me. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I did not add any text. The text you appear to think I added in this edit was already in the article. The effect of the edit was to remove several misplaced external links in accord with WP:EL. If there is no independent reliable source for the information about those blogs, then the mention of them needs to be removed outright. I will do so in a moment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Return to "Los Angeles Times" page.