Talk:Los Angeles Times

Los Angeles Times apologizes for history of racism

An interesting article that I think has several elements that could be integrated into the article in an WP:ABOUTSELF manner here: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-09-27/los-angeles-times-apology-racism --2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:38F2:C611:118:641D (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Anybody can edit (or add to) this article. You can do it yourself, and if you need help, somebody will step up to assist you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The Intercept: A Los Angeles Times intelligence reporter routinely submitted story drafts to the CIA for review

https://theintercept.com/2014/09/04/former-l-times-reporter-cleared-stories-cia-publication/

Not sure where this should be included

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe under "Other controversies"? Be sure to have more than one source, including a response from the L.A. Times. Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times Owner Fires Far-Left Editorial Board – Wants ‘Factual and Balanced Coverage’ of Trump Presidency

How does this line up with them being a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:3EF0:E4C0:755E:CC61:6DCD:2480 (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 19 July 2025

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: not moved. Closing this as the nominator has asked for it to be withdrawn (non-admin closure) ~~ Jessintime (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

---

Los Angeles Times → The Los Angeles TimesThe Los Angeles Times – The Los Angeles Times appears to be a notable enough newspaper to include the word "The" and is in the same league as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Boston Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Dallas Morning News, The Indianapolis Star, The Cincinnati Enquirer, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Seattle Times, The Salt Lake Tribune, The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Mercury News, The Bakersfield Californian, The Kansas City Star, and The Denver Post. Is it about time that this article be renamed The Los Angeles Times? 96.82.59.129 (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. The newspaper uses "Los Angeles Times" (no "the") on the masthead of the print edition and as the title of their website. While it's true that Wikipedia doesn't always use the official name as the article title, I don't see anything to indicate that "The Los Angeles Times" (with a capital "The") is more commonly used. A few examples:

• CNN: Donald Trump weaponizes non-endorsements from The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times
• Reuters: Los Angeles Times plans 'significant' layoffs, guild says
• BBC: Journalist guilty of helping Anonymous deface Los Angeles Times

Surachit (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. According to Wikipedia's naming convention, The are usually excluded from the beginning of an article unless they are commonly used proper name in reliable and independent references to the subject. Fade258 (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest speedy close: For newspapers, Wikipedia tends to follow the nameplate (publishing), a.k.a. the masthead, as noted by Surachit. The nominator was probably not aware of that convention, and this proposed renaming is unlikely to be accepted. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. "The" is not part of the Los Angeles Times' proper name and is not capitalised in running text, so it should not be in the title per WP:THE. Cyrobyte (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. Agreed with consensus. Please help me close this discussion since nothing would be gain by allowing it to continue. I have already learned a lot by seeing the intelligent replies on why this is a stupid proposal. 96.82.59.129 (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

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.