Talk:Louisville Eccentric Observer

Untitled

For a December 2005 deletion debate of this article see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisville Eccentric Observer

POV - Left wing bias

I know when I read it back in my college days, it was very left for the most part, but how do you quantify or source a newspaper's POV? It's not like you can take a survey of lefties, righties and centrists to get a definitive answer. We should have some way of being able to quantify it (if it exists) since denying POV of the SUBJECT of an article does reduce accuracy somewhat. Just a thought... Zotel - the Stub Maker 13:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if say, Anne Northup said that "LEO is widely known for its left-wing bias" we could maybe just quote that and attribute the accusation to her. Similarly, if there was a Courier-Journal article about how LEO was biased, we could reference that. Ultimately we can include the bias thing if a reliable source is saying it. And there very well could be, it seems plausible enough. But I think the claim was removed because the tag had been up requesting a source for a while, and none had been forthcoming. --W.marsh 14:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How about actually trying to find any conservative opinion in that paper in any of the past, say, 200 issues? Personally, I'd rather to to find a needle in a haystack, as I'd have better odds.--Bedford 14:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Conservative Carl Brown ("Plain Brown Rapper") has been a regular feature of the LEO for ages. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

He's only shown up, what, once in the past 6 months?--Bedford 18:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, to say there's bias in the paper does require sources. We can't just say it's biased, even though I personally agree it is left-biased. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The removed portion stated "although it admits to a left-wing bias". Please keep in mind the definition of bias and to state that it has been admitted to without any citation shows a point of view. I was unable to find any instance where LEO has admitted to a bias and to reword it would likely violate Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. Since it had already been noted that a citation was needed and none had been provided, it was removed. Since the article notes that its "columnist and consultant" is running as a Democrat and that his column has been "put on hold" it already could appear to the casual observer that the paper may lean left. Also, there is a link to the papers website where the current issue (and some past issues) can be viewed and where one can form ones own opinion as to if the paper is biased in its reporting. Chris24 20:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LEO.jpg

Image:LEO.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Change away from computer robot cite dates to something everyday folks can read

Any objections to using U.S. human readable date formats? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

They're already human readable. I can read them just fine, and the MOS specifically allows for this date format. I don't think we should change them based on personal preference. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't change them by "personal preference". I changed them to be more readable by more readers and for consistency, as the format I changed to is used in the prose and in one citation already. I have a software development background, and the current format is more of a a timestamp or database storage format. Besides, keeping them the way they are could be described as a personal preference, and you even stated as such in my user talk. Why is your personal preference more important than wider readability? Also, I by no means own this article, but why can't I who has done most edits and actually live in Louisville and have held the LEO in my hands countless times have a preference compared to an editor who has made only 2 edits? I prefer that more folks not feel like they're looking at a computer printout. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think they're human readable as-is. However, I guess it doesn't really matter all that much what format they're in. If you think it's more human readable to change them, it's not such a big deal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louisville Eccentric Observer. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140604235034/http://fatlip.leoweekly.com/2014/04/29/leo-local-and-yarmuth-once-again/ to http://fatlip.leoweekly.com/2014/04/29/leo-local-and-yarmuth-once-again/

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) 19:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)