Talk:The Observer

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

Rachel Beer[edit]

I have corrected the reference to Rachel Beer, who edited the paper in the 1890's. She also edited The Sunday Times, not The Times. The two papers were not related at that time. The Sunday Times took that name in an effort to gain respectability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.52.174 (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARCO[edit]

Was the paper actually sold to ARCO for US$1, or is this a typo? --SamClayton 06:35, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference until someone can clarify. The Observer's own online history makes no mention of this.--130.74.170.147 07:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Google finds this: http://www.ketupa.net/gmg2.htm ; it's the only non-Wikipedia source I could find. --rbrwr± 08:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ARCO "took over the Observer in 1976 for L1 plus the newspaper's liabilities" (L1=£1) - Economist February 28, 1981, "Tiny buys the Observer and takes on the Sunday Times". And ARCO sold the paper in 1981 to Lonrho for Lonrho stock "estimated to be worth about $13.4 million." - The New York Times March 2, 1981, "Directors rail at sale of Observer". ARCO spent an estimated $20m subsidising the paper 1976-81 (Economist ref). Rd232 talk 13:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does The Ukrainian Observer have any relation to it? <-- someone posted that on the main article page, i deleted it and moved it here for him or her (cant be bothed to look in the history) --GregLoutsenko 15:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. --rbrwr± 08:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O'Brien[edit]

I do not know, nor do I care, but Conor Cruise O'Brien's page lists him as editor of the paper from 1978. This isn't listed, and I'm pretty sure it is correct, so someone should correct it. I am not about to, since I dislike Wikipedians in general :-) . 194.97.160.44 21:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, [1] O'Brien was "editor in chief" 1979-81, while Trelford was "editor" 1975-1993. I've corrected Conor Cruise O'Brien. Rd232 talk 14:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question[edit]

As there is a fixed policy on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy saying that the Beatles has to be written with a lowercase 't', I wonder what your thoughts are about using that policy for this page, and if you would agree or disagree. I thank you. andreasegde 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

editorial line[edit]

The Observer in recent years seemed to me to take a more liberal line than the Guardian, which is more left (social democratic). – Kaihsu 09:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'liberal' in most countries - including the UK but not the US - means to the left. So in British terms it is less 'liberal'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

‘Left’, especially in the European context, can mean either socialist (social democratic), classical liberal (civil libertarian), or both. Terry Eagleton, in his recent essay ‘The liberal supremacists’ in The Guardian, explained the oft-subtle distinction between liberal and socialist. ‘The left objects to the liberal case not because it believes in crushing those who differ, or dislikes the idea of a partisan state, but because this case rules out the kind of partisan state that ­socialism requires. It rules out, for example, a state that would not be neutral on whether cooperation or individualism should reign supreme in social and economic life.’ This article (from a socialist point of view) would sit comfortably in the (more socialist/social democratic) Guardian but no so much in the (more liberal) Observer. – Kaihsu (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

As of 2007-12-04, the first two sentences of the History read: "The first issue, published on 1791-12-04 by W. S. Bourne, was the world's first Sunday newspaper. Faced with debts of nearly £1,600 Bourne attempted to sell The Observer to anti-government based groups in London."

The first sentence is fine. The second sentence is a bolt from the blue. Is it saying he published the observer because he had debts? Is it saying that he made a loss of £1600 on the first issue and couldn't sustain it? Is it saying he made a loss of £1600 after some period of time and had to give up then?

Was the first issue a success (what criteria) - for example how many did he print/sell - 1000, 10000, 100000 issues?

Could someone who knows these things sort this out please. -- SGBailey 15:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

This article used to be great, but it's not now because Death has been round and nicked all the pictures. The ones showing it before and after the size change were good, as would be a front cover example. I don't have anything myself, but anyone who does, please go ahead and correct the problem! Tom walker (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mid week one off?[edit]

I seem to dimly recall when Tiny Rowland owned the paper he had a special mid-week edition published to publicise his fight with Al-Fayad to buy Harrods. Can anyone confirm this or is my memory playing tricks?! trash80 (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that too. It was a big scandal at the time, because he was republishing a government report into Al Fayed that wasn't supposed to be public. The midweek edition was withdrawn virtually as soon as it hit the shelves. "Phony Pharaoh" was in the headline IIRC.
The editor at the time took a massive credibility hit, even though he insisted it was a big story regardless of Rowland's interests in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.149.58.8 (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a cite: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/01/us/saturday-news-quiz.html?pagewanted=1?pagewanted=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.149.58.8 (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and another: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/31/business/british-battle-over-harrods-tiny-vs-phoney-pharaoh.html?pagewanted=1 66.149.58.8 (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closure[edit]

What happened to the stuff about the rumours they might be closing the paper? 213.106.248.201 (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a See Also link to the Cambridge Apostles?[edit]

Nothing about the Rowland/Fayed dispute?[edit]

They hated each other enough that The Observer brought out an infamous midweek edition solely devoted to Fayed! Grover cleveland (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme McDowell arti le[edit]

Perhaps Mr. Donegan should be a little bit more careful of who he calss a one-hit wonder. I happen to be the mother of one of those men mentioned in his article and I don't take that name -calling lightly. I don't suppose you have a Claret Jug sitting anywhere in your house now do ya? Your futile attempt to be a wannabe journalist is just that-----futile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.182.9 (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madsen Controversy[edit]

The need and, in fact, the advisability for this section in "The Observer" article is obscure, since it is purely an ad hominem attack that obscures the broader and far, far deeper relevancy of the Edward Snowden information concerning broad government access to private data. I do not see why this entire section should not be deleted. It is not a unique case at all. It is not relevant to the article on The Observer except, perhaps, very tangentially. It is inappropriate in its current context. The accuracy of the original Madsen content is not challenged. It adds nothing to the article except an attack on Madsen, ie. it is a straw man argument that is perfectly feckless in and of itself -- inserted into the article about the world's first Sunday newspaper. If this material is acceptable to Wikipedia, it ought to appear in an article about Madsen -- not The Observer. The practice of ad hominem attacks via the abuse of the term "conspiracy theorist" should not be permitted on Wikipedia.Alchemistoxford (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just turned up here as a mere reader of Wikipedia, curious about the history of the Observer and what its current relationship to the Guardian is. I agree with the comment posted above: I don't see the importance and relevance of this to this article. I'm removing it now and encourage further discussion before re-inserting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photographers[edit]

Added in a list of Observer photographers, the most famous of which being Jane Bown, who was the resident photographer from 1949 until her death in 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.223.209 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Observer.com[edit]

Is there any relationship between this publication and https://observer.com/ and if so, what is it? Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a result, the paper soon took a strong line against radicals such as Thomas Paine, Francis Burdett and Joseph Priestley.[edit]

Why?

Website[edit]

When did The Guardian website start hosting The Observer? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Observer&oldid=1194987471"