Talk:The Observer

Rachel Beer

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)

ARCO

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

O'Brien

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)

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)

A question

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)

editorial line

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)

'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)

‘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)

History

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)

Pictures

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)

Mid week one off?

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)

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)

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)

...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)

Closure

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)

Well, they're potentially selling it off to Tortoise Media now Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing about the Rowland/Fayed dispute?

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)

Graeme McDowell arti le

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)

Madsen Controversy

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)

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)

Photographers

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)

Observer.com

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)

They are 2 entirely different entities with the same name - the American Observer should not be confused with Guardian Media Group's The Observer, the oldest Sunday paper. Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:554e:7801:d2e:2f6d:e4d1:2b98 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Reply: Hi, it's Nothing-nothing-at all here to answer your question. The founder, John Edward Taylor was actually quite politically conservative, but also radicalised by Peterloo. The paper's politics have been contradictory at times, condemning the Suffragettes, but also being more progressive on other things.

Capitalism's Conscience dives very well into this: 'Taylor had more opportunity to show off his reform credentials in relation to the biggest political issue of the time: the proposed repeal of the Combination acts, legislation originally passed in 1799-1800 to restrict the collective organisation of working people into unions. The Guardian was firmly in support of repeal in 1823 but, once again, not because this might strengthen the bargaining rights of ordinary people, but because the Acts undermined free trade principles and actually risked strengthening working-class organisation...It was a position much closer to Adam Smith than it was to Tom Paine' (p12). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Website

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

In 1999, when theguardian.com was launched. Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing-nothing-at-all's additions

There are multiple problems with your additions, Nothing-nothing-at-all. Most of the material is about the Guardian, not the Observer. This is problematic in general, but especially where the text you've added states "In 1983, the paper was at the centre of a controversy...", which you copied from The Guardian (which is the paper being referred to in the source). In response to my revert, you've reinstated material and inserted "and The Observer" into a quote, when presumably those words didn't feature in the source (I've not watched the video to check). On the subject of quotes from that video, it's a primary source and we should only be quoting it if it's received coverage in secondary sources. I'm going to revert pending further discussion here. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that GNM as a whole is referred to as 'The Guardian' by the public, when people really mean The Guardian and The Observer. The investigative journalism that Appelbaum and Assange were involved in, were featured in both. In addition, Siegle was primarily a journalist for The Observer, so I stand by my edit there. Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

We have to follow what the source says, and in this instance the source says "the Government took the Guardian to court", not mentioning the Observer. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I've added copy attributions, as you suggested, so I hope that helps. Please let me know if you'd like anything futher. Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately you didn't do it correctly. You added it to the text of one of the references. For how to do this correctly, see WP:PATT (and WP:RIA for how to repair past failures of attribution). However, please don't reinstate the material until you have consensus here first. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The Observer wasn't owned by the Guardian in 1983. DuncanHill (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The Observer was owned by GNM (Guardian News & Media - the entity that owns the Guardian and the Observer) when Assange, Appelbaum and Siegle were involved with it Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

How does that justify your addition of "In 1983, the paper was at the centre of a controversy..."? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Because of Peter Preston Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

N.B. I didn't write that sentence, but Preston's involvement in the controversy and him being a key figure of the Observer led to me including the controversy and it fit in nicely with the rest of the section 'Lack of protections for whistleblowers' Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

We can't say that the Observer was at the centre of a controversy unless there are reliable sources that establish that. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Preston certainly was and it tainted his tenure at the Observer, which was a large contributor for, but I understand your rationale there and will concede on this one. Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Am I allowed to have the rest of my content back? I've explained that Siegle was a key contributor to the Observer and how Appelbaum and Assange relate to the Observer Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I also added a secondary source for the Appelbaum quote to your talk page Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Please propose the text you want to add here (with appropriate attribution if you're copying it from another page), and allow others to comment. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Appelbaum 2nday source (N.B. Since Appelbaum and the people in his coterie are programmers, I would argue that GitHub is a valid 2ndary source):

During the speech he outlined how he and other investigative journalists had been betrayed by establishment journalists -- particularly at The Guardian, the "shittiest publication in the English language." Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a self-published source and therefore not acceptable for these purposes on Wikipedia. See WP:SPS. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

But the author is a independent investigative journalist and privacy researcher, who publishes their work on GitHub. Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I should also add that Appelbaum is criticising the media, so it is within the media's interest to not publish what he says. Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Even so, isn't it kind of harsh to leave the rest of my content out, because of this issue with the 2ndary source? The rest of it is cogent and relevant Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I've told you what you need to do to seek consensus for the changes you want to make above. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I found another secondary source for the Appelbaum quote (in the Berlin times): https://issuu.com/christophzeiher/docs/berlintimes_appelbaum Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Is the Berlin Times secondary source okay for you, CordlessLarry? Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I've never heard of the Berlin Times and can't find much information about it online. But anyway, you need to propose the additions you want to make here for others to comment on, as I told you above. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like to propose for my additions about Siegle, Assange and Appelbaum to be re-added.

Appelbaum:

The main gripe regarding the Appelbaum material was the lack of a secondary source, which I found here: https://issuu.com/christophzeiher/docs/berlintimes_appelbaum

I believe the Berlin Times website is this one: https://www.times-media.de/berlin_times.html, but regardless, the original complaint was the lack of secondary sources.

Siegle:

Siegle worked primarily for the Observer, so my point still stands.

Assange:

Assange's work was published in the Observer, so this still stands too.

Does anyone disagree with my rationale - if so, why and please can I have my content back? Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether the Berlin Times is reliable, the article you found doesn't appear to contain the first of the quotes from the talk that you added to the article (and certainly not your version with "The Observer" added in).

As for the Assange material, here's a portion of what you added: The Guardian has neither retracted nor apologised for the story about the meeting. Stella Morris, Assange's wife, said The Guardian failed in its responsibility to Assange and its "negligence has created such a problem that if Julian dies or is extradited, that will forever blot the reputation of the Guardian". Why would that belong in an article about the Observer when it's all about the Guardian? The rest of the text is similar. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure we both have the same version of the article? This is in article in question: https://issuu.com/christophzeiher/docs/berlintimes_appelbaum

The article substantiates the accusation of a lack of protection for whistleblowers in the 4th sentence.

The Appelbaum quote ('shittiest publication') is the 6th sentence of the article. It's near the finger.

I also don't see how this criticism relates to the Siegle material. In addition, I have said before that the general public tend to use 'The Guardian' as a term unfortunately synonymously with GNM (Guardian News & Media), which owns both the Guardian and the Observer. In addition, I have pointed out earlier that Siegle, Assange and Appelbaum have all been published in the Observer. The Observer is literally on the 2nd floor of the Guardian building in Kings Place, along with the rest of the Guardian. There is not that much of a distinction between them, as people think. Perhaps, it would help to create a 'Guardian News & Media' wiki-article to clarify all this. Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

If Morris had said that "The Guardian and Observer failed in their responsibility to Assange", I would see the case for inclusion, but almost all of the text you added speaks of the Guardian, not the Observer. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

You might want to count the mentions of the Observer compared to the Guardian in your additions. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I have said before that the general public tend to use 'The Guardian' as a term unfortunately synonymously with GNM (Guardian News & Media), which owns both the Guardian and the Observer. This is becoming circular now. Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the general public. I'm referring to you, who's the one who's added lots of text about the Guardian. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

In all cases, apart from the Sarah Tindall case, these individuals are referring the Guardian AND the Observer. You can see this particularly in the New European article linked to the Siegle addition. I am adding the archive page, so you can read it and see for yourself: https://archive.ph/aS4VV Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Then why are you only mentioning the Guardian in the text you added? A reader should reasonably expect the text of an article about the Observer to mainly be about the Observer, and not encounter long passages that appear to be about the Guardian. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This is fruitless. I have tried to be respectful and take your additions on board, but you keep moving the goalposts and are not listening to anything that I am saying. I am not engaging anymore. Nothing-nothing-at-all (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not moving the goalposts - my initial comment above stated "Most of the material is about the Guardian, not the Observer"! Cordless Larry (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing-nothing-at-all has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)