Talk:The Observer

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism Mid‑importance Newspapers 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.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 4, 2005, December 4, 2006, and December 4, 2007.

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]

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]

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]

As there is a fixed policy on

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Why?

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