Talk:The Spectator

message: How is this connected to The Spectator menioned in Jane Austen's 1817 novel, Northanger Abbey?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.16.152 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to this, I saw Ken Burn's documentary about Ben Franklin the other day, and it showed a bookshelf of Mr Franklin's with 'Spectator Vol I', Vol II etc. Since he died in 1790, I also wonder to what that refers. LastDodo (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See the mention of Mr Franklin in the Wikipedia article The Spectator (1711). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! So is that the likely publication mentioned in Austen do you think?  LastDodo (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I won't comment further about this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Please stop vandalising my contributions. Readers have a right to know that the editor of the Spectator, Boris Johnson, is a Conservative MP.
Yes, but that is covered in his bio page. Also it is unreasonable to characterise the spectator and telegraph as "house journals" with out saying who calls them that and giving verifiable proof. the page already gives a list of the papaers bias, let the readers make thier own conclusions. Iainscott 11:55, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Editor

message: I've proposed a move from this page to "The Spectator" on WP:RM, which I assume/hope is not controversial: of the four possible sense on The Spectator (disambiguation), this weekly has by far the highest profile (just look at the various "What links here" pages) and so should have that name as its home.  Do register agreement or say why you disagree here, if you care at all. --- Charles Stewart 19:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: The two principal periodicals do need to be distinguished, but this can be done without marking either one as the principal one. 
Saying "Well known," depends upon well know to whom. The earlier one will remain as a monument of literature, and no one could say that about the latter. The neutral way of distinguishing, which makes it immediately clear to everybody, is to call  one The Spectator (1711-1712) and The Spectator (1828- ). Why judge importance when it can be avoided? DGG 02:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: informal query about reconsideration of move

message: Perceived "class war"" has nothing to do with the pov issue, even if you think the culture section is a class issue (i don't). "Offending" also has nothing to do with pov and is a slippery slope best completely avoided (note that I am not talking here about unacceptable slurs, etc which of course must be kept out). A reader holding any number of opinions could be "offended" by almost anything written on any media/politics/culture article in WikiP. A policy of pov tags any time someone is "offended" in the manner of DGG will result in a complete strangulation of good writing. The culture section is a faithful reflection of the Spectator's content (e.g. the music bit). I would urge quite strongly a removal of the tag. OH, and for the record I love rock&roll.
::I think you misunderstood. I agree with you in most of this. My argument is that the POV is in the context of the article. To an extreme liberal the whole publication may be disliked, but that is obvious from the nature of the magazine & the article and doesn't have to be explained. I was arguing against using POV tags for articles that offended someone, and proposing myself as a 'someone' to be able to give an example. 
::For another example,  there is no need to say in detail in the Lenin article what conservatives (in any sense) thought of his policies. The discussion of what he did and what he said make it obvious. I may dislike R&R, but there is no need to say in the discussion of every such musician that some don't like the style. It should be obvious from the description of the music
::I thought I was clear, but the reader is the judge of whether the writer is clear.  I hope this is clearer, but if not, just ask. I was trying to support your position. 
::In short, I as well as you strongly support removal' of the POV tag from this article. DGG 23:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, my mistake then. Thought you were supporting the tag. In any case, i took the liberty of removing it since i haven't seen any good arguments for keeping it. And as an aside, your example of Lenin is a good one -- 20+ million dead won't be helped by "conservatives" giving their two rubles on Lenin's WP page. Cheers --longlivefolkmusic 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good God, this is not POV

message: This phrase is used in the article, and perhaps should be rewritten more precisely: "from the 1980s on ", or whatever is meant. I haven't attempted to fix, because I do not know what was intended. DGG 23:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: recent times

message: This was recently deleted, but I think that it should be restored. See Talk:Mark_Steyn#Neoconservative. Viewfinder 11:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mark Steyn]] is a [[neoconservative]] 

message: This "Eurabia" propaganda picture looks quite racialistic. --Validside 09:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't like the picture 

message: The current cover is atypical of current Spectator covers, and I think it should be changed. I'm not sure if it used to look like that in 2005, or if it was just for that issue, but either way, the cover image should be more typical of the Spectator today. Briefplan (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the comment above; although I'm not a regular reader of the Spectator myself, I see it around a lot, and their covers these days aren't nearly as potentially inflammatory as that one. These days, they typically just have a caricature of a well-known political figure instead. Perhaps the image should be replaced with a more appropriate one? Terraxos (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I for one think the image draws the attention of the reader too much, probably at the expense of the actual content of the article. I suggest it be replaced with another cover. Muad (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with all of the above as, seemingly, does everyone else, but no one has suggested a new picture in the last year? FloreatAntiquaDomus 14:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current cover 

message: Erm... could the description of the current Conservative and Unionist Party candidate for mayor of London as 'appealingly woodhousian' be perhaps a little bit POV?Rykalski (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Appealing Boris?

message: Given the cornucopia of past and present talented contributors to this unique magazine and in view of the extremely wide range of topics covered by The Spectator, this section needs expanding and updating. The expansion should include a mention of the weekly page of Spectator's Notes by the ineffably urbane and knowledgeable Charles Moore. Some reviewers also deserve a special mention, notably Deborah Ross and James Delingpole for their unique styles of Cinema and TV criticism. In fact, I propose to start this suggested process by including all three of them now.
Ombudswiki (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributors 

message: Hi, I'm just contributing some new stuff to this page but am rather new to this side of things, so sorry if I'm getting everything wrong! Please do let me know if I am...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnniekerr1 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello, new contributor 

message: Ref that part of the article which deals with "Aberdare Minors" - I'm fairly confident that it was the miners of Aberdare, and not the minors, who presented the statuette to the Spectator. Truly surprised by this spelling error. I cannot make this minor edit to the article myself! Looks like it's protected.
Gm4aff (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Philip Cross (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Miners, not minors!

message: The lead says that the paper was first pubished in July 1828 but the body says December 1828. Both are sourced, although sourcing to an advertisement is probably dodgy. I cannot see the sources & thus cannot resolve this contradiction. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the Times 1828 announcement and could not find any support for a December date, so I reconciled in favor of July. The newspaper announcement is announcing availability for the following day, so we might say it violates CRYSTAL. The Spectator archives contains an image of the first issue with a designation "week ending Saturday July 5, 1828". I've adjusted the article based on these archival sources. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Probably should ping  and . — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: An eccentric, unevidenced claim by a single journalist that the magazine is far right seems pretty irrelevant in this article. There's a slippery slope here to a wrongful categorisation down to lazy/biased writing and subediting in the original source, and if that clear context is to be removed, I suggest the whole note is, or the clarification is reinstated. Conan The Librarian (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far right claim 

message: I removed this claim, which must have been added fairly recently. To state blanket support of the magazine for the Conservative party is crazy. Of course the magazine is conservative but much of its content is actively critical of the party. The sentence I removed made out it was in-house party support. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of claim regarding support for Conservative party 

message: It's of course difficult to define a publication's political outlook, especially a publication that is intentionally contentious like the Spectator. However, the current section on "Political ideology and policy positions" is vague enough to be actively misleading at this point. The inclusion of the only the historical liberal outlook, a campaign in favour of decriminalising homosexuality in the 50s, and one specific editorial from 2019 that's pro immigration gives a casual reader the impression that the magazine is currently still in a liberal-conservative mindset. Leaving aside the fights about where the Spectator actually stands now, it's fair to say that it's definitely not that.
I've only been able to find limited sources on this, including one New Statesman article, but there must be a way to rewrite this section to at least give a more balanced view of their output than one cherry picked liberal article from 2019.  Hotpantsraindance (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Political Ideology" section misleading