Talk:The Observer

message: 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)
thread_title: Rachel Beer

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: According to this,  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)
thread_title: O'Brien

message: 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)
thread_title: A question

message: 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)
replies: text: '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)
thread_title:  editorial line 

message: 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)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Closure 

message: 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)
thread_title: Nothing about the Rowland/Fayed dispute?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Graeme McDowell arti le 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Madsen Controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photographers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Observer.com 

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