Talk:The Observer: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:51, 28 May 2008

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.

ARCO

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

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

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

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]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+==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.
 ==ARCO==
 Was the paper actually sold to ARCO for US$1, or is this a typo? --[[User:SamClayton|SamClayton]] 06:35, 11 May 2004 (UTC)