Talk:The Spectator

Untitled
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)
 * 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)
 * See the mention of Mr Franklin in the Wikipedia article The Spectator (1711). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! So is that the likely publication mentioned in Austen do you think? LastDodo (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I won't comment further about this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Editor
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)

Move
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)


 * Weak oppose Until I looked at the date twice, I thought you meant Addison's Spectator, which is the one that comes to my mind. Septentrionalis 21:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Bother! I guess I have to make the case peroperly...   I've gone through all the links on the "what links here" page, and of 80 article links to "The Spectator", I count 11 that are to Addison's magazine (the count will be less now, since I've fixed most of the wrong links), and 1 spurious link, giving just over a 6:1 ratio for the 1828 over the 1711 magazines.  I'll rewrite the preamble so that it directly links to the Addison magazine, but reclling the guideline on article naming (namely, Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.), I think the move should go through as I proposed.  --- Charles Stewart 15:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, by far the most well-known, I would have thought. James F. (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * support --Irpen 17:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Dragons flight 06:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

informal query about reconsideration of move
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)

Sorry this is the first time I've commented/edited on Wikipedia so I'm sorry if I've stuck this in the wrong place but I just had to comment on how biased this article was! As a subscriber, I admit that under the editorship of Matthew D'Ancona I have been disappointed by the increasingly sensationalist line the features take, as well as with some of the contributors who have been brought in - I can't stand Rod Liddle or the American neocon whose name I have forgotten. And, yes, the covers have at times been shocking, one of the worst being the 'Eurabia' article (though also the 'This is a war. We are losing....'). But to show only the worst aspects of it's Conservatism is awful and just as unenlightened as you yourself accuse it of being.

NPOV
"Although writing about popular culture is not a priority for The Spectator, it is one of the few remaining magazines where one can still find an old-fashioned rant against rock music (e.g. "It's all just noise").[citation needed] "Culture" for The Spectator tends towards gallery openings, new opera productions and the like. It does have a "television and cinema" section, pages most often given over to personal soliloquies by writers such as the novelist James Delingpole, who spends more time lamenting how poor and unsuccessful he is than he does reviewing television programming.

The Spectator tends to follow its educated-and-conservative target audience's fashions and social concerns: sourcing organic food at markets, the pros and cons of private education, hunting, etc. Certain British cultural establishments are also often favourably alluded to, such as the University of Oxford (alma mater of many Spectator contributors), Ascot and White's."

The entire culture section exhibits personal judgements and a certain class-war character. Another example of glaring subjectivity is the reference to Boris Johnson.

80.216.5.84 18:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How NPOV? ALL THIS is covered by the Spectator...no opinion is given as to whether this is a good idea. And James Delingpole can go off on a trajectory unlike anyone I have ever read.  I do agree the first paragraph listed above needs some work. Boris references have been pruned by me.  The class war issue must remain subjective, and what is suggested by the subject matter of the Spectator itself Pydos 14:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, in this case, the non-neutral POV is appropriate. We are discussing the magazine, and what the magazine covers, and we are using the language the magazine uses. This wording reflects well what the reader will find in the Spectator. Those of other POVs should be able to clearly recognize this and not be offended--or at least, not more offended than the necessarily are from the contents of the magazine itself.
 * If necessary, one could begin the paragraph with "As it sees itself, the Spectator ..."

DGG 02:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Good God, this is not POV
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)


 * 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)

recent times
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)

revision
I've altered the contentious paragraph above to something which I hope is more balanced and which removes the unsourced statement; I've given comparison points by mentioning some of the newspapers which ignored/dismissed popular culture in the way the Spectator still does (but no newspaper today would) and I've made an appropriate mention of the fact that the Spectator coined the phrase "young fogey", which curiously wasn't previously on this page. RobinCarmody 22:30, 12 November 2006 (GMT)

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

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

Current cover
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)
 * 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)

Firstly, most Spectator covers are white and not inset, with (as described above) some political caricature (nowadays usually Cameron or Brown). Also, though the given image was indeed a real issue (I've got it), putting it as the only representative is particularly misleading. The cover is always somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and this is not reflected here; this makes it look like a BNP circular or something, when it is nothing of the kind. It is more than anything a Conservative magazine, mostly ranging from just left of centre-right to quite neocon, though it can include some startlingly left-wing articles (especially in recent months - at least two in fact by 'the enemy', Labour MPs), and has included startlingly neoconservative articles (like anything written by Mark Steyn). I vote for a change to a more representative and less seemingly offensive cover, like the current one (latest as of 4 Dec 2008), but I am sure than someone else can find a better one.


 * 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)


 * 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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FloreatAntiquaDomus (talk • contribs)

Appealing Boris?
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)

Contributors
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)

Treatment in "other press"
I changed this heading to 'Treatment in Private Eye' because that was the only 'other press' mentioned. I think, as this heading should make clear through its absurdity, that it should be removed altogether. Private Eye's cariacatures don't deserve their own section in encyclopaedia entries. Spectator contributors often refer to Private Eye as 'that squalid little rag' (a quote from Jim Hacker in Yes Minister) but I don't see that noted in Private Eye's entry. The two publications have a mutually abusive yet admiring relationship, which is very interesting and funny for me (I'm a subscriber of both), but not material for an encyclopaedia. What do peeps think?

Hello, new contributor
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)

Miners, not minors!
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)


 * Done. Philip Cross (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction
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)
 * 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)
 * Probably should ping and .  — jmcgnh (talk)  (contribs) 03:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Far right claim
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)

I've removed it, pending discussion on how to handle it, or a pointer to a rule that says spurious, unevidenced, contrary categorisation by a single journalist without any context is mandated. Conan The Librarian (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of claim regarding support for Conservative party
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)

"Political Ideology" section misleading
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)