This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Spectator article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Dragons flight 06:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
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.
"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)
DGG 02:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
This was recently deleted, but I think that it should be restored. See Talk:Mark_Steyn#Neoconservative. Viewfinder 11:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This "Eurabia" propaganda picture looks quite racialistic. -- Validside 09:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)