Talk:The Spectator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Editor 2 Move 2.1 informal query about reconsideration of move 3 NPOV 3.1 Good God, this is not POV 4 recent times 5 revision

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)