Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Fair use rationale for Image:Observer.jpg

Image:Observer.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

The newspaper is known as New York Observer, not The New York Observer. Nothing on the official website points to a The in the name. Therefore, I propose that this article, associated talk page, and the associated Category:The New York Observer people all be moved to remove the "The". —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Vandalism...

Good Day.

Could someone with proper authority please issue a warning to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2602:306:CE98:EC60:39F0:BB03:811A:D264 for their June 18th edit to this page in which they unencyclopedically charged that this paper is part of Trump's campaign and going so far as to claim that they engage in a reckless disregard of facts to benefit Trump and tarnish his rivals. It clearly lacks credible citation and truth be told from what I've seen Jared's been very transparent about his relation to Trump, often disclosing it in political articles published. Chelsea Clinton ironically also has influence over a news outlet that's been perceived to do hit pieces on Bernie Sanders while providing no such disclosure notices. So it's perhaos a low bar in journalism set by rampant media malpractice this cycle, however Jared is indeed meeting/exceeding it. So the attack from this editor isn't really valid even if it weren't a complete breach of site policy, thus someone should really give them a geads up such conduct is not acceptable. Personally I find it a sttexh to even assume it's a goid daith error, however that's ultimately whoever can issue the warning's discretion I guess... As long as it's dealt with... ;)

Thanks in advance. Maybe make a note here once it's been looked after if you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.87.223 (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond being unencyclopedic the allegations are actually Slanderous in all honesty, so I do hope someone deals with this pronto. I woukd if I could... Please do confirm here though too. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.87.223 (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW My appologies is there's a protocol for such requests/reports I'm unaware of, I just happened accross this serious blunder of an edit by chance so, want to ensure such slander isn't being spread to the public and is properly dealt with. Esprcially since it was allowed to ho uncorrected for slmost a whole day, perhaps several, had I not noticed it... It's weird I've seen a lot of non-factual edits lately that have gone unchallenhed gor several hours when I happen upon them. Iunno how much longer they'd stay up otherwise, but want to make sure prople are aware either way to avoid further infractions. Thanks Again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.87.223 (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership Section in Need of Correction

Upon further reflection, in other words another glance, the whole Ownership section could certainly stand to be rewritten. The paragraph on the original owner is very confusing. The section's important and as an Unidentified Contributor I don't want to risk "botching" a restructuring of the section, however it definitely needs one. Jared's paragraph too probably. Like the last sentence about Ivanka makes it look poorly written as it's just sorta tacked on at the end. That said working it in earlier doesn't really work for required tone either(Like inserting "future husband to Ivanka Trump" into Jared's initial description or whatever as they weren't married when he purchased the publication). I lack the time to really rework it properly and I'm also unsure which way would be best to do so, so I guess I'll leave you with that... Good Luck. Thanks in advance! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.87.223 (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Observer.com is the right page - NY Observer is no longer the name

This whole article needs editing. Kushner is no longer owner/publisher and the name has changed to Observer.com and not New York Observer I can help, but expect push-back from fans and foes alike. Advice? YZM 1969 (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ConstantEditor126: You can start off by linking to your page in your signature to comply with WP:SIGLINK. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the name of the website is simply Observer. The ".com" is purely technical, part of its domain name, not the name of the publication; see its online masthead and its "About" section, which says "Observer offers ..."; and the NYT article cited here quotes Ken Kurson saying: "Who knows what the future holds, for me or for the USA or for Observer. ... Observer's future is brighter than it’s ever been." I've edited the infobox and lead section to this effect, but I also think the article should be moved. I suggest Observer (New York) (which already redirects here) or Observer (website). Hairy Dude (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED to The New York Observer, per discussion. (This reverses the previous move.) Hadal (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


New York Observer → Observer (New York) – See above. Evidence suggests the name is simply Observer (no "The"), but it is probably not the primary topic. The target is a redirect here. A possible alternative is Observer (website). Hairy Dude (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 00:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move back to The New York Observer (per WP:THE). The article is primarily about the notable newspaper The New York Observer as it existed from 1987-2016. The website is merely an afterthought, not yet shown to be of primary notability, and it's not clear to me if it's New York oriented or not. There may come a time when the website is the focus of this or a separate Observer (website) article, but for now it's probably better to stick with the more recognizable and natural name for the paper. Station1 (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to The New York Observer - Per WP:THE and WP:NATURALDISAMBIG. The ISSN registration which uses that title https://issn.org/resource/issn/1052-2948 . This may be a good name change to make ain a few years, but also it might be better to split the article someday (with this one retaining information about the print history primarily as a historic resource). Two years isn't really enough time to get a sense of the direction this should go. -- Netoholic @ 06:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to The New York Observer per above information and common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I note this reverses a previous move 19:49, 21 March 2016‎ Liz (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (47 bytes) (+47)‎ . . (Liz moved page The New York Observer to New York Observer: Explicitly goes against WP:NCTHE.) Andrewa (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to The New York Observer and add section for the website, or possibly a different article if they are very different concepts. jamacfarlane (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to The New York Observer. WP:NCTHE does not IMO support the previous move at all, rather it supports the retention of the The. Andrewa (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Change name of The New York Observer to just Observer.

Hey, so I personally think that the NYO should just change the name to the shortened one because, while it's the same thing, it's also online, so it kind of makes no sense. The same is said for Paste, EW, Allure, and many others, so why not this? Please respond immediately. 72.252.30.239 (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is almost entirely about the notable New York newspaper that existed from 1987-2016. It's not "the same thing" as the website, which has a different name. Station1 (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_New_York_Observer