Talk:John Oliver/Archive 2

A humorous suggestion from DemocraticSocialism
Could we get a less creepy infobox picture of John Oliver? The current picture creeps the bejeezus out of me. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PennsylvanianSocialDemocrat (talk • contribs) 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Surprisingly small "Political views" section, should be expanded
John Oliver has dozens of political positions that he is public about on his show, and the only things mentioned in the Political Views section are his opposition to Trump and Israel's air strikes. I suggest that we add more to it. Off the top of my head, there is his support for criminal justice reform, police demilitarization, Medicare For All, abortion rights, loosening of immigration laws, as well as his criticism of US drone strikes and cash bail. The reason I am suggesting this is because I don't know how to properly cite sources yet, since I'm a new Wikipedian. 18:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)TheGreatCooLite (talk)TheGreatCooLite

Legacy addition
John Oliver has recently put out a video, addressing the “John Oliver Recycling Plant” in Yarra, Australia. This should probably be added to legacy. 2601:CF:4700:27F0:41D3:CB8B:902F:BBC (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Career section cleanup
The "Career" section is a bit janky with all those headings, so I'm thinking of removing the headings to format it into paragraphs. I could either do these chronologically or by the type of media (e.g. all TV shows in one, all podcasts in another, etc). Thoughts from anyone? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

American Spelling?
I see that the article currently uses British spelling, but as John Oliver is an American and now has stronger ties to America than the UK, would MOS:ENGVAR not state that we should use American spelling on his article? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * He remains a British citizen in addition to having taken US citizenship. There's no reason to ignore MOS:RETAIN here. Gugrak (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Reddit activity?
perhaps a short mention of the reddit situation here could be good? Amyipdev (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * As amusing as it is, I struggle to see how it's notable for his article. It isn't particularly notable to his life, influence, or character. It's already mentioned on 2023 Reddit API controversy, so I think it's good without. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Oxford English
@MapReader, I see you've reverted my edit where I used User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB to convert the prose to Oxford English. The article is already tagged for Oxford English, and because the prose has been changed since the tag was added, I tried using the bot to convert any American English words to Oxford English. What was the reason for the reversion? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * There wasn’t any reason to change the British English - Oxford English tag, which is long-standing. You are right that there are a few textual changes that don’t use Oxford spelling and those should be switched back.  Note also the discussion here where the consensus was to delete the EngvarB template and use the more widely understood term British English. MapReader (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, will reinstate proper changes. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

MOS:CAPTION
Hello Please see MOS:CAPTION. Captions are not required to be consistent. They are required to avoid excess length and explaining things that can be seen in the image or the article title. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Invasive Spices, thanks for the concern for the article- I'll respond to the points below.
 * On the frames: I find mixing the use of frameless and thumbnails to be inconsistent (and, IMO, using frameless is not very appropriate for a biography article). Furthermore, all the images require some level of context. Just having the image of the sewer plant sign is confusing; one could ask "well how is this relevant" if the reader had never seen a typical US road sign- hence, the caption that clarified it's the sign outside the plant.
 * On the caption content: it is my experience that the name is often included in the caption; having just "2007" or "With Wyatt Cenac" is (IMO) undescriptive and unhelpful. See plenty of other entertainment biography FAs: Christopher Nolan, Cillian Murphy, Tom Holland, Scarlett Johansson, Gary Cooper, Ben Affleck, the list goes on; all these articles include their surnames in captions. And, on the topic of the MoS, I believe it isn't to be followed word for word; to quote Mr rnddude in a recent FAC talk page discussion: "MOS also says at the tippity-top that ... it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply . If an editor can articulate a good reason for disregarding MOS on a specific spot, then that should generally be accepted." MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Rather than repeat the arguments that formed MOS:CAPTION I'll just suggest that we discuss this at its Talk:.


 * I also note that if there are so many exceptions then they are not occasional exceptions may apply atall. Users who have never edited Wikipedia before are free to edit and undisclosed search engine optimization is common and difficult to catch – but the MOS has received wider agreement. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, you may open a discussion; please ping me in replies MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

FT candidacy
Hey everyone! Since Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption was just promoted to FA, I've nominated it, this article, and the awards list for inclusion in a featured topic. See the nom here- thanks! Pings for those who have expressed interest in John Oliver-related topics, in case they wish to comment: @Theleekycauldron @Epicgenius - MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping @MyCatIsAChonk. I'm also pinging @Another Believer who helped bring up "Donald Trump" to FA and brought up "Tobacco" to GA. I feel like it might also make sense to improve the LWT article to GA/FA and add that show to the topic, since he's the host and presenter of LWT. I don't really mind whether you include it or not, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The thought occurred to me, but I haven't seen actors' magnum opi (opuses?) included in other FTs; see Amy Adams, whose breakthrough was in Junebug, but the film isn't in the topic. Though, no TV host has ever been promoted to FT before, so the rules here are undefined. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Israel monologue
@PerseusMeredith, I see that you have restored your addition of the "Political views" paragraph about Oliver's Israel monologue. I do not wish to violate WP:3RR, but this paragraph does not belong on this page. As you pointed out, the first two paras of "Political views" talk about British and American politics, mentioning some specific figures like Boris Johnson. These areas are places Oliver has covered repeatedly and discussed on end; I can count at least four episodes about British politics ("The Monarchy", "Brexit", "Brexit II", "Boris Johnson") and many many more about America. Oliver covered the Israel conflict one time in 2021, but the segment in which he delivered this monologue was not the main story of the episode- rather, it was part of his weekly recap of the news, as far as I understand it. Lastly, the "Political views" section intentionally does not cover individual conflicts. Over the years, Oliver has discussed many conflicts across the world, including Ukraine, Israel, Afghanistan, and Syria; if we were to list every side of a battle he was on, the section's size would be unruly. The para you are attempting to add is not significant enough to be mentioned and does not conform with the standard for the rest of the section. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I think you have a good point. Can we simply reference that he is supportive of a Free Palestine state and critical of Israel in his political views? PerseusMeredith (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @PerseusMeredith, again, we cannot cover individual conflicts, as he's voiced so many opinions on so many topics. Sadly, conflicts between Gaza and Israel are not uncommon, so adding his opinion on one conflict would be insignificant- that's not to say the conflict is insignificant, but it is not within the coverage of this article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) <small style="font-size:66%;">(also not me) <small style="font-size:45%;">(still no) 00:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree: specifically, had this been a piece in the "main story" section of the show it might have warranted a mention, but not in this case. Barry Wom (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Born in Erdington

 * John Oliver was born in Erdington and is listed on the Erdington wiki article in the Notable Persons section.

WestSeattleVern (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @WestSeattleVern, please find a reliable source to back your claim. The prose currently states "John William Oliver was born on 23 April 1977 in Birmingham, England, to Carole and Jim Oliver," and is backed by this source. If you can find a reliable source to support your claim, we can consider fixing it. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) <small style="font-size:66%;">(also not me) <small style="font-size:45%;">(still no) 20:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * John Oliver discussed it in his episode of Family Trips with the Meyers Brothers.
 * WestSeattleVern (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not have time to listen to the whole podcast episode, but a timestamp would need to be provided in any citation to a podcast. Even then, Erdington is just a suburb of Birmingham, so this does not matter. The current source says Birmingham. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) <small style="font-size:66%;">(also not me) <small style="font-size:45%;">(still no) 20:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Undue weight?
I do not see any undue weight being given in the "Political views" section, though that could certainly be because I wrote it. It is important to portray both political sides in this issue, especially when excluding his reception from right-wing sources could be considered liberal bias in this article. Ping for @Aquillion, who added the tag. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) <small style="font-size:66%;">(also not me) <small style="font-size:45%;">(still no) 00:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Balance is based on the relative weight of the sources and giving the reader a representative sense of what the best sources say on average, not based on "both sides" - see WP:FALSEBALANCE. The Washington Examiner isn't a high-quality source; America (magazine) isn't a particular high-profile source; and neither Stephen Kent nor Zac Davis are notable figures or experts on this subject. Focusing on them like this is obviously undue. I particular object to the fact that you restored the Zac Davis quote - why do you believe that quote is worth including? Is Zac Davis someone whose opinion is particularly significant? Even within the piece (which is already UNDUE simply to include at all), that quote is not representative. It's also worded in a starkly non-neutral fashion; while we could include it if it was by someone extremely noteworthy or an expert whose views were significant, I'm concerned that its usage here violates the warning on WP:QUOTES, which states that Quotations that present rhetorical language in place of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias can be an underhanded method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia articles; be very careful. The purpose of quotes is to represent the views of experts, significant figures, and so on, not to allow for the inclusion of random "zingers" like these. If you think that this is a significant view that must be included, you should be able to find WP:SECONDARY sources covering that quote. More broadly, if you think that there is an actual, significant reception to Oliver from right-wing sources, a better way to cover it would be to find non-opinion sources rather than giving this excessive weight to random opinions plucked out of op-eds from low-quality sources and an out-of-context zinger quote. Look at the rest of the section (keeping in mind that due weight is relative, and therefore everything there should have sources of comparable weight) - we use high-quality non-opinion sourcing for everything else there. Why should we suddenly dive into the sewer and use low-quality opinion pieces for one sentence? If better sourcing exists highlighting or characterizing the rift between him and the right, then we can just use it directly rather than relying on opinion pieces from low-quality partisan press outlets. If no high-quality sourcing exists, then it's not something that ought to be covered and is WP:FALSEBALANCE - the fact that these two random guys don't like him simply isn't significant unless it has secondary coverage. In fact, it isn't even FALSEBALANCE - we neither quote nor cite any other opinion pieces in the section! Even if we were going to engage in false balancing, why would we suddenly quote two opinion pieces for one side and only one side? --Aquillion (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aquillion, a very well written response. I appreciate your thorough explanation against the inclusion of this part, and I wholly agree- I've cut it from the article. Finding sources about Oliver's political views was difficult- most sources already present just recount what he said in LWT broadcasts, and there's little about what the right thinks of him besides a couple derisive comments from right-wing figureheads. Thanks for explaining your reasoning in a clear and detailed way! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) <small style="font-size:66%;">(also not me) <small style="font-size:45%;">(still no) 13:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"John Oliver (comedian" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Oliver_(comedian&redirect=no John Oliver (comedian] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)