Talk:Last Week Tonight with John Oliver/Archive 1

Chronology / Related Shows
In the article's side bar, under the heading Chronology > Related Shows, it lists "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart". However, I don't see any other commonalities, such as network, producers, writers, etc., other than Oliver being an alumnus of TDS and a similar format. So are they properly referred to as being "related"? -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know that there's any formal relationship, other than the similar format and Jon Oliver having worked on The Daily Show. You could check the IMDb pages of the two to be more sure. --V2Blast (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On the assumption that there's no formal relationship, would it be fair to remove that from the side box? -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Episode List
Worth starting one? -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible that Oliver got this as a result of filling in for Stewart on The Daily Show?
I have a strong suspicion that this show came about as a result of John Oliver hosting The Daily Show whilst Jon Stewart was working on a film/documentary. I have nothing that confirms this however, but is anyone aware of sources out there which might support this? groovygower (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Mohammad
End credits of the show name him simply as Mohammad. It is ridiculous to call him 'First Name Unknown' Mohammad on this page (givan tha fact that Mohammad is his first name and it was a clerical error that his papers came out like this. And also no guest is not an option either, since there was a guest, Mohammad, and he is listed in the end credits. – 145.90.67.214 (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted, it was a compromise more than anything else. His full legal name was not displayed in the show's closing credits nor was it mentioned once in the episode itself, and Mohammad alone was not appropriate. It was only recently that his full name has come to light. The name was changed accordingly. ProKro (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of Days of Our Lives
I'm not sure that the new section "Days of Our Lives tribute for Syrian refugee" is notable. AFAIK it hasn't been discussed like Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption was discussed. If it is notable, the section needs to explain why is is. - Uncle Alf (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Jeff the Diseased Lung
I created a very short article about Jeff the Diseased Lung. Of course, editors are welcome to assist with its expansion. Actually, it would be a pretty easy article to promote to GA status. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: The article was merged into this one, which I am now working on overturning. In the meantime, see section below. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Tobacco Section
I like the idea of a section on some of JO's notable segments, and the tobacco section certainly fits that bill. I'm also aware of the somewhat controversial wiki-history of this section, in that what we have here is essentially a stand-alone article on Jeff that was ruled not notable except in the context of JO.

But the fact is, this article is about Last Week Tonight, and the sections about notable segments are just that -- *segments* of our article focused on Last Week Tonight.

The tobacco section starts off strong, with a well-written summary of JTDL and his shenanigans. Me, I wouldn't include Phillip Morris's response here -- to me, that goes well beyond a discussion of JO's milking of the tobacco industry for comedic purposes on Last Week Tonight. It's a second-order effect of Last Week Tonight, not integral to the program. Nevertheless, the argument could be made (and this argument is sort of made throughout the article) that a huge, fundamental aspect of LWT is the fact that it provokes just these sorts of responses from the show's targets. The result of being on the wrong end of JO is either defensiveness or social change.

But the "criticism" section is now a THIRD-order effect of LWT. It discusses reaction to the reaction to JO. Why? Everything else seems dispassionately necessary to explain JO's segment, whatever one's political views about smoking or big ugly business; this section reeks of an attempt to embarrass Phillip Morris. In a stand-alone "Jeff" article, you might convince me that this reaction is notable.

NorthAmerica1000 replaced this criticism section saying it was needed to "balance" this section." No, the section is quite balanced *in reference to Last Week Tonight*, which is the article's subject.  If we really feel that third-order reactions are necessary to reinforce to the reader that Phillip Morris's response was intellectually vacuous and politically unwise, then let's just remove the reaction sections altogether, and focus on just the show segments.  That'd be my preference, anyway.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. I am still in the process of trying to get the "Tobacco" segment article restored. I don't think the content should have been merged into this article. It now takes up too much of this article, which should not have such large sections dedicated to specific segments. I agree that the tobacco section in this article is too detailed, but this is not the case in a standalone article. I'd like to see other articles about notable segments, but I need to see this one through before starting others. You can read the ongoing deletion review at Deletion review/Log/2015 December 24. You can view the proposed "Tobacco" segment article, the history of which has been moved to "Jeff the Diseased Lung", at this link. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Below is the content that was removed from the article (diff). North America1000 19:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

"Chris Morran of Consumerist said Philip Morris did a 'really poor job of trying to defend its actions'. He wrote, '... this should be where the very serious folks at Philip Morris go point by point and explain where Oliver exaggerated and embellished, but they don't. It's a classic non-response in which the accused tried to undercut the accuser's argument by claiming he can't possibly be providing the truth.' He notes that Philip Morris does not deny making legal threats to suppress regulations on cigarette packaging and questions how the company '[expects] to be taken seriously when it readily admits that the products it sells are 'harmful to health''. Furthermore, Morran takes aim at the company's claim that it '[supports] and [complies] with thousands of regulations worldwide', writing: ... the tobacco industry doesn't support these regulations. It only supports the ones it can't fight in a courtroom. Once it loses a battle — or realizes a battle can't be won — then suddenly Big Tobacco, just like every other heavily regulated industry, claims to support and abide by the rules."

Finally, he said of the statement's final sentence, "That's honestly the best Philip Morris and Big Tobacco can come up with — We've spent a lot of money and have a lot of investors so please don't mess with our packaging because it might cause us to earn smaller profits ... It's an argument that might be tenable if cigarettes did anything other than poison the people who buy them — or live in the same house with them."

I've forked the content per Deletion review/Log/2015 December 24. The article is now at Jeff the Diseased Lung and I've requested it be moved to Tobacco (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver). --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: This article has been promoted to Good status. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"Drumpf"
Is John Oliver a Germanophobe with this "Drumpf" nonsense? 71.181.177.214 (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirect Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) here, but posted a collection of sources about the Trump segment at Talk:Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). This follows the same naming convention as Tobacco (Last Week Tonight). I didn't want to create a stub prematurely, given the battle to untangle the mess behind the article about the tobacco segment, but I think it is safe to say the Trump segment is notable, too. Is anyone interested in helping to expand this article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a new article named Donald J Drumpf which is dedicated to the parody character and has gained quite a bit of popularity in the international media. Help us over there --Potguru (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: Donald J Drumpf has been redirect to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). Further discussion about the Trump segment can take place there, so closing here.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sky.com/tv/show/last-week-tonight/article/about

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Castle?
In the "Format" section, it says " The backdrop also includes the castle Dragonstone from Game of Thrones." Is there a source for that? I can't see it, although maybe he was covering it up.... Is it even important enough to have in the article? Margalob (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

List of writers
Can this article include a list of the writers for this show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.253.241 (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, since there is no head writer and there is a Wikipedia rule that writers should not be included if series has 5+ writers. Some of the writers include John Oliver, Josh Gondelman, Dan Gurewitch, Tim Carvell, Juli Weiner and Jill Twiss. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140507030451/http://defamer.gawker.com/john-olivers-last-week-tonight-is-the-new-daily-show-1572116205/all to http://defamer.gawker.com/john-olivers-last-week-tonight-is-the-new-daily-show-1572116205/all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Notable segments?
Many television shows have Wikipedia articles for individual episodes. Last Week Tonight is slightly different in that not every episode is notable, but sometimes specific segments are due to the amount of press coverage they receive. Current LWT-related articles include Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight), Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption, and Tobacco (Last Week Tonight). Are there other segments or bits that have received the same amount of coverage and are notable enough for a Wikipedia article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe the segements about Snowden and the Dalai Lama --Gonnym (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20150221095413/http://www.prime.be/series/last-week-tonight-john-oliver-2 to http://www.prime.be/series/last-week-tonight-john-oliver-2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed notable section
Hi! i noticed you're removing a section with reliable sources showing that it's notable. You did say it was obvious, but I think that it won't be within a few years when we've all tried to forget about COVID. Please talk here. Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Just because something happened, and someone wrote a news item about it, doesn't mean it's important or notable enough to require creating a section about it and cluttering up an encyclopedia article with it. This is a chronic problem with this article, because it's so fan-driven. The "Reaction and influence" section is also full of stuff that really isn't that noteworthy. "Oh! John [did thing]! Ooh! Social media reacted to it! John said [something funny] about that! We need to add this to his article!" No. As a matter of fact we usually don't. Yes, it's true that they stopped doing the show in front of an audience, and it's true that Mr. Oliver made a witty comment about it. Except for the witty comment, the same is true of every other TV show that's normally filmed in front of an audience. While children born 5 years from now might not be aware that this happened to the entertainment industry, this article is not how they're going to learn that. For example, after 9/11, every airport beefed up security, sports arenas added metal detectors, etc. but we don't add details about that to the articles about those airports and arenas just to make sure that future generations know that 9/11 had an effect on our society. That would be absurd. On the other hand, it would be noteworthy if LWT hadn't stopped recording in front of an audience. But the fact that they did what everyone else did (and John said a joke about it) really does not need to be spotlighted. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that there's a bit of a problem with fan drive - since reliable sources will pick up literally everything John Oliver does, everything kind of gets lumped in. I'm also not sure why you're focusing on the joke so much – it doesn't show notability, it's just a fun way to express the thing. Also, the bar for notability is being covered by multiple reliable, secondary sources, per WP:GNG. Since we have sources from NPR and Vanity Fair, both reliable sources per WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If airports took special measures that other airports didn't for security and it garnered notability, we'd probably talk about it. By dismissing something as common practice, you're editorializing what counts as notable and defining a different bar, that isn't WP:GNG. Since there's multiple secondary sources talking specifically about Oliver's going to his void, it is presumed notable. These specific sources don't do that, but that's a fixable problem because other sources do cover it that way. You didn't look, though– you just removed the section, despite its clear notability. Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Admittedly, I made a mistake here - GNG doesn't apply here. I'd still argue this should be included under due weight, but that's at editor's discretion. Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I focused on the joke because it was roughly 40% of the section, 90% of why the section was interesting, 95% of why it got mentioned by anyone, and 100% just another John Oliver joke. We are not required to include a factoid just because several sources mention it, because "reliable sources will pick up literally everything John Oliver does". We're supposed to be selective. Nonetheless you insist that it has "clear notability"? In what way? What is noteworthy about LWT doing the same thing everyone else did? The fact that they're using a blank background instead of his living room? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I restored the section because it seems to provide useful information regarding production changes to the show's format. However, I merged the section into the larger "Format" section because it was only two sentences and so didn't seem to need its own section per WP:OVERSECTION, and I also removed part of the quote that seemed unnecessary and did not really provide any additional information. It may be beneficial to reword the remaining part of the quote as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's pretty workable for me. I'm not assertive Theleekycauldron (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Revdel version
, does this version of the page warrant a revdel? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Notability in "Reaction and influence" section
I just removed a section on the Israel-Palestine conflict from the "Reaction and Influence" section as I believe that the reactions included were not notable enough to be included. Not every episode needs to be included in this section, espeically if the "reactions" are only from the subjects of the story. Only episodes that create a large impact outside of the show should be included in this section. –DMartin 08:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Two notable comedians responded, and their response was notable enough to be picked up by the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz, which Wikipedia considers a WP:RS. The phrase espeically [sp] if the "reactions" are only from the subjects of the story does not apply. Oliver did not name those comedians, so they were not the subject of his story. Banana Republic (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think two comedians having reactions to something on their own comedy shows can be considered noteworthy enough to include. Under that standard, everything that is picked up on more than one late night comedy show is noteworthy enough to include in biographical articles. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and there is no indication that the reactions by these two random people will have any enduring significance or coverage. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)