Talk:Neil Oliver

Birth year
How on earth can anyone be "born circa 1971"?!?

He either was, or was not, born in 1971. I assume that the "circa" is a joke, and because I have no sense of humour, therefore I am removing it. --Mais oui! 09:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a joke, I simply didn't know exactly when he was born and was extrapolating from other dates. - Multivitamin 12:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If he was born in 1971 it seems unlikely that he could have "qualified as an archaeologist in 1988". One or other statement must surely be wrong. Mutt Lunker 21:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

He was born in 1967 I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.165 (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds more feasible. Can you verify and cite it? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, he was interviewed on BBC Breakfast this morning and mentioned that he was 41 years old. Seems 1967 is right. Crisso (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

...or 1966, depending which month his birthday is. Definitely not 1971 though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a tweet that suggests his birthday is 21 February. BFI has the year as 1967:  Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

History of Scotland
I have just started, on Candlemas 2009, an article on A History of Scotland to avoid the red wikilink. At present, it is rather a stub, so any one who would like to extend it before it gets nominated for deletion is welcome to do so. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Scottish or British
His nationality seems to be constantly changed back and forth between Scottish and British. I think it would be beneficial if we formed a consensus one way or the other. Currently I have no strong opinion either way, but would like to see the matter resolved. Helper201 (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Scottish Neither option is wrong, and he has presented programs on Scottish history as well as more general British history, but bearing in mind both WP:ABOUTSELF (he describes himself on his own website as a Scottish archaeologist and broadcaster) and MOS:ID, which suggests that we use more specific terminology to describe subjects (Scottish rather than the more general British corresponds to the example given in that guideline), Scottish seems to me to be the better choice. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Scottish I agree with User:Girth Summit's reasoning. Jschnur (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Scottish probably - though both are correct. More than simply "not wrong", he is a defender of the Union, and therefore presumably happily accepts both definitions. His self-description as Scottish is important, but not the sole factor - I suspect RS in both Scotland and also the whole UK refer to him as Scottish, so does he, so should we. This is of course the latest manifestation of the absudity of 4/5 nations, one state. Pincrete (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Scottish - unless the maker of this edit can produce some evidence that he prefers to be described as British. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Scottish, per ABOUTSELF, and simply as more specific.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Scottish, Girth Summit's explanation can be true; and neither option is wrong; but I think "Scottish" is totally more appropriate. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ABOUTSELF, if he defines himself as X and the claim is not extraordinary I see no reason why he should not be described as X. Alssa1 (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Scottish, as per much of the above, and in part because that is how he chooses to label himself on his website. LittleDwangs (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I just looked and it's "under construction"? perhaps he's updating it. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * British per ABOUTSELF -  203.63.150.37 (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I must admit I would have said Scottish until I saw that clip. It could not be much clearer. And it's 100% up to date. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Martinevans123 Yes, he very specifically said on 19 May 2022 that, whilst he was born in Scotland, he does and always has considered himself as being of British nationality "to my core" - see from around 6 minutes into his interview on the GB News channel available on YouTube with the title "'My heart is British': Neil Oliver on England breaking away from the United Kingdom" . - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Historian
The description of him as a historian was removed a while ago https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neil_Oliver&oldid=964778708

with this explanation:

"On his own official Twitter bio he states he is not a historian"

This is what his bio actually holds:

"Sandy and blue. Archaeologist. Mr: if it’s good enough for Sherlock and Spock, it’s good enough for me."

That is not stating "he is not a historian" any more than he is stating he is not a writer or a broadcaster, he has put *in his mind* his most prominent career characteristic, but the fact is he is described by others *and himself* (see below) as a historian so I'm not sure why it's not listed, otherwise we'd be trimming down a lot of biographical pages to the length of Twitter bios. As such, I'm going to put it back in. Here is a list of just some of the results that came back for me today, they encompass all the largest Scottish newspapers, the largest broadcaster in the UK, and some national papers too. I would think that should satisfy WP:V.

"Neil Oliver is a Scottish archaeologist, historian" His own website

"TELLY presenter Neil Oliver… The historian, 54, said" Scottish Sun

"Historian and archaeologist Neil Oliver" inews, the Independent's sister paper

"Telly historian Neil Oliver" Daily Record

"TV historian Neil Oliver says" Daily Mail

"SCOTS TV historian Neil Oliver" Herald Scotland

"Historian and broadcaster Neil Oliver" The Scotsman

"THE tele-historian Neil Oliver" The National

"Neil Oliver - a historian" The Guardian

"Neil Oliver is the historian familiar to most of us" BBC News

"Historian Neil Oliver" BBC Radio Derby

"Series 1. Historian and archaeologist Neil Oliver" BBC2

"much-loved historian Neil Oliver" Penguin Books

"Neil Oliver is a Scottish archaeologist, historian" Barnes and Noble

Yb2 (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * One thing is what sources say about him, another is what we should put in the very first sentence of this article. We currently list six professions there, which is over the top; it's supposed to be a concise description of what he's most notable for, not an exhaustive curriculum vitae. Clearly he is most known for being a television presenter, and usually presents television programmes about history or archaeology. And while he at least has qualifications and has worked in archaeology, as far as I can tell he has never done historical work outside of television (not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just already covered by "television presenter" and the very next sentence which says that he is "best known as a presenter of several BBC historical and archaeological documentary series"). "Conservationist" is never mentioned in the article and is apparently derived solely from the fact that he is the honorary president of the National Trust for Scotland (also mentioned in the following sentences). "Author" is fair because he's written a lot of books. "Commentator"... well, who knows what that means, but the fact that the public are occasionally subject to his idiotic politic views is clearly a side-effect of his notability, not the primary reason for it. I'm therefore going to slim this down to "television presenter and author". –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * > as far as I can tell he has never done historical work outside of television
 * He's published some pop history books. But a "TV historian" isn't the same as a professional historian. Writing pop history for a living also doesn't make you a professional historian. And he's quoted as saying that he isn't a historian. Real historians are held to higher standards than pop historians. If you describe him as simply a historian without qualification, I think the implication is that he's a pro. MrDemeanour (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks the first sentence has become bloated again. Per the above, I'm going to shorten it back to "television presenter and author". I believe that also covers his activity in the fields of history and archaeology. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Calling for Oliver's "imprisonment"
This source says: "Neil Oliver of @GBNEWS should be in The Tower. He is an apologist for Russian fascism. Yours truly, from Kyiv. https://t.co/grIQvNDee4 — John Sweeney (@johnsweeneyroar) February 28, 2022" Is this a real and serious call by Sweeny for Oliver to be "imprisoned", or a just a figurative/ metaphorical expression? There hasn't been a trial for High treason in the United Kingdom since 1946. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is sourced, not only in the tweet, but the source excerpts it, meaning they think it is worthy of highlighting, as do I. Sources do not excerpt tweets unless they think they are something the reader needs to know.  And what the writer's intention is irrelevant.  That he said it, and it is quoted, fulfills the requirement for inclusion.  That a top-tier mainstream political correspondent calls for a lower-tier journalist to get the Tower treatment, for whatever reason, is indicative of our political landscape and completely worthy of inclusion. Le Marteau (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that the writer's intention is wholly relevant. And I still think it's an idiomatic English figure of speech. Happy to hear the views of any other editors. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Intentions are relevant, but it is not unto us do discern them. The source pastes the tweet and excerpts it, it has received other coverage, and that meets our standard for inclusion or exclusion, not our ability to mind read. Le Marteau (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the other coverage? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like I am wrong... I can find no other reliable source, not only for the "tower" part, but the "apologist" part. Putting aside the "was he serious?" issue, that indicates lack of weight and is reason enough for it to be removed entirely. I still think that when journalists advocate the imprisonment of other journalists, even in jest, it is worthy of inclusion if it is sourced, but the sources are not there, it seems, so his tweet should be removed entirely. Le Marteau (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not very surprised there are no other reliable sources. We'll have to disagree over the use of jokes in articles, even if they are from notable journalists. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's just commentary fluff - not to be taken seriously.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC) PS: That is, neither Oliver nor Sweeney are significant in any way, so it is irrelevant whether or not those comments appear in this article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So we take half his tweet seriously, and discard the other half, based not on what sources are doing, but on our opinion. I don't think that's how the encyclopedia should work. Le Marteau (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Best to take it all out. No-one cares.  There is no encyclopedic value in reporting what one person says about another person.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oliver is quite "significant" for this article lol. And John Sweeney is a notable journalist. I think the "imprisonment" claim is a bit fringe/ tabloid. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the sentence to, John Sweeney said, "Neil Oliver of @GBNEWS should be in The Tower. He is an apologist for Russian fascism."[16]. Let the reader decide for themself. It is rather heated rhetoric, though, but I think is representative of the situation and does the reader a service by illustrating the divisiveness of the issue. Le Marteau (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, unconvinced. Would be happy to see it go completely. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would support removing it entirely, as long as the Shrimsley quote goes, too, and on the same grounds: because both do not seem to be serious political discourse but are something more appropriate for stand-up comedians... unlike the "Tower" quote, the source for the Shrimsley quote literally says he was joking. Le Marteau (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we then simply keep the existing two sources, to support the claim that "Oliver was mocked", but without either quote? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would be down with that. That he was mocked is indisputable.  And quoting mockery, when it involves jokes and allusions which may or may not be serious, and is otherwise non-notable, is unencyclopedic and unnecessary.  The reader can go to the sources if their morbid curiosity gets the better of them.
 * But while I'm at it...the more I look into Sweeney, the more I think it is completely possible he was serious in wishing Oliver were jailed, despite his reference to an archaic lock-up. He seems to be a hot-head, and has a history of being inappropriate and inflammatory... the BBC had to apologize on his behalf for words he wrote after he "drank too much" as he put it. He then left the BBC under a cloud. He said the ordeal left him "cracked up" and requiring psychiatric help. He now seems to be an independent writer, at this point.  Source. Le Marteau (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. Well I'll make the change then. I think abuse from Tommy Robinson's supporters might be enough to drive anyone to seek psychiatric help. Maybe more material for the John Sweeney article? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Description at the top needs to now add `polemicist' etc re GB News
His borderline David Icke type ranting, raving, and ramblings on the GB News TV channel (being so very much different from the way he behaved on TV before) mean that the top text description of him needs to reflect that. Polemicist? (It is the darnedest thing if you've ever seen it - his complete volte face over the Glastonbury Music Festival etc. He was like a nice friendly tourism guide but he has become like a Peter Finch tribute act from the movie Network - but that is my view and a more neutral but reflective world should certainly be added to accurately describe his current profession). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I can find no sources on-line which include the phrase "Neil Oliver" and "polemics" or "polemicist". Wikipedia works off sources, not our personal opinions about the nature of things or the behavior of people. Le Marteau (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I know this isn't the same as the current back-and-forth over the use of "conspiracy theorist" in the lead, but I think it's probably relevant to this discussion so I'll put my thoughts here.
 * The lead should summarise the article text, and as it stands there's a not insignificant amount of attention given to his conspiracy-theorist views. If this is undue, then it should be summarised and condensed: otherwise, I think it's appropriate to have "conspiracy theorist" in the lead as this is an important aspect of his work and views, according to the article. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Conspiracy theorist" is a damning label.  Talking about conspiracy theories does necessarily make one a "conspiracy theorist", though... it takes a certain level. A level Alex Jones and David Icke have, for example, clearly crossed. But the media does not seem to think Oliver has yet and it is not unto us to make that call.  As this is a WP:BLP and I will continue to insist on impeccable sourcing.  Miner Editor (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Talking about a conspiracy theory doesn't make one a conspiracy theorist. Agreeing with one (or more) is another matter.
 * I think that it's safe to say that one who agrees with a conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theorist by definition, but if you wish to have reliable sources explicitly calling him a "conspiracy theorist" (as opposed to one who merely believes in conspiracy theories), then I won't demur.
 * One doesn't have to be on the Alex Jones or David Icke level to be a conspiracy theorist. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Covid Denier?
I see no citations or proof in the text to say that Oliver is a Covid denier. He might be sceptical of some of the methods used to contain Covid but I see nothing in the article that suggests he denies the existence of Covid. In general the article is very poor. Seems like a bad attempt to discredit someone just because they now work for GB News. Bios are not my domain. It is for the clique working on this article to buck their ideas up. Prudens Hominem (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but see WP:RECENTISM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Covid denier" doesn't really mean anything anyway - it's just a vague slur. However, Oliver does seem to have developed some distinctly odd and fringe conspiracist views over the last few years, and some reference to this is appropriate (with suitable refs of course). --Ef80 (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * His quotes containing dangerous disinformation should be either removed or commented by people less ignorant than Oliver. "Never before in medical history has there been a proposal to vaccinate children against a disease that poses them no measurable harm" is bullshit, and Wikipedia should not give him a platform. See SBM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you absolutely sure that this is 'bullshit', to quote your vulgarity? Do tell us why, you seem very sure of yourself. 84.65.93.19 (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * What's the big deal here? The article notes three anti-COVID statements that he's made:
 * 1. "Lockdown was the biggest single mistake in world history".
 * 2. Vaccinating children in the UK against COVID-19 was wrong.
 * 3. Those who refused the vaccination or to comply with the rules were like those who fought against fascism during the Second World War (... but he didn't use the N-word, so maybe that ought to be reworded)
 * But he made those statements and they are fully supported by the RS sources. Those statements might be stupid. They might be extreme. But it's simply up to the reader to decide, not us. There's no conspiracy here. There's no "bullshit" here. Just reports of what he said. 86.187.237.96 (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not matter whether I am sure. It matters that the scientific consensus is sure, and it is. The only ones who disagree are either frauds and quacks like Andrew Wakefield, or ignorant laypeople like Jenny McCarthy, Robert F. Kennedy and Oliver, who repeat the misinformation of the first group. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Heatwave denier now..
I know we are not running a newspaper but Oliver is in the news again for denying the factual basis of the current European heatwave and accusing the BBC of inventing high temperatures. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-meteorologist-gb-news-climate-change-denial_uk_64bfbb5fe4b08a8c9211c1ef I'm tempted to be bold and edit. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Thelisteninghand The current state of the page simply fails to reflect the extreme nature of the content that Mr Oliver has been producing for several years now. I would suggest that adding it in the context of his repeated promotion of climate change denial in the context of New World Order and Global Government type tropes would be an improvement over the current omissions. 109.43.242.191 (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)