Talk:John Oliver

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Oliver in 2016

• ... that John Oliver (pictured) has been credited with influencing United States law and culture, a phenomenon dubbed the "John Oliver effect"? Source: Luckerson, Victor (20 January 2015). "How the 'John Oliver Effect' Is Having a Real-Life Impact". Time. Archived from the original on 10 August 2015. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  • ALT1: ... that John Oliver (pictured) crashed the FCC's website? Source: Roppolo, Michael (3 June 2014). "John Oliver's Rant About Net Neutrality Crashes FCC Site". CBS News. Archived from the original on 15 August 2015. Retrieved 27 August 2015.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Obelisk Monument
  • Comment: Alt image option: File:John Oliver 1.jpg, with the caption "Oliver in 2014"

Oliver in 2014

Improved to Good Article status by MyCatIsAChonk (talk). Self-nominated at 15:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/John Oliver; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - n

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: ALT1 and IMG0 preferred. Earwig shows 65.4% copyvio with Oliver's Christ's College Alumni page as well as a Business Insider article. 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Festucalex: I always forget something, thanks for finding this issue. Think it's fixed now. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: It's at 39.4% now; please try to get it below 32%. Here's the Earwig link if you want to compare. I'm not sure how this high copyvio score wasn't caught earlier in AryKun's GA review. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I checked the revision of the article I passed, and I don't think there was a copyvio problem there. There were about three sentences that could be classed as copyvio; the rest was just names, stock phrases, and small factual bits that couldn't be paraphrased. I guess I should have been more insistent on changing those couple sentences, maybe, but even with what I would say is almost no copyvio, Earwig still returns almost 40%, so I'm not really sure how great a metric that is. AryKun (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Festucalex: Most of what it's catching are long names and quotes, so I'm not sure how I can do anything more than cut quotes. Regardless, I did my best to fix it again. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

All good now. ALT1 and IMG0 preferred. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think ALT1 is not factually correct so will promote ALT0 without objection. Bruxton (talk) 16:10, 9 August 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) (also not me) (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) (also not me) (still no) 13:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"John Oliver (comedian" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 3 § John Oliver (comedian until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Citizenship

It currently lists his citizenship as American and British. As he actively applied for US citizen (rather than getting it through accident of birth) would he not be required to reliquish his British citizenship? 51.149.8.48 (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

No, he has dual citizenship. Barry Wom (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

No. He’s been a British subject since birth and remains so. You’d have done better to have checked, or posted here, before editing the article. MapReader (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)