Jump to content

Talk:John Oliver: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,354,489 edits
Line 118: Line 118:


His mention of his visa status in his Legal Immigration episode and the fact that he has an O-1 visa should be included in the Personal life section. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/45.49.9.255|45.49.9.255]] ([[User talk:45.49.9.255#top|talk]]) 02:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
His mention of his visa status in his Legal Immigration episode and the fact that he has an O-1 visa should be included in the Personal life section. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/45.49.9.255|45.49.9.255]] ([[User talk:45.49.9.255#top|talk]]) 02:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Maybe that is obsolete now, he celebrated his US-citizensip with [[Stephen Colbert]] on [[LSSC]] today.<sup>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPxl_N9vkSo]</sup> &ndash;[[Special:Contributions/84.46.52.252|84.46.52.252]] ([[User talk:84.46.52.252|talk]]) 12:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


== Feminist ==
== Feminist ==

Revision as of 12:21, 11 February 2020

Template:Vital article

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Oliver (comedian). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WayBack has a redirect to a 404, flipped to {{deadurl|fix-attempted}} pending review. –84.46.52.79 (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Drumpf"

Is John Oliver a Germanophobe with this "Drumpf" nonsense? 71.181.177.214 (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting such an allegation be added to the article? If not, this is not the place to have a general chat about the subject. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is yes it was a racially charged attack. But obviously PC only works one way so it's not getting into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.188.153 (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous idea. It's more an attack on Trump than an attack on Germans. -DemocraticSocialism —Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on inclusion of taxes section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Inclusion of the the text has been snow opposed.WP:BLP and WP:TRIVIA are the foremost-cited reasons.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 15:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the section on him on the taxes is sourced, I question its relevancy. He's hardly the only person to take advantage of tax loopholes. It really just seems like somebody trying to portray Oliver in a bad light. Since it's contested and controversial content on a BLP I have hidden it for now. JDDJS (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the text in question can be seen (commented out) in this edit. TJRC (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't done much digging on the content yet but if it is reported in multiple reliable sources, then I'd support keeping it. IMO, the two sources provided are not enough and as is would be WP:UNDUE. Perhaps if additional sources can be found, we can keep the content, trim it down a bit, and include it in the personal life section - not as its own subsection. Meatsgains (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose inclusion of this BLP violation. It is widely known that most wealthy people who pay American income taxes take advantage of legal tax shelters. It is undue weight to mention such trivialities, akin to mentioning the dish that the celebrity ordered at a fashionable restaurant. But mentioning this personal tax planning strategy carries connotations of wrongdoing. That violates policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least with current sourcing and lack of established relevance to the subject as an encyclopedic topic. As has been noted already, there's just not a reasonable argument that makes this WP:DUE for inclusion here, and we err towards non-inclusion of such content in BLPs where there's even a question of a negative connotation, unless there is substantial WP:WEIGHT to warrant inclusion. Snow let's rap 06:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the above. Trivia, and misleading, since legal tax shelters are, well, legal, and it's a pseudo-controversy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, seems clearly undue given the level of coverage and tangential connection to what makes him notable. For reference, the section in question is here. --Aquillion (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, (Summoned by bot) First I commend the initiator of this RfC for raising a very good question, but I would gently note that they should have included a link to the section in question. I went back and looked, and I have to agree with my fellow opposers, albeit weakly. My problem is that it is sourced to just one outlet, The Observer, with pickup in Salon. I do feel it is relevant, but falls short via our BLP and V standards. If it becomes more a controversy, if there are multiple reliable sources dealing with it, then I think we should reconsider. Right now, no. Coretheapple (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC) One additional point. The latest version of the tax section[1] is flawed by not including Oliver's response: Oliver's rep denies it provides any tax benefit and is solely for privacy. Removing the "weak" from my oppose. Coretheapple (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (Summoned by bot) As stated above, many people take advantage of the loopholes and sheltering details in the tax system. Unless a very large fuss has been raised about it in RS it should be left out. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 23:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. It strikes me as WP:UNDUE, but my "oppose" is weak only because I can see how reasonable minds can differ. If kept, however, it should be limited to a single sentence; making hay from it is definitively UNDUE. TJRC (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the additional discussion, I'm going with a straight Oppose rather than "Weak oppose". Among everything else, it seems that any call to include this really amounts to WP:GEVALfalse balance, My position is now simply that it should not be included. I do maintain that, if it is included, it should be limited to a single sentence. But it looks like we're snowwily heading toward excluding it. TJRC (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oliver is a comedian and talk show host, not a journalist. Additionally, unless other sources use this to question his integrity, what you are suggesting would be original research. JDDJS (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What Oliver claim to be … I will not venture into a debate on what journalism is and is not. And what makes a comedian. (see Comedic journalism and News satire) As that is not within scope of this RfC. On the other hand, do you argue that the comedy profession escapes professional integrity? And, How exactly do you suggest original research in this case? Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 11:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's original research and POV for us to conclude that him allegedly (his rep denies it) taking advantage of tax loopholes (which many people do) somehow affects his integrity. If multiple reliable sources were questioning his integrity because of this, it would be different. But there are currently not multiple sources questioning his integrity. JDDJS (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. But to cut to the chase - I don't think there is room for a tax section in any bio. So go ahead and remove it, and if integrity will continue to be questioned, then I'm sure this will surface again. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 13:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If a news item is notably relevant to the biography of a person then the general rule is that it should be included in the respective Wikipedia article. If the news item reflects in a good, bad, or indifferent manner on the person is not the criterion for inclusion, as long as Wikipedia's rules on biographies of living persons are respected. The article's subject is currently accused by some parts of the media that, in a completely legal way, he has evaded taxes. It appears that, so far, this has not become a notable media topic, nor the subject of an official investigation. I'd suggest that if either of these developments occurs, the information should appear in the article. Information about taxes (or anything, really) does belong in a biography if it is both notable and relevant. (And John Oliver currently works as a TV commentator, one who has his own show; not as a "talk-show host", nor as a comedian.) -The Gnome (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omit. The cited NYT story doesn't mention Oliver. And the original story was published by the Observer, owned by Jared Kushner, who's been a subject of criticism on Oliver's show. This just seems like a petty smear and there's not even any indication of illegality. -Darouet (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I agree with the person who started the RFC. This seems like it violate WP:BLP. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Rafael Correa

One of Oliver's episodes of Last Week Tonight talked about Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa. Correa replied in Twitter and on national television, which in turn led Oliver to reply in another episode. Being that this hasn't been talked about in the discussion and that it involved a head of state, I was wondering if it should be included. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of coverage did it get from other media? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JasonAQuest: Sorry, just read this. Here is some coverage that I've found: The Washington Post First Post BBC Mundo ABC.es El Universo. --Jamez42 (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Visa Status

His mention of his visa status in his Legal Immigration episode and the fact that he has an O-1 visa should be included in the Personal life section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.49.9.255 (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that is obsolete now, he celebrated his US-citizensip with Stephen Colbert on LSSC today.[2] –84.46.52.252 (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist

Off topic "workshop" moved from Talk:Kim Iversen#Feminist:
  • Mary Douglas Vavrus (2018). Karrin Vasby Anderson (ed.). Women, Feminism, and Pop Politics. Frontiers in Political Communication. ch. 5. doi:10.3726/b13150. ISBN 978-1-4331-5316-7. John Oliver is a feminist badass
  • Tanika Godbole (December 7, 2017). "Lessons We Can All Learn From John Oliver". Feminism in India. John Oliver is literally all of us
  • Allison Bowsher (April 25, 2019). "Is it us, or is John Oliver super-hot?". TheLoop.ca. He's a feminist
  • Alex Gladu (August 28, 2016). "5 Times John Oliver Stood Up For Feminist Issues On 'Last Week Tonight'". Bustle (magazine). let's hope he brings his poignant and well-researched feminism with him
  • Annalisa Merelli (September 22, 2014). "Watch John Oliver explain why we need feminism, in one sentence about Miss America". Quartz (publication). we still very much need feminism

BLP policy rule of thumb, if RS disagree with primary sources the reliable sources win. Or, applied on an absent self-description as feminist, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. –84.46.53.93 (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you will with that, IMNSHO he passes as a feminist.[3] [4] [5] [6] –84.46.52.79 (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA?

Why is this still class=C? Visually, not volunteering to check all references, it should be B. –84.46.52.225 (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Oliver&oldid=940252617"