Talk:James O'Brien (journalist)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
James is indeed a well-known presenter on LBC 97.3 FM and has been on there for many years now. Check  for his official bio - many LBC presenters have pages on here and are considered notable enough for their range of journalistic activity.
There was a long previous article deleted bcause of alleged plagiarism from the LBC website. I suspect there is some organsed sabotage of this entry.--Westminsterboy 13:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can you please direct me to the precedent that landing a job presenting in one radio station is sufficient to deserve an article? How about being a chemist in a known research lab -- is that sufficient, too? --Perfecto 14:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I do think it merits an article as he is a major radio presenter on a major radio station and much more minor people have articles you (personal attack deleted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The precedent, perhaps, should dictate that someone who contributes to all known forms of media, in his home country and beyond, is more likely to be of some interest to users of services such as this than a chemist. Ironically, O'Brien is often vocal on the subject of the media affording far too much import to its own members than interesting people outside the profession so would probably agree with the contention that he shouldn't be on here! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mooncalf (talk • contribs) 12:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Why are all LBC radio presenters articles full of bullshit?
== Since when did Wikipedia become a space for media types to post their CVs...?
This article is rife with unsubstantiated points of view. The points of view may be accurate for all I know but are too strongly voiced to be consistent with an encyclopedia article and are not referenced.Rrsmac (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
James uses Wikipedia as his CV, and this is inappropriate use of the site. Either that, or his mum wrote the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Please remove the following POV statements. I've made more balanced suggestions for cases where removing the text altogether would result in the article not making sense:
"His often controversial opinions are now regularly sought by broadcasters including Sky, NBC, ABC Australia, the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. " Should be removed in the absense of sources from ANY of the above that don't relate to events before 22nd April 2009.
"He was catapulted to international notoriety in April 2009" Perhaps "He made headlines in April 2009". I doubt he's suddenly become notorious in France, Italy, Spain, Germany or South America.
There is no source to suggest he called Lampard "scum", for BLP reasons that should certainly be removed immediately.
- And I have removed your unsourced speculation. Please provide reliable sources for all of your additions, especially relating to personal attributes of living people. The JPStalk to me 11:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
re-added, O'brien is quite open about it on air and to attempt to spin edit is really unbecoming...see: http://www.lbc.co.uk/james-obrien-3537. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=36346905 Twobells (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Forums are not reliable sources, and exactly where on the LBC page is your source? At the moment, this is a clear BLP violation, and I might be forced to take preventative measures. The JPStalk to me 12:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
re-added, O'brien is quite open about it on air and to attempt to spin edit is really unbecoming...see: http://www.lbc.co.uk/james-obrien-3537. http://lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/staff/staff_pubs/wring_docs/12.doc. Sorry I pasted the wrong link, here is the correct link. The LBC link is to listen LIVE, O'Brien makes no bones about his political leanings.Twobells (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- 'Listen live' is inadequate. We need a published, reliable source that editors can use to verify your assertion. Which quotation from the book reproduction supports your assertion? I can only see one reference to O'Brien. The JPStalk to me 12:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- TwoBells, we need it to be more specific, as I asked of you here. The only reference to James O'Brien in that book is a sentence on page 89 that says "Fronted by a married couple, Lucy and James O'Brien, the consumer affairs style of format enabled the presenters and members of the public to discuss issues and express their opinions." Which direct quotation verifies the assertion you wish to add? On which page does it appear? We only include detail if we can verify it without having to synthesise (reach our own conclusions) the work. The wording of your attempt today is going in the correct direction; unfortunately, I cannot find evidence within the reference substantiate this. The JPStalk to me 18:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you point me in the direction of the rule that says that a works in its entirety has to appear somewhere on the internet? The best I could do is scan the relevant pages and host them.Twobells (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Also, at this point for the record I would like to ask you if you personally know O'brien or communicated with him in any way?Twobells (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- References don't have to be online of course, but requesting that you provide the page you're referring to or provide a quote from the material for those who do not have access to it, isn't unreasonable. Shell babelfish 23:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Twobells, I have absolutely no affiliation with Mr O'Brien whatsoever, or any political party (unlike The Telegraph). Every action, and every suggestion to you is purely motivated by Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. Also, I have not edited this article to such a significant level to compromise my administorial independence.
I'm unsure how I gave the impression that references have to be online. Of course they don't! In the case of the book you are using, we need a specific source so that someone could go into a bookshop oor good library and verify the information. A search for "O'Brien" on that book on GoogleBooks only gives the quotation I provided above. The JPStalk to me 00:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
What a pile of Pretentious, Hubris shite, just like O'Brien's rants perhaps. The evidence shows OB is the real racist, as per the correct definition (the belief that one’s own race is superior). He is a far left liberal bomb thrower (supported by the 'clear violation' prats on here), it's supposed to be public and for everyone by the way, including Twobells and us, not the few. The evidence is that OB et al, treat people of colour as if they are 'special'(inferior), they cannot possibly survive, nor exist if it wasn't for the far left excusers like him standing up to those people or circumstances that may offend or be truthful to them. OB feels 'superior' and will not allow ethnics to fight their own battles nor defend themselves from any critique. He is patronising them and keeping them down so he can 'help'. This is real racism as per the real dictionary definition. He loves to mock and be nasty to anyone with whom he disagrees and he screams for open minded tolerance when he shows none himself. On the other hand, I admire his confidence and feel sure he has a good heart with good intentions. He is misguided and is doing more harm than good, plus the anal 'I will delete' crowd on here don't help either. OB? You sir are part of the problem and need to help ethnics rise in confidence, not be racist and keep them down so you can keep excusing and patronising them. Sources? Just listen to him and get a dictionary. Mohammad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk)
Hey. whoever you are that keeps deleting this 'rant' as you call it take note that 1. it is a public place to put whatever one wants on here and 2. as this pile of crap called 'wiki' whatever it is called itself has decided to silence free speech (daily mail) as you have here, just take a breath and hopefully understand that this public crap fest is for everyone, not just for you OK? No body takes this left wing crap propaganda shite seriously anymore. Yes we will resist your oppressive narrative and yes we will continue to put the TRUTH out there about this guy, even though I respect his opinion too as you clearly don't respect anyone else's. Some of James's views I and many agree with.
Yes it is a rant. Delete that you nasty intolerant 'bleep'.
Now calm Sorry, I am sure you are actually quite tolerant and inclusive of a range of other views really (are you?). I don't mean any personal harm so hopefully you will forgive me and yes I do feel better (for 5 seconds) but life is too short so again I am truly sorry.
Maybe you could leave this all, just for while to show that you and James can be inclusive and diverse in all views too.
- Reading the above it's clear that this has been a contentious issue in the past. Nonetheless, when I visited the page I was surprised to see no 'politics' subheading. It's regularly included for footballers, actors etc who have voiced strong political opinions, so to see nothing on this page sticks out like a sore thumb. If someone could write a neutral POV well referenced section it would improve the piece immeasurably. I'll put it on my to do list, but in truth I have so many offline priorities at the moment it's unlikely I'll get around to it. Ride the Hurricane (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Internet material
This article has become involved in a long-running campaign to add Hello Internet inside jokes to Wikipedia articles. Please do not add the Brady Haran information again unless there is an independent reliable secondary source to demonstrate its relevance to the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Radio Times podcast championship
I see a revert of a good-faith IP edit here with reference to "see talk page", but can't see anything relevant here. (I don't know what "Hello Internet" is, but the Radio Times is generally considered a reliable source as far as I'm aware). What's the issue, exactly? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- As I said in the previous section, the Brady Haran material is part of a long-term campaign to add Hello Internet inside jokes to Wikipedia. There is no indication of the significance of this contest, which has virtually no reliable secondary sources talking about it. Please don't re-add it unless there is an independent reliable secondary source to demonstrate its relevance to the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)