Talk:John Oliver/Archive 1

Tonight they referred to John_Oliver_(comedian) as the "newest" staffer.

What does that mean for Aasif_Mandvi??

Hopiakuta 05:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

daily show appearances

is this section really nessisary? No other correspondent has anything like this, and he is on regularly so it will get extremely long. Raemie 11:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He appeared on the Daily Show during the writer's strike on January 8, not January 7. You can check this on thedailyshow.com (this is my first comment in wikipedia, I hope I followed all the rules) Lostoptimist (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Lostoptimist[reply]

new pictures

there has to be a way to clean that up a little. It seems kind of hodgepodge at the moment. Do any of the other correspondents have anything like that? LMwalsh 12:14am, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Birth Date Confirmation

Is his date of birth correct? Only the year 1977 is mentioned The Daily Show offical website. Someone keeps editing the article and adding April 23 without providing a source. And so far, I have found none myself. Suggestions? Help? Thank you :)

Reply: His birthdate was stated as April 23 in an episode of The Bugle (either 70 or 71). I sourced when I added the date, but somehow this got lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.139.98.218 (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's not in england anymore

He isn't. Come on wikipedia, be a fluid, living document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.209.133.103 (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Name

i think he just said on his special that his middle name is Cornelius so i added it. correct if wrong. Bridge 26 (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He actually said his middle name was NOT cornelius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.211.206 (talk • contribs)

Corrected that, my god dam oliver mentioning wikipedia!! БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okey-dokey then. Bridge 26 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone previously claimed Cornelius is not his middle name, it isn't. He found his page and even said on stage it isn't his middle name. He only wishes it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.217.167 (talk • contribs)

Maybe we can make his wish come true then... --Kevman459 (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Kevman459 added it only a few short minutes ago, without a source, it should probably be reverted. Kevman459, please do not be disruptive here. Parsecboy (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section titled "Current correspondents and contributors to The Daily Show" still had him listed as John Cornelius Oliver. I have updated that to read simply John Oliver.

This has been mention on WP:ANI БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 03:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So was this true that Wikipedia had his second name listed as Cornelius? Probably should be interesting to write that on his bio page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.84.220.170 (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now their saying its Willam. So which is it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.49.182.135 (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Cornelius" should be listed in the entry as a nickname. It has now become a permanent part of his image, which he frequently references. Similar to the nicknames the Media assigns to certain individuals ((Which are included on wikipedia, if I remember right)), John has supported this urban spawned nickname of "Cornelius". Further more, doing this will prevent all these damn edit wars. This insistance on maintaining it as "William" without at least mentioning Cornelius is potentially a violation of WP:NPOV. Just because it was said in jest, doesn't mean it should not be included. Especially since many people now reference him this way. Perhaps a section should be added to discuss the history surrounding his dualing names. Either way, with his comedy special now a part of CC's constant-cycling stand up routines, "vandalisim" as you insist on calling it, will continue.

Just a suggestion.69.14.208.51 (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid this, as this will definitely need consensus first.

It might be better to add this info as a paragraph, discussing how the Cornelius came about and how he uses the inclusion in his professional life (referenced, please!)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, on both points. I'm currently at work, I will be off shortly and will log on to my account, and write up a draft. Do you want the draft paragraph to go public, or should I keep it on a user subpage for consensus first? 69.14.208.51 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest looking to the Manual of Style for this WP:MoS (biographies). It might be appropriate if discussed in a paragraph, but is is more than likely not appropriate for the lead paragraph or infobox. It goes without saying that this (his acceptance and use of the name) should also be well sourced. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 19:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not his "nickname". I'm an avid fan of his work and I've never heard him called that. Asarelah (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing WP:MoS (biographies) warrants the question of which method we should use to list the pseudonym. This is more a question of taste than it is significant to the construction of the article. If the consensus is that a paragraph should be added, then the question becomes that of placement. Additionally, due to much of the source material being from stand up routines and television appearances, should we perhaps use WP:HOAX procedures, and include the information in the introductory paragraph?

The problem I'm running into with writing the draft is that most of his references to "Cornelius" are done in a satirical fashion, which could be argued to mean he doesn't at all support the name. On the other hand, it could be argued that his constant verbal references support the name. The high road would be that we neither include it in his name, nor remove it from the article, and instead treat it as what it is --- a very well orchestrated hoax.D1universe (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we should keep it out until he, for example, discusses it in an interview with a reliable source, which we can then cite here. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 19:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but he did say he would actually like his middle name to be Cornelius. So I added it too. I mean it's not like wikipedia is an actual encyclopedia (it's just that some people pretend that it is).85.74.215.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

"would like" and "are" are completely different things (see fantasy and reality). DP76764 (Talk) 19:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is in "John Oliver: Terrifying Times" (2008), a standup routine, that he says his middle name is NOT Cornelius, in case we ever want to have the exact reference. Sorry for changing it. I did so without looking at this discussion. As long as we mention that it is a nick name, I think it's fine. Maurajbo (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I checked this article. Was any additional discussion ever done about this, I mean, within the Wikipedian Staff? I was formerly D1Universe but lost the damn password during a recent move ((Which ironically, changing ISPs also invalidated my e-mail, go figure)), and I thought I'd check back as I just watched the stand up. I was wondering if there's been any additional research by anyone into the application of WP:MoS (biographies) and WP:HOAX in this particular case.

For that matter, is it even a hot button issue anymore? 67.149.81.70 (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is his middle name Cornelius or not? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one's found a reliable source yet.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still no reliable sourcing for this, so the recent addition of a section was removed. DP76764 (Talk) 05:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nose

In a Daily Show sketch involving a Civil war re-enactment, he supposedly broke his nose while charging at the confederate army. Does anyone know if that's true? Sulaymanf (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. It was in the segment, and they showed a shot of him being driven to the hospital. shadytrees (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the segments have been known to make things like that up. Is there any independant evidence that it's true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He confirmed it on The Bugle his podcast in the same week. Alamandrax (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Official Website

http://www.mrjohnoliver.com is no longer his official website. It seems to be a link farm now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo60 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence

"vice-president of the Cambridge Footlights for 1997/98—coincidentally the president was Richard Ayoade." how is that a coincidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.15.8 (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

Oliver's green-card status is addressed twice in the article, once under "The Daily Show" and once under "Personal Life". It fits in both places; in particular, if it is removed from the former section, it will make that prose inaccurate and out of date. I've refactored the references to eliminate the redundant one, but I'll leave it to someone else to decide how to deal with the semantic redundancy. —Notyourbroom (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Oliver’s New York Stand-Up Show

Is anyone gonna mention that he has his own show now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unacorda (talk • contribs) 05:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Vandalism?

There are two statements under the heading 'Stand Up' that I am inclined to think is vandalism. The first is the statement 'He performed his debut solo show in 2002 and returned in 2003 - there were no survivors'. Is there a source? Or is this a joke? In the next paragraph it says 'later moving on to headline shows in larger venues where he pranced around like he had laser eyes, despite a conspicuous lack of any laser generation capabilities.[5]'. I read the citation, but I see no mention of him prancing around acting as though he had laser eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.165.8 (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removal of the "Cornelius" blockquote

The only reason that that quote is presented in the article is that it mentions Wikipedia, and we're Wikipedia. Not much of a reason. The quote's not inherently notable, and it attracts constant vandalism. I believe we should delete it. —Bill Price (nyb) 22:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any response, I've removed the blockquote. I don't consider the matter to be necessarily closed, though—feel free to respond/discuss. —Bill Price (nyb) 15:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Could someone add {{other people|John Oliver}} to the top of the page, so there is a hatnote link back to the John Oliver disambiguation page? I can't do it myself due to the page protection. Thanks, Palltrast (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be another John Oliver who is an entertainer and has an article here, so such a hatnote is not called for.--Michig (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin camel

How is this significant to Oliver's biography? The section only mentions Oliver once in that he asked someone to stop filming. The criticism, which is cited to primary sources, doesn't even mention Oliver. January (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's the reporter for the story that resulted in the inadvertent torture of an animal. A species of animal that has really no significant reason to be in Wisconsin. The story received significant coverage, and received heavy criticism from animal rights organizations. That clearly makes it significant, and being the reporter on the scene clearly makes it a significant moment in his career. Since the section qualifies to be included by reliable sources it should be included until the discussion is complete and otherwise is decided. As a compromise I am willing to reduce the contents, and not have the contents' have its own section.Racingstripes (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources described it as "torture". The criticism is not directed at Oliver and is cited to primary sources which is not acceptable for a controversy. This has had a few news articles about it but it's not a major scandal. The video has just below 250K views which isn't massive by YouTube standards. From the sources presented the subject's only documented part in the incident is that he asked someone to stop filming.

Has this material been removed before? I noticed that the Alliance for Animals ref had an accessed date of February 26, 2011 and the link just goes to their home page. January (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, you disagree with me. I made my point, you made your point. Now what?Racingstripes (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Third opinion? I’ve answered my own question on the other, it’s from the history of The Daily Show – the reason given for removing it from that article is that it was only a minor incident [1]. (If you’re copying text you didn't write yourself from another article, you need to follow WP:CWW to ensure correct attribution.) January (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the incident is barely notable enough for the article about the show, then I doubt it's worth mentioning here (and if it is worth mentioning here, it's definitely not worth more than a sentence or two). DP76764 (Talk) 15:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edit based on WP:IGNORE.Racingstripes (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Oliver (entertainer) → John Oliver (comedian) – WP:CRITERIA on recognizability and precision. Known as Google "the comedian John Oliver" in The Telegraph and so on. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. He's a stand-up comedian who's presented a comedy show and has acted in some comedy roles. --McGeddon (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support move. A standard comment about "entertainer" being a bad disambiguator should be read here. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support move. "Entertainer" is a vague catchall term that can apply to virtually anyone in the popular arts. I suppose there are some specialized acts that fall into no other clear category and for which "entertainer" would be appropriate, but that's not the case with John Oliver. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per the nominator. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Original research concern

Utilization of this link: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/1997-98/weekly/5744/5.html as a citation for the middle name and graduating school is original research. These two claims should be removed until they can be corroborated by a proper third party source. Yamaguchi先生 19:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American?

Oliver is not American. He has green card, not an American citizenship. Archwayh (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC) →True. I just heard this confirmed on an NPR interview. He said he's not sure he's eligible for citizenship by marriage yet, and hasn't really thought about what he'll do when he is. -208.58.206.250 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Read English"

Is this a joke? "In 1998, he graduated from Christ's College, Cambridge, where he read English." 75.149.35.46 (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't think it is a joke. I think 'read English' is a regionalism meaning that his major was English. Paisarepa (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it's a British idiom. 146.200.56.41 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British born

Shouldn't this really only be used for people who were born in Britain but would be identified as something other than British at present? John Oliver is just a British comedian who is famous in the US, Bob Hope is "British-born". -- MichiganCharms (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Oliver is British not British-born. --

ColinJackson22 (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's a permanent resident of the United States. He doesn't live in the UK, and he has no intention to ever move back. He is an immigrant. So what's the problem here? —Bill Price (nyb) 17:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has he ever actually said "I HAVE NO INTENTION OF EVER GOING BACK TO THE UK, EVER, EVER, EVER!"? He's a British comic who lives in the US, and a large portion of his comedy comes from the fact that he's a British person in the US. Look for other examples of people who have moved to the US, achieved fame and taken US citizenship at a later date: Graham Nash is English even though he's been a US citizen for longer than he lived in England, Alan Cumming is a Scottish actor even though he's lived and worked in the US for the past decade and is a US citizen, Anthony Hopkins is Welsh in spite of now being an American citizen. The "-born" thing is generally used in the cases of child immigrants who maintained a connection with their country of birth (like Desi Arnaz) or for historical personages whose associations were primarily with a country other than the one they were born in. Furthermore, the implication of it is that the person has ceased to be "British" or "French" or whatever... Oliver is not only still a British citizen, I can't imagine he intends to renounce his citizenship once he becomes an American. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to any renouncing of his British citizenship, but I'm sure I remember his saying at least once in the past few months, on "Last Week Tonight," that he is an American citizen. I'm not changing the article because I don't remember the specific program, and I've forgotten how to append "citation needed," especially if it's appended to something that I write myself, if if makes a difference. GcT (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British identity

Oliver refers to himself as British and refers to the UK or British issues. Below are a few videos of him doing so:

1. Mentions British, Britons, UK and British Empire

2. Mentions the United Kingdom and Britain

3. Speaking about British culture, talks about 'British people', says that is 'Bitish' and says that is what 'we' do.

4. John Oliver at 0:12 'I am British' and at 0:55 'easiest few months to be British'

--109.147.46.97 (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver also refers to himself as "English" and addresses intra-British topics (such as last year's Scottish independence referendum) from that perspective.

Obviously, both "British" and "English" describe Oliver accurately. The latter term is simply more specific. I believe that's why we generally prefer its use in an article's lead (when applicable), barring a specific reason to the contrary. —David Levy 23:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read the wiki entry of the person is supposed to take in account of their own self identification. As he has self described as English and British then having the former in the lead and the latter in the biographical box could be a peaceful compromiser. Erzan (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fix first reference link: Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2015

This edit request to John Oliver (comedian) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The URL of the first reference link "How John Oliver Became An American Star", has an extra "L" at the end of it. It should be http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/comedy/comedy-news/11546015/How-John-Oliver-became-an-American-star.html

Dullurd (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a talk show

Oliver began hosting Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on 27 April 2014, a late-night talk show that takes a satirical look at news, politics and current events.

The show is a satirical newscast, not a talk show. He never has guests. 108.169.0.177 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools Day Edit Request

John Oliver requested his viewers not to participate in April Fools, and specifically not to perpetuate a celebrity death hoax (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXYXuXX48m8&feature=em-uploademail). I was wondering if it would be cool to start an (obviously fake) death hoax that John Oliver died on April Fools 2015, and edit his page with fake information. Timothyjknapp (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)timothyjknapp[reply]

No, but it would mislead people. 108.169.0.177 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080321131957/http://www.tvweek.com:80/blogs/blink/2007/05/translated_from_the_british.php to http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/blink/2007/05/translated_from_the_british.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140104030216/http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/24680606-421/john-oliver-resumes-his-community-tenure.html to http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/24680606-421/john-oliver-resumes-his-community-tenure.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English culture

Ok, i have given you two links that show John Oliver doing stand-up and on the daily show talking about his culture. I would love to know why my edits keep getting reverted when I keep giving references. 172.4.52.98 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Its just a tiny clip - nothing to suggest that is his focus. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note as a reviewer I will stop reviewing this page - let someone new review it - regards Govindaharihari (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of human rights abuses and Ramzan Kadyrov

In episode 72 of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver he made the following statement: "Whose Wikipedia page has an entire section devoted to accusations of human rights abuse. And the mere existence of that is pretty damning." This was on the subject of Ramzan Kadyrov who is the head of the Chechen republic and the section does indeed exist.

That the existence of the section alone means anything is of course nonsense, because I could add such a section to John Oliver's Wikipedia page right now. As such I am wondering if I would be breaking any rules by making such a section. Filling it with the simple statement that nobody is willing and alive to testify to any such accusations against one Mr. J. Oliver.

Hervigin (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be appropriate. Wikipedia should not be edited to "make a point". If you feel that the Ramzan Kadyrov article is incorrect, or that it fails to present a neutral point of view, you are welcome to correct it or to bring up your concerns on Talk:Ramzan Kadyrov. That would be an appropriate response. (However, if the information has been properly verified and cited, then I disagree with your assertion. The fact that it's there does mean something: it means that he's been repeatedly accused of human rights abuses.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that the comedian is the primary topic among subjects of this name. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– It seems like almost no one has any interest at all in any of the other John Olivers.[2] Unreal7 (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. It appears that the comedian is the clear primary topic. PC78 (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support You don't get to host an HBO series and have no significance. Obvious primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He has become the primary topic for this name. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per primary topic. Dimadick (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. It is now the clear primary topic per page views. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 21:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – sure, he's the current hot one, but a primarytopic grab should have a better basis than that, given how many people use this name. Dicklyon (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a dead footballer or some new John Oliver becomes a hot topic and eclipses him, we can revisit the issue, but until then we have to make a judgment based on what's currently the case. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "grab", it's a clear primary topic. Not only is there far more interest in this guy, but there's almost none in any of the others. Unreal7 (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Unlikely to be eclipsed in Wikipedia's lifetime. [3] Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The Canadian politician alone is more significant than a minor television host. — AjaxSmack 03:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid he isn't. [4] And look carefully at the scale: it's less than 10 vs. more than 3000. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Should've been clearer. I was looking at the second element of a primary topic, i.e. "a topic [with] substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". The comedian is not. — AjaxSmack 14:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the provincial politician fails to support that argument. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So does the article on the Anglican bishop. Which is a minor stub on a person with no lasting notability. No wonder people are not searching for these guys, they have less historical significance than the average Pokémon. Dimadick (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Claim Oliver's striking violated status

Oliver's claim that being involved in a union strike would have violated his status - does this need confirming? There's no question in the article here that Oliver was correct in claiming this, but I'm not sure that he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiouskiwicat (talk • contribs) 18:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia ought to determine or document the truth of his statement. If he said it, that's the bit that's about him. Two caveats, though: 1) the article now simply says "he pointed out" which assumes the correctness of the statement. Unless that's unquestionably true -- and I mean unquestionably as in "the sky is blue" -- it should instead set out only that Oliver stated it; "pointed out" seems to be an endorsement of it. 2) If the question of whether it's true was discussed in reliable sources, I wouldn't be averse to including that. That, too would be about Oliver. But we don't want to stray into WP:OR territory, opining on the accuracy of his statement. TJRC (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "Pointed out" should rarely be used in WP. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't even seem to be a source for Oliver saying this; and in an (admittedly quick and shallow) search, I can't find one. Perhaps we should just, um, strike it. TJRC (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 15:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last link wasn't dead. I removed the archive from the article, updated the accessdate & reported the false positive. – gwendy (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver caused President Trump.

I think it is worthwhile including that he encouraged Donald Trump to run for election in 2013. There are a number of sources which support including a mention in this article that he told President Trump to "do it": 1, 2 and 3 for a few examples. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an encyclopedia isn't to catalog everything a person said or did, and a couple articles digging it up doesn't make it noteworthy. Unless articles about Trump cite Oliver as an influence on his campaign decision, this theory is just fringe clickbait. Magic9Ball (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Magic9Ball. That he "encouraged" Trump to run -- as part of a gag -- is pretty much irrelevant, and it's a huge leap to go from a comedy bit to "Oliver caused President Trump". Leave it out. TJRC (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Magic9Ball.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:55, 30 July 2017 (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 Godric^{On 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 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[5] 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]

Oppose per WP:UNDUE. If there was a list article for those that have used tax loopholes it would be the longest one on WikiP and it would also be WP:INDISCRIMINATE info. MarnetteD|Talk 02:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:UNDUE. Highly inappropriate on a BLP.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seems like a tit-for-tat to counter Oliver's frequent criticisms of the Trump family's financial dealings. Unless a crime has been committed, the real estate dealings of a comedian aren't really important to a biography article. ValarianB (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Summoned by bot) Trivial, if a crime had been committed, or if the sourcing had been much more widespread, inclusion might be justified, this is just 'snide'. You mean the guy doesn't live in poverty and tries to legally minimise his tax bill? Wow! What a hypocrite! Also endorse 'one-sided' point made by Coretheapple. Pincrete (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is trivia, it would not merit a page in a biography written on him, it does not merit mention here. LK (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per others, undue weight. Garchy (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above (WP:UNDUE and it being trivia). Felida97 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all the above. Fairly close to a WP:snow close already. - SchroCat (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Summoned by bot. Looks like this issue receives coverage in Salon, The Observer, RT, and Daily Caller. Not really what I'd call high-quality, mainstream and neutral sources. That said, in-line with TJRC's comment, I think the level of coverage this has received could potentially merit a single sentence somewhere in the article. A whole section though, is obviously WP:UNDUE. NickCT (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Inclusion has a hint of relevance to Oliver's own work on Last Week Tonight, as it question his integrity as a journalist. The tax section could have a place in an integrity section, if there is room for such a section in wikipedia biographies. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 15:16, 11 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]

"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]

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]

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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151230123202/http://www.emmys.com/award_history_search?person=%22John+Oliver%22 to http://www.emmys.com/award_history_search?person=%22John+Oliver%22

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 II}_{Talk 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]

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.^{[6] [7] [8] [9]} –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]

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-citizenship with Stephen Colbert on LSSC today.^[10] –84.46.52.252 (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Last Week Tonight be mentioned in the first paragraph?

I'd say it's the most important thing about him right now. CanningIO (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eponyms

Any editors know where to put info on eponyms? I assume eponyms happen after death, so legacy may not make sense. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect

Is there any reason for the redirect http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=John_Oliver_(comedian&redirect=no to exist? There already is one for John Oliver (comedian), this one is just missing the second parentheses jonas (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on American Issues verses Criticism of Britain prior to US Celebrity

Could you please add some detail on his past comedy routine topics as it seems he is just exploiting US issues whereas he never really did the same in the UK. IS there any evidence of strong criticism of British problems while working in the UK? Or has his whole career been based on bashing the US? 182.52.2.125 (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're basically asking us to do some original research. That's not what Wikipedia does. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor issue - And one other journalist?

Introductory section finishes with "Many have described Oliver's work as journalism or investigative journalism,[8][9] a claim both Oliver himself[10] and one other journalist dispute.[11]" This final clause - 'and one other journalist dispute', seems tacked on, specifically in its phrasing - what is the importance of one other journalist's view in this context?. The cynic in me believes this is some kind of plug for the authors own article. Probably an innocent addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.56.55 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether this is exactly a plug for the article, but I agree it's completely unnecessary for the lead. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Description as "English-American"

I firmly believe this is not supported by the sources. Simply acquiring a passport does not change an individual's identifiers. The sources do not state he describes himself as both English and American. The sources state Oliver has acquired an American passport, this does not mean he magically becomes -English-American, that means more than simply carry a passport. It should list him as English, and only change this when reliable sources back up the assertion that he is English-American and not merely an Englishman with an American passport. By the logic being pushed here, Boris Johnson should have been described as Anglo-American as opposed to an American born Briton. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The construct "______-American" refers to a person of _____ ancestry who is an American citizen. Oliver's English ancestry (and personal history) and his U.S. citizenship are both verified facts, so "English-American" is definitely accurate and supported by sources. Boris Johnson is described differently because 1) British identity works differently, and 2) the circumstances are profoundly different. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t agree, and your conclusions aren’t supported by references either to WP policies or sources. The same question came up recently in relation to Ghislaine Maxwell, who was born British but now has US citizenship. She is described as British in the lead, but her citizenships are listed in the infobox and her US naturalization mentioned in the article. The same as for any other descriptor, WP shouldn’t be reaching its own conclusions but should follow external reliable sources. A quick perusal of reputable media sites in both the UK and US suggests that Oliver is routinely referred to as British and I didn’t find anywhere describing him as “British-American”. Therefore the article must follow the same approach, which was the consensus also for Maxwell. Also, cf. the archived talk discussions about his being a British personality. MapReader (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I'm unfamiliar to the whole bureaucracy on how we decide what gets changed in a Wikipedia article, but I feel as though English-American is an apt description for John Oliver due to how American focused his whole persona is, and how he identifies himself. He is very involved in American culture and government, which is what he's almost entirely known for. His home is in New York and recently voted as an American citizen. His family of his wife and children are all American. Saying that he's purely British indicates that he has no direct involvement or investment in America itself, which he clearly does. You say how it's not Wikipedia's place to come to it's own conclusions and that outside sources should be referenced, but isn't John Oliver himself a source? Shouldn't it be the individual to decide whether or not their American? People identify him as British due to his accent and mannerisms, but that's only surface level. You do not have to "look" or "act" American to be American. If he is legally an American, and identifies as both an American and British, then is he not English-American? AlexTheBestCat (talk) 22:44, 20 November, 2020 (UTC)

The details you raise aren’t directly relevant - for example there are people of all nationalities with homes in New York, and I suggest that someone’s nationality is never defined by the family of their wife! But the key point is that we follow the sources. If there are reliable sources describing him as American (or British-American) - as distinct from simply reporting the extra citizenship, which is an established fact already detailed in the article - please bring them forward, so that editors can weigh them against the many that describe him as British, for example here[11][12][13][14] - from three different countries (two from the US) and all from 2020. MapReader (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References to him as "British-American" are not difficult to find, from all over: UK[15][16] US[17][18][19] NZ[20] India[21] Netherlands[22] "English-American" isn't unusual either: UK[23][24] US[25] Vietnam[26] though I don't see evidence that he ever identified specifically with England in contrast to the whole UK. The point is that he has been described by every combination of these terms, with no clear consensus among sources.

Whenever there's a problem with terminology and differences of opinion about what it means/implies, often the best solution is to instead explain. He spent his formative years in Britain, now he's a resident citizen of the U.S... so why not say "British-raised naturalized American"? Instead of defining him, describe him.

We can't do that in the infobox, of course. But we'd have more flexibility if we simply used a different infobox template. The "comedian" template only allows "nationality", but the generic "person" template would allow both "nationality" (UK) and "citizenship" (US) which would cover it. Switching also makes sense because "comedian" is a bit narrow a box to put him in. (That would mean losing the "genre" and "subject" parameters, but frankly those really aren't that useful for infoboxes anyway... mostly just a bunch of OR to fight over.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some fair points, and I have no problem with changing the infobox or describing him as naturalized resident American; but note that he does still hold British citizenship. Like Boris Johnson before him, he has both passports. MapReader (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the notable difference that Boris Johson lives in Britain while Jon Oliver has lived in the United States for the past 15 years, has American citizenship, passports, refers to Americans as "us", has an American wife and child. Anyone who goes through the naturalization process is an American. I also think "British naturalized American" or "British-born American" are ok. But he's still British, so I don't like this latter option. I think Birtish-American is the definition, in the same way Melania Trump is described as Slovene-American and Jim Carrey as "Canadian-American". But there's not a single reason for which an American citizen who has livoed in the US for the past 15 years shouldn't have the right to be called American. Everyone on the List of naturalized American citizens is an American, don't see why John Oliver should be an exception. Eccekevin (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nationality descriptor in leads is about how people are seen, not what passports they have. There are countless counter-examples to the purported principle that this is about citizenship, and in fact it is not automatic for someone born and brought up in a particular country to be seen and described by the nationality of a passport they acquire as an adult. And indeed there are lots of descriptors used in WP that aren’t citizenships at all, such as Scottish, Welsh, Irish (in the case of people from Northern Ireland), Native American, First Nations Canadian, etc. Oliver’s citizenship including the relatively recent change is already and properly dealt with by both the article and the lead. Suggesting its about "the right to be called" is ridiculous; as an encyclopedia our job is to reflect the wider world, and so the sole question for the opening sentence is how he is described by reliable sources. So far most of the more reliable sources in the media world appear to continue to describe him as British, which is the stable and long-standing version of this article. If you wish to conduct a balanced review of RS, by all means do so, but you can’t change someone’s descriptor by assertion. MapReader (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RS have been linked above by another user, but they have been ignored for some reason. I think what we need here is a RfC. But I agree with what you said before, we can call him "naturalized American". Eccekevin (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That second batch of sources (noting that at least one of which is from a tabloid source that WP specifically deprecates) do suggest that there may be a mix of usage emerging, but it was offered as a counter to the set of contemporary and reliable sources I offered earlier upthread indicating that he is widely referred to as British, including within the US, subsequent to his acquiring a second passport. The question here is about how he is being described in the sources, and a more thorough RS review is the place to start, if the long standing version of the article is to be questioned. MapReader (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that one of the sources is a tabloid doesn't invalidate them all, as you seem to be insinuating. Also, this question has come up repeatedly for years, so it really hasn't been stable as you seem to think. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be peculiar, with his citizenship being so fresh. MapReader (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing peculiar about it: He has been a permanent resident of the United States – seeking citizenship – for many years. His identification as an -American has been developing for some time. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MapReader: Just so I'm clear, are you objecting to him being described as "British-American comedian..." and are insisting upon "British comedian..." only? Good sources describe him as British American, e.g.: Washington Post ("British American comedian"); Wall Street Journal ("British-American comedian"); Press Trust of India ("British-American TV star"); Politico Magazine ("the British-American"); Journal of Language and Translation ("English-American comedian"). Neutrality^talk 18:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's about making a proper and considered change (if one is justified) from the long-standing description, based on the sources, rather than persisting with the current edits variously pushing 'English-American' or 'British-American' (with no settled view between the two), fielding a range of bizarre and mostly irrelevant arguments (such as "he has an American wife"). I remain to be convinced that there isn't a critical mass of reliable media sources that continue to see and describe him as British, despite his recent acquisition of a second passport. Which isn't surprising given the basis and stance of his act on American TV. Some of your sources are firewalled but, taking Politico magazine, this doesn't have consistent practice since he is described as British here[27]. Also see other post-citizenship examples from the US describing him as British here[28] and here[29]. It would also be useful to get beyond UK sources claiming him as British and US ones as American (or partly so) to get a wider view. For example here[30] or here[31]. An RfC has been suggested and is a better way to proceed than trying to force a change based on flawed argumentation. MapReader (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that he is British does not negate the fact that he is British-American, since the latter is a subtype of the former. I have started an RfC. Neutrality^talk 19:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have. Although it seems odd to have left out the option that started this talk page discussion? And also included an option ‘American’, which no-one has ever suggested. MapReader (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain "American" has been "suggested" in the form of past edits. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's a naturalized American citizen. How is this an issue? PurpleChez (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it says U.S. citizen in the infobox and in the article text. Why the hell not in the lede sentence? - Bri.public (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in the lead paragraph, and the infobox. As a fact, his second citizenship isn't in dispute. The question for the opening sentence is how he is seen and described, which is established according to reliable sources in the normal way. MapReader (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So we're quibbling over whether it should be in the lead paragraph but not the lead sentence? This has reached new heights of BLP perception-management silliness. - Bri.public (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: lead sentence

RESOLVED

The rough consensus of the community is for Option 3: British-American. The main policy under discussion was MOS:ETHNICITY. In this context, there was a debate about whether the number of sources describing Oliver as "British" should override the "most modern-day cases" situation of Oliver being especially notable for his life and activity in the United States. WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:COMMON do not apply. Most participants agreed that source counting is of minor relevance. A compromise sentence was proposed, but no support was expressed for it. Wikipedia:Readers first was raised, with JasonAQuest arguing for the need for a succint summary sentence expressing Oliver's deep connection to the US, not just his formal citizenship acquirement. (Closure by previously uninvolved editor.) Boud (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Should the lead sentence of this article describe the subject as (1) "a British comedian, writer, producer, political commentator, actor, and television host"; (2) "an American comedian, writer, producer, political commentator, actor, and television host"; or (3) "a British-American comedian, writer, producer, political commentator, actor, and television host"? Neutrality^talk 19:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3. As sources reflect, he is a dual citizen: he was born in the UK and in December 2019 acquired U.S. citizenship (having lived in the U.S. since 2006). Many sources describe him as British American, e.g.: Washington Post ("British American comedian"); Wall Street Journal ("British-American comedian"); Press Trust of India ("British-American TV star"); Politico Magazine ("the British-American"); Journal of Language and Translation ("English-American comedian"). It would be accurate to describe him as "British" and it would be equally accurate to describe him as "American" — however, those descriptions standing alone would be incomplete, since he is both. "British-American" is the most accurate, well-sourced, and precise. Neutrality^talk 19:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Tagging JasonAQuest, Eccekevin, MapReader, AlexTheBestCat, PurpleChez Bri.public, Bri, who commented on this issue above; please participate in the RfC if you would like. --Neutrality^talk 19:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. As sources reflect, he is a dual citizen: --Whiteguru (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. Sources show that Oliver is a dual citizen, whose work is broadcast in both countries– the lead should reflect as such. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 He's a longtime U.S. resident and now a U.S. citizen who focuses heavily on U.S. politics and culture. Downplaying his American identity is the wrong way to go. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per sources mentioned above and in the interest of accuracy and completeness. Jschnur (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 seems the most appropriate and logical of these three for a person of British origin who has become a citizen of the United States; it's a standard hyphenated-American construct. (I am also comfortable with dispensing with labels and instead describing his national identity, as spelled out elsewhere on this Talk page.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 for the many reasons stated above. He has lives in the US for 15 years, desrcibes himself as American, has American citizenship, his shows mostly focuses on America, and has an American family. Eccekevin (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 - Textbook case for using a hyphenated identity. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 He's a dual citizen. ~ HAL333 22:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, on the basis that WP’s policy is to follow reliable published sources, the majority of which have continued to describe Oliver as a British comedian after his recent acquisition of a second passport. WP doesn’t decide how people are described based on unsourced personal argumentation from individual editors, however strongly or often they are put. Looking at the sources, there are indeed some that use the ‘British-American’ tag, but these are outweighed by the many more that describe him as British, which isn’t surprising given his act. He still describes himself as a “British person” on TV, for example in his HBO show from Feb 16th 2020 (not that subjects should define themselves in an encyclopedia). In Google, “British-American comedian John Oliver” throws up 277 results, with none when the adjective is placed after the name, whereas “British comedian John Oliver” receives about 12,000 results, plus a further 710 when the adjective is placed after. For comparison, “American comedian” gets 1,830 before and 6 after, indicating that the ‘British-American’ formulation is the least commonly used of all. Replace ‘Comedian’ with ‘Comic’ and you get 791 hits for “British Comic”, 4 for “American” and 1 for “British-American”. Reliable sources that describe him as British, within 2020/21, include from the U.S., Variety[32], the Capital Gazette, the Christian Post [33], Bustle [34], MSN[35] and numerous others including state and local press[36][37][38][39]. From the UK, the Radio Times[40], the Independent [41], The Times [42] the Guardian [43], and Sky[44], which carries his show across Europe. From Canada, TheThings [45] and Crave (in French)[46]. From India, the Free Press Journal[47], NDTV [48], and Telegraph India [49], and from Pakistan GeoTV[50]. From Australia, CompareTV[51], the Daily Mercury, the Queensland Courier, MrPeriodical [52] and WhistleOut [53]. From the Middle East the English language Arab News[54]. From Ireland, the principal broadcaster RTE [55], the Western People[56], Breaking News [57], and the Independent [58]. Once again, this isn’t about citizenships, which are already fully described in the article; the question is not what we individually might think, but about how he is most commonly described by the RS. MapReader (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing for stats from Google like that is poor research methodology. For example, an American source that considered him American wouldn't call him an "American comedian"; they'd just write "comedian". Meanwhile, the time you spent looking for citations that say "British" was time wasted, because no one has ever disputed that he is sometimes described that way. On the other hand it's also true that other times he's described differently. There is no single, simple "correct" answer. His national identity is a little complicated and nuanced, and that means we have to use a little more creativity to solve it.

There's a principle that long-serving WP editors often lose sight of: Our first duty is tothe reader. That's a critically important consideration to the opening sentence, where our goal should be to succinctly and clearly sum up for them: who this person is, and why this person is notable. And as much as it apparently distresses you... John Oliver's connection to American media, culture, and politics is as fundamental to the reader's understanding of him as his British birth, upbringing, and accent. To leave that out of the opening sentence would be a disservice to the reader. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no distress involved; we’re simply considering how someone is described in an encyclopaedia. Much of what you say is reasonable, but it remains an argument you have constructed to support a fact, and therefore is unsourced WP:OR. MapReader (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still, JasonAQuest point remains valid; also, we as editors are not mindless bots - it our job to evaluate RS and place them in due context and give them due weight. That is not OR, that is being a Wiki editor. Another thing to consider: how many of those RS use Wikipedia as a source for Oliver's nationality or description. Given's Wikipedia profile, I can imagine many of those writers checkin this very page to get basic info about Oliver, hence why they stick to 'British'. Eccekevin (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For sure (on the bot proposition), but apart from his concession that Oliver is regularly described as British, he hasn't offered any sources, nor really evaluated any. He's simply putting forward his own argumentation and criteria as explanation for his own opinion. Which certainly is OR. The suggestion that the likes of Variety, MSN or the Guardian use WP to determine how they describe Oliver is however highly unlikely. MapReader (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the fact that some sources describe him as "British" doesn't really support your point, since these do not contradict the sources saying he is "British American"; the latter is a subset of British. Neutrality^talk 14:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it’s not about contradiction, but about following the RS in terms of how Oliver is commonly described. Here’s a very reliable American media source describing him as a British comedian that is barely twelve hours old.[59] MapReader (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 He's a dual citizen.Sea Ane (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So is “American actor” Robert de Niro MapReader (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The key aspect here is that Oliver lives in America, focuses on American issues in his shows, works in America, and has an American family. His citizenship is not just a piece of paper. Also, whatever the de Niro page is irrelebvant here, If you have an issue with it, go to the Robert de Niro talk page. Eccekevin (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, none of those are "key aspects" at all, but simply your own criteria. For example, your assertion that a "key aspect" is that he lives in America is obvious nonsense when you consider that the world is full of people working and living in countries other than the one in which they are born, who continue to be seen and described according to the country of their birth. The ONLY key aspect here is how Oliver is described in reliable sources. MapReader (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The De Niro point is relevant simply to point out that the opening sentence refers to nationality, not citizenship. De Niro is rightly seen as an American actor despite his Italian passport. Boris Johnson was seen as a British politician when he had his US passport. Nicola Sturgeon is a Scottish politician despite her British passport. Graham Greene is a First Nations Canadian actor, despite First Nations not being a citizenship. Similarly for people described as Welsh, or Native American. The nationality descriptor and citizenship aren't the same thing. MapReader (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 would be more suitable based on the sources provided above. Idealigic (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 he is a dual-citizen. He lives and works in America. Augu❤Maugu 💕 07:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the MoS, “The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources”. Such as, within just the last few days, Fox News[60], the New Zealand Herald[61], Hollywood Reporter[62], The List[63], and the Los Angeles Times[64].

Please sign your comments. Augu❤Maugu 💕 15:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could cherry pick articles that say "British-American comedian John Oliver" but what's the point. There are plenty of sources out that describe him as British, a British-American or don't bring his nationality up. Option 3 appears to be the best option. Augu❤Maugu 💕 15:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ‘point’ is that this is what the MoS requires us to do. Despite the torrent of unsourced OR above, we are supposed to be assessing how Oliver is most commonly described in RS. That there is a mix doesn’t change the fact that he is most commonly described as British, even by US sources. MapReader (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that 1) Wikipedia is supposed to be accurate, but describing him as just "British" omits an important and relevant fact about him, 2) Wikipedia operates based on consensus, and there is very clearly not a consensus supporting that version.

Identity is not a simple matter of counting Reliable Sources. That's helpful information, but 1) there's no such thing as an authoritative sample, and 2) it really is not that simple. Importantly, WP policies and practices reflect this. For example, if someone gets married/divorced and changes their name... we don't wait for a larger number of sources using the new name to accumulate. We put it in the lede, and if the new name catches on we promptly rename the article. Same with a person's gender identity: if someone announces that they are transgender or non-binary and they wish to use different pronouns... we do it, even if some media misgender or deadname them afterward. (I know that's controversial, but it's policy.) Whether you like it or not, "American" is part of John Oliver's national identity now (RS already provided). It is inappropriate not to include it in the opening sentence. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But consensus isn't a simple matter of counting editors, either. As per WP:DISCARD, "irrelevant arguments...based on personal opinion only" should be discarded; this includes most of the contributions above that don't apply themselves to either policy or sources. Reviewing, assessing and weighing sources is the bread and butter of WP; it's what we do all the time, so it's no good saying that it's all too difficult. Your analogy with someone changing their surname doesn't work, since this would be a matter of fact, and it is simply a question of finding an RS to establish that the name has changed. And WP certainly doesn't "lead" with changes and see if they "catch on", as you suggest. Someone's description is a matter of judgement and there is no single factual answer as to whether Oliver is seen as "British", "English", "American", "British-American" or "English-American". Hence we follow the sources. Oliver has been in the news a lot this past week and is being widely described as British. There isn't any argument that he has American citizenship and this is mentioned in the article three times already. It would be possible to refer to it in an opening sentence along the lines of "Oliver is a British comedian and writer, who has become a political commentator and television host in the United States and in 2019 also a US citizen". MapReader (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If many sources describe him as British, and many describe him as British-American, then British-American is the best, because it includes British. This is because those two descriptors are not mutually exclusive (since cultural, national affiliations and citizenship are complex and layered). Someone describing him as British is not necessarily saying he's not American, and vice-versa. And with all due respect, I'd like to point out that so far everyone in the discussion has disagreed with you, so I invite you to take a second and not immediately attack everyone here as proposing "irrelevant arguments based on personal opinions only". Clearly, there must be a reason why so many editors agree that 'British-American' is the best synthesis of all the sources. Eccekevin (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be fine, except that “synthesis of sources” to justify a conclusion not explicitly stated by them is specifically contrary to WP policy: see WP:SYN. Also note that my earlier quote was also made directly from WP policy and not an attack on anyone, save from pointing out that few people are addressing the central consideration that “The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources” MapReader (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dont't see how WP:SYN applies here. Augu Maugu ♨ 07:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor above explicitly states that his preference represents the "best synthesis". Synthesis is creating a conclusion out of bits of evidence that don't explicitly state that conclusion. Arguing that the majority of sources that describe Oliver as British are somehow "included" by describing him, differently, as "British-American", is synthesis, as is using evidence that he has citizenship from the UK and the US to justify describing him as "British-American". Sources that support describing him as "British-American" are ONLY those that explicitly do so themselves, as per the policy. In any event, the solution here is surely to adopt a formulation along the lines of "Oliver is a British comedian and writer, who has become a political commentator and television host in the United States and in 2019 also a US citizen", which meets the core requirement to follow the RS whilst satisfying the editors above who clearly want his American notoriety and citizenship included within the opening sentence? MapReader (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not cherry pick, but let's look at ALL of the sources. Published over the past week, using Google.com, RS that describe Oliver as a "British comedian" are Deadline.com, Today.com, the New Zealand Herald, ETonline, Radio Times, Fox News, NowTV, Extra.ie, Los Angeles Times, Yahoo, Diply, WFVX Bangor, Republic World, Times of India, 9News.com, ArabNews, Huffington Post, Newsdome.za, Florida News Times, Hollywood Reporter - a range of mostly American sources with a few from the UK, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and India, plus about seven pages of various unreliable tabloid and blog hits. Those describing him as "British-American" comprise National Herald of India and Culture Review Magazine and.....yes, that's it, with just four other hits on unreliable sites, only a single page of hits in total. That the RS overwhelmingly continue to describe Oliver as British is quite clear. MapReader (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I said at all. I said that one label is inclusive (British-American), while the other two are exclusive (British, American); hence, one of them is preferable. Saying he is British-American does not negate that he is British. Eccekevin (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a matter of judgement, but in any case not relevant. All that is relevant here is following the reliable sources. MapReader (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and plenty describe him as 'British-American' Eccekevin (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a few, but it is not how he is “commonly described”, which is the key. MapReader (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not a matter of headcount, as editors we also have to consider what's most appropriate, accurate, and in line with policy. Of course there are plenty sources that describe him as British (although, as pointed out, this does not exclude that he is also American). Eccekevin (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or we skip all that WP:OR and simply focus on how he is most commonly described. Like what it says in the MoS. MapReader (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not OR to evaluate sources, but at this point I think you are just WP:STONEWALLING. Eccekevin (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating sources is certainly what we should be doing. Trying to focus the discussion back on that isn't disruptive editing. MapReader (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eccekevin, I don't think it's in good faith to be saying an editor is stonewalling just because they may be passionate about their arguments. Especially when they are facing such a large amount of opposition, where stonewalling would be an extremely poor strategy anyway. So, it's kinda like saying they are dumb too, making it somewhat insulting. Please take more care. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 in line with WP Policy. He has naturalised to attain dual-citizenship, much the same as numerous people in the wider media spectrum such as Christian Bale and Anthony Hopkins. British-American makes me think of someone with dual heritage. Many people gain dual passports for a myriad of reasons, but I would struggle to think of someone with his accent as anything but British. Duality can be described in the lead para, but not in the first sentence.Fleets (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't define people by their accents, that seems like an arbitrary definition. Else, Arnold Schwarzenegger would not be American. Eccekevin (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That accent bit was a comment, somewhat akin to ones that he has himself made on his own show, and on the the likes of Colbert when bringing up the fact that he now has another passport, citizenship to add to his primary place residence. It was a rounded comment to add to the WP policy bit, but jokey in the theme of the man himself.Fleets (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another week, another set of news sources to review. Taking ALL the sources for the past seven days via Google.com, Oliver is referred to as a British comedian by NowTV, RepublicWorld (India), TheNews and GeoNews (Pakistan), News4SA (US), The Royal Observer (US), India NewsRepublic, US magazine, MSN, the Curacao Chronicle (Trinidad), NBC; seven pages of hits in total. "British-American comedian" gets just three hits, none reliable. MapReader (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not simply a source count. As plenty of editors above have pointed out, there are many sources for both terms. The "British" only denomination obviously will be more prevalent because of 1) inertia and 2) Wikipedia itself. Many of those sources you pointed out probably brush up on Oliver's wiki page to get his basic bio information. It's not just about a number of sources, but how they fit in the broader context. Jason A. Quest summarized well why we have to take inertia in account with sources, and also why accuracy and sampling sources matter too, so I am not going to repeat his arguments, but I'd like to point to them. Eccekevin (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The object of looking at all recent sources is to avoid any sampling, or ‘cherry picking’, as it was described above. The test under the MoS is to identify how he is “commonly described in reliable sources”; the idea that NBC or MSN or Hollywood Reporter copy from Wikipedia is laughable. ‘Inertia’ is yet more OR; there is no reference to it anywhere in policy and, in any event, as an encyclopedia it is clearly WP's role to follow, not to lead. MapReader (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's role is to be accurate, and it is based on consensus. There is clearly no consensus on categorizing him as "British" only. Eccekevin (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 (summoned by bot) Aside from reflecting sources and his cultural reality, which this option does; to exclude one nationality or the other is also to overlook the POV of those who search — dependent on how one comes to know of Oliver, knowledge of a British, English or American comedian may be sought by the reader. Lindenfall (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 He is a dual citizen that was born and raised in the UK, but now lives in America, is married to an American, is raising his kids in America, and is most famous for an American TV show about American politics. And basically all of his notable work was done in America. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources and WP policy would be in line with option 1, but there are a large number of votes for option 3. Is this better moved to an alternative avenue than a rfc or another forum, as sources and WP policy vs votes is not going to yield a satisfactory result for anyone in either camp.Fleets (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fleets That is your opinion that policy is lined with option 1, not a fact. Most people are of the opposite opinion. There is absolutely no reason to move this conversation anywhere, and suggesting is borderline canvassing. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, hardly any contributors have addressed themselves to the MoS requirement that he be described as he is commonly in reliable sources. Indeed almost all of the comments have been completely unsourced opinions, cf. WP:DISCARD MapReader (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MapReader From MOS:ETHNICITY"The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable." It says absolutely nothing about sources. He is a citizen of American and the UK. His most notable work is his current show, Last Week Tonight, when he was a permanent resident of American before becoming an American citizen. It does not say that we use how sources describe his nationality as, so your main argument should actually be discarded. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can’t skip over the MoS requirements for the lead paragraph and opening sentence as easily as that. The location of his notability is clearly the US but he is notable for being a British comedian working in the US, as commonly described by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. Your approach would direct toward some formulation along the lines of “Oliver is a British comedian and writer, who has become a political commentator and television host in the United States and in 2019 also a US citizen”. MapReader (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JDDJS - I was merely pointing out that if most reliable sources had him as British, most editors want him as British-American, and if WP policy is also divided, then surely opening up the dialogue, making it a little more formalised in the rationale, something that may lead to a definitive vote, or in any other way attempting to break the deadlock is anything but attempting to influence an outcome one way or the other. I have no interest interest, desire or reason to canvass, but perhaps it was not meant to be read in the way that I read the link you provided.Fleets (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not merely a matter of counting sources and see who wins. There are sources that describe him as British and sources that describe him as British-American. Our job is to evaluate said discrepancy and decide by consensus what is the most appropriate. To keep reiterating over and over that more sources describe him one way is not helpful nor the point here. Since both descriptors are used by RS, either is supported by sources, hence why our job it to come to the consensus of what is most accurate, which is the goal of Wikipedia. "British-American", as most users agree, is most accurate (also, it itself includes "British", hence including all sources that describe him as such). Saying someone is Chinese-American does not negate their Chinese identity, the same here. Describing John Oliver as British-American retains the description of him as British, while also accurately including the fact is is naturalized and Americanized over the last 15 years. Additionally, as pointed out above, including the description of him as American is in line with the fact that his notability is tied to his time in America, as an American political commentators, and American resident and citizen, in line with MOS:ETHNICITY. Eccekevin (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be that, knowing that he isn’t “commonly described” by RS in the way that you prefer, you are clutching at straws to try to re-write the way WP uses sources, and trying to cherrypick bits from the MoS accordingly. Even the label ‘ethnicity’ provides a clue, since ethnicity isn’t something you can change in middle age. You can’t get clearer than the overriding requirement that the lead sentence should describe him as he is commonly described in the RS. If within the last fourteen days it was acceptable for Hollywood Reporter, the LA Times, MSN, NBC, Deadline and Variety to describe him as a British comedian then there really isn’t any argument that this shouldn’t also work for WP. MapReader (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Describing his as British-American doesn’t deny he is British, it includes it. Hence “British-American” is inclusive of the Hollywood Reporter and all the other sources you mention. It’s basically saying that he is British, and he is American. Those two things are not mutually exclusive as you try to say. America is a melting pot country, and it is common to have more than one culture or ethnicity. Hence your argument, which relies on “British” and “British-American” being exclusive or each other, doesn’t make sense. Eccekevin (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that’s your own OR. The task as per the MoS is to describe him “as they are commonly described in reliable sources”. Note the “as”. A “British-American” tag is only justified if that’s “as” he’s described elsewhere, which he overwhelmingly is not. Just yesterday, we have the Los Angeles Times describing him as British,[65], as well as Newsweek[66] and a small range of other sources. For “British-American”, absolutely none. MapReader (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's your very own interpretation of MoS. As it has been explained by other users below, it's not necessarily the right one. Eccekevin (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following the sources doesn’t depend upon an “interpretation”; it’s fundamental to what WP is, and what we as editors should be doing. MapReader (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3. Seems well supported enough and describes things accurately enough. If the details of his citizenship of nationality are important and insufficiently covered by that description, then editors should simply add them. Bonewah (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 3 I know I'm in a minority about this, but I'm with MapReader about being policy compliant, especially when it comes to WP:BOLP. It's perfectly fine to recognize the dual citizenship of this person in the infobox, or the body of the article since the sources support it. ~~However, MOS:ETHNICITY is also perfectly clear that it should not happen in the lead unless dual citizenship is what made the person notable, or what they are notable for.~~ Huggums537 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Moving my support to option 3. Sorry, MapReader. JDDJS, has convinced me that the American activities and citizenship of this person have made him "notable enough" to be in line with the way MOS:ETHNICITY guideline reads. Huggums537 (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, Huggums537 it’s a free country(ies). But ethnicity isn’t really the issue; his ethnicity isn’t American and you can’t change your ethnicity by acquiring an extra passport in middle age. The real question here is whether our encyclopedia follows the sources, or editors’ personal opinions. MapReader (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view, and I sympathize with it, but I also think we have to take due weight into consideration. I know that a huge majority of the sources favor your position, but that doesn't give us the right to ignore the small amount of sources that favor the other position as well, if we want to write from a neutral point of view, and if it is also supported by MOS:ETHNICITY, which also goes by the name of MOS:CONTEXTBIO, then it only makes sense to support it within the context of this bio by the compliance of policy and guideline. The only real fair arguments you may have against it is either WP:COMMONNAME or MOS:COMMON, neither of which apply here at all. So, unless you can provide a link to the actual policy or guideline that talks about using common names in the lede, I don't think I'll be persuaded, because this idea of, "my sources are more common than yours, so my edits/ideas hold more weight" just isn't enough for me all by itself. Huggums537 (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add that this quote; "The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources”, which you used earlier from the MoS can be found at: MOS:OPENPARABIO, where it specifically says, ...the opening paragraph of a biographical article should establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context. and, "The opening paragraph should usually state: 3. Context (location or nationality). This is pretty cut and dry, and we do have sources that describe him as "[British]-American", they just aren't as "common" as yours. Per WP:DUE, I don't think we should be interpreting the quote you provided for us to mean that "my sources are more common than yours, therefore we should put all the weight on what my sources say." That's not WP:NPOV at all. Huggums537 (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think that the MOS section to which you linked requires us to ignore his dual citizenship. That's not what the MOS section says. We do not indicate citizenship (single or dual) because it "is what made the person notable." Rather, as the MOS section you linked says, we typically indicate nationality for modern-day subjects to provide "context for the activities that made the person notable." Neutrality^talk 15:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question of "ignoring" his US citizenship, acquired in 2019. It's mentioned three times in the article already (and I have even suggested a compromise approach, above, that would bring the first reference into the opening sentence). It's simply a matter of the description in the lead sentence of the opening paragraph being "as he is commonly described" in the large majority of reliable sources, per MOSBIOGRAPHY, as is well evidenced above. And of not doing what Eccekevin is seeking, with his WP:SYNTH of RS that describe him as "British" and the separately referenced fact of his American passport to try and sythesize (as he himself admits) a description of "British-American", despite this not being as he is most commonly described. What is good enough for the Los Angeles Times, Hollywood Reporter, NBC, Variety, Deadline, and the rest, is surely good enough for WP? MapReader (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twisting my words again. I never said to synthesize the two sources. I said that one of them is preferable because more comprehensive.Eccekevin (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all; please check what you have said above. Here is your direct quote: “ .. 'British-American' is the best synthesis of all the sources. If you check WP:SYNTH you will see that it says: “If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources”. Your A is the many RS that describe him as ‘British’, your B are separate sources that confirm his recently acquired US passport, and C is the description “British-American”, which is your synthesis, just as you said that it is, right up above. You even go on to try and suggest that ‘British-American’ somehow “includes” (your word) those sources describing him as British, which is synthesis plain as day. The only problem is that synthesis within WP is expressly forbidden. MapReader (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, twisting my words (and no one mentioned passports, U.S. Citizenship and being American are more than just a passport). I've never advocated for WP:SYNTHESIS, and my comment by inclusions stand: the two sources don't necessarily contradict themselves, hence we should chose the most inclusive. SYNTHESIS is when you put two sources together and obtain a final product that isn't present in either, which is clearly not what I said. Eccekevin (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2021 (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.