Talk:Johnny the Walrus

Sources

I don't know why the sources in this page are constantly objected. I tried doing my best by adding more reliable sources, or at least, sources NOT red in the WP:RSP list, but to no avail. I think we should be a little lenient on the sources because, one, these sources are not blacklisted and two, these are the ONLY sources on the book that we have as of yet. I believe we should have good faith in this case and allow these sources, instead of objecting them. Not mention, they're not falsifying anything; It is true that the book is number one best seller in the Amazon LGBT book category and also true that a group of protesters had protested in St Louis (these "unreliable" sources have photos and videos of the said event). There is no misinformation or falsification of any events or statements. @Llll5032:, your input is needed here. Thanks. ~ Qumarchi (talk) 1:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Qumarchi, if you Google the wording of two articles you cited (from The Paradise and Conservative News Daily), you will find that they are copied verbatim from The Daily Wire, which is unreliable per WP:RSP, and also is Walsh's employer, which necessitates the five-part WP:ABOUTSELF test for use. A third article, from The Press United, is copied from Russia Today, which is deprecated per WP:RSP. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, "If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." So reliable independent sources must be found to replace the unreliable and deprecated sources. Amazon is generally not a reliable source per WP:AMAZON. Llll5032 (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Qumarchi, I agree that an explanation from the author about why he wrote the book may be due, but it must be via an independent reliable source per WP:REPUTABLE: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Llll5032 (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Unfortunately, I cannot find reliable sources that back up the author's statements on why he wrote the book. But as of now, I believe the article has become a bit too left-wing biased, and I made a section of this issue below. ~ Qumarchi (talk) 3:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The WP:RSP has CNN, and various other news agencies that ran with the Smollett narrative now blowing up the news cycle; Kyle Rittenhouse was guilty, smirking MAGA child was racist, etc. That reliable sources list is rife with left-wing bias. I will gladly pit the most glaring journalistic malpractice of the Daily Wire against that produced by those approved publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.218.80 (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

If you think you have evidence of journalistic malpractice on these topics, then you should bring it up at WP:RSN and not on the talk page of Johnny the Walrus. Llll5032 (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

“Transgenderism”

This article describes the natural phenomenon of youth being transgender as “transgenderism in youth”. The phrase “transgenderism” implies that being transgender is ideological rather than a human condition. Thus it would seem that the article is not a balanced, and combined with the awful sourcing on this article, it feels that this article is incredibly biased and may need to be taken down until better sources can come out. 162.155.142.115 (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

"The phrase 'transgenderism' implies that being transgender is ideological rather than a human condition."

What? How? Even if the article changed, given your given reasons, it would become biased towards transgenders. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't mean the article is biased. Instead, the article is just describing Walsh's view on transgenderism. Who said that "transgenderism" implies an ideology? That word is a noun, just like transsexualism, atheism, baptism, lesbianism, theism, deism, etc. It had to be written that way, anyway, because "transgender in youth" makes no grammatical sense. Besides, not all "-isms" denote something derogative. The article, thus far, doesn't seem biased. Please explain how is it biased? Now the author has views you disagree with, which are peppered in the article (so you understand his background). And even the book is not something from your side of the politics game. But, you can clearly see that the unfavorable views of the book are included in the article as well. So I still don't quite understand how the article is "biased" per se. It's equally balanced, thus far. ~ Qumarchi (talk) 8:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Some 90% of female youth identified as Tom-Boyish grow out of it when left to their own devices. They are now actively encouraged to have hormone blockers and get surgery. Nature over nurture? IP: 24.156.218.80

It should be noted that the book itself makes no comparison to transgenderism. The author extratextually provides that as an interpretation, but the book itself makes no comparison between "Johnny" and trans youth.--Doobiedoobiedada (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as how Walsh described himself as an LGBT Author after JTH's success on Amazon's LGBTQ+ section, it is obviously a direct metaphor. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Left wing sources

I understand that right-wing/conservative sources are disallowed, which is fine. But how are these biased, very left wing sources smearing Walsh and the book permitted here? The article was accused of being right-wing biased, yet now it completely has a left-wing bias, which just doesn't make sense to me and seems kind of hypocritical to me. ~ Qumarchi (talk) 3:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Qumarchi, If you see information from any source that is unreliable or deprecated per WP:RSP and WP:RSN, please mark it or remove it. Llll5032 (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Llll5032, The thing is, these very left-leaning sources with overly vilifying content (such as PinkNews) are under "generally reliable" per WP:RSP. Even I, as a gay person (who created this article), find this to be unfair, since many leftist news sources are permitted and those even with a slight conservative tinge are tagged as "unreliable" and "deprecated". But this discussion doesn't belong here, as I am rather critiquing the WP:RSP page and its consensus. ~ Qumarchi (talk) 8:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want to make the case that PinkNews is unreliable, head to WP:RSN and start a discussion there. X-Editor (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding for Qumarchi: The sources removed from this article weren't unreliable because of any political orientation, but rather for reasons explained at WP:RSP and WP:ABOUTSELF. Llll5032 (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It might also be just a case of left-wing sources being more reliable, but if you have a doubt, open up a discussion at WP:RSN. L3gacyb3ta (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2022 (EST)

I agree with Qumarchi, in that WP:RSP is extremely left-biased, so it needs a serious re-working which I'm afraid may be impossible if the majority in power are left biased themselves. I suppose the best we can do is to at least try and raise a discussion on it. Seacactus 13 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggest a careful read of WP:RS and some of its linked essays before making any conclusions. Also, WP:USTHEM. Llll5032 (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I made edits to this page that are dry, neutrally stated FACTS about the book, with no agenda other than truth. Wikipedia has become a radical left-wing echo chamber. This is coming from a liberal LGBT person who has donated to Wikipedia's cause in the past. Never again. Pathetic. Wrong side of history. Anonywikiman (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:REPUTABLE, "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Llll5032 (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

However the editors and moderators approve the sources as reliable and otherwise do not follow their guidelines. Just how they feel in regard to the sources. All sources should be treated equally with caution, even the "approved" sources. JuliusPilsudski (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation in this article

The article states that the book "allegorically compares being transgender to pretending to be a walrus". This is not true. It satirizes pro-transgender activists and doctors as being so radical that they would encourage a child's imagination become a permanent transformation. In other words, the author is suggesting that children who ARE NOT TRANS are being coached and pressured into transitioning when in fact they were just confused at a very young age. The book makes no criticism of actual transgender people, as the boy in the book is merely playing, and his playtime is exploited by activists and doctors with an agenda.

The Background is rife with misleading information from The Hill in which Walsh is painted as anti-LGBT, rather than anti-certain forms of LGBT activism. This is inexcusable propaganda, not truth-seeking.

The summary is also woefully inadequate, neglecting to include Johnny's transition, his and his mother's regret, the pressure of activists, and his visit to the zoo, at which he is called out in a "Emperor's New Clothes"-esque remark by the zookeeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonywikiman (talk • contribs) 04:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Anonywikiman, thanks for taking this question to the talk page. Because WP:PSTS says "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors," I suggest that any summary of the book should reflect what is written in the 3 articles from the 2 cited sources that are marked green at WP:RSP (two articles from The Hill, one from PinkNews) in WP:IMPARTIAL tone. The book is recent so other reliable secondary sources may appear over time. Llll5032 (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, I feel like allegorically gives Matt to much credit. Jacksfilms enthusiast (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a very good allegory if anyone could easily tell what he’s talking about. Jacksfilms enthusiast (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Allegation of plagiarism

Should this article mention the accusation of plagiarism made by fellow writer Ashley St. Clair?

The Daily Beast is a yellow source at RSN (WP:DAILYBEAST), however St. Clair confirmed that she spoke to The Daily Beast on twitter and doubled down on the accusation.

The text that used to be in this article was as follows:

Allegation of plagiarism

On December 11, 2021, media personality Ashley St. Clair accused Walsh of stealing the idea and plot for Johnny the Walrus from her children's book Elephants Are Not Birds, which was published in July 2021.

References

Yours truly. -Daveout(talk) 22:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Accusations of misconduct by living people need to be sourced to high quality sources. We can't use the accuser's Twitter feed to say that she made the accusation, and we can't use a Yellow-flagged questionable source like The Daily Beats which repeats that tweet. If no high quality, mainstream, reliable source mentions these accusations, it does not belong in the article. Izzy Borden (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Daily Beast is "questionable" for questionable reasons, as every discussion on it's reliability has concluded that it is reliable. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@46.97.170.32: Why do you lie? WP:RSP says

There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.

2601:547:500:4E80:61C0:C809:A51E:29BA (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Plot, spoilers

Should we add the rest of the book's plot? Ang720 (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Satire

We can’t call this satire, as satire is used to punch up in the figurative ladder of society. This book hates on transgender people, which is more punching down on them, and thus, not really what most would consider satire. Jacksfilms enthusiast (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Your original research on what is or is not satire, or even what this book is about, is not relevant to this article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I just feel like this needed to be stated before I removed “satire” from the book’s description. Jacksfilms enthusiast (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)