Talk:A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zach Riviere.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

About Template

@IronGargoyle: @E.M.Gregory: Don't have deep passions but this book is notable given its sales and the and would suggest that the original wording on the template is more than sufficient. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Author

Why is the author in the infobox listed as "Marlon Bundo with Jill Twiss" - the rabbit didn't write the book, why is it an author? – numbermaniac 09:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The authorship of the book is attributed that way. (See the cover image for validation of this.) While we can assume that the rabbit did not do any writing, the pairing of names is basically being used as a nom de plume for Twiss alone. LadyofShalott 14:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Reception section

I don't like how it is divided into subsections. I think it should be divided into "critical reception" and "otherwise reception" instead of "positive" and "negative". (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, does the 4.9/5 Amazon figure include trolls, or is it after Amazon restricted reviews to those who hv purchased the book? wumbolo ^^^ 13:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it works fine as-is. If there is another suggestion, feel free to make it, but "otherwise reception" is a very strange and awkward wording. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Wumbolo User:IronGargoyle | I expanded the Reception section with critical reviews, a further reaction from the Pences' publisher and the book being donated to all Indiana primary schools. Then it made more sense to move things around, grouping (1) the critical reviews, (2) the Pence/Regnery reactions and (3) everything else under 'Public response'. The latter section is still rather unbalanced, half of it is about the Amazon reviews. Could we expand it a around three (?) themes: public response (readers/viewers/organizations), media response and resulting initiatives? Dalsegnoalfine (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Preserving paragraph about the domain names

John Oliver acquired two domain names to promote A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo. The domain betterbundobook.com contrasts the book with the Pence-family-written Bundo book and focusonthefurmily.com (which redirects to betterbundobook.com) satirizes the anti-LGBT organization Focus on the Family. wumbolo ^^^ 13:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This is sourced back to the video of Oliver himself. It seems to me to pass WP:Primary since this is the explanation that Oliver gave for those two domains - was not editor interpretation. Alternatively 1 this is from a WP:RS and references the domains (though without some of the extra explanation given above). Barkeep49 (talk)

Wording

“aiming to denigrate Vice President Pence over his controversial anti-LGBT views” (emphasis by me):

IMHO, this kind of language is inappropriate for the article, particularly since it isn’t actually supported by the ref – which instead has phrases like “star-studded, sweet, charity-minded“. (I also dislike the seemingly increasing use of controversial as an euphemism for bigoted, extreme and/or shitty, but that’s beside the point) Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 15:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't object is someone removed that word (and considered doing so in my last edit) but I do think it's a reasonable paraphrase of the article. It’s all in line with Last Week Tonight’s history of prankish online activism, or what Oliver terms, “doing a nice thing in a really dickish way.” Oliver presents a portrait of a man whose outward appearance of un-Trump-ian sanity barely conceals the frothing, right wing loon within. Oliver, calling Pence “the opposite of whatever a silver fox is” (settling on “ashen weasel”) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Additions and Changes to the Article

I plan on adding an analysis section. I think this is important because it draws a connection to the themes of the story and why the story was made. It would also help understand why the book was supported so much while also being listed number 2 on the most challenged books on ALA. I am going to change the concept section to background. I believe "background" is more clear for what the section is trying to do. Im going to change "Commercial Performance" section to Publication, because a publication section is a Wikipedia guideline for a book. I plan on combining the sub sections of the reception section. I find having three sub sections is awkward and Wikipedia's main goal is to get information out clearly and concise.

I think the idea of renaming those sections is great. I'm having a harder time envisioning your analysis changes but think it could be a great addition. I would ask you to not consolidate the reception section all together. Traditional critical reviews really a different kind of reaction than the reaction from Pence and Regency. The public reaction doesn't fit into those but maybe could be merged with the critics? In general I am having a harder time understanding how this reorganization will improve the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Zach Riviere: Hi there. I'm enjoying the edits you're making. As I wrote here I would ask you to find broader consensus before reorganizing the reception section. In Wiki world we work in a Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. In this case you're acting boldly (removing sections), I then reverted, and now we should both discuss (perhaps with other editors who are interested). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's important to include details about how Focus on the Family actively lobbies against LGBTQ+ rights. This addition would provide context as to why the parody was created in the first place. Focus on the Family works to prevent LGBTQ+ parents from adopting children, becoming parents, and even getting married in the first place. Oliviajones14 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a heavy emphasis on the controversy surrounding this book; however, it does not have to do with same-sex marriage or the LGBTQ+ community, but rather John Oliver and his team mocking Vice President Mike Pence. This may be a gap in the writing of this article, specifically in the analysis section. "Children who do feel out of place may have a hard time handling that. Twiss was hoping for a bit of satisfaction or contentment for those kids when reading about two same-sex bunnies marrying each other. The book takes a position against laws and actions against LGBTQ rights. These themes consist of respect, approval, and equality. This children's book is a way to show young people that "love is forever and be proud of who you are". The book is a presentation to delve into LGBTQ relationships and that 'true love will always win out'."[3] In this quote, there are no wiki links to LGBTQ relationships or rights, which, if provided, could lead to a greater understanding of why this book is controversial because of its dealing with this subject, rather than just being controversial for its association with Vice President Pence. Saconway22 (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Linking to the 2020 presidential election in the plot summary

The purpose of a plot summary is just that: to summarize the plot. It states what the plot of the story is, therefore any links in it must explain the plot summary. To link a plot summary to future event that the author could not have anticipated is not an explanation. It is an interpretation of the plot as foreshadowing or in some way being relevant to a future event. Wikipedia cannot interpret in its editorial voice. The link has no place in the plot summary. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no foreshadowing by linking, is ls clearly describing Trump being voted out of office. Why in the world would one want to censor the link? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Because it lacks relevance to the topic. The election that occurred in-book might resemble the one that occurred in real life, but it cannot be related. Similarly, there is no link in The Wreck of the Titan: Or, Futility to the sinking of the Titanic despite the clear similarities, because in no way did the author write about it. The similarities are instead covered elsewhere in the article, which could be done here if any reliable sources support it. But a plot summary is for summarizing the book, not the links people made between the book and real-life events. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You have incorrectly claimed it has any relevance to the topic and have ignored my response. if Trump had been assassinated, or if he had won the election and reached his maximum term, if he had died in office, the supposed defeat would have been irrelevant. You are simply ignoring the relationship. WP:OSE so whatever is or is not linked in The Wreck of the Titan: Or, Futility is immaterial here, just as many other articles have WP:OVERLINKs and WP:REPEATLINKs is irrelevant here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I have not ignored your response. Your response is just not correct. You say it is clearly describing Trump being voted out of office. Well, it isn't. It's describing a stinkbug losing his ruling position over the animals. And even if that was meant by the author to predict Trump's electoral loss, that is not part of the plot. Therefore it doesn't have a place in the plot summary. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging my position, however, "In Charge and Important" is either Trump or Pence, and them being voted out clearly is the election. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not, though. A summary's purpose it to say what the book says, not what it turned out later to be relevant to. Links in summaries need to tell what the author meant. For example, if it includes the word "janissary", it would make sense to link to that word since many are likely to be unfamiliar with it. Or if the story occurs during the Holocaust, linking to the Holocaust would make sense to explain the background that the author intended. But here, we have an election that the author could never have intended because it hadn't occurred. The author couldn't have known whether Pence would win or lose. In the case of a summary, what the author wrote is the only thing that can be included, and the election of 2020 isn't something the author wrote. In a section about the book's interpretation, it would be another matter. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 05:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a fun one to review. Let's get started. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article and I'm putting it on hold until the comments are addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

• his alleged support for conversion therapy of gay adolescents and opposition to same-sex marriage – These two items should probably be switched. Right now, it seems like "alleged" may also apply to his opposition to same-sex marriage.
  • Switched the two
    • It seems the sourcing doesn't explicitly say that he supports conversion therapy, so I've removed that part altogether to avoid BLP issues. Feel free to restore if you can find a reliable source that's more explicit about this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
      • I've found IndyStar and PolitiFact sources that back the claim about conversion therapy and have added it back.
• The sentence beginning with "On March 18, 2018, the publication of both books was used as a comedy piece" looks like it would fit better in the Publication section.
  • Moved
• The third paragraph of Background (starting with "According to the publisher") looks like it would fit better in the Analysis section.
  • Moved
• Pence should not be described as the "former Vice President" because he was the incumbent at the time of publication. Just "Vice President" should be acceptable, or "then-Vice President" if clarification is absolutely necessary.
  • Changed to "then"
• The fact that Bundo isn't lonely anymore at the end of the book seems to be an important point that could be clarified here.
  • Added
• The Analysis section needs to be restructured. There's no logic or rhythm to the order of the sentences, and some of the same things are repeated a few times. Try to get them flowing better.
  • I've reordered it so the first paragraph is mostly about the message while the second is about the political positions. Before it's checked off, please take a look so I can ensure it's all good.
    • It might benefit from a copyedit, but it meets the requirements of GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Children who do feel out of place may have a hard time handling that. – This sentence lacks context. It's unclear what it's talking about or how it relates to the book.
  • I cut it as part of reorganizing "Analysis"
• It would be helpful if the Publication section said the release date in the first sentence.
  • Added, as well as rephrased the start of the second paragraph under "Publication" to fit the addition.
• The Publication section is one long paragraph that covers a few different ideas. I suggest finding a logical way to organize it into two paragraphs.
  • Due to moving a paragraph into 'Publication", it's now two paragraphs, but I've split it into three for better readability.
• The paragraph about Focus on the Family's response is only one sentence long. It can probably be moved to the next paragraph or to a paragraph in the Reactions section.
  • Moved into "Reactions"
• Avoid the word "noted" as a word to watch.
  • Changed to "said"

Verifiable with no original research

Sourcing issues and suggestions:

• Remove both uses of New York Post as a source, as it is generally unreliable.
  • Removing the first one was fine since there's another citation to back it, but I'm having trouble finding a different source to back the statement The book's distributor reported to have 150,000... One of the others I could find cites the New York Post, and the Press Releases section for the publishing group has no information related to the statement. I've cut it for now, but if you can find another, feel free to add it back.
• Avoid overuse of WP:PRIMARY sources. Independent coverage of what someone said is usually better than just linking to the video or the tweet where they said it. Claims that are only supported by primary sources may or may not be undue.
  • Are there specific citations you're referring to? The only primary sources I can think of are a tweet by Pence and the broadcast itself.
    • There are a few claims that are only supported by the Last Week Tonight episode, where it would probably be better to find a secondary source that provides the information. If it were me writing the article, I would include the episode as an external link instead of using it as an inline citation. Posts on Twitter or Instagram are usually primary sources of that person's opinion, but this doesn't really need any change. It just means to take a quick look and make sure every opinion that's being presented is relevant (it seems that they are in this case). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Brydon and Miller's involvement is mentioned in the lead but not supported by the body.
  • Huh, odd... I can't find their names in any of the articles or other sources, so I think I'm just going to cut it.
• Mike Pence's stated anti-LGBTQ attitudes should be cited at the end of the sentence as a potentially controversial BLP claim.
  • Cited
• Is there a source that directly says the stinkbug is a caricature/parody of Pence? If there is, that would be more useful than saying "sporting a white hairdo looking like Pence's".
  • This statement was removed per below comment
    • After checking, it seems that a few sources do explicitly make the connection between Pence and the stink bug, including the Globe and Mail review by Fitzpatrick and this Deadline article. The Analysis section should probably state directly that the stink bug caricatures Pence rather than just imply it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Changed to with a striking resemblance to Mike Pence
• The Plot section should avoid any sort of commentary. The parenthetical should be removed, and any details such as this can be elaborated upon later in the article.
  • Moved to "Analysis"
• Is it possible to find one source saying that the book got worldwide coverage? That would be better than listing eight separate sources that each provide one example.
  • After looking through the sources published after the book was released, none explicitly state that it received worldwide coverage. Do you think it could do without some of the citations?
    • A few could certainly be trimmed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Removed four of the eight citations
• Some sources need to be fixed. Check "ProQuest 2068254095", both "User account | NewsBank"s, and "'Introduction' American Library Association".
  • I was able to replace the ProQuest one with the article it linked to and the ALA link was fixed too, but I'm having a hard time with the NewsBank one. Since I don't have an account, I can't access the article to see what the original source is. Do you have access to it?
    • I have no access to the NewsBank sources. We'll probably need to find a different source for any statements that depend on one of them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
      • I've replaced the Newsbank sources, and while I was at it I just merged the two paragraphs; the second one was just paraphrasing what the first had already said.

Spotchecks:

• Perkins (2018), AV Club:
  • This source doesn't seem to directly state that Pence opposes same-sex marriage or is alleged to support conversion therapy. It should be easy enough to find a source that does.
    • Replaced with three sources regarding his views
  • The other use of this source is good.
• Klein (2018), CNN:
  • The source says it follows Pence from Bundo's perspective, which is a bit different than the claim it's being used to support.
    • Replaced with citation to the LWT episode since Oliver does draw the differences
  • The source supports that the book says Pence "isn't very fun", but it does not support the part about the stink bug.
    • The Vanity Fair source supports the statement about the stink bug, while the CNN source supports "isn't very fun". I moved the CNN source to be adjacent to "isn't very fun"
  • Third use is an accurate quote.
• Zaimov (2018), The Christian Post:
  • This doesn't seem to support that Bundo is the "one thing he liked about Pence" or that Bundo appeared on the book tour.
    • Removed and replaced with Chitnis CBS News 2018
  • This supports that it was No. 4, but not that it was No. 11.
    • Couldn't find another source that said it was initially at eleventh, so I just cut it.
  • Accurately quoted.
• McMahon (2018), Common Sense Media:
  • Doesn't appear to support the claims attributed to the publisher.
    • I think it was there to support the theme, but it was cut anyway since they're quotations to another source
  • Unclear whether this supports the plot, but the plot can probably be unsourced anyway per WP:PLOTSOURCE.
    • Removed
  • Supports attributed claim about its own review.
• Cain (2018), The Guardian: Both uses are good.
• Wilstein (2018), The Daily Beast: Good.
• Green (2018), Publishers Weekly: Good.
• Fitzpatrick (2018), The Globe and Mail: Good.

Overall, the spotchecks are mixed, but I think it's more an issue that the inline citations aren't organized rather than serious source-text integrity issues. If a citation is attached to a sentence, make sure it supports that sentence.

Broad in its coverage

There's some information about the Pences' book under Reception that feels undue, including information about the ratings of the book and the specific charities it contributed to. Try to keep focus on the subject of the article.

• Cut the stuff about Amazon reviews of the Pences' book

Neutral

One use of a contentious WP:LABEL of a living person with the use of "homophobic". Describe his beliefs rather than labeling them.

• Replaced with "anti-LGBTQ views"

Stable

No recent edits besides nominator except one disambig.

Illustrated

Cover image has a valid copyright tag and non-free use rationale. The other image is public domain.

Comments by Barkeep49

It had originally been my goal to bring both Marlon Bundo's books up to GA at roughly the same time. However, when I really began to work on this one I found it in need of much larger changes, with some of those issues persisting until today. For instance there were facts I believed to absolutely be true but which could not be supported by the sources present. Ex: For three weeks, A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo was on The New York Times Children's Picture Books Bestsellers List isn't currently sourced to anything. The spot checks above also show this issue, so I think more comprehensive work and examination is needed before this would become a GA. I will also note that in a few places things swing the otherway and there is overcitation. I'm really glad someone has taken a shine to this and is attempting to finally bring it up to GA, but wanted to note my thinking about this article before it was passed. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Barkeep49. I've addressed the NYT statement you pointed out. Thebiguglyalien, I believe I've addressed everything you commented. Considering how many issues there were in the spotcheck, if you feel you need to do another one, I'm happy to continue to help. I will admit that spotchecking was not something I focused on when preparing the article for GA! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like all that's still needed is a closer look at the sources. As I said above, I think it's more that they were just applied haphazardly than any original research. It also looks like there are still some items cited exclusively to the Last Week Tonight episode itself. If there's no secondary coverage of these facts, then they're probably not due. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the statement that was exclusively cited to LWT. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I did a quick check for all of the sourcing in Background and Analysis. Only one sentence turned up a problem: the first sentence in Analysis doesn't seem to be supported by either citation, which is especially a problem because it includes a direct quote. While doing so, I noticed that both Background and Analysis have a sentence to the effect of "they wanted to make fun of Pence and write a children's story at the same time". I also noticed an interesting fact in the amNY interview that Twiss didn't expect it to be published at first, which might be relevant for the Publication section. I'll look at the other sections sometime soon. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see the issue; the quote was cited to the Newsbank source and I forgot to rewrite the sentence. That's been fixed. I think the duplicate mentions in background and analysis is fine. Background only mentions it in the first sentence, and Analysis quotes the publisher (which I just added). As for the the amNY interview, I've added a quote from the interview about that right after the statement about large demand. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Checked the Publication section:

• I've removed three of the four citations for the first couple sentences in Publication. They simply said that Pence is homophobic without actually supporting the claims of the sentences. The remaining citation covers it adequately.
• Keep in mind that using the New York Times bestsellers list to support a claim about the best sellers list is a primary source. It's not a big deal in this case and probably doesn't need to be changed, but it's always better to use a secondary source about the list to demonstrate significance.
• I've removed two of the three sources for sales numbers: one was a video link that doesn't work and the other was a Daily Beast article. The Vanity Fair source should be good enough on its own for this claim.

I think the removals are all this section needed, and it should be good to go as far as sourcing.Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Checked the Reception section:

• Not a sourcing issue, but reading it again, I'm not sure if "sparked" is the right word here in the first sentence.
• I notice that the "all over the world" sources are all from Western Europe. Either the phrasing or the sourcing needs to change. I also wouldn't object to removing this sentence entirely if there's no source that explicitly says that it got worldwide coverage, as this is kind of in a gray area regarding original research.
• If you can find a source that talks about Charlotte Pence's tweet rather than citing it directly, that would be an improvement. But if not, then her tweet should be acceptable.
• Focus on the Family called Oliver's treatment of the Pences' book... – This should specify that it was FotF president Jim Daly, not the entire organization.
• Regnery congratulated Oliver and Chronicle Books... – Likewise; this was publisher Marji Ross of Regnery.

That should be about it. The Publication section meets the GA criteria, and there are a few notes on the other sections after a more in-depth look at the sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Replaced with "caused", cut the "worldwide" claim and added citations to just U.S. sources, added a source for Pence's tweet, and added the two people to those statements. I think I've addressed everything here. Thank you so much for the review @Thebiguglyalien! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! Passing the review now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

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.