Talk:Johnny the Walrus

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books LGBT studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles Children's literature Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks you can do: edit history watch purge Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject . References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article edit

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

Hello

WP:AMAZON. Llll5032 (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

WP:RSN, please mark it or remove it. Llll5032 (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Adding for

WP:ABOUTSELF. Llll5032 (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

I suggest a careful read of

WP:USTHEM. Llll5032 (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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 "

WP:IMPARTIAL tone. The book is recent so other reliable secondary sources may appear over time. Llll5032 (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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.[1]^[2]

Yours truly. -