# Talk:A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

“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)

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)

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)