Talk:John Green

Noteworthiness of Tumblr incident
Has really no one thought about the Tumblr thing? I am not explaining it here. If you know about it, I'm sure you understand but If you dont, get ready for a lot of cuss words


 * I have not heard about the Tumblr thing outside of [|this article], but having read it, I'm doubtful as to whether it is noteworthy enough for inclusion. Given that the article deals mainly with major works and projects written and undertaken by this individual, a social media spat concerning "a Tumblr post from user 'virjn'" seems largely insignificant; I've been unable to find mention of this incident outside of a few disreputable news outlets and Reddit. Does anyone object to removing the paragraph? Its inclusion does seem well-intentioned, it just seems like a very minor thing to mention. brendanhylin (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It was a bit more than just a social media spat, and the sources listed (including the one I just added) show this (USA Today, Slate). It was covered in sources like the Daily Mail (not reliable, just showing notability) and became a large part of his life at the time. Regardless, the section is well sourced, though it could stand to be a little shorter perhaps. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2020
Under the vlogbrothers section of the article, add: “John Green is also responsible for naming Wallet Island on the White River, a cool place that is only land part of the time, has a seating area, and one may find expired beer. He named the island because he once found a wallet there. The island also later became an official place on Google Maps. The video in which Wallet Island is mentioned appeared on the vlogbrothers YouTube page on June 16, 2020.” 216.15.59.34 (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 03:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Essayist
John's new book "The Anthropocene Reviewed" is a book of essays. As can be seen here: his book is described as a "collection of personal essays". It would be accurate therefore to call him an essayist, which should be added to his introductory sentence.

Spidermanshotuncle (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)spidermanshotuncle 27 October 2020


 * Given that the essays were written for a podcast and published in a book, I think it's far more accurate to call John an author and a podcaster. Those who have been called essayists (Zadie Smith, Ralph Waldo Emerson) have used essays as their primary medium for writing and expressing ideas, which can't be said for John. Many prominent writers who have published essay collections, such as James Baldwin, have been called authors, novelists, and writers more generally. brendanhylin (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Double on Call
Is there any record of his short story collection? I can’t find anything online that isn’t seemingly copied from this article. If there is a reliable source for it, then problem solved, obviously, but if not, I have my doubts as to its existence. Packer1028 (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It exists and has a Goodreads entry explaining its background.--Cerebral726 (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Ancestry
Green has stated that he has 2 Irish Great Grandfathers. Play below youtube video from 1 min 42 secs onwards. Migration: Crash Course European History #29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN8fjAjLLpg&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtMsMTfmRomkVQG8AqrAmJFX&index=30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.138.183 (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2021

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Necrothesp's point regarding long-term significance is well taken, but the consensus here is that the author is primary nonetheless. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

– Just from a quick page views perspective, John Green (author) is the clear primary topic among John Green's. His average of 1662 views/day is unrivaled by any other listing on the disambiguation page, with the next John Green who uses a parenthetical disambiguator, John Green (headmaster), getting 4/day. The first page of a quick Google search also only returns results on the author. He has had a sustained career of success in multiple fields and is listed as a Level 5 Vital Article. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * John Green (author) → John Green
 * John Green → John Green (disambiguation)


 * Support per nom. Mannysoloway (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Oh please. Most people will never have heard of this individual. Far too many John Greens for there to be a primary topic unless one is vastly better known than the others. Clearly no long-term significance here, whatever pageviews may say. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're choosing to completely ignore pageviews. But even regardless of pageviews, the number of people clicking through to various John Greens is important. Data from WikiNav also supports the author being the primary reason people type "John Green" into the search box. The first chart shows people not directly searching or coming from outside Wikipedia are frequently coming from other John Green pages and that the vast majority of people who make it to the disambiguation page move on to John Green (author). About 90% of the time people visit John Green, they click "John Green (author)".--Cerebral726 (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - I agree with what has already been said. Asrieltheoracle (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. dwadieff ✉ 07:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, especially their comment in response to Necrothesp's oppose. The author clearly is vastly better known than the others. Lennart97 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I've always thought primary article prominence is a good idea, since it benefits our readers who are clearly searching the name for this article in particular. So long as we have a disambig link at the top of this article afterwards, that should work fine. Silver  seren C 21:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Reception needs changed
Instead of focusing on legitimate critical response, the section seems to get sidetracked on blogposts complaining about questionable instances of systemic sexism. I think this response is (barely) noteworthy, but should not take up half of the section when John Green’s books are most notable for their overwhelming positive reception and impact on the young adult sphere. Perhaps a section on the awards he’s received and expanded retrospective evaluations of his work. I don’t want to come across as a bad faith fan trying to push a narrative here (I’ve never read any of his books) but most reputable sources give him a positive reception, and this article presents him as much more polarizing than necessary. 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:A89B:A314:267E:CE0B (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have been majorly overhauling this article for the past couple weeks, and haven't had the opportunity to expand this section. I think the current discussion on sexism in literature is fairly off-topic, but worth having something small about. I will reduce that section, and it will become more proportionate once I (or anyone) adds more of the overwhelmingly positive reception he has received across his career. Also, you can find all his awards in the section John Green and they are mostly mentioned for each book in the Career section, though it might be worth giving them a passing mention in the reception section as well. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

"Never go to war with a noun" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Never go to war with a noun and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit December 18 2022
The born field currently reads that John Green was born in Indianapolis although this is where he currently lives as to my knowledge he was not born there as he grew up in Orlando. I don’t know for certain where he was born but it wasn’t Indianapolis. 72.142.115.10 (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The source in the ariticle verifies that he was born there. - Aoidh (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"Rapid"
Just wanted to clarify this edit. The GA Version has "rapid" in it. Did you intend to change it to not match the GA version?  Cerebral726 (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes. What the sum should have said is something completely different - "rise to fame is fine without 'rapid'". The original editsum was overruled since for some reason the system auto-filled in that one (because of hovering the cursor over it briefly). GuardianH (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. After looking at the sources, the "rapid" aspect of his rise to fame is mentioned often, especially within the context of his 2012-2016 era when he shifted the YA market: WaPo describes quick timeline and how it left Green "reeling, NYT discusses "Sudden fame". The subject of that statement is his impact on YA literature which was a very "rapid" change. Since it was part of the GA and I believe it is a critical part of that opening line, I think it should be restored.  Cerebral726 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the WaPo and NYT - I no longer have any issue with including it again. GuardianH (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Sarah Urist vs Sarah Green in infobox
The infobox on this article deliberately shows Green's spouse's name as "Sarah Urist" rather than "Sarah Urist Green" which is the title of her article. Shouldn't her surname be shown as Green in the infobox since she changed it when they were married? Tagging @Cerebral726, who often edits here. Penguin314 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe you are correct. I thought it was the standard to use maiden name, but per Template:Infobox person, the spouse parameter should Use article title (if linking) or common name. Making that change.  Cerebral726 (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2024
Please change "Ministry of Health in the Philippines" to "Department of Health in the Philippines". Thank you. 103.5.5.242 (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Department seems to be correct, it's not clear why ministry was used instead. I changed it to match the linked page, thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)