Talk:Curious George

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Break

The section about a few monkey scholars considering Curious George to be racist may be true, but the arguments for the point are presented as fact and I'm not sure they should be. Curious George was written around 1940, which I don't think was a time of "French imperial expansion". Also, the article says that the man in the yellow hat wore a French military uniform. Did the French really wear yellow uniforms? if these items are true they can remain. Otherwise they should be removed or attributed as beliefs of the scholars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beirne (talk) 18:50, March 31, 2005 (UTC)

As a footnote, the authors H.A. Rey and Margret Rey also wrote the classic anti-racist children's book "Spotty" in 1945. Amazon.com entry. It seems that CG was chosen as a cute character for small kids to identify with. 惑乱 分からん 14:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monkeys

George is not a monkey, George is clearly a jurvinal chimp. Why is it that this is not mentioned on the main page?

[edit] Curious George A metaphor for African Imperialism (Racism)

I believe the more common interpration by Scholars is in fact the Curious George is A metaphor for African Imperialism and that The Man in the yellow hat is a Benovelent Imperialist Who is treating George Kindly but still less than Human, almost the way Africans were treated. This however needs to be reasearched68.4.25.102 01:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are these "scholars" taking a classic Children's book so seriously? I honestly don't think the writer intended for it to be taken that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.223.232 (talk) 03:52, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

When I was at nursery school, being read stories about "Zozo", Imperialism was of course uppermost in my mind...81.145.241.169 (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

[edit] Curious George "abducted"?

Anybody else find that choice of words a little curio--, er, odd? Somehow I don't remember that part of the story from when I was a kid... --ab

I wondered about that too. It seemed to be a bit POV. People seem to get a lot of political messages out of the books that I never thought about. I wouldn't mind if "abducted" got changed to something more neutral. --Beirne 04:17, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
I quoted the original text and moved the mention of kidnapping to a separate section under interpetations; also included some information about an article about the series and (partially) this aspect of it, as well as two links from different sources (Barnes and Noble, and the film version's producer, Ron Howard) found in a quick google search so that it doesn't seem like the rantings of someone reading too much into it. :-) I don't have a scanner and couldn't find any copies of the illustrations online; if someone could provide copies of the illustrations referenced it would go a long way towards clarity. Anonymoustom 18:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind seeing that part removed -- now it says "kidnapped" rather than "abducted", but the effect is the same. If one looks at any other article describing captive animals (like an Aquarium, etc.) there is no mention of the animals being "kidnapped".

[edit] Possible joke?

In perhaps his darkest hour, George battled ether addiction in Curious George Goes to the Hospital. He made a full recovery.

You know, I thought that was kind of funny, but at the same time, it's probably not true. (He sniffed ether once in the book, hardly what you would call an addiction.) Should we get rid of this (and add it to where it probably belongs, Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense?) Sillstaw 05:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, it's from Curious George Takes A Job, not "Goes To The Hospital." Sillstaw


How come George doesn't have a tail? So does that mean he isn't a monkey?

Not all monkeys have tails- the Barbary Macaque, for example, is technically an "old world" monkey, but lacks a tail. Roy 6:30 30 March 2006 (EST)

But isn't George specifically known to be a chimp? A chimp is an ape, not a monkey. At least, according to Wikipedia itself.

[edit] Interpretations section

I've tagged the section with {{fact}} - we need to be very careful with the claim that there is a racist undertone in the story/series. Even though the article uses "qualifed term" such as a small handful of scholars, we still need to have "proofs" that some scholars do make that claim. --Hurricane111 02:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Curious george Gets AIDS

I seriously doubt "Curious George Gets AIDS" was one of the books. I don't want to change it myself since last time I made a minor edit I was banned from making any further ones by Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamabunta (talk • contribs)

I think you're probably right! Don't be put off by over-enthusiastic editors, keep trying and making this place a 'safer' place for George and others, curious or not! Budgiekiller 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Altoids

Should there be a mention of the Altoids gimmick with George staring ponderously at a small tin of altiods? Paragone 00:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book list

Why has the book list been slowly culled to only a few books? --SparqMan 16:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shocking, shocking, shocking!

It says in the Premise session that the man in the yellow hat wants to eat George, and it also talks about the man in the yellow hat wanting to make soup out of him! Yeah, right. Sounds like straight vandalism to me. I have the original book, and it says nothing about the MAN IN THE YELLOW HAT wanting to eat George. Can someone please investigate this? Ohyeh 16:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism. It's removed now. 惑乱 分からん 19:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
XD

[edit] Interpretations

I find this whole section really sketchy. Whose interpretations are they? Throwing these theories up there with no citations seems to violate the no original research rule. Miss Dark 04:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not write this article but I am researching some of these theories that were mentioned on the previous page. If you would like more information on where these ideas originated, take a look at the following two articles. The work by Cummins has been the most influential on this debate.

Cummins, June, “The Resisting Monkey: Curious George, Slave Captivity Narratives, and the Postcolonial Condition” Ariel: A Review of International English Literature. (28:1 January 1997).

Moebius, William., “L’Enfant Terrible Comes of Age,” Notebooks in Cultural Analysis vol 2 (1985): 32-50.

Nojudfoo 14:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He Had No Name.

I want to remind everyone here that the Man in the Yellow Hat originally didn't have any proper name. "Ted" applies only...I repeat, ONLY to the movie (on a personal note, I felt giving him a name actually ruined the movie and compromised the original aesthetic of the books). Now I have edited the article to reflect that, and I want it to be kept that way. "Ted" is not his "real" name. Again, this applies ONLY to the movie. I'm serious, if people make repeated attempts to make it look as though "Ted" is his "real" name, then I am going to request protection. The Man in the Yellow Hat does not have any name, and that is that. I will not stand for any "monkey" business (pun fully intended).

Forgive me, if the above sounds rude/insulting, but an article about a time-honored book series like this doesn't deserve to be vandalized. This is just a reminder to everybody that the man had no name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brittany Ka (talk) 19:16, May 31, 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, I watched the movie and was like "Whaaat?" He had no name. But I think that it made it easier for younger kids to watch and how would it sound in the movie if Mr.Bloomsberry called him "Man in the Yellow Hat" before he wore the suit? xD 67.184.223.232 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:37, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Curious George Takes a Job"

For those curious about this big deletion: see this blog post and this wikipedia mailing list message. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Clearly the deletion was appropriate, as the section was completely unsourced and is perhaps dubious. I would want to see a citation to the purported interview if the material were to be restored. Here is the original edit. It was made by what appears to be a productive editor, who's been here a year and a half with over 1,000 edits and no blocks. I've left a message on that editor's talk page. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't remember much details about when I added it, but I vaguely remember seeing this some time back on a TV program, perhaps on PBS or some cable channel. I may look into the matter if I get any time within the next few days. For now, I have added the unref-sec tag. Hellno2 (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind that for now, but I don't think it's a long-term solution. The material has been challenged, so per WP:V it needs to be sourced or removed. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to research various episodes of TV programs I have watched in the past. I vaguely remember seeing a biography of the Reys on which this was mentioned. I don't know how easily I can located an episode guide, but I will try.Hellno2 (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)