 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm disambiguating the film versions throughout en.wikipedia, but a good number of the wikilinks to this article are from bios of people concerned with the theatrical version(s), as opposed to the films. I think this may warrant a seperate article, but theatre is not my field. With this in mind.... SO PLS HELP THE ANIMALS
TheMadBaron 23:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I added this piece of information while showing the article to a friend, and noticing that Owensboro wasn't mentioned. I worked backstage during the production of this musical, and thought that the city it was built in, despite not being the "official" opening city, deserved a bit of mention. Here's an article about it. Here's an article about it. Tavaryn 02:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think pushmi-pullyu should be merged. -- MacRusgail 18:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC) SO PLS HELP ANIMALS
- Support merge. Pushmi-pullyu is just a minor part of Doctor Dolittle. — EdGl
- Support as well. Radagast83 03:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support Tocharianne 23:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
(The following comment was on the talk page for Pushmi-pullyu so I moved it over here - Tocharianne)
- I oppose the suggestion to merge the page. The pushme-pullyu is a fantastic creature in its own right, had a book and movie appearance, and deserves its own page. Some people browsing for such creatures (as I did just now) find it more convenient to have a separate entry, rather than having to scan some other page for a superficial reference. -- Freederick 14:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak OpposeComment,as it would make it hard to include in Category:Fictional species. As Freederick points out, there is a lot more information that could be added to the article still, namely it's actions, character, and appearance [1] in both major portayals (book series and film); It just needs an enthusiastic editor to research and reference, or someone who's read the series recently. — Quiddity 09:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
![[1]](http://puddleby.tripod.com/c_pushmi.gif){kind=link}
- Comment We can have categories for the Pushmi page and still redirect here. For instance the page on
Mothula redirects to
Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series but still shows up in
Category:Fictional butterflies and moths (If you can believe we have such a category!).
Tocharianne 15:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good point. Well, it can always be split out again if it gains sufficient material, so I guess merge away. — Quiddity 18:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Something needs to happen to the pushmi-pullyu section...it's not even in comprehensible English. PurpleChez ( talk) 21:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Among the humans, there should be some mention of Tommy Stubbins. He was the boy, son of a shoemaker, who met and traveled with the Doctor. He was introduced in The Voyages. That book and at least some of the others are written as if told by Tommy Stubbins in the first person, years later when he was supposedly a middle-aged man. 140.147.160.34 ( talk) 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
Image:Doctor Dolittle Books.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
-- 68.122.51.253 ( talk) 03:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)there is a yongv boy why #REDIRECT edward collin who wants to learn about animals so he goes to the doctor
I think the article downplays the racism aspect too much. I've been reading Doctor Dolittle to my 5-year-old son and I've felt compelled to censor certain phrases in the book (e.g. "the man" instead of "the white man" or "the black man"). However, when I got to chapters 11/12 about "the Black Prince" (Bumpo), I was leaving out entire sentences. There are several very offensive concepts introduced here: a black man who desperately wants to be a white man; a black man who is a simpleton; the sleeping woman terrorized by the black man; etc. I've certainly read far worse and I am by no means condemning the author, but I still think that the racism is significant and deserves a more thorough and truthful treatment in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmcb64 ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I don't support the censorship of the Dell Editions, but to have a section on that "bowdlerization" without mentioning the fact that the books were, indeed, offensive, makes the whole thing look biased. - 172.130.51.145 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC).
Certain aspects of the books are offensive to people today -- and have been since the '60s -- but they reflect the attitudes of the time in which they were written. Remember, people, there was a time in the United States when it was not offensive to refer to African-Americans as "colored" -- thus the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). That time has passed and the term "colored" is considered offensive if used in that context today. However, the NAACP has not changed its name.
Rewriting and bowlderizing Lofting's books to suit modern standards of cultural sensitivity is akin to painting fig leaves on figures that an artist chose to paint fully nude or changing the religion of Shylock in "The Merchant of Venice." Either accept Lofting's work as he wrote it or find something else to read! ( 71.22.47.232 ( talk) 08:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC))
The point is, if the books as written are sufficiently offensive, they are not going to be found in most library's children's sections. Hence, the works will pass out of public perception entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:3021:3CB3:CB4A:E1D9 ( talk) 13:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with "everyone." It's one thing to "read and censor," quite another to hand a book cluelessly to a child, not remembering certain phrases. None were meant in ill-humor, but would not be acceptable today. Need reliable citation.
Student7 (
talk) 18:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Student7 (
talk) 18:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Revision by McKissacks
In 1996-97, there was a felt need for a revised version of The Story of Doctor Dolittle. Such a version was published (info
here), edited by
Patricia and
Fredrick McKissack. ISBN 0-688-14001-7 -- ISBN 0-06-077597 (pbk.)
Quoting from the foreword by the McKissacks:
... to reintroduce the book to modern readers, some changes to the original text were necessary. After careful, considered study, we made changes that were limited to the following: reworking the episode in which the African prince, Bumpo, wishes to become white; deleting two offensive phrases elsewhere in the book; and changing the word country when referring to the continent of Africa... There are those who may wonder why we didn't make more changes. Some may argue that we have gone too far....
The McKissacks' revision was reviewed on Mugglenet (link here). Oaklandguy ( talk) 01:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Aren't works in America published in 1920 out of copyright? Cant we get scan some images from the original books under public domain, if not under fair use? AshLin ( talk) 07:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi folks. Not sure that this is the right place, but I would like to right a wrong. It is said here: "A Russian children's novel Doctor Aybolit (Doctor Ouch-It-Hurts) by K. Chukovsky was loosely based on the stories of Doctor Dolittle. "Doctor Aybolit" was published and reprinted many times without any reference to Hugh Lofting, and it was always attributed to Mr. Chukovsky as an original author." Absolutely false. Hugh Lofting has always been credited in the way: K.Chukovsky "Doctor Aybolit" (upon Hugh Lofting) Same in Russian К.Чуковский "Доктор Айболит" (по Гью Лофтингу) Proofpics: http://www.gornitsa.ru/images/products/book5/al_book_69940_1.jpg http://antikvaroshop.ru/multimedia/books_covers/1000203349.jpg http://www.gornitsa.ru/images/products/book5/al_book_format162_1.jpg http://img.labirint.ru/images/comments_pic/0839/02labkcne1222594950.jpg Chukovsky has always respected Lofting and has never had any intention to steal the hero and the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ante mrav ( talk • contribs) 06:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Doctor Dolittle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213181409/http://chukovskiy.ouc.ru/istoria-moego-aibolita.html to http://chukovskiy.ouc.ru/istoria-moego-aibolita.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I have changed the order of the internal chronology to place "Post Office" before "Voyages." (It was originally listed here as coming before "Circus".) I realize this is not what you see elsewhere on the Internet, but a plain reading of the books shows that "Circus" follows immediately after the "Story of Dr. Dolittle." In the opening pages of Circus the doctor and his animals are all loading off the supplies from the pirate ship in Story, and the doctor is looking for a way to exhibit the pushme-pullyu so he can make money to pay the owner of the wrecked ship he left behind in Story. Furthermore, the opening pages of Post Office make it clear that the pushme-pullyu has been living in England for some time and that the voyage to Africa in Post Office is a return voyage. Clearly, it seems that Circus is an expansion of the circus chapter near the end of Story. And of course "Caravan" follows immediately on the heels of Circus, with "Green Canary" continuing the story of the bird in Caravan. Thomas Stubbins as a character first appears in Voyages (he is not in Post Office), so it seems logical to place Post Office immediately before Voyages rather than after Story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:940:2790:30C9:DE27:63D8:3EF5 ( talk) 03:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems fair that the film series started in 1998 is listed in the adaptations section, but unnecessary and confusing that the box at the start of article includes elements of that series in the details - family details that aren’t in the books, and giving his nationality as British and American. Surely the boox should give the details of the original Lofting character, and any variation from that be limited to the information about that adaptation? Jock123A ( talk) 10:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
This is seven of the books https://archive.org/details/doctordolittle_201910/Doctor%20Dolittle%20-%2001%20-%20The%20Story%20of%20Doctor%20Dolittle/ 100.15.117.34 ( talk) 15:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm disambiguating the film versions throughout en.wikipedia, but a good number of the wikilinks to this article are from bios of people concerned with the theatrical version(s), as opposed to the films. I think this may warrant a seperate article, but theatre is not my field. With this in mind.... SO PLS HELP THE ANIMALS
TheMadBaron 23:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I added this piece of information while showing the article to a friend, and noticing that Owensboro wasn't mentioned. I worked backstage during the production of this musical, and thought that the city it was built in, despite not being the "official" opening city, deserved a bit of mention. Here's an article about it. Here's an article about it. Tavaryn 02:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think pushmi-pullyu should be merged. -- MacRusgail 18:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC) SO PLS HELP ANIMALS
- Support merge. Pushmi-pullyu is just a minor part of Doctor Dolittle. — EdGl
- Support as well. Radagast83 03:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support Tocharianne 23:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
(The following comment was on the talk page for Pushmi-pullyu so I moved it over here - Tocharianne)
- I oppose the suggestion to merge the page. The pushme-pullyu is a fantastic creature in its own right, had a book and movie appearance, and deserves its own page. Some people browsing for such creatures (as I did just now) find it more convenient to have a separate entry, rather than having to scan some other page for a superficial reference. -- Freederick 14:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak OpposeComment,as it would make it hard to include in Category:Fictional species. As Freederick points out, there is a lot more information that could be added to the article still, namely it's actions, character, and appearance [1] in both major portayals (book series and film); It just needs an enthusiastic editor to research and reference, or someone who's read the series recently. — Quiddity 09:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment We can have categories for the Pushmi page and still redirect here. For instance the page on
Mothula redirects to
Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series but still shows up in
Category:Fictional butterflies and moths (If you can believe we have such a category!).
Tocharianne 15:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good point. Well, it can always be split out again if it gains sufficient material, so I guess merge away. — Quiddity 18:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Something needs to happen to the pushmi-pullyu section...it's not even in comprehensible English. PurpleChez ( talk) 21:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Among the humans, there should be some mention of Tommy Stubbins. He was the boy, son of a shoemaker, who met and traveled with the Doctor. He was introduced in The Voyages. That book and at least some of the others are written as if told by Tommy Stubbins in the first person, years later when he was supposedly a middle-aged man. 140.147.160.34 ( talk) 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
Image:Doctor Dolittle Books.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
-- 68.122.51.253 ( talk) 03:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)there is a yongv boy why #REDIRECT edward collin who wants to learn about animals so he goes to the doctor
I think the article downplays the racism aspect too much. I've been reading Doctor Dolittle to my 5-year-old son and I've felt compelled to censor certain phrases in the book (e.g. "the man" instead of "the white man" or "the black man"). However, when I got to chapters 11/12 about "the Black Prince" (Bumpo), I was leaving out entire sentences. There are several very offensive concepts introduced here: a black man who desperately wants to be a white man; a black man who is a simpleton; the sleeping woman terrorized by the black man; etc. I've certainly read far worse and I am by no means condemning the author, but I still think that the racism is significant and deserves a more thorough and truthful treatment in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmcb64 ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I don't support the censorship of the Dell Editions, but to have a section on that "bowdlerization" without mentioning the fact that the books were, indeed, offensive, makes the whole thing look biased. - 172.130.51.145 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC).
Certain aspects of the books are offensive to people today -- and have been since the '60s -- but they reflect the attitudes of the time in which they were written. Remember, people, there was a time in the United States when it was not offensive to refer to African-Americans as "colored" -- thus the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). That time has passed and the term "colored" is considered offensive if used in that context today. However, the NAACP has not changed its name.
Rewriting and bowlderizing Lofting's books to suit modern standards of cultural sensitivity is akin to painting fig leaves on figures that an artist chose to paint fully nude or changing the religion of Shylock in "The Merchant of Venice." Either accept Lofting's work as he wrote it or find something else to read! ( 71.22.47.232 ( talk) 08:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC))
The point is, if the books as written are sufficiently offensive, they are not going to be found in most library's children's sections. Hence, the works will pass out of public perception entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:3021:3CB3:CB4A:E1D9 ( talk) 13:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with "everyone." It's one thing to "read and censor," quite another to hand a book cluelessly to a child, not remembering certain phrases. None were meant in ill-humor, but would not be acceptable today. Need reliable citation.
Student7 (
talk) 18:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Student7 (
talk) 18:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Revision by McKissacks
In 1996-97, there was a felt need for a revised version of The Story of Doctor Dolittle. Such a version was published (info
here), edited by
Patricia and
Fredrick McKissack. ISBN 0-688-14001-7 -- ISBN 0-06-077597 (pbk.)
Quoting from the foreword by the McKissacks:
... to reintroduce the book to modern readers, some changes to the original text were necessary. After careful, considered study, we made changes that were limited to the following: reworking the episode in which the African prince, Bumpo, wishes to become white; deleting two offensive phrases elsewhere in the book; and changing the word country when referring to the continent of Africa... There are those who may wonder why we didn't make more changes. Some may argue that we have gone too far....
The McKissacks' revision was reviewed on Mugglenet (link here). Oaklandguy ( talk) 01:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Aren't works in America published in 1920 out of copyright? Cant we get scan some images from the original books under public domain, if not under fair use? AshLin ( talk) 07:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi folks. Not sure that this is the right place, but I would like to right a wrong. It is said here: "A Russian children's novel Doctor Aybolit (Doctor Ouch-It-Hurts) by K. Chukovsky was loosely based on the stories of Doctor Dolittle. "Doctor Aybolit" was published and reprinted many times without any reference to Hugh Lofting, and it was always attributed to Mr. Chukovsky as an original author." Absolutely false. Hugh Lofting has always been credited in the way: K.Chukovsky "Doctor Aybolit" (upon Hugh Lofting) Same in Russian К.Чуковский "Доктор Айболит" (по Гью Лофтингу) Proofpics: http://www.gornitsa.ru/images/products/book5/al_book_69940_1.jpg http://antikvaroshop.ru/multimedia/books_covers/1000203349.jpg http://www.gornitsa.ru/images/products/book5/al_book_format162_1.jpg http://img.labirint.ru/images/comments_pic/0839/02labkcne1222594950.jpg Chukovsky has always respected Lofting and has never had any intention to steal the hero and the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ante mrav ( talk • contribs) 06:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Doctor Dolittle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213181409/http://chukovskiy.ouc.ru/istoria-moego-aibolita.html to http://chukovskiy.ouc.ru/istoria-moego-aibolita.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I have changed the order of the internal chronology to place "Post Office" before "Voyages." (It was originally listed here as coming before "Circus".) I realize this is not what you see elsewhere on the Internet, but a plain reading of the books shows that "Circus" follows immediately after the "Story of Dr. Dolittle." In the opening pages of Circus the doctor and his animals are all loading off the supplies from the pirate ship in Story, and the doctor is looking for a way to exhibit the pushme-pullyu so he can make money to pay the owner of the wrecked ship he left behind in Story. Furthermore, the opening pages of Post Office make it clear that the pushme-pullyu has been living in England for some time and that the voyage to Africa in Post Office is a return voyage. Clearly, it seems that Circus is an expansion of the circus chapter near the end of Story. And of course "Caravan" follows immediately on the heels of Circus, with "Green Canary" continuing the story of the bird in Caravan. Thomas Stubbins as a character first appears in Voyages (he is not in Post Office), so it seems logical to place Post Office immediately before Voyages rather than after Story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:940:2790:30C9:DE27:63D8:3EF5 ( talk) 03:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems fair that the film series started in 1998 is listed in the adaptations section, but unnecessary and confusing that the box at the start of article includes elements of that series in the details - family details that aren’t in the books, and giving his nationality as British and American. Surely the boox should give the details of the original Lofting character, and any variation from that be limited to the information about that adaptation? Jock123A ( talk) 10:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
This is seven of the books https://archive.org/details/doctordolittle_201910/Doctor%20Dolittle%20-%2001%20-%20The%20Story%20of%20Doctor%20Dolittle/ 100.15.117.34 ( talk) 15:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)