Talk:The Story of Doctor Dolittle

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern.

Children's literature Mid‑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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

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.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Fair use rationale for Image:Story of Doctor Dolittle.jpg

Image:Story of Doctor Dolittle.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) 06:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Supposedly racist, weasel words]

Look: I'm not so good at English, but either you state what the supposedly racist verses are, or you don't, but don't make it a travesty. Today, the "controversial scenes" section says that this wes somehow like that and that was somehow like this and some people didn't like it because they were somehow like this or that. Just name these things and write them down! Nobody will die from this! Write down what the book says and then write down why this annoys people and how it does. Do you really need education in this, dear Americans? Is it so hard to write down the truth rather than masking it in meaningless weasel words? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.33.31.53 (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Our {{infobox book}} now links one e-copy at Wikisource, which shows the 1920 date but also includes the Hugh Walpole "Introduction to the Tenth Printing", November 1922. See Note at ISFDB).

2. I have a copy of the Dell "Yearling Book" edition whose copyright page states "Fifth Dell Printing—March 1974" (maybe not 5th printing as Yearling). The first 8 pages of its chapter 12, "Medicine and Magic" (p94-101) matches the Wikisource text (p99-106) except for the one sentence we now cover thus, at section Plot controvery, final paragraph in full):

(quote) In a 1978 edition, only one sentence is removed from this section: "For the Prince's face had turned as white as snow, and his eyes, which had been mud-colored, were a manly gray!" Since the previous statement was that "all the animals cried out in surprise", the removal of this is rather jarring.

So "1978" is too late. Probably from the First Dell Printing, likely the 1967 Dell Laurel-Leaf Library (see Publications list at ISFDB).

3. ISFDB covers the 1988 centennial edition briefly, from its review in The New York Times. Read that Note. Read the 1988 NYTimes review.

4. WorldCat library records may contain some useful notes. See Formats and Editions at WorldCat (446 in chron order, 1988 point of entry).

--P64 (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Not credible, source needed]

There are two lines in the article, both unsourced and from before 2008, which I have to question.

Prince Bumpo: The last line of that section is "Ultimately, he is not excised entirely." This makes no sense, both by itself and in context of the rest of the section. I believe is should be "Ultimately, he is excised entirely." But I have not seen a new edition to confirm this.

Copyright expiration: The article states that the book entered the public domain in 1996. I can think of no reason for that date. Originally published in 1920, it's copyright should have expired in 1967 (after two 28 year terms). Further, when the US joined the Berne Convention in 1980, all works still covered by a copyright had their copyright extended to 75 (and later 95) year, so in the US, NO work has entered in public domain since 1980 (and none will until 1-Jan-2019 when works first publish in 1923 become PD) JamesCurran (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]