Talk:Dr. Seuss/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2018

216.226.109.103 (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

DR.SEUSS REAL NAME WAS MAC DADDY AND HIS DADS NICKNAME IS LIL JEFF FOR REASONS PEOPLE WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND... BUT HIS OTHER DADS NICKNAME IS BIG JEFF AND WE ALL KNOW WHY LOLOLOLOLOLOL

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kpgjhpjm 16:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

graffiti

Someone's inserted some obviously tongue-in-cheek text on the page, but I can't find it in the source. Maybe someone with more experience editing could take a look at it? The text says: "Dr.Sues never wanted to make the cat in the hat book. He was forsed aguenst hs wll.." 76.126.127.234 (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assessment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 13:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor Linguistic Awkwardness

The phrase "Geisel never won the Caldecott Medal nor the Newbery," under "death," should be replaced with: "Geisel won neither the Caldecott nor the Newbery Medal." Maximilian Caldwell (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

-or-

It could be rewritten by replacing the nor with or: Geisel never won the Caldecott Medal or the Newbery...

In addition, in the first paragraph of this entry. The word over, a preposition, should be replaced by "more than," an expression of quantity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluestripe (talk • contribs) 13:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't this article be under Theodore Geisel? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is best known as Dr. Seuss? Probably not. If so, then we need to rename Judy Garland to Frances Ethel Gumm. miranda 20:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page has been vandalized. The second sentence under "Life and career" reads:

His father, the son of German immigrants, was a nazi who supervised the jews during racial tensions in world war II.

It should read:

His father, the son of German immigrants, managed the family brewery and after Theodor was married, supervised Springfield's public park system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.117.136 (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed?

"These books achieved significant international success and they remain very popular.[citation needed]"

Seriously? Someone needs a citation for that? Has anyone not heard of him or his books? Tuxedobob (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.203.239.93, 16 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I have Dr. Seuss's biography and i would like to add a pen name he also used and published a few books by which is Theo. LeSieg

98.203.239.93 (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do it for you. What's your source? How do you want the edit to read?Malke2010 00:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This information is already in the article - in 'Pen name' in the infobox up top, in "Pen names and pronunciations" For books that Geisel wrote and others illustrated, he used the pen name "Theo. LeSieg" ("Geisel" spelled backwards) and in Publications, also authored over a dozen books as Theo. LeSieg.

 Not done :Therefore I think it is already covered. If you disagree, please use a further request. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  08:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 March 2012

Under the paragraph "Politics" It is suggested that Dr. Suess was a praticing Christian. This has no reliable citation to back it up. Please find a citation or remove it.

76.255.61.190 (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Done I've flagged the paragraph as needing a citation. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

status of Richard M. Nixon, Will You Please Go Now!

From Political views:

Shortly before the end of the 1972–1974 Watergate scandal, in which United States president Richard Nixon resigned, Geisel converted one of his famous children's books into a polemic. "Richard M. Nixon, Will You Please Go Now!" was published in major newspapers through the column of his friend Art Buchwald.

This suggests, or at least can be read as implying, that Richard M. Nixon, Will You Please Go Now! was a substantially different work from the book it was based on.

But the changes were minimal. Buchwald wrote in his column

My good friend Dr. Seuss wrote a book a few years ago titled "Marvin K. Mooney Will You Please Go Now!" He sent me a copy the other day and crossed out "Marvin K. Mooney" and replaced it with "Richard M. Nixon." It sounded like fun so I asked him if I could reprint it. Please read it aloud.

The subsequent text shows that Seuss simply changed the name wherever it occurred. "Marvin K. Mooney" and "Richard M. Nixon" have the same scansion and division, so "Marvin" → "Richard" and "Marvin K." → "Richard M." also work (though the latter change loses a rhyme). I've modified the text to clarify this. --Thnidu (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a useful clarification. Thanks for taking the time to explain it. Rivertorch (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change

[[Foot (prosody)|anapestic meter]]

to

[[anapest]]ic [[meter (poetry)|meter]]

Thanks 219.78.114.175 (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Camyoung54 talk 20:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 July 2013

Nationality: America is not a country, and American is not a nationality. Many people who live outside the US know this. It would be good to see something correct in this place. I suggest "US". 86.133.181.23 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.. RudolfRed (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 July 2013

Please add the following scholarly article published last year to "Further readings":

Christoph Prang. "On Dr. Seuss the Semiotician: Tracing The Cat in the Hat Comes Back", in: The American Journal of Semiotics 28.3-4 (2012): 257-266.

Chris Prang (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: From your name, it seems possible that there may be a conflict of interest in this request. It would be better to start a conversation with the regulare editors of this article so that they can objectively evaluate including this. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2014

75.190.229.120 (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2015

Under "Later Years," the sentence which reads "On October 23, 1967, suffering from a long struggle with illnesses including cancer—as well as emotional pain over her husband's affair with Audrey Stone Dimond—Geisel's wife, Helen Palmer Geisel, committed suicide" should be changed to read "On October 23, 1967, suffering from a long struggle with illnesses including cancer—as well as emotional pain over her husband's affair with Audrey Stone Dimond—Geisel's wife, Helen Palmer Geisel, died by suicide" in accordance with best practices on publishing and reporting about suicide.

Twirlandswirl (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Such a change is grammatically incorrect. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 10:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This was rejected on the grounds of "died by suicide" being grammatically incorrect, however, you'll see here that is exactly the recommended form put forth by the AP Stylebook (and many scholarly publications, as well). http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/329759/ap-stylebook-change-blt-is-now-acceptable-on-first-reference/

Not done: See the most recent consensus on this sort of terminology from April/May 2013 on the talk page for Suicide here. We're not exactly the AP here and we have different guidelines and MOS Cannolis (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2015

Third paragraph of this article includes "If I Ran the Zoo, (1950),". Notice there are TWO commas in what I quoted.

Please remove the comma just after "Zoo" in the string I just quoted above the line you are reading.

128.63.16.47 (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done. General Ization ^Talk 18:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Child experimentation and cruelty

This has been left out. He use to scare and inflict pain on toddlers in his experiments after a bell etc a cheap rip of pavlov off course but done cruelly to babies.--PAVLOVSKIDS (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2016

Under the heading " College ", please see the third line which reads - At he time. This should be amended to read as - At the time. 122.174.176.134 (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC) TIRUMALAI RAJA

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2018

Change the caption under his picture to the correct spelling Theodor. 108.92.167.37 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2018

RachelF1987 (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

the death for his 2nd wife is incorrect. Audery died this year not 1991.

 Not done please provide a reliable source for the content you would like updated. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Attitude Toward Japanese

I'm a little disappointed in what seems to come close to POV with respect to Geisel's views on Japanese people and the internment issue. There seems to be an assumption here that his cartoons take a positive view toward internment but an acknowledgement that he was much more progressive on racial issues in general. Isn't this reason enough to look for an alternative explanation of his cartoons on Japanese people around the time of intermnment? I think he ought to be given the benefit of the doubt that he's being consistent. Since I can think of a fairly obvious explanation for this consistency, it seems POV to assume he's taking one stance that his cartoons don't demonstrate. The explanation that occurs to me is that he's not portraying Japanese people as he thought they really were but was parodying the popular mindset. Someone we would now consider to be progressive would look at these cartoons and think they portray something ridiculous. Couldn't it be that that's the reaction he was hoping to elicit? --Parableman 20:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The cartoons are very clearly racist and sexist, and are definetly not parodies. The are three years worth of cartoons here, and there is a consistent steryotyping of japanese in a non sarcastic manner. For example, if you look at the cartoons for February 13 1942, or October 13 1942, they are definetly not parodies. If you look through his other cartoons, the parodies are obvious with critical commentary of the lampooned speaker. If you read his cartoons it is very obvious what his meanings are, and it is irresonsible to try and rationalize his racisism towards the Japanese. September 9 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.85.177.86 (talk • contribs) .

I've seen both of those cartoons before. The Feb 13, 1942 one was exactly one of the ones I was specifically talking about. an I stand by what I said. The cartoon with all the Japanese people is exactly the sort of thing I'd expect someone parodying the popular attitude to draw. It reduces it to absurdity. The Oct 13, 1942 cartoon isn't about this issue at all. It's depicting a particular Japanese person and not a nationality, and it uses the same sort of caricaturing features of most political cartoons. Compare the political cartoons of the president with what he actually looks like. Some of this just goes with the territory. But that's sort of irrelevant to the internment issue, which is all the article says anything about at this point. Since it's possible to think internment was wrong while drawing stereotypical features in political cartoons, we need to focus on the issue itself, which is whether cartoons like the other one you mentioned require seeing him as supporting internment. My immediate thought on seeing that cartoon in particular is that he was making fun of those who supported internment by reducing their view to silliness. Unless there are written statements otherwise, I consider it POV to read at best ambiguous cartoons as clear enough evidence to say in the article that he was portraying Japanese Americans as traitors. I don't see any strong evidence that he was doing that at all. Parableman 21:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Scholars widely regard Geisl's Japanese cartoons as racist. For example [1]. NoahB (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be more fair to say his cartoons from that time were propaganda that echoed other propagandistic portrayals of the Japanese. Note that his portrayal of Mussolini as an unkempt, bumbling, dim stooge for Hitler was not consistent with reality either! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.31.249 (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the notion that the blatant racism of Geisel's cartoons is somehow just a parody of "popular attitudes" is easily one of the most ridiculous things I have read on this subject. The cartoons are blatantly racist, period. They aren't a parody. They aren't a commentary on prevalent attitudes. They are nakedly racist. Also, Geisel's support of internment is so well known that any assertion that his cartoons are "ambiguous" or he was "making fun of those who supported internment" is, frankly, stupid. The man drew a cartoon of legions of buck-toothed Japanese-Americans, labeled "fifth columnists" being handed TNT. This is not a "parody" of internment supporters, and suggesting otherwise requires willful ignorance. You will not find a single reputable Seuss scholar who supports the asinine interpretation put forth by another commenter. Claiming that Geisel's cartoons were "parodies" is as ludicrous as claiming Birth of a Nation is a parody of the Ku Klux Klan. The portion dealing with (not dealing with is more like it) Seuss's obvious racism is as blatant a whitewash as I have seen on this encyclopedia, and one gets the feeling that the fact Seuss was a self-professed "liberal Democrat" probably has more than a little to do with it.74.134.160.246 (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

politics section gutted

I see that "Richard M. Nixon, Will You Please Go Now!" has been removed from the article and it looks like the politics section was gutted completely. I haven't time to look through it all right now. I noticed this looking back at the version of the article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustrated Wikipedia (from 13 December 2006) and comparing it with today's version. Here's a link to the Nixon piece.[2] If this isn't fixed by someone else I'll try to remember to come back and fix things up later. — coelacan talk — 22:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

After some searching, I've found it: [3]. It seems to have been removed by an IP user, who then blanked the page; the blanking was reverted, but not the previous edit. I'll add it back in. Mr. Absurd (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added it, but it still definitely needs a lot of work, as it's undercited and needs to be heavily copy-edited. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the single run-on sentence: "His cartoons were strongly supportive of President Roosevelt's conduct of the war, combining the usual exhortations to ration and contribute to the war effort with frequent attacks on Congress (especially the Republican Party), parts of the press (such as the New York Daily News and Chicago Tribune), and others for criticism of Roosevelt, criticism of aid to the Soviet Union, investigation of suspected Communists, and other offenses that he depicted as leading to disunity and helping the Nazis, intentionally or inadvertently." Did he support the investigation of suspected communists, or attack those who did the investigations? This could be said a little more clearly I think. Nerfer (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions on Format

I suggest that the best-selling books section should be merged with the list of works. The long table is very tedious to go through, especially if the reader hasn't even seen his complete list of works yet. Having both a list of books section and a beginning books is very confusing too. Does anyone have any organizational suggestions? --Mistsrider (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion?

This article makes no mention of his religious background, or what he was raised as, and what he was when he died. 02:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)02:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is not relevant to his work I do not see why it is relevant to the Wikipedia article on his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant. Religion is a major component of a person, assuming he was of a particular religious affiliation. This article is about the man who produced such lovely works. He also is a very significant figure. Everything known about should be included in the article he titles. The exclusion of his religion and its evolution throughout his life is actually troubling as no unbiased person would find fault in relating this information. Generally, in my opinion, only people who are religious bigots and can't stand that a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim can produce universally cherished works have problems with including this information.BinaryLust (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name

This article used a mix of the names Dr. Seuss, Seuss, and Geisel. I've changed most of them to match as Geisel. I couldn't find a Wikipedia standard for this, but I'm fairly sure that a pen name shouldn't be used in this way. If you disagree, please comment here instead of reverting or undoing my changes. Mr. Absurd (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirection

I've redirected about 30+ Dr. Seuss books. They consisted almost entirely of plot information, and failed WP:Notability, WP:Fiction, and WP:Plot. I'm certainly not opposed to having articles on Dr. Seuss books, but these articles should not exist if they don't have any relevant content. I'd rather that the list of publications list only decent articles that actually have information other than plot.

The books I redirected:

• Come over to My House
• Dr. Seuss's ABC
• Bartholomew and the Oobleck
• Because a Little Bug Went Ka-choo
• The Cat in the Hat Song Book
• The Cat's Quizzer
• Did I Ever Tell You How Lucky You Are?
• The Foot Book
• Gerald McBoing-Boing (book)
• Happy Birthday to You!
• Hooper Humperdink...? Not Him!
• Dr. Seuss's Sleep Book
• Hop on Pop
• Hunches in Bunches
• I Am NOT Going to Get Up Today!
• I Can Draw It Myself
• I Can Lick 30 Tigers Today! and Other Stories
• I Can Read with My Eyes Shut!
• I Wish That I Had Duck Feet
• In a People House
• The King's Stilts
• Maybe You Should Fly a Jet! Maybe You Should Be a Vet!
• McElligot's Pool
• Mr. Brown Can Moo! Can You?
• My Book about ME
• Oh Say Can You Say?
• Oh, the Thinks You Can Think!
• Please Try to Remember the First of Octember!
• Scrambled Eggs Super!
• The Shape of Me and Other Stuff
• Ten Apples up on Top!
• There's a Wocket in My Pocket!
• You're Only Old Once! : A Book for Obsolete Children

Mr. Absurd (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that all of these redirects should be reverted, and the previous content restored. Note I am not saying each book necessarily should stay a separate page, but the content that was there should at least be merged into a List of Dr. Seuss books wherein each book has its own section, with longer sections staying as separate pages with links (and brief summaries).

I also noticed that some cover images have been deleted while these pages were not using them (because they were redirects) and this should also be undone. Even as sections in a list the entries should include the covers of the respective books. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 14:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don't see the point of having a section for each book if the only information included is a plot summary. Summaries are meant to provide context for the encyclopedic content of the article; WP:PLOT says that “[a] concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work.” You argued at AfD that these books qualify under WP:BK #5—however, I believe that the lack of any encyclopedic content trumps that argument.

I don't want to just rehash the AfD debate though, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to convince you. If you feel very strongly about this, it doesn't seem I'll be able to do anything about it. However, if you think there is encyclopedic content that could be added, why don't you do so instead of discussing this? Mr. Absurd (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I brought it up here first for a couple reasons. 1) I was under the impression that widespread changes such as the redirection of a large number of articles (or its reversal) was usually discussed first. 2) I do agree that many of the articles were on the short side for stand alone articles.

The solution is not deletion or simple redirection but merger. The information on the articles I looked at was not bad, just short, and should be retained with the potential for future expansion. Eventually I would expect an article/section like The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin for each book. (Overall a good encyclopedic article despite not having critical commentary.) —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, as much as I disagree, that seems reasonable. However, as there are also books by Geisel published under Theo. LeSieg (and one as Rosetta Stone) a page like List of books by Dr. Seuss would potentially be confusing. Should we maybe go with List of books by Theodor Geisel?

Also, you mentioned that you wanted to keep the book covers. While this might be a good idea, it would be problematic, as the infoboxes would be longer (taller) than the text. I would suggest that the only parameters we use be Author, Publication date, and OCLC/ISBN, as Country and Language would be the same for all of the books (the United States and English) and all but a few of Geisel's books were published by Random House (this could be indicated in the list's lead, perhaps?). Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought: You might want to keep the covers in a gallery, as we do in other articles for images which are too good to toss out, and which might be needed in the future, but which don't have any obvious place in the article as it stands. Or the gallery could be kept on the Talk page, or in a subdocument. kwami (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since book covers are used under fair use, we can't do that. Since most of the book covers are available on Amazon or other sites, though, it wouldn't be a big deal to re-upload later. T he original source links could also be kept on a talk page too. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest making room for any which aren't readily available (if there are any), and not worrying about the rest.

We already have a bibliography by pseudonym. What other info is relevant? kwami (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the pages for any of the books in the Peter Rabbit series for an example (The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin is good). Each page has all known publication details, a cover image, and a brief summary. That is what I am suggesting for Geisel, albeit with the change that each book be a section in a dedicated list rather than a separate page. If and when the section on any one book gets detailed enough, it would be split off onto it own page with a short summary and a "main article" link on the list page. Obviously some books (like The Cat in the Hat) would already be just a short summary and a "main article" link.

As for the size of each books "infobox". I would actually suggest that we use a captioned image of the cover as an abbreviated infobox. The caption would contain only key details (publication date, ID number, Illustrator if not Giesel). With each book having a brief background and a brief plot description, that should be enough to match the height of the cover. For really short entries, a wrap-clearing line break could be used. The first step would be to merge the pre-redirect contents and page histories of all the short articles together, and then clean them up to be more consistent. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 16:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Absurd. What's the point of a plot summary? That's available on Amazon, and in any case is one of the few things that consensus holds should not be on Wikipedia. "All publication details"--you mean, for each publication and printing? Again, what's the point? There are millions of books out there. Why should one be singled out for special treatment just because Geisel wrote it? It looks like we have all the notable info in this article already.

The only point I see to having an article on The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin is that it provides a place for links to online editions, which the Seuss books do not have since they're not public domain, though I suppose even they could be linked from the bibliography, as we do with references. kwami (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

By our own rules, everything on Wikipedia is available else ware, the point is to gather, and organize information. Plot summaries are not forbidden from articles or sections on books, in fact they should be present, they should also be written from the real world perspective by referring to specific works or parts of works ("In the first book", "In Act II") or describing things from the author or creator's perspective ("The author introduces", "The story describes").

It would be nice if each of these books had more content in the articles—some will quickly, and some wont, at least not for a while—but that does not mean we should not start with what we have already, it just means we should not stop there. Articles/sections should not be deleted, or effectively deleted via redirection, just because they are short, they should be tagged for expansion, or combined into comprehensive articles like we are discussing. Most of the articles redirected were starts of varying quality. By redirecting them to a simple list of titles material is lost (or at least hidden from the average user). That information was not unencyclopedic and so it should stay. Putting all of it in the Seuss article would make that article too long, hence a list of books where each book is a section until it is detailed enough to become a separate article.

If we keep deleting articles/sections that are in the stub stage, than no one will be able to come along later and improve them. The point of a collaborative encyclopedia is that I might only know that a book existed, and what it was about. Someone else may know more, have access to off-line sources, etc. but if my beginning get wiped out it is much less likely the the next person will restart it let alone expand it. Take any gret article on Wikipedia and go back to when it first started nd you are lily to find a version that "was not good enough" but instead of deletion it got expansion. We are not restricted on space, so as long as the information is encyclopedic it should stay. If the tone is wrong that rewrite rather than remove, —MJBurrage^(T•C) 10:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You make good points, but they don't really apply here. These articles aren't the beginnings of "great articles", and for the most part they're not stubs that will later be expanded. These books simply don't have any encyclopedic content written about them (in newspapers, books, magazines, etc.) for us to be able to expand them, and Wikipedia guidelines state that plot summaries should not be the only content in an article. I would love for these articles to be expanded, and I certainly would myself if I could, but I think it's simply not possible. Mr. Absurd (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think You're Only Old Once! might be notable. It was his last, wasn't it? and for a different audience. I think it has a fair amount written about it. kwami (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be notable enough, I must have missed that. There might be a few others, too, we should go through the list. Mr. Absurd (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Impact on the teaching of reading

I would be interested in seeing information in the article about the impact Dr. Seuss books had on teaching reading, especially vis-à-vis -and-Jane style books. If anyone can contribute this info, I would appreciate it. DBlomgren (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I just returned all my Dr. Seuss books to the library today, so I don't have any of the books I would need. I might get around to working on this article again in the future, but it's such a big task — I prefer to work on smaller things that I can be finished within a week or less.

For anyone who wants to edit this article, however, I can attest that there are several good biographies that will definitely provide a lot of useful information (also see the "Further reading" section)

• Dr. Seuss & Mr. Geisel, by Judith Morgan and Neil Morgan
• Of Sneetches and Whos and the Good Dr. Seuss: Essays on the Writings and Life of Theodor Geisel, edited by Thomas Fensch (an excellent collection, by the way — I've cited it numerous times in my editing of Yertle the Turtle and Other Stories and The Seven Lady Godivas)
• Dr. Seuss: American Icon, by Philip Nel

While it's often tempting to simply do an internet search, using books will prove to be much simpler in the long run. Just make sure you cite as you write, or put Post-it notes on the pages — otherwise it's an absolute pain to do afterwards (see WP:REF for citation details if you're not already familiar). Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I found In_Search_of_Dr._Seuss extremely interesting. Great background on him, but could not find a way to work it into the article...Though he is credited as a writer. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr Terwilliger

I'm somewhat surprised that his movie 500 Fingers of Dr T isn't mentioned, but I don't feel like I'm enough of an authority to do it properly. -- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T, a wonderful film for his fans, and it is described now, as well as having its own article. David Spector (user/talk) 18:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm here because I really think the 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T is a glaring omission on the Dr. Seuss page. I hope someone will add it. The film has it's own page - maybe that will help? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_5,000_Fingers_of_Dr._T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryKatharineCanada (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Um, but it's already there. EEng 00:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Education

Maybe I missed it in the article but I am wondering what was Dr. Seuss's actual level of education. It says he did not earn his doctorate while at Oxford and the "Dr." title in his pen name is an acknowledgment to his father's aspirations for him but I did not see whether or not he is even a college graduate (Bachelor's degree or higher). My parents (and my father was a special education teacher) for some reason used to say that Dr. Seuss was a Psychologist who decided to write children's books; I have heard this from other relatively educated people and am wondering if this is a bit of an urban myth. I hope someone might be able to clarify these two points for me. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.178 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

God, no. Ugh, a psychologist writing children's books. What a horrible idea. He only had a BA; he dropped out of a doctorate in English Literature at Oxford —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.70.194 (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

How long did it take to get his first book published?

Would be interesting to note in the article how many attempts (and how long) it took to get his first book published. [4] notes evidence that Viking Press returned his manuscript. Tempshill (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

His first book for children, And to Think That I saw It on Mulberry Street, was written on1937 and published on 1983.

Ellebrager (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street was published in 1937. ^Bongo_matic 05:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I remember reading it before 1973. --Thnidu (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

"Dr Zeus"

I've lately heard the name pronounced as /zjuːs/ or /zuːs/ quite often. Is there any real basis for this pronunciation, or is it just a result of people trying to pronounce it the German way and failing? -- Smjg (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In what part of the world are you hearing this? It is one of my linguistic pet hates. It is extremely common in Australia (where I live) and, I think, New Zealand as well, for people to call him "Dr Zeus". I wonder if people have gotten 'Seuss' confused with 'Zeus' due to them both being generally in the realm of children's literature (there are always books aimed at kiddies on basic Greek mythology) creating some kind of bizarre cross-over effect.

I wonder how many Aussies & Kiwis type in "dr zeus" looking for Dr Seuss. Perhaps there should even be a disambiguation link (?!) There's a great, related anecdote about an Australian nanny going into a US library & asking for a book on "dog disease" - meaning, guess who?--Tyranny Sue (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

England. I've a recollection that Anne Robinson is among those who does it. And recently one of my colleagues was talking about him by that name. Not sure who/where else OTTOMH.... -- Smjg (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Tyranny: My (Canadian) parents always pronounced it "Zeus" while reading to me, and I'm pretty sure they weren't confusing him with that other guy. Although I now say "SSoose", I retain a certain fondness for hearing it the other way. I beg you, please don't hate it.

In fairness, since the German pronuciation (which he eventually discarded) is "Zois", people pronouncing the "s" as a "z" are getting it half-right in one sense. A vague familiarity with German-ish pronunciations could make sense of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.70.194 (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

But people who are versed about interchangeability of /s/ and /z/ in German are likely to know that "eu" is /ɔɪ/ therein, surely? -- Smjg (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, all in all, is there an official pronunciation of "Seuss"? I'm stuck because (1) I very much know how it would sound in German, but I am also aware that (2) Americanization can do a lot with a foreign word; (3) "eu" is not a common vowel combination in English; and (4) when transcribing Korean words, "eu" sounds like /ɔ/. Please help the rest of the world not to hate Seuss even before reading his works. --Providus (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Doctorate

This section is self-contradictory: "He then entered Lincoln College, Oxford, intending to earn a D.Phil in literature. At Oxford he met his future wife Helen Palmer; he married her in 1927, and returned to the United States without earning the degree. The "Dr." in his pen name is an acknowledgment of his father's unfulfilled hopes that Geisel would earn a doctorate at Oxford."

Oxford doctorates are designated with the letters 'D.Phil' not with 'PhD.' As such, he either never got one or his father's hopes were fulfilled.

--Ilnyckyj (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It just says that he intended to get a D.Phil, not that he actually got it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is this contradictory? Please elaborate; the way I read it, he went to get his doctorate, never got it, and called himself a doctor (partly) in acknowledgement of his father's original hope. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Horton Hears a Who?

Does anybody think that "Horton Hears a Who" is more about the Red Scare? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.161.132 (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions that "Horton Hears a Who" is an allegory for the Hiroshima bombing, but it would seem that "The Butter Battle Book" would be the more likely story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.131.62 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

National Memorial to Dr. Seuss

There should be mention in the article about the Dr. Seuss National Memorial Sculpture Garden in Springfield, Mass. If I have time this week, I'll put something in.Malke 2010 (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Jewish

The Jewish people can be identified by their names. It would seem obvious that being a Jew is not like being a Lutheran. Saying he was not a Jew but was in fact a practicing Lutheran sounds completely uninformed, as if one decides to be Jewish like one decides to be Methodist. "He was indeed not Jewish, but was of German ancestry" would be more appropriate. JeanLouisBarrault (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As you well know, "Jew" can also refer to an adherent of Judaism as well as the ethnic group (which can't all be identified by their names, either). Powers ^T 13:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Early life and career

The paragraph about his WWII cartoons his heavily littered with "citation needed" tags. However, these cartoons have been compiled and discussed in the book cited within the paragraph - and so the appropriate citations have been provided for each of the points tagged. Rklawton (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC){{editsemiprotected}} I recommend adding a “t” before “he” where it appears before the word Sigma in the following sentence: “While at Dartmouth, he joined he Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity.”

Done --Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 16:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Along these lines, i edited out the statement that, while at Dartmouth, he was denied entry into "WASP dominated social circles" To "conservative social circles". WASP is a derogatory term and not a good descriptive term —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linkw99 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammar cleanup

Under the "In His Books" section of the "Political Views" section, the first sentence of the second paragraph incorrectly reads "his views on a myriad of social and political issues." This should instead read "his views on myriad social and political issues." The phrase "a myriad of" is grammatically incorrect. Could someone fix this?

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

“Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective. As the entries here show, however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid it.”

I think it's fine how it is. Mr. Absurd (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Rosetta Stone" Pen Name

I have not seen any information the Geisel used Rosetta Stone as a pen name. The current article is citing Encylopedia Britannica, which seems to be missing. I have not been able to find any sources which verify this. Can someone cite this or change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.47.3 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

the policts/books section is nonsensical

It says that a bunch of his books/characters are supposed to be allegories for real life things, but offers no proof of these things. In fact, the only source linked regarding such matters is from DS's attorney, who said that the Giesel's didn't want anyone hijacking the characters/issues/stories/etc. in his writings to be used for politcal purposes. Does no one actually read the cites? You can't have it one way, and then another. 66.190.31.229 (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

City of Death

What is the thinking in listing the city of death as San Diego instead of La Jolla? La Jolla, while it is a part of San Diego is also a very specific and well known community. Other sources for Dr. Seuss biography on the internet list the death location as La Jolla and there is a La Jolla wikipedia page. Why generalize the location when it can be made more specific? If someone died in Bel Air you wouldn't put "Los Angeles" even though the former is part of the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.243.60 (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Early Adaptation - The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins (1943)

I'm surprised that the 1943 George Pal stop-motion animated version of "The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins" is not mentioned. (See the IMDB write-up, which uses the misspelling "Bartholemew.") Furthermore, I note that the individual Wikipedia article The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins doesn't mention it either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.52.8 (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Feminist Portion

I find that little portion about how his books don't speak about feminism very bizarre. First of all, it doesn't mention half of his female characters (such as Daisy-Head Mayzie), and it states that "none of his female characters are positive portrayals." Why should he be expected to speak about feminism? Should he be expected to speak about any and every issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.189.26 (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not true that none of his female characters are positive portrayals. There's nothing wrong with Cindy Lou Who or the girl from the Cat in the Hat. I don't even know why that section needs to exist if it's just pointing out what he didn't address. You might as well do the same thing to every other male author who doesn't address feminist issues.

(End unsigned)

You're clearly responding to a version of the feminist portion which someone else edited for inobvious reasons. My original text does include Daisy-headed Mayzie, and mentions Sally in the Cat in the Hat (who I think is arguably a bit more prominent than Cindy-Lou Who; both are minor characters).

I included the topic because Dr. Seuss DID write about so many of the political issues of the day, and he did an astonishing job (I would say, unparalleled) of making them understandable to children (I'm speaking as a parent who loves to read his work to my kids). Feminism was very much "up" in the national consciousness during the period when he wrote most of his political work for children, so it seems of interest that he did not address it and used no major positive female characters in that work. NessBird (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Feminist paragraph

I have just removed the following paragraph from the article, which from what I can tell has been removed and replaced several times recently:

"Despite this extraordinary range of issues his works do not speak to feminist issues. There are few important female characters, and none are positive portrayals. The most prominent female characters in his works for children are Gertrude McFuzz, who is vanity personified (although she does learn her lesson at the end of the story), and Mayzie, the very irresponsible bird who laid the egg in Horton Hatches the Egg. The most positive female character in the works is probably Sally in The Cat in the Hat, but she says few words, and in fact, her presence appears to be largely due to the rhyme scheme. (The additional character gives the poet flexibility in sentence structure: for example, he can choose, "Sally said," over "I said" to add an unstressed syllable)."

In my opinion, this paragraph warrants removal because it is unreferenced and quite clearly original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I do not believe that in its current form it is suitable for inclusion in the article, even with [citation needed] tags, simply because it takes such a strong stance on the issue. (Please don't read into my personal opinions based on my removal of this paragraph.) If there are indeed reliable sources that can be found on the issue than they can and should be included in the article.

Please share your thoughts on the issue. Mr. Absurd (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. It's an interesting topic but appears to be based entirely on original research. Surely there is something out there that discusses this. I may poke around online a bit and see what I can find. (Not today, though.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you could call it "original research," though all I needed to do to accomplish it is go to our bookshelf in the living room! My searches on Google did not turn up anything referencing this, but I don't have access to scholarly journals which might have commented on the issue. It's certainly an interesting thought, particularly considering that Seuss's political work "came of age" during the years of the feminist revolution. I wouldn't call it a "strong stance," for my part -- my personal view is pretty nuanced, certainly not condemning. Seuss continues to be a fantastic resource for me in teaching my children. Of course, I talk to them about the lack of female characters (and I'm in the habit of reading the Lorax as female). The fact that he never used positive female characters as the protagonists (or even important secondary characters) of his children's stories is simply that -- a fact. Equally inarguable is the contention that he never approached feminist issues. I don't think Seuss himself would dream of arguing either point. I read somewhere that he found women's issues to be irrelevant to himself.

I find it disappointing that Wikipedia's rules don't allow this to be included. I suppose I will need to first publish my observations elsewhere, or find someone who has published similar thoughts, before they can be published on Wikipedia -- is that correct? NessBird (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: yes, with the caveat that publishing your own observations elsewhere doesn't necessarily mean they get incorporated into Wikipedia. See WP:RS and WP:COI (the latter is currently under debate). Long(er) answer: WP:NOR is a core content policy and would require truly extraordinary circumstances (and clear consensus) to override. (I don't remember ever seeing it happen.) I haven't gotten around to searching yet, and don't know how extensively you used Google—did you try Google Scholar and Google Books? Other than that, it's basically waiting for someone with good library access to do the footwork. Fwiw, there are various topics that policy prevents me from writing about on Wikipedia. Years ago, I found that frustrating, but I've come to see that it's a necessary and good rule. Otherwise, it's a free-for-all. By all means, publish your observations elsewhere. (And drop me a note on my talk page if you do; I'd be interested to read them.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Last Paragraph of "Artwork" Section needs to be deleted

It reads like an ad, which isn't surprising, because it was copy-pasted from http://www.drseussart.com/biography.html . Personally I would say that the paragraph should just be deleted and replaced with a single sentence along the lines of "Since his death, Dr. Seuss' illustrations , paintings, and sculptures have been exhibited in fine arts galleries nationwide". But regardless, it needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.180.52.120 (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed as a copyright infringement. Thanks. If you want to rewrite it in summary form, please feel free. Rivertorch (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What needs clean up?

I hope no one minds my jumping in here and asking a couple of general questions. I'm a new editor here, and am trying to figure out what separates the various categories of articles. (Yes, I have read the official pages.) But can someone tell me why this is tagged at the top as needing clean up? And why is this not considered an 'A' article yet? Obviously the distinctions are quite fine, but I must say I can't tell the difference. Thanks for your time. Tlqk56 (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The cleanup tag is dated four years ago and really should be applied to the article itself, not the talk page, if it's still valid. If you don't see any discussion relating to the tag (you may have to check the talk page archives) and upon very close inspection don't see any issues in the article to warrant such a tag, feel free to remove it. (It's generally a good idea to leave a note on the talk page to say you're removing a tag. And, of course, do use an edit summary when actually removing it.) For an answer to your other question, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ. Rivertorch (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'm still trying to get up to speed, and I wouldn't change a tag on a major article like this right now. I don't know enough. But I will read up. I appreciate your response. Tlqk56 (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Politics

The information on his politics is a bit vague. What exactly is a "liberal Democrat"? How left-wing was he? And what was his actual view of Communism?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we get a list of works?

Can we get a list of works? I know that it is vast, but the man deserves it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.47.131.213 (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed he does! See Dr. Seuss bibliography. Mr. Absurd (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 August 2012

Hi, I noticed a spelling error in the following sentence. Can you please change "Departmant" to "Department"? Best, V.

Then, in 1943, he joined the Army as a Captain (OF-2) and was commander of the Animation Departmant of the First Motion Picture Unit of the United States Army Air Forces, where he wrote films that included Your Job in Germany, a 1945 propaganda film about peace in Europe after World War II; Our Job in Japan, and the Private Snafu series of adult army training films.

Versfeld (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks for pointing it out, Rivertorch (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning Misattributed Quotes? (e.g. Robert Fulghum)

Do you think there should be a short mention of some of the quotes that are frequently misattributed to Seuss? I know that the Wikiquote page lists a few, but one quote that I see all over the internet is the Robert Fulghum quote of "We're all a little weird. And life is a little weird. And when we find someone whose weirdness is compatible with ours..." etc. Given that these days, some people go so far as to manufacture stickers and t-shirts with this quote attributed to Seuss, I'm wondering if it's worth mentioning somewhere in the Wikipedia article that Seuss did NOT say this. WillieBlues (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

In principle, I am not that keen on compiling a list of things someone DIDN'T say/write - just who said he DID say them might raise some difficulties about cites, for instance. Notability is another issue. President Lincoln DIDN'T invent the limerick "At beauty I'm not a great star" (although he loved to quote it, being well aware of his own very obvious lack of physical beauty). Well, so what? Just how important are things people didn't say, write, etc. in the context of an encyclopedia article about them?

Drawing attention to this kind of error is also a way of perpetuating it. Surely a dictionary of quotations, pointing out who DID say something is very much more to the point. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Inclusion would only be justified if reliable secondary sources clearly indicate there is frequent misattribution, and I think that's a tall order to fill. Rivertorch (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thank you all for your input! WillieBlues (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit requested

Three requests. In the "Pen names and pronunciations" section, I don't think it's very common to have /j/ when pronouncing his name. On this side of the pond, at least. So could it be transcribed without one, or as /ˈs(j)uːs/ at worst?

In the first line of the lede, there is an extra bracket after American.

Also in the lede, could we break the long paragraph into two paragraphs such that Geisel also worked as an illustrator starts the new one?

Thanks! 67.164.156.42 (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the bracket. Thanks! While that paragraph is long, it all deals with one broad topic—his professional life—and it's not that long. Just my opinion. I'll leave it to whoever decides on your pronunciation item to decide on that, too. Rivertorch (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the pronunciation template such that the j is optional but I do not agree with the excess paragraph length - I've seen far longer paragraphs before now.--Launchballer 17:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Humorous mention

T. Geisel receives an interesting citation from my AI textbook. Image. The excerpt is from page 864 of Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter (2009), Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, ISBN 0136042597

If this would be an appropriate addition, I would welcome it where ever misc. trivia about Mr. Geisel goes. 75.182.111.245 (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting. Honestly, that sounds really appropriate for On Beyond Zebra!. Not so much here at this very general article. Rivertorch (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What to do with pen names?

Hello,

I've made a couple of edits, but I wanted to gauge the reaction before I went any further. Should we lump all the info about pen names into one section or scatter it across the article? Right now it's a mix of both, and I'm not thrilled about that.

Bobnorwal (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with your recent edits. What would you suggest be done with pen names? Ckruschke (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

dsjake apowe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.229.120 (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Bad Citation Link

The link for citation 54, that points to the information on the Geisel Library at UC San Diego is a dead link. It looks like they moved the page. The correct link should be:

http://libraries.ucsd.edu/about/us/geisel-building.html

They slipped an /us in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagorym (talk • contribs) 11:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dagorym: Fixed. Thanks for pointing out. Paul2520 (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Horton Hatches the Egg (1942 cartoon)

Horton Hatches the Egg was part of the Merrie Melodies series, not the Looney Tunes series. 71.95.53.89 (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Audrey Geisel, widow

Audrey Geisel, business executive, literary executor, philanthropist --all as the widow Seuss, if I understand correctly

• 2000 NYTimes [5]
• 2007 SanDiego [6]

--P64 (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Are you proposing a change and/or improvement to this article? Dwpaul ^Talk 00:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)