Talk:Fox in Socks

Paragraph starting "Stop it! Stop it!"

I had moved this paragraph to the end of the section as it seemed to fit better there, rather than in the middle of the outline of the story. However, mycopyedit has been reverted by anonymous user 75.59.254.48 (talk · contribs) without an edit summary – I've asked this editor for their reasons. Also, I note that this paragraph is also un-referenced; so if no references are forthcoming, it may be deleted anyway. Comments? -- MightyWarrior (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The comment added by User:75.40.33.116 relating to the above paragraph that "It is strictly forbidden to move or delete it" has been removed from the article – it appeared to contradict the Wikipedia guideline relating to ownership of articles. All editors are encouraged to be bold in editing this and other Wikipedia articles. This is how community consensus emerges regarding the content of each article. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added section headings to make it clear what is the original Storyline, and what is additional media comment (not part of the original text). The "Stop it" paragraph has some prefixing context from the original text to allow it to be seen as a comment on the original. But I don't believe it should form part of the Storyline section. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit by 75.40.33.116 (talk · contribs) appears to have cleared up the difficulty with an acceptable storyline and an acceptable entry in the Media section. Thanks to all for resolving this issue. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to discuss this paragraph

The comment "It is strictly forbidden to move or delete it." appeared in the article. Articles do not "belong" to any one editor, and may be modified by anyone. It is up to the community consensus to determine whether any edit is acceptable or not. If editors continue to make such statements, they may be at risk from sanctions. With regard to the edit in question, I believe that there may be consensus from removing the edit: at least two people have done so, and only one user appears to want it kept.

An editor has described the text in question as a segue from the previous one – but this fails to take into account that it places it in the middle of the description of the story which is an unsatisfactory place for it to be, in my opinion. That it why I moved it to the bottom of the section where other paragraphs talking about "Fox In Socks" in a wider context are already placed. Please discuss this here, rather than adding one-sided comments to the article. As I described above, the type of comment that is being added appears to be an infringement of the Wikipedia guidelines – no single editor has the right to state that a piece of text must not be deleted. Wikipedia works through consensus; which is why these matters should be discussed on the talk page. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Yesterday I edited this article. The article used a quote from the book which does not appear in ANY edition that I can locate ("Stop it! Stop it! I can't stand it! That world is a vastly cruddy, bloody bore!"). Today it was reverted by User:75.40.33.166. Can someone please confirm that this quote does not exist in the book? Dazcha (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote does not exist in the book – I have a copy which is I read to my son almost daily! The user who reverted it is intent on putting the quote into the middle of the storyline as a "segue" from the story to a quote from the CBS TV special. My opinion is that it should go in the section below that regarding the media. However, as stated above, I have been completely unsuccessful in discussing this with the user concerned. He or she will not answer any messages or make any comments on this talk page. The only response is a revert and comment within the article to the effect "Do not delete or move this text!". I've also for help from an experienced administrator in deciding the best way forward within the Wikipedia guidelines (but no answer yet). I don't want to perpetuate an edit war, but I think the consensus at it stands, is to move the text as I described. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I also didn't want to get into an edit war. It's a shame he insists on reverting our edits. Dazcha (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. I'm not really sure why this page was listed for a third opinion, as there's no conflict here, just vandalism. I reverted the editor's talk page and put up another vandalism warning. If this continues, you may want to put a note in at WP:AIV. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have added a level 3 warning to the user's talk page, but then removed it straight away! Are their contributions vandalism or not? If you don't feel able to warn them, then I don't. If it is vandalism then we can take steps to stop it; alternatively, if it is a content dispute, then I'd like a third opinion. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You may want to check the history of the page before pointing fingers; as you can see from this edit, the editor blanked the page, not me. Even if it is a content dispute, I still don't believe that it belongs on the page. It doesn't bring anything to the discussion, and serves no real purpose anywhere on the page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's weird. I think something got messed up in the reverts, and since I was working in multiple tabs at the time, I may have accidentally clicked revert again, or the requests slowed down and got messed up. Anyway, I've reverted my own mistake there. My opinion that the user's addition shouldn't be part of the page still stands. Apologies to all! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I never thought Dr. Suess would be controversial. I was steered to this page by a recent Onion (Kelly) satire cartoon, which insinuated Fox and Knox were promoting a gay lifestyle. I was a bit shocked to see the controversy on this page, and also unprofessional phrasing, such as the Israeli author had "milked" the book into Hebrew (??). I changed this to "translated" which seems more appropriate. Translations are never exact, particularly in poetry and other areas where rhyming schemes are involved. If a better word is out there, please change it. But my understanding is that "milked" is pejorative.

BTW, the phrase "Stop it! Stop it! I can't stand it! That world is a vastly cruddy, bloody bore!" is cited as not coming from any BOOK, but from a CBS children's television special. So I think that has been fixed.

Joe Patent (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The original text in the article was "translated", but this was modified (maybe maliciously) to "milked" on 24 March 2009 by 24.91.6.176 (talk · contribs). This user also changed "Knox" to "box" which I fixed today. Thank you for your contributions, Joe. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The quote "Stop it!..." is now correctly indicated as being part of the TV programme, and cannot be confused with what's in the book. Originally, when I made my comment above in January 2008, the quote was in the "Storyline" section - which was very misleading. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I was the author of the paragraph on the Hebrew translation, and I definitely wrote "translated", not "milked". Thanks to MightyWarrior for fixing that. Shortly thereafter, though, an unidentified IP-based user truncated the paragraph with no comment in the edit summary, so I have reverted it. If someone wants to shorten the paragraph, at least have the courtesy to explain yourself as to why. Thanks.

Shalom S. (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Internet" spoof lyrics

Can anyone locate the alternate/spoof lyrics that make use of features of the Internet? It ought to referenced here but I can't seem to find it. Been around for at least a decade, too. --Michael K Smith^Talk 20:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A "spoof" that isn't discussed in independent reliable sources is trivial and should not be included here. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, here is (one version) of the spoof: https://www.netjeff.com/humor/item.cgi?file=DrSeussTech

It's amusing, but I'm not sure it rises to an "In Popular Culture" level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.20.4 (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fox in Socks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 19:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: RFNirmala (talk · contribs) 08:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

My fourth GA review. Will complete the table within 7 days. Ping me if I become inactive or there are any concerns. Number of points will also increase gradually as we improve the article.RFNirmala (talk) 08:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Notes

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The source of the book cover can be easily resolved, though not needed to be more specific.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Only media (image) is the book cover	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Undetermined	The reviewer has left no comments here

Discussion

I haven't read Fox in Socks and this is my first review on literature (a book), so I'm eager to see this as a GA. I had to refer to other articles such as The Cat in the Hat and And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street While I spotcheck sources, these are points we can do:

• Add alt captions for the book cover image. May you be more specific on where the image source is? Only says "It is believed that the cover art can or could be obtained from Random House." Which edition/print?  Done
• Introduce Theodor Seuss Geisel as Dr. Seuss  Done I'll WP:BOLD and replace instances of "Seuss" in Writing ang Publication with "Geisel".
• In "Writing and Background", the transition from meeting Dimond to testing editor Cerf seems abrupt. You can add more information on background and writing so we can separate these ideas into their paragraphs.  Done Section is now smoother!

I encourage you to keep expanding on the content for the article to be more comprehensive. For "Reception and Legacy", were there any reviews and reception on the book made during the time of publication ('60s)? There's only one by Kirkus Reviews. RFNirmala (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I've added alt text, though that's not part of the GA process. I couldn't tell you where the original uploader actually sourced the image from. I've added Theodor Seuss Geisel to both the lead and the body (and found a source to go with it). I scraped all the sources I could find for the info in this article before nominating it and have not been able to find any further information, but I've rearranged the "writing and background" section so it hopefully flows more smoothly now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

To answer RFN's last question, yes, but mostly minor listings apart from Book Week. We'd have to look at reviews of children's literature from the 60s for more, not sure offhand which children's library reference works or periodicals would have been active then. czar 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits and replies. I'm currently doing spotchecks on the references and searching for more possible sources. so you can wait for new points. RFNirmala (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Let me know if you need help getting the Book Week ref. czar 02:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Is it OK if you can post the Book Week ref here? The Book Review Digest could be a good addition! RFNirmala (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Content

No worries if those are all the content we can find. Article easily passes ref spotcheck on verifying content. Good work on the content! I understand these could be outside GA review scope, but resolving these may make prose smoother and help clarify more info to the article (such as Analysis).

• I suggest adding another source if there are any to the date of publication in Random House, which could fall as a primary source. You can also add the book as one of the Beginner Books in Random House.
• [ref12]. This citation (Einhorn 2012, p.115) is only used when citing a quote from Fox in Socks. You can add context by considering this sentence from the book: “In almost every book, Seuss creates new words”.
• [ref21] "The book is one of several by Dr. Seuss in which younger characters teach older ones, as Mr. Fox is more skilled with tongue twisters and tries to instruct Mr. Knox." This is optional, but what other books do so (or add a basis on their relative ages)? In the source, the author only states their age, not really what made them think who’s younger.

• The book is one of several by Dr. Seuss in which younger characters teach older ones ... Literary scholar Philip Nel likened this to the moral of Sam and the Firefly by P. D. Eastman and Seuss's earlier Private Snafu cartoons.

What the moral is from the plot of Fox in Socks isn’t specified (if it’s not the caution within the instance of a young person teaching an older one). I checked [ref23] which discusses that “inasmuch as both of these tales emphasize the perils of abusing one’s knowledge, the SNAFU cartoons may be considered their direct antecedent.” I recommend rephrasing and specifying the moral with the paragraph in Nel 2007, alongside the moral of age by Shortsleeve 2011. You can add what other books show younger characters teaching older ones.

Possible Sources

I found possible sources among what I've searched, which you can add at your judgement. I can only see the biography by Jones as viable, though.

• Stanchfield, J. M. (1965). The Clip Sheet. The Reading Teacher, 19(1), 69–73. International Literacy Association

Contains a brief review of Fox in Socks.

• Jones, Brian Jay (2019). Becoming Dr. Seuss: Theodor Geisel and the Making of an American Imagination. Dutton. ISBN 978-1524742782.

This book, in the Further Reading of Dr. Seuss, describes further context on Geisel meeting Audrey Dimond and the time period of writing Fox in Socks. I’ll search for other sources on the claim that the book’s sales surpassed “3 million copies by the end of the twentieth century”.

• Two reviews cited in “Dr. Seuss: American Icon”. The NYT review is small and wouldn’t be in the article. Can’t access the review by Harmon.

Harmon, Elva. “Seuss, Dr. Fox in Socks.” Library Journal 15 May 1965: 96