Talk:Curious George

Break
The section about a few monkey scholars considering Curious George to be racist may be true, but the arguments for the point are presented as fact and I'm not sure they should be. Curious George was written around 1940, which I don't think was a time of "French imperial expansion". Also, the article says that the man in the yellow hat wore a French military uniform. Did the French really wear yellow uniforms? if these items are true they can remain. Otherwise they should be removed or attributed as beliefs of the scholars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beirne (talk)
 * As a footnote, the authors H.A. Rey and Margret Rey also wrote the classic anti-racist children's book "Spotty" in 1945. Amazon.com entry. It seems that CG was chosen as a cute character for small kids to identify with. 惑乱 分からん 14:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I don't know when the above question was asked, but the main page now says that George was a chimp. But no source is cited for this. He is identified in every book that I can get my hands on as a monkey. He does seem to have more ape characteristics than monkey characteristics, but there's no reason to expect that he should resemble any species in the real world (he doesn't look like a chimp to me). From the books, I'd say he's some imaginary species of tailless monkey. I think any other claim needs a citation (or else be considered original work). Leonard of Vince (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed "chimp" back to "monkey" for the obvious reason you mentioned. George is always referred to as a monkey in the books, regardless of what some people may believe he should be, or would be if he were real. Besides, the person who changed "monkey" to "chimp" also added "washing" after George's name and the mysterious word "wtonith" in the same sentence.--Dwimble (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Many monkeys (particularly macaques) are tailless, like George. George does look a bit like a macaque (although maybe not quite as hairy) and is about the right size. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand which of CG's features are supposedly more ape-like than monkey-like. First of all, CG is imaginary, so there's no requirement for him to exactly match a particular existing species. But even if we set that issue aside, CG has short brown fur, not long black fur like African non-human great apes (chimps, bonobos, gorillas) nor very long orange fur (orangutans). He doesn't have quite the right hairdoo for a chimp either (i.e., not parted in the middle). CG's ears are smaller and more flattened back than a juvenile chimp's. CG has about the right hair color, hairdoo and ears for a gibbon ape, but CG's arms are way too short for him to be a gibbon. Overall, CG seems more physically similar to a tailless macaque than to existing apes. Unless somebody has a convincing argument for why CG is more similar to an ape, I think we should afford the books' authors some artistic license and accept without comment in the intro section that CG is an imaginary species of tailless monkey resembling a Barbary macaque (or perhaps a Japanese macaque).Retroid (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

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


 * O_O 149.20.252.132 (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Why are these "scholars" taking a classic Children's book so seriously? I honestly don't think the writer intended for it to be taken that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

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

George is less than human —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.23.170 (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just because it's a book for kids doesn't mean that it doesn't have racist imagery that should be taken seriously; consider The Story of Little Black Sambo. In fact, because it's for kids we should probably take it more seriously. Whether or not the racial imagery is for real in curious george, if a discourse discussing it exists, it's worthy of at least cursory inclusion. I personally don't have the time to research and write this section but if anyone does here's a masters thesis where you could start off: https://library.uvm.edu/jspui/bitstream/123456789/124/1/matthewroperpaper.pdf 2602:304:CDE4:D360:F414:53A3:3608:21A7 (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify from outside the chamber, Little Black Sambo is not about "black people" either. It's a story written by Indians making fun of dark-skinned Indians.  It was only in the 1970s when people in the US were seeing everything through that lens and started to protest it, throwing it and other random babies out with the bathwater.  See The Story of Little Black Sambo--Mrcolj (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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


 * I wondered about that too. It seemed to be a bit POV.  People seem to get a lot of political messages out of the books that I never thought about.  I wouldn't mind if "abducted" got changed to something more neutral.  --Beirne 04:17, May 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I quoted the original text and moved the mention of kidnapping to a separate section under interpetations; also included some information about an article about the series and (partially) this aspect of it, as well as two links from different sources (Barnes and Noble, and the film version's producer, Ron Howard) found in a quick google search so that it doesn't seem like the rantings of someone reading too much into it. :-) I don't have a scanner and couldn't find any copies of the illustrations online; if someone could provide copies of the illustrations referenced it would go a long way towards clarity. Anonymoustom 18:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind seeing that part removed -- now it says "kidnapped" rather than "abducted", but the effect is the same. If one looks at any other article describing captive animals (like an Aquarium, etc.) there is no mention of the animals being "kidnapped".

Only humans can be kidnapped (at least according to the current definition of the term). Dognapping exists, of course... Stonemason89 (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The original Curious George book (just titled Curious George) by H.A. Rey, published 1941, depicts the Man with the Yellow Hat visiting Africa, meeting George, than luring him (p. 6-7), trapping him in a bag so he couldn't move (p. 7), and keeping him in a bag while in a rowboat that took them to a big ship (p. 8-9). The man removes the bag on the ship (p. 10) and tells George he's going to take him to the zoo in a big city. Sure looks like imperialism and abduction to me. And the parallels with the abduction and enslavement of African peoples can't be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigmaaaaa (talk • contribs) 12:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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


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

How come George doesn't have a tail? So does that mean he isn't a monkey?
 * Not all monkeys have tails- the Barbary Macaque, for example, is technically an "old world" monkey, but lacks a tail. Roy 6:30 30 March 2006 (EST)

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

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

Curious george Gets AIDS
I seriously doubt "Curious George Gets AIDS" was one of the books. I don't want to change it myself since last time I made a minor edit I was banned from making any further ones by Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamabunta (talk • contribs)
 * I think you're probably right! Don't be put off by over-enthusiastic editors, keep trying and making this place a 'safer' place for George and others, curious or not! Budgiekiller 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Shocking, shocking, shocking!
It says in the Premise session that the man in the yellow hat wants to eat George, and it also talks about the man in the yellow hat wanting to make soup out of him! Yeah, right. Sounds like straight vandalism to me. I have the original book, and it says nothing about the MAN IN THE YELLOW HAT wanting to eat George. Can someone please investigate this? Ohyeh 16:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Vandalism. It's removed now. 惑乱 分からん 19:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * XD

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

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

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

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

Nojudfoo 14:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

He Had No Name.
I want to remind everyone here that the Man in the Yellow Hat originally didn't have any proper name. "Ted" applies only...I repeat, ONLY to the movie (on a personal note, I felt giving him a name actually ruined the movie and compromised the original aesthetic of the books). Now I have edited the article to reflect that, and I want it to be kept that way. "Ted" is not his "real" name. Again, this applies ONLY to the movie. I'm serious, if people make repeated attempts to make it look as though "Ted" is his "real" name, then I am going to request protection. The Man in the Yellow Hat does not have any name, and that is that. I will not stand for any "monkey" business (pun fully intended).

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


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

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


 * Um, yeah. Clearly the deletion was appropriate, as the section was completely unsourced and is perhaps dubious.  I would want to see a citation to the purported interview if the material were to be restored.  Here is the original edit.  It was made by what appears to be a productive editor, who's been here a year and a half with over 1,000 edits and no blocks.  I've left a message on that editor's talk page.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't remember much details about when I added it, but I vaguely remember seeing this some time back on a TV program, perhaps on PBS or some cable channel. I may look into the matter if I get any time within the next few days. For now, I have added the unref-sec tag. Hellno2 (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind that for now, but I don't think it's a long-term solution. The material has been challenged, so per WP:V it needs to be sourced or removed.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am trying to research various episodes of TV programs I have watched in the past. I vaguely remember seeing a biography of the Reys on which this was mentioned. I don't know how easily I can located an episode guide, but I will try.Hellno2 (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Television
I just made a small edit to the Television subsection under "Other Media", removing the statement that the new PBS series is "based on the" feature film. That statement was unsourced and I have been unable to find any sources (except other Wikipedia articles) which claim that. I believe the same actor who voiced George in the movie does so in the series as well, and Universal is involved in both projects. But that does not equal "based on the movie." In fact the series has almost no similarity to the movie at all...none of the characters, locations, settings, names, references, flashbacks, and so on are shared between the two. Every official source I've found (for example, here at PBS) clearly says the series is based on the books. However, they were definitly capitalizing on the film's release, to be sure...as is clearly seen in the PBS statement I referenced (i.e. "...hot on the heels of his successful big screen debut"). --Dwimble (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Names for Curious George in other languages
The Intro section had begun accumulating a list of Curious George's names in a seemingly random selection of other languages. The alternate names are interesting, but in my view don't rise to the level of being major enough facts to merit inclusion in the introduction section. A devoted section of the article should be created to house the list of names in other languages.Retroid (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Monkey/Chimp Conundrum
I know there's been a bit of back and forth on this subject, but as of now (March 2012), there is nothing at all about this in the article. I'm not arguing for or against any particular explanation, but I do think it's significant enough that something should be included. The books constantly refer to him as a monkey. But he has no tail. So is he really a chimp? Or is he a Barbary Macaque? Or some fictitious other species of tailless monkey? Even without a clear consensus on this, the article should at least acknowledge the question. Anyone?Lafong (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * George isn't really anything. He's a storybook/cartoon character monkey who is always referred to as a monkey in all media. Regardless of what some people on wikipedia want to speculate about what he is or should be or would be in the real world, that's all he is and ever has been. Just about the only place I've ever seen this argument is here on wikipedia, which doesn't make it worthy of going into the article. If you can find a quote somewhere from H.A. Rey talking about what kind of real world monkey he did or did not intend for George to represent, then you'd have something. Otherwise, I think this is just discussion board fodder. -Dwimble (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The Man With The Yellow Hat's Clothing
As for the question regarding French military uniforms, there is a likeness. Please see for what people are likely referring to. It's important to note that, if one subscribes to this view, the Man With The Yellow Hat is missing the jacket, but everything else, to include the tie, seems pretty close to. Keeping in mind that the authors were from France, it is likely that they drew from their experiences and things around them, which would include clothing that they might have though were "jungle worthy" or "explorer-like", so a likeness does not mean that the man was supposed to be symbolic of the French army or anything.JamusDoore (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Curious George. 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/20111001163008/http://www.stenaline.co.uk/ferry/routes/curious-george/ to http://www.stenaline.co.uk/ferry/routes/curious-george/
 * Added tag to http://www.macondaily.com/news.asp?id=13266
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110813162123/http://www.thejewishmuseum.org/core/uploaded/pdfs/CuriousGeorgeCurriculumFINAL.pdf to http://www.thejewishmuseum.org/core/uploaded/pdfs/CuriousGeorgeCurriculumFINAL.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Curious George. 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/20100129044330/http://curiousgeorgelive.com/ to http://curiousgeorgelive.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 9421266a8976bc9b8f3902938b1a1b2c.jpg.gif

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 9421266a8976bc9b8f3902938b1a1b2c.jpg.gif

Nickelodeon
You might want to mention that the 1980 Curious George shorts first aired on Nickelodeon in the year 1986, before the Disney Channel picked it up months later. This information comes from a web video documentary series called Nick Knacks, produced by Pop Arena: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OCuknAddCs ElMeroEse (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Monkey or ape?
The introduction refers to George as a monkey but later he is referred to as an ape. Which is he? They are in the same clade, but one family is the Old World Monkeys and the other is the Apes. 2600:1700:5531:3810:A6E6:5236:704:5596 (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

References in pop culture
I feel like these paragraphs don't belong where they currently are:

In the film Forrest Gump of 1994, one edition of Curious George'' (one with a yellow cover but no other title than Curious George) is used as Forrest's favorite book, which his mother reads to him. Forrest later reads it with his son (also named Forrest), with a Curious George plush also shown on his shelf. In the opening scene a feather comes floating down to Forrest's feet and he stores it in this book. At the end of the film it falls out of the book and rises floating through the air again.

Jarrod, the titular character and protagonist from the NBC series The Pretender, read Curious George'' books in season one and developed a fascination with them. He likened himself to George and Sydney Green, the psychiatrist whom he saw as a surrogate father, to the Man with the Yellow Hat.

The books have inspired others, for example Bangkok Bob, written for and published by Big Brother Mouse, a Lao publishing project.'' ''

Currently they're in a section talking about adaptions and licensed branding. I feel like they should be put in a section talking about the influence of the books (which is something I've seen in other wikipedia articles.) If I'm like, way off base, let me know, since this is my second time ever doing something on wikipedia. Paxsitheach (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Power of curious George
He is the most powerfull being in the Omniverse 106.70.7.188 (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)