Talk:Oh, the Places You'll Go!

Oh, The Places You'll GO!!

Publication Date
The original publication date cited by this article is incorrect, as I clearly remember being read this book as a child of less than 7. I was born in 1983, so this would have had to have been published sometime during the 80s, probably the early 80s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.50.245 (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Commencement speech?
Didn't Seuss write this as a commencement speech for some college or another? If true, the article should probably reflect that. &mdash;  Music  Maker  5376  16:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the Dr. Seuss collection I have, Geisel wrote a commencement speech in verse (reprinted in the book), but it's not really connected to Oh, the Places You'll Go!

--68.211.237.128 (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Waiting Place
"It is implied that time does not pass in the Waiting Place." I don't think that is correct. I think it's just the opposite. The whole book is about all sorts of things happening. The Waiting Place is the one place where nothing happens. Time continues to pass, but nothing happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.148.146 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed reference to the viral video on the Huffinton Post
The Huffington Post is highly biased against mental health services, and medicine in general, so having it as a reference would create a bias in people with mental health problems against the video, and implies Burning Man in general is biased against people with mental health problems. 87.121.52.55 (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Or in people with cancer or any kind if illness... IF you insist on using the Huffington Post as a a source, there should be sufficient disclaimers that their views do not reflect and so on... Otherwise it's slander on Burning Man to associate it with the Huffington Post. 87.121.52.55 (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal Issues section
Does this even belong here? The section does not concern legal issues with the subject of the article, rather it's about a single lawsuit about a knock-off of the book. Copyright violations of Seuss materials have happened many times before (i.e. Dr. Seuss Enterprises., LP v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., a copyright infringement suit over a book entitled The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice. about the O.J. Simpson trial presented in Seuss style verse and illustration, ruled on by the 9th Circuit in 1997). Why one and not the other, especially given this recent one establishes no new precedent?

Furthermore, the inclusion is just another example of fannish topics polluting articles on Wikipedia. Over and over again we see articles with subjects that have glancing contact with Star Wars, Star Trek, etc., having minor trivia related to those topics injected into articles where they honestly should at best be a footnote.

Suggest section be deleted. MrNeutronSF (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)