Talk:Green Eggs and Ham/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Citations

In the first paragraph the info about it being the fourth-best-selling hardcover children's book is cited to "[1]" with an external link. However, this source is not in the list of references. Under the "Reception" heading, the fact is repeated, and this time cited internally to reference 2, which is not the correct source. Also, the link in reference 2 is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.97.118 (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real green eggs and ham

The only reason why I put the breakfast item there, is that for a non-american, some of the humour is missing if you don't understand the there is comedy in the eggs actually being green in the book. Mark Richards 22:54, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MR, I hope the current revision is now ok. Your new material is now near, but not at, the top.
I now see your point, namely that Seuss himself was probably familiar with real-life, spinach-based green eggs and ham (which I wasn't). The rewrite I did was to conform to a fairly iron-clad law of Wikipedia articles, which is that the first sentence should identify the item under discussion. (Look around the encyclopedia and you'll see that this principle is pretty generally respected.) I hope this helps, or at least is not excessively annoying. Opus33 15:16, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me - thanks, Mark Richards 15:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly news to me! Thanks. 66.92.237.111 20:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, not that it applies here, but take a look at Disambig, Rome and Cream, that was kind of what I was going for here ;) Mark Richards 15:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I guess we both feel that real green eggs and ham wouldn't merit an article on its own. But if it did, I agree with you that a disambiguation thingy would be correct. Thanks for your reply, MR. Opus33 16:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You're right ;) Mark Richards 17:30, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Is there proof that the "real" green eggs and ham predates the book, rather than having been invented post-GE&H as a novelty? Lawikitejana 15:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty confident the book predates any actual dishes by that name. It's not really thought of as an actual dish in the US, in my experience. And I've read a number of articles in the press about Seuss and the book, none of which characterized it as referring to a dish by that name. Find a reference to "green eggs and ham" that predates the book and I'll believe it. Mark Foskey 04:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is another possibility with Green eggs and ham. When I was a kid, sometimes my mother would cook up some left-over red cabbage with our breakfast. When the dark red juice of the cabbage comes in contact with the egg-white (albumin), the egg turns bright green. So when I was a kid, the idea of real green eggs and ham was not so unusual. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoroastar (talk • contribs).

A contributor to TV Tropes & Idioms suggest that Giesel was playing on a (apparently) common lunch dish called "green, eggs, and ham"--the green indicating a vergetable. Can anyone here confirm? 165.91.64.232 (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)RKH[reply]

Around here (Germany), pretty much of the Easter breakfast consists of colored eggs with ham (and bread). Some of the eggs are green.--2001:A60:1593:BC01:FD88:37D5:3C5:3B92 (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Geisel was an Army veteran. In the 1970's, a certain C-Ration selection I ate contained 7 or 8 year old scrambled eggs and ham. The eggs were definitely green. I am sure the Army cooks of WWII era were quite capable of concocting 'green eggs and ham'.Jeb hhoh (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misquotation?

The article quotes the book as saying 

 I do not like them in a box.
 I do not like them with a fox.
 I do not like them in a house.
 I do not like them with a mouse.
 I do not like them here or there.
 I do not like them anywhere.
 I do not like green eggs and ham.
 I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

but I don't think this is correct. I think it is more like 

 I would not eat them in a box.
 I would not eat them with a fox.
 I would not eat them in a house.
 I would not eat them with a mouse.
 I would not eat them here or there.
 I would not eat them anywhere.
 I do not like green eggs and ham.
 I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

Perhaps someone who has the text handy could check to make sure. Dominus

The passage (p. 31) is correct. Thank you for exercising editorial vigilance. Opus33 03:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears that I was remembering (incorrectly) a later passage. Thanks very much. -- Dominus 13:59, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Link to copyright-violating pages?

These two links:

go to pages that I'm virtually certain are copyright violations--Green Eggs and Ham is very definitely still under copyright, and the copyright is defended zealously by its publisher.

It's true that the Wikipedia can save its readers the trouble of buying a copy of this book by providing these links, but it seems not really right to me. I am sentimentally influenced by the thought that Dr. Seuss himself probably would not have wanted us to include such links. Opus33 20:41, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While an appeal to what he would have wanted is indeed sentimental, the fact is that the reason(s) he would likely not have wanted us to direct to copyright violators are the same reasons that copyright protection exists, so a respect for copyright is both legally sound and a fitting tribute to those inventive people we admire. Lawikitejana 15:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I expected, both links are now (Nov. 2006) dead, suggesting that Random House people at some point found them and persuaded their authors to take them down. Opus33 04:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As of today (01 October 2007) the first link (the text one) is still valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.97.118 (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Green Eggs and Ham was read in the senate, so TRANSCRIPT: Sen. Ted Cruz’s marathon speech against Obamacare on Sept. 24 so it would not violate copyright to reference a transcript made from the floor of the senate. The official transcript will contain anchor tags so it can be referenced directly. Webhat (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew ham?

An anonymous editor just removed the line:

A version in Hebrew avoids the mention of ham, which is not kosher.

Does anyone know if this was true (and should be restored to the article)?

Atlant 19:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Hebrew version is titled לא רעב ולא אוהב, which seems to translate to "Not Hungry and no Love" or something similar. I also would like to know more about the Hebrew translation if anybody has some information. There is a Hebrew Wikipedia article he:לא רעב ולא אוהב — 121.210.51.150 (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping popular culture items separate

The reasons to keep the popular culture items in a separate article are as follows.

  • This material tends to keep accumulating and ultimately becomes longer than the actual information about the book, which is a form of poor organization.
  • Pop culture material is of more interest to people interested in the particular branch of pop culture involved, and tells us nothing about the book itself.
  • Having piles of popular culture items included in every article about a work of art gives readers a bad impression of the Wikipedia--namely that it's edited by a bunch of ignoramuses who never read a book, but know their popular culture cold. This isn't (entirely) true, but we shouldn't give the impression that it's true.
  • Lastly, there's an esthetic element: Seuss's book is a beautiful and clever thing, beloved by many, and I'm not crazy about including a lot of stuff in the article that basically desecrates it.
Opus33 17:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


-- In response: It is not as if I feel these reasons are invalid, but the other Dr. Seuss books that are famous enough to warrant a list of popular culture references include theirs inside the breadth of the article. (Grinch, Cat) Granted, those are shorter, but even if it were only for the sake of a standard, I believe it should be maintained.

In any case, I am hardly disagreeing about the quality of Seuss's book, but to say that cultural references are a desecration to it seems a little excessive. Additionally, cultural references mentioned are rather objective, actually, since they're a media and societal aspect, and this isn't a fanpage. Lastly, the stand-alone article of the popular culture items looks slightly ridiculous on its own; no one actually searches for "Green Eggs and Ham Cultural References," they search for "Green Eggs and Ham." It clutters Wikipedia itself. I agree the list need not have any prominence, but it harms no one and nothing at the bottom of the Green Eggs and Ham page.

-- Kylara21 -- June 27, 2006.

I'd be in favor of merging them. I tried to make a common ground by showing part of this list here, but I definitly don't think that pop culture references needs its own article. I acknowledge that the list is very large. Maybe it could be turned into paragraph form? A paragraph for movie references, a paragraph for TV, etc.?
- Haon 04:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animated Version?

Does anyone know if there was an animated/cartoon version of the book made? I seem to remember seeing it on tv a long, long time ago, but I can't find any mention of it via Amazon or IMDB.

Thanks.

Just watched it on YouTube [1].--JK the unwise 11:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful, some of the releases have them as book-on-video, very low quality. And others release it with annoying Sing-Along captions. VERY annoying. This animation was part of a special called "Dr. Seuss On The Loose". It would have made a very nice television series. In-Correct (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content in Words

I re-inserted the following: "The tale is in the form of a s..."

I noticed that the fifth sentance read as follows: "Despite Seuss's success, it is unclear whether Cerf 

ever paid the beto-called "cumulative" story, with a list of

circumstances which gradually increases as the story progresses."

The 'beto-called' part caught my eye, and after tracking down the deleted original, thought it best to put them back.

-Coalhalo 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Greenegg.gif

Image:Greenegg.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have provided a fair use rationale. If there are any problems with it, I or another editor will correct them. Cumulus Clouds 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Greenegg.gif

Image:Greenegg.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I dealt with this. Again. See you in six months! -- Dominus (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green eggs AND green ham or just NORMAL ham?

I don't think that the book is clear on whether or not the eggs and ham in the storyline are both green, or if it is simply just the eggs, as the title states. According to the Illustrator's depiction, the ham also appears to be green, but is this a verifiable source? Some research needs to be done. 68.112.254.179 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Seuss is the illustrator. -Oreo Priest talk 20:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title states that ONLY the eggs are green?! Actually, the title could be read either way, that both the eggs and the ham are green. It would be the same thing if the story was called "Green Ham and Eggs". In-Correct (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character name is "Sam" or "Sam I Am?

I understood the second character's name to be Sam, not Sam I Am. The first board reads "I am Sam". Zipperdeedoodah (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the other character calls him Sam I Am. -Oreo Priest talk 05:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the book, the unnamed character calls the other Sam-I-Am. When Unnamed finally agrees to eat the food, he calls his "friend" Sam.

Also, under Adaptations and tributes, Unnamed is referred to as "the neighbor." Is there anything (in any of the versions) to suggest that the two characters are neighbors? Just1thing (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of words

With so much space dedicated to the 50 words it would be nice to know the total number of words. After all, a 50 word story will easily be 50 words or less. But if the story is 500 words in length it is more of an achievement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.93.109 (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolism

User:CPU9 added notes throughout the article stating emphasizing the book's symbolism. While it's an interesting theory, the topic of symbolism is highly subjective and interpretive, and has never (to my knowledge) been associated with Green Eggs and Ham (this in contrast to other literary works, such as see George Orwell's Animal Farm). If Dr. Seuss indeed intended to use heavy symbolism (unlikely for a youth-focused book, IMO), then I'd suggest discussing it in a new section and using reliable citations. I undid CPU9's edits, but his final version is here ( article - diff ) in case anyone wishes to extract these elements and put them in another section, where they belong. -Sme3 (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sam wand birthy to eat the egg and ham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.165.186 (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Font name needed

Hi. I'm wondering about the name of the font that has been used for the book's title. It appears that there is a font, since someone made a spoof image of the book title. Link: http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:hf-rQcmCm9x94M:http://i516.photobucket.com/albums/u326/kidcrow/what_the_fuck.jpg. I really need to know what this font is. Thank you for answering. --208.96.121.65 (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone must know that font name. Please, answer. Thanks.--208.96.121.65 (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am Sam Movie Reference

how about the movie "I am Sam"? This was the only thing Sam could read to his daughter Lucy. --208.96.121.65 (talk) 3:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzkaelzz (talk • contribs)

Nuwaubians don't like it

The article on Nuwaubianism contains a quote claiming that Sam, as mentioned in this book, is a manifestation of the demon Leviathan and that Dr. Seuss is related to Zeus. Of course these Nuwaubian theories are total baloney, but they are unintentionally funny. Should the Nuwaubian opinion of this book be mentioned in this article at all, perhaps in the Reception section? Stonemason89 (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if there is coverage in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree!! I think that Sam I Am is a demon!! and in real life, Sam I Am would be more than just arrested for harassing people to eat expired eggs and moldy ham (I have eaten both, and I do NOT recommend it) because he most likely cut off the train tracks, causing the train to derail and fly into the nuclear reactor of a boat. It is good to learn the lesson of to not judge a "book" (or food) by its cover, but also it is not good to teach kids to pester people that don't want to do something, and it is certainly not okay to cause train wrecks and sink ships. In-Correct (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

50 Words

Resolved

I have heard that Dr. Suess' publisher, RandomHouse, bet him that he couldn't write a good children's book with 50different words, and so he wrote Green Eggs and Ham. Did RandomHouse bet him or the other way around? Or is there any truth to this? I looked through the book, but I only counted 47 (there is always the chance I missed some).
-- <3 I Speak for the Trees <3 (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is already in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monosyllables

The 50 words are all monosyllables and that is also amazing. Why isn't that mentioned? N0w8st8s (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)n0w8st8s[reply]

Because we can't find a reliable source discussing that anywhere. "Anywhere". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny.....verry funny. Thanks for that. By the way, I didn't remember that word not being split...and I did go get the book to check it. Good call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0w8st8s (talk • contribs) 14:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like thee, Doctor Fell

Maybe this is similar. Maybe not. To include it, we need reliable sources discussing it. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We'd need strong support that this directly/indirectly influenced the book. Ckruschke (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

A Novel?

I have seen several times in the article where Green Eggs and Ham is called a novel. I don't think it's long enough to be called a novel. Can someone explain? DavidCChipman (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be. I guess I haven't seen this- although I haven't read the entire article. Ckruschke (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Ted Cruz Filibuster

I noticed someone previously edited the page to include the reading of the book on the United States Senate floor by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). I also notice that it was removed on the grounds it violated Wikipedia:Recentism, citing its "dubious long-term value." I would argue to the contrary. It's not every day that a Dr. Seuss book is read on the US Senate floor and it will likely be something for which Sen. Cruz is remembered many years from now. It was a noteworthy occurrence and I contend that the removal of its mention here may have been politically motivated, given the circumstances of the reading at the time. The user who removed the remark, Tktru has recently been called out for making non-neutral edits (see Tktru's talk page). For this reason, I intend to return the comment and its source to this page. If you disagree with my reasoning, please feel free to discuss. 72.64.113.145 (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Correction: the addition was originally made by Tktru, then removed by DKqwerty. However, my position that the removal may have been politically motivated does not change. In fact, after reviewing DKqwerty's page, I find even more evidence that the change may have been politically motivated. I still intend to replace the information in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.113.145 (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it deserves a place in this article, probably as part of one paragraph about the book's political impact near the end of the article, in the "Legacy" or "Influence" section, or whatever. In fact, I've got some more info, of other political incidents involving this book, to add to that paragraph. I'll add it pretty soon... Bobnorwal (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other person in Green Eggs and Ham is named "Daniel"???

I just reverted an insertion that named the protagonist in the book "Daniel". I've never heard this before and the ref is not an official source. Comments?

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Green_Eggs_and_Ham/Archive_1"