Talk:Doc McStuffins
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Material from Doc McStuffins was split out into List of Doc McStuffins episodes on 00:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
About The New Girl
The Kiko Doll Seen Has The Same Voice As The 1974 Talking Kiko Doll By Mattel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.2.193 (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow!
This show has SOOOOOOOOOOOOO MANY voice actors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.241.84 (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Dr. McStuffins
Why was the edit to change Dr. McStuffins name from Maisha to Myiesha reversed? Chris Nee, the creator of the show, named Doc McStuffins's mother as a tribute to real life physician Myeisha Taylor. This has been stated in interviews and on Dr. Taylor's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B103:B0B3:505E:ADE4:9EE:7058 (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- My guess is because a source may not have been provided at the time to support the change. For example: did you link to this intervjew? Or the place on the website this was claimed? Also: who cares if it's on Dr. Taylor's website? Dr. Phil could claim the Rugrats character was named after him on his site, wouldn't matter. 64.228.91.102 (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Dottie sourcing
The time magazine quote only serves as evidence that some people believe the character's name is Dottie, not that it actually is.
http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/?oldid=533047 shows that whoever created the Disney wikia page for Doc on 27 January 2013 had included this information, I suppose that means if it was revealed in an episode, it was an episode that aired prior to that date. Backtracing further to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=496173170 the former character list page included "Dottie" on its creation 5 June 2012. Going even further to 5 April 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&oldid=485414932 we can see Dottie has been present since the article's creation by User:Brandon J. Marcellus, so they seem like the person to go to, having introduced the info, to see it sourced.
@Brandon J. Marcellus: Keep in mind folks that April 5, only the first 11 episodes had aired. So if Doc is named Dottie, it must be in these first 11 or some other material that existed at the time, if that narrows down the search.
The author of the Time article could easily have called her Dottie due to reading the Wikia project or the Wikipedia article itself. Her doing so in 2014 is not evidence at all of the character's actual name, only mainstream thought accepting the idea that it is.
Let's not make this mistake folks: http://xkcd.com/978/ we must find a more reliable source. 64.228.91.102 (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- 64.228.91.102 I'm confused. Why exactly are we scrutinizing the reliable sources? Because you are speculating that the Time magazine writer may have gotten the info from Wikia? Time is a publication that has a reputation for fact-checking. It is entirely likely that they received a press release first, or even a show bible that provided this information. I mean...so long as we're going to speculate. I don't think that the weird weasel-wording "thought by some to be named Dottie" is warranted if reliable sources call her that. Here's an MSNBC article from October 2013 that calls her Dottie. Here's a 2015 Disney Insider blog post that refers to her as Dottie. Note that this is a Disney.com address. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Those are interesting and I will add them to the page as well, as they support the idea that multiple people think this is her name, but seeing as how they all were published after the Wikipedia article creator said she was Dottie, we still encounter the Xkcd Citogenesis dilemma. It seems more like speculation that Time got this info from a bible until we see the bible itself. Wikipedia is very accessible and we know of that existing then and not of a bible existing then. 64.228.91.102 (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is a manufactured dilemma. As I've already noted, there is a presumption that fact-checking takes place when we use a source that is generally considered reliable. Both Time magazine and MSNBC are considered reliable sources. The date these articles were written is immaterial. There's no justification for the weasel-wording that strongly suggests the information isn't factual, and the phrasing should be removed. It also strikes me as original research, because it implies that you, personally, don't agree with what the sources say, not that there is a dispute among official sources about the character's name. If you have compelling evidence (beyond circumstantial speculation) that suggests this was not intended to be the character's name, please, let's hear it. The XKCD cartoon is cute, but the same "citogenesis" fear could be applied to any and all of the millions of articles here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Those are interesting and I will add them to the page as well, as they support the idea that multiple people think this is her name, but seeing as how they all were published after the Wikipedia article creator said she was Dottie, we still encounter the Xkcd Citogenesis dilemma. It seems more like speculation that Time got this info from a bible until we see the bible itself. Wikipedia is very accessible and we know of that existing then and not of a bible existing then. 64.228.91.102 (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
If a character is not called something in the show's dialogue, credits or merchandise, we should make a not that it has only appeared in articles written on the internet by people not known to be involved in the show's creation. I've shown that the earliest known reference to her being called Dottie is this article's creation, and that's a problem. MSNBC and Time having generally reliable reputations does not make them immune to hiring a reporter who might use Wikipedia to beef up an article on a children's TV series. This is hardly a reputation-ruining area where people are going to boycott the magazine over if they slip up or cut corners. We cannot reasonably assume the same level of attention to detail in something of this kind of subject matter that we might with say, politics or science.
If Chris Nee himself had called her Dottie in this 2013 interview, I'd consider it settled (though still want an earlier source, since this article clearly did not generate the name on Wikipedia) but he doesn't, this comes from the introduction from Lorena Ruiz, who put together a blurb before putting forth her dialogue with Nee, where Dottie is not used at all (she calls her Doc, as does Nee).
If we can find an earlier primary source, I will consider the reliability of MSNBC/Time reinforced. If we cannot, then until we know otherwise, it appears they based it on Wikipedia and nothing else. If they have another source, they are free to cite it. Until they do, we have no reason to assume it exists.
I'm for some assumption of good faith, which is why I fact-tagged instead of removing. I haven't seen all of the first 11 episodes so perhaps "Dottie" is used in one. If so, we should cite the episode and the time/dialogue it is used in. 64.228.91.102 (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Again, your personal opinion about what the reporters may have done is irrelevant and unfounded and certainly does not warrant any disclaimer. We go by what sources say, we don't manufacture and present doubt in the article simply because you speculate that reporters took shortcuts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- "It is entirely likely that they received a press release first, or even a show bible that provided this information."
- "your personal opinion about what the reporters may have done is irrelevant and unfounded"
Does this apply both ways? I am being neutral and describing the facts as we know them. Secondary sources are used to interpret information, not create it. We still lack primary evidence that Dottie is her name on this article. There is no reason to say this for sure until it appears officially. Otherwise we simply report the claim this is her name in a neutral manner. 64.228.91.102 (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
(ec)The DVD cover introduced the character as "Doc" McStuffins
indicating that "Doc" is the nickname but also the common name used by the character. What it is a nickname for is unimportant trivia, not mentioned in episodes aired or on any official site. Also not important for understanding the character. Mentioning it in the article parenthetically and factually stating it was revealed in a news source without making any editor evaluation of doubt or trust of that news source seems appropriate to me. I too have strong reservations based on the timing of the news info and the lack of some primary source to back it up. Stating plainly "indicated by news sites to be named Dottie
" without any qualification of indications of doubt seems the most appropriate to me. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Pretty much agree, save "revealed", also it's possible that this was either mentioned or displayed in an episode which those of us discussing this has not seen (or has not noticed the detail in). It is difficult to prove a negative, but the burden is on claimants. This is why I reached out to the article creator asking where they got the information.
- Possibly worth highlighting: http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/?oldid=284113 shows 14 April 2012 (9 days after the Wikipedia article was created) that a Disney Wikia editor also wrote Dottie. This may have been based on the Wikipedia claim or originated independently, but it is someone else to contact. Will reach out. 64.228.91.102 (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'll yield per Geraldo's notes. I do not, however, feel that the parenthetical
Nee confirmed Doc is African-American
is useful. The reference alone should suffice and parentheticals are overused in articles anyway. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)- I don't oppose rephrasing there, just so long as it's clear the creator agrees with the idea of her being AfAm, this is more notable than her receiving rewards for it since that's outside sources calling her that. The only thing better I could hope for is in-show dialogue of the phrase "African American" being used. I'll keep my ears open but can't hold my hopes too high. If anyone knows an episode where that happens, please share. Sounds more like out-of-universe canon-via- word-of-god (example: orientation of Dumbledore) rather than something indicated in-universe by dialogue, until we get that, the in-universe data seems to rely on generalizations associated with physical appearance or voice tone. 64.228.91.102 (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'd stay away from anything that says "confirmed" and just say the show's creator "stated" and let the reader make their own evaluations. "confirmed" indicated that there was doubt that has now been officially removed. "stated" is just an assertion by the show creator of his intent. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I prefer stated too, although for different reasons :) Curious what the earliest reference we can find of Nee calling her AfAm is, is this earliest? Like what if he had been ambiguous about it until then and made up the dialogue? The interview was October 2013 while the pilot aired March 2012, so that's at least 18 months (more reasonably going to be 2+ years when you think of dev time) between a preliminary talk about Doc's ethnicity and him remembering what words were said in the interview. He's bound to be paraphrasing based on memory to some degree, unless he recorded the discussion or something. This is why finding earlier Af-Am related statements would be useful. Like for example to be PC, he might've changed a producer saying "black" to AfAm for image purposes. 64.228.91.102 (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'd stay away from anything that says "confirmed" and just say the show's creator "stated" and let the reader make their own evaluations. "confirmed" indicated that there was doubt that has now been officially removed. "stated" is just an assertion by the show creator of his intent. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't oppose rephrasing there, just so long as it's clear the creator agrees with the idea of her being AfAm, this is more notable than her receiving rewards for it since that's outside sources calling her that. The only thing better I could hope for is in-show dialogue of the phrase "African American" being used. I'll keep my ears open but can't hold my hopes too high. If anyone knows an episode where that happens, please share. Sounds more like out-of-universe canon-via- word-of-god (example: orientation of Dumbledore) rather than something indicated in-universe by dialogue, until we get that, the in-universe data seems to rely on generalizations associated with physical appearance or voice tone. 64.228.91.102 (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)




