Talk:Horace and Pete

irish bar?

I'm gonna remove 'Irish' because I don't think it's accurate... Privatemusings (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever stated to be Irish in the dialogue, but the shamrocks on the opening titles imply it quite strongly. —Flax5 20:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Just living in NYC it's sort of typical that bars like this are Irish. And it is probably also pretty evocative of Boston, where C.K. is from, that these neighborhood joints would be Irish-flavored.... Not sure if it's a big deal, this detail, but I would say restore it if there is signage like this. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is that while the artists did not state it was an Irish bar they did imply it with the shamrocks on the sign. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to infer things for the reader. Since we have a picture of the sign as the main picture of the article then the shamrocks are there for people to see, they can make their own assumptions. We should not mention that it is an Irish bar unless it is directly supported by the show or a 3rd party source. HighInBC 21:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the name "Horace Wittel"

The name "Horace Wittel" seems rather distinctive, so I wondered what the story might be about how that name was chosen. I came accross a couple of sources that speculate that the name was chosen as an homage to Harris Wittels, a comedian who died a year ago at the age of 30. It's hard to believe that it is a coincidence, but we need sources for inclusion. There lies the problem. I am not sure if the sources I found are good enough to give us that. One of them[1] comes from a site I know nothing about in terms of reliability and the author there misspells the name of the actual person (calling him "Harris Wittel" not "Harris Wittels"), so that does not give me confidence. The second one[2] is better, as it comes from Emily Nussbaum, the TV critic for The New Yorker, but she makes the comment in a tweet, not an article, so again I am not sure that is good enough.

This seems like a case of something that has to be true and all we need to put in the article is that reliable sources have speculated about the name origin, but I am not sure the bar for inclusion has been passed. Any thoughts? 99.192.81.194 (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice work. I found some other mentions so am going to add them to the entry. I think the fact that he opened for Louis C.K. and is part of that small group of comedians means there's a direct connection. I mean, you could try emailing C.K. and asking, and maybe he will respond. But I'm finding enough to have it at least be mentioned. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Mr IP

Please stop taking swipes at me in your edit summaries. Thanks. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Browne,

          If you are talking about my comment that something you added was patronizing and sexist, I stand by that comment. I included the comment as an explanation of why the sentence should be deleted. You might not have intended to be patronizing and sexist when you wrote it, but that is what it was. Perhaps you might look again at what you wrote, my comment about how nothing similar was said about Pete (who has two women interested in him in the course of the series, so is doing twice as well as Sylvia), and consider that maybe my description of the sentence I deleted was, in fact, accurate after all.

Sincerely, 99.192 (Not "Mr. IP") 99.192.87.123 (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Bollocks to that too. I also noted that Horace was able to attract women despite being a sad middle aged loser (paraphrasing of course) and that Pete was a handsome teenager. Throwing comments like this in is only going to get people's backs up, and this isn't the only example of your sniping at me in edit summaries. Somehow your editing as an IP makes it worse. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's look at the difference between what you wrote about Horace and what you wrote about Sylvia. For Horace: "He is prone to bouts of depression, but nevertheless is quite successful at attracting women." Note that you do not try to offer a reason why he is able to attract women. You just report the fact that he does (which is true). You do not say anything like: "He is so good looking that despite being prone to bouts of depression, he nevertheless is quite successful at attracting women." But what about Sylvia? There you wrote: "A good-looking woman, she can still attract men even while undergoing chemotherapy." Presumably, the only reason to mention chemo as a reason she might be less successful attracting men is the hair loss and the effect on her attractiveness it might have, so basically what you say is "She is so good looking that even going bald from chemo does not get in the way of men being interested in her." Here, unlike with Horace, you do offer a reason for her ability to attract romantic interest, and you place it entirely on her appearance. Not "She has such a great sense of humour that..." or "Her personality is so attractive that..." No, you made it about her looks when nothing is said in the show to support this difference between Horace and Sylvia's ability to attract romantic interest. To arrive at that reason and not offer other reasons is a typical, patronizing and sexist assumption about why Carl might be interested in her. Like I said before, you might not have intended to be patronizing and sexist when you wrote it, but that is what it was.

As for describing Pete saying: "As a teenager he was handsome and athletic". You did not write that Sylvia was a good-looking teenager or anything about her appearance. But you seem to forget why that difference makes sense. What Sylvia looked like as a teenager isn't important to the characters or to the story. What Pete looked like is. It is commented several times in the series that he was a good looking kid, but the same is not said about her. This is because he is described as the kid who had everything going for him, including good looks, athletic ability, and a great kindness for others, making the tragedy of his mental illness all the greater. I don't assume that you said he is "handsome" as a teenager based on your own personal assessment of the kid they cast to play young Pete, but because the characters in the show say he was good looking and this actually is relevant to his character's story.

I agree that describing content that other editors add as patronizingly sexist can get the back up of the editor who wrote the content, but if that is in fact what the content is and that is in fact the reason it should be removed then there is no way around it. Removing the sentence with no reason offered is likely to annoy as well and could result in that removal being challenged, which means the reason for removing it would need to be discussed eventually. Leaving in content that is patronizingly sexist just to avoid hurting the feelings of the person who added it is not a serious option, so the issue cannot be avoided. Some people might react to the removal of this content and my explanation of it by thinking about it and saying, "Oh yeah. Good point. I hadn't thought about it that way." Others might respond with "How dare you!" And others might respond with "I don't think it was patronizingly sexist because..." and then offer a calm discussion of the issue without resorting to anger. Some might just roll their eyes and think "Whatever!" and decide the edit isn't worth arguing about. How you react to the edit and the comment is up to you. 99.192.71.172 (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Get a fucking account like everyone else and I'll talk to you. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

As I hope you know, Wikipedia does not require editors to use accounts. You can choose not to discuss issue with me if you like, but that probably won't help improve this or any other article. 99.192.71.172 (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Why won't you use an account? Are you a banned user or something? MaxBrowne (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do you need me to use an account? Perhaps it is better if you stick to discussing edits to the page than wildly speculating about the motives of other editors. Wikipedia's civility rules say that this is a good idea too. 99.192.71.172 (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that page. I've never seen it before. Well, you know what you can do with your superior attitude. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Episode summary length

When episode summaries are given in a table (as opposed to plot summaries on stand alone articles about a particular episode) they are supposed to be brief. In many cases these summaries will be no more than a single line each. Recently the summaries for episodes 1 and 2, which were essentially unchanged for some time, were doubled in length. My first instinct was to just to revert the additions so they were a more suitable length, but perhaps some of the added material is worth keeping and some of the previously added material should go instead. Either way, plot summaries in a table are not mean to be a blow-by-blow account of an entire episode, so both of these need to be cut in half. If someone else wants to take a stab at shortening them, please do so. I might do it myself in a couple of days if they are still this long. 99.192.80.251 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and trash my hard work Mr IP, it's all you ever do on this page anyway. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Shortening overly long summaries is not "trashing". It is improving. You seem to want this to be your own personal page where everything is exactly as you want it, even if it goes against Wikipedia policies and common practices. You should read WP:OWN and then take a nap. 99.192.80.251 (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, I will go ahead and do it myself. By the way the justification for using the word "extravert" is WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:BLUE. She's a fictional character for fuck's sake. Go take a nap yourself you patronising jerk. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently the result of the discussion is now the complete removal of the, although somewhat lengthy, but otherwise accurate and informative episode summaries. I find this a poor solution to the raised lengthiness issue. The work done by user MaxBrowne should have been held in place after which they should be incrementally improved by shortening them. Myself, I re-read summaries after seeing an episode and found the existing ones highly useful. And now they're gone. That can't possibly be an improvement for anybody. --Pokerface (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Pokerface, I agree with you but Max blanked all the summaries. I reverted his nonconstructive deletion and so they are back. If you want to take a crack at shortening them, especially the first two, that would be appreciated. If not I probably will take a look at them tomorrow myself. 99.192.80.251 (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I have removed most of the incidental, vignette type scenes. Instead I made reference to these in the Synopsis section. The summary for episode 1 is still longer than most but this is as it should be. The episode itself is over an hour long and contains a lot of exposition and several important plot elements. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The length looks good now. I agree with the first one being a bit longer than the others for the reasons you give. The episode 10 summary has always looked too long to me, but I found it very hard to see what could be removed without diminishing it. I just took out three phrases which I think are non-essential. Two are about parallels to other episodes, so not strictly about episode 10. The third one was a location reference. The important thing about the Ricardo scene is what he says, not where he says it, so I thought it could go. But I can't see how to cut any more without losing content I think worth keeping, so I'll leave it at that. 99.192.71.172 (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

"...many of the best-remembered scenes were..." and "...featured a memorable debate..."

What is memorable or best-remembered is an assessment of a typical audience reaction, and thus is something that really either should have a source cited making the claim or should be reworded so as not to appear to be original research. If a source is not available for these phrases I recommend this change:

"While there was an overarching narrative concerning the relationships between the members of the family and the future of the bar, many of the best-remembered scenes were stand-alone vignettes"

...be changed to...

"While there was an overarching narrative concerning the relationships between the members of the family and the future of the bar, there were many scenes that were stand-alone vignettes"

...and this...

"Episode 1, for example, featured a memorable debate on liberalism and conservatism"

...be changed to...

"Episode 1, for example, featured a debate on liberalism and conservatism"

I left the section as it was just in case there are sources that can be found to back up these assesments or in case someone else has a better idea about rewording. 99.192.71.172 (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

WTF interview as a source

No doubt it's the original source of the information, but it's nearly 2 hours long and it would be difficult for most readers to verify it without a transcript. Maybe include secondary text sources such as Hollywood Reporter as a kind of backup? MaxBrowne (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I see no harm from having two sources cited. It also is insurance against one of them being taken offline or, as happens eventually with WTF podcasts, them being moved behind a paywall making them harder to access. 99.192.71.172 (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

As long as there's a supporting consensus I'm happy to have restored this citation to the HReporter article about the WTF Podcast. I usually get yelled at for having too many citations so this is no problem for me! Reverted. Thanks all! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, in general most editors don't like "over-sourcing" content that is not controversial, but this seems like a good case to make an exception for. I have found in the past on other article some editors reluctant to accept audio as a source in the first place, so the HR source as backup helps with that too. 99.192.71.172 (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Unpleasant experience

I was really excited and happy to contribute to making this entry well-sourced and content rich. But the recent unpleasant and nasty editing has become unbearable. It's not even as if either of you is improving the content on the page in any substantive way. It's actually just pathetic.
I think the two of you specifically need to stop editing this page and walk away until you can learn how to be more congenial and work cooperatively. It's definitely not working now. For anyone. And does the show and C.K. a HUGE disservice.
I reverted the edit to the lede because the dramatic tragedy category is actually verbatim what C.K. said. But I recognize that this is just going to devolve and become another freaking unpleasant Wikipedia editing experience.™ So I am going to walk away here and try to be a better person.
Maybe think about your behavior and think twice next time, eh? Thanks for nothing boys. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Right, all I did was create a large amount of content, but anyway... For the lead, an analogy would be a band with an unusual musical style describing themselves as "power groove country-metal". OK, we could include the band's self-description in the lead, but "power groove country-metal" is not a recognized musical genre (yet) so saying "The Electric Underpants are a Lithuanian power groove country-metal band." in the very first sentence would confuse people. Preferable would be "The Electric Underpants are a Lithuanian rock band. They describe their style as 'power groove country-metal'." And Horace and Pete is a "power groove country-metal" kind of show that doesn't neatly fit into established genres. That's my thinking behind the change to the lead anyway. Thanks for your work. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you and the other one should examine your editing behavior and really think about if it creates a negative impact on others wanting to contribute to the content of the page. It's just sort of basic good will that I for one am asking for. That and adding cited content, which is not what either of you is actually doing. Whatever. I will check in on the page periodically but you both have pretty much driven me off a page I know I have worked on contributing significantly to -- so that's the outcome of the behavior here. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I notice that in the couple of days since you left here you went and started an edit war with another editor on another page and then lectured him about examining his own behaviour. I also notice that you did not complain about either Max or me until after I disagreed with your removal of a large chunk of text Max had added (and I later restored) and then you and Max disagreed about other edits. You, Max and I are the three people who have done the most editing of this page, so when you say "It's not even as if either of you is improving the content on the page in any substantive way" and that you "have worked on contributing significantly" to the page, it sounds like you are saying that you are the only one who is. None of this is constructive behaviour. 99.192.65.177 (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, you need not worry about me. I'm more or less done with this article - might make the odd copyedit, but won't interact with the IP. I'm certainly not going to go all ad hominem (ad feminam?) on you and bring up unrelated disputes, or otherwise antagonize you. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Max, you're not going to get far with Erika by calling comments ad hominem attacks. When she was reported for violating 3RR (which she did violate) she responded by attacking the person who reported her by bringing up completely different issues he was involved in in 2006 - ten years ago. So her recent conduct is a paradigm case of engaging in ad hominem. Here, however, the very subject was the behaviour of editors and two days ago she wrote "I am going to walk away here and try to be a better person." That she walked from here right to another page where she broke Wikipedia rules and lectured another editor to examine their own behaviour (exactly as she did here) and then came back here to lecture us again is precisely relevant to this discussion, and thus not ad hominem at all. It seems you both react quite badly to other editors disagreeing with your edits. More calm conversation when there is disagreement and less anger (and rule violations - like blanking large sections of the article) will make editing more productive. 99.192.94.173 (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You need to learn when to dial it down and stop antagonizing people, even when you think you're right. Especially when you think you're right. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

When Erika first started this thread, you will notice I did not reply at all. She was angry, but she said she was leaving and wanted to move on from this, so I thought ok. No response is the best response. You thought otherwise, feeling the need to defend your contribution to the page. I saw your response and again thought that no response from me is the best response, so I again did not reply at all. It was only after she came back a mere 2 days later to edit the page again and continue to be hostile here that I decided to respond. If she wants to criticize the behaviour of others, then perhaps she should consider more reflectively her own behaviour.

As for you, Max. When You wrote in edit summaries addressed to me the following: "Fuck you" and "Neither is this so fuck you again". I did not respond in kind. In fact, I even said "please". And above on this page when you commented "Well, you know what you can do with your superior attitude" I did not reply at all. So you see, I do try to let you simmer down when you get very riled up. But you also keep saying you won't talk to me anymore and then you keep talking to me in insulting ways like this, so it is fair to respond to this hostility even if only occasionally. Even your edit summary for this most recent contribution ("put a cork in it") is not civil behaviour on your part. If someone needs to dial it down right now, it looks like that might be you.

What happens next is entirely up to you. If you just don't reply, it all ends now. If you persist, I might reply again and the discussion will continue. If you want it to continue and can be civil, then that's ok. But my advice would be to not reply to me here at all. Just let the conversation end right here, right ... now. 99.192.94.173 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Take your superior attitude and fuck off. MaxBrowne (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The Garry Shandling quotation

Episode 9 ends with a quotation from Garry Shandling on screen. During his interview with Charlie Rose (April 25, 2016, archived on Charlie Rose's website) Louis CK tells Rose that those lines were written by Shandling in an email he sent CK just a couple of weeks before Shandling died. It seems too trivial a fact to include on the article page, but I note it here just in case someone else thinks there is a non-trivial way of including it and it adds to the page. 99.192.65.57 (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Episode 10 writing credits

Well this is odd. Yesterday editor 173.32.100.67 added a "story by" credit for episode 10 to Vernon Chatman. I checked the episode credits (I watched the credits all the way to the Pig Newton logo) and did not see any story credit for him, so I reverted the change. Now editor Drovethrughosts says the credit is there and that s/he checked it after the edit was made. So I went back and checked my copy again and, as before, saw no story credit for Chatman. Louis C.K. is the only one credited for writing it on my copy.

I paid for and downloaded the episode the morning that it was first made available. Is it possible that Louis C.K. changed the credits so that people who got it later get different ones? This is very odd. I don't know what to make of it. 99.192.78.222 (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This is very odd. I ended up checking two different copies of the episode, and one version has "Written and directed by Louis C.K.", while the other one has teleplay/story credits with credit to C.K. and Chatman. I don't know what to say. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, unless there is some reason to think that someone other than Louis C.K. was monkeying with the credits (and I can't imagine why anyone would do that for this sort of change) the best guess is that both versions are official releases. Since I know mine comes from within a couple of hours of the episode being made available and came from his website directly, it would seem the "story by" credit was added later. It also makes more sense to think that C.K. forgot to add a "story by" credit or only later realized one was deserved and so added it later rather than it being given and then him later deciding to take it back. So I would say that it's probably a legitimate credit and so should stay on the page. Maybe the flashback to 1976 was suggested by Chatman.

Incidentally, I know from one interview Louis C.K. did that the conversation Horace has with Rhonda about whether or not she is transgender came at least in part from a conversation he had with Vernon Chatman. (Chatman took the position that she would have an obligation to tell a guy she was dating if she was transgender and Louis thought that was interesting so wrote it in.) So it would seem that Chatman had something to do with at least some of the story content. Personally, I would have given Amy Sedaris a writing credit given that her character's entire dialogue was improvised on the spot by Sedaris, but C.K. has been clear to give her full credit in interviews so it's not like he hasn't acknowledged it. 99.192.69.202 (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC) (=99.192.78.222)

Maybe we should add a note specifying that Chapman is uncredited in some (earlier?) copies. That seems the only way to avoid confusing people. (Not that a huge number of viewers are going to consciously compare the credits in the show and the article, but it does kind of stand out.) —Flax5 19:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I ended up emailing the support team on Louis C.K.'s official website, and they got back to me saying the story/teleplay credits are correct, as the initial release of the episode had the incorrect credits. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Does that make my copy a "collector's item"? Probably not :-) 99.192.85.50 (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC) (=99.192.78.222)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horace and Pete. 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/20160131093700/http://gothamist.com/2016/01/30/louis_ck_releases_surprise_new_web.php to http://gothamist.com/2016/01/30/louis_ck_releases_surprise_new_web.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horace and Pete. 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/20150514084258/http://www.laughspin.com/2008/10/01/louis-ckcomedy-legend-in-the-making/ to http://www.laughspin.com/2008/10/01/louis-ckcomedy-legend-in-the-making/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Comedy?

Can someone explain what is comedic about this show? The first line of the lead says Louis C. K. described it as a tragedy, which seems apt, though "drama" would work, too. I didn't see anything comedic about it, either in subject matter or delivery, other than maybe a very occasional bit of ironic dialogue in 10 episodes. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 13:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)