Talk:Gregory House

Template:WikiProject House

Sex Fiend

I'm trying to say that house is a sex fiend but I can;t find the proper language for it. He's addicted to porn. He is always oogling beautiful women. He sees hookers. He flirted with an underage patient. He put Carmen Elektra in a story because she is hot. IT'S A CHARACTERISTIC... just like the vicoden addiction. it's not original research. It's all in the show. Somebody help put it in the right language because people ( who either apparentl;y don;t want this article to be thorough or they have no eye for subtext) keep removing it.--Dr who1975 05:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

They do want the article to be thorough, and they have an eye for subtext (or at least, they might). The problem is that subtext is inadmissible until it has been interpreted by some other source, which you should then cite. For instance, if a TV Guide article says that House is a sex fiend, then you can cite the article, and say that one reviewer has called House a sex fiend. Otherwise, it is your particular interpretation of the show's events. That's what's meant by Original Research.

Similarly, it is clear that House is considered a medical genius by most of the characters in the show, but until he is called that by some other source in the real world, calling him that in the article is also Original Research (as well as somewhat Point of View). Conceivably, House episodes could be cited for specific events depicted in them, but not for your interpretation of those events. In that case, you could cite "Three Stories" for a claim that House's leg problem was caused by an infarction, but not for a claim that he is still bitter at Stacy for the operation she OK'd while he was in a coma.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't call House a sex fiend. It's probable that he's not a romantic, that he's not above self-gratification, that he likes ogling (not oogling) hot girls, but it's a long haul from there to sex fiend. For one thing, it never appears to interfere with his work. (Even his Vicodin dependency—not really an addiction per se—does not noticeably interfere with his work, except when people try to restrict his access to Vicodin.) For another, he's far more likely to obsess about a medical problem than about sex, which House sees (at least as far as other people are concerned) as a way to gross people out. (See, for instance, "Airborne" and his $120 charge on "video services".) You might disagree—but that's the point: There's room for disagreement. Whereas if TV Guide says it, you can disagree with TV Guide, but you can't disagree that TV Guide says it. That verifiability/falsifiability is a main purpose of the Original Research proscription.

Incidentally, in "Clueless", House calls the patient a sex fiend, but it's far from clear that he's serious or accurate there, either. It's important to consider the context of any characterization. BrianTung 19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of - "He is often portrayed as being obsessed with sex, possibly to preempt others questioning his lonely life." (you can probably phrase that better). This would be my take on him. Knowing how hard it is for him to open up and have a real sexual relationship, he makes a running gag out of it as an emotional defense. (User: menme) (sorry, no log-in here, that was me on the He left Stacy? comment too) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.52.171.29 (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In the episode Ugly, House reveals a worry that his ogling is affecting his work. This starts when Dr. Terzi repeatedly makes stupid comments during diagnosis meetings. This also includes a scene where House shows Wilson video footage of the meetings, causing Wilson to laugh, and point out that her nipples are visible through her clothes. IIRC, he lets a similarly stupid comment from Thirteen slide (which Wilson also mocks him for), and Wilson comments that he has a habit of hiring pretty women, making them slave over him, and then firing them to ask them out on dates. At the end of the episode, House fires Terzi, explaining that he had prejudged her before and given her unfair treatment. Immediately after, he asks her to dinner (of course being rejected). TV Guide coverage of the episode. --64.180.207.196 07:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

However, this is not proof that he is a sex fiend, as he didn't hire Dr. Terzi strictly on how she looks, and asked for dinner, not sex. Further more, in the episode "Games" he doesn't hire for looks, but skill, as he hires the two men, and puts Amber at the bottom, even though Amber shows more throughout the series, and arguably would work better in the long run if thirteen has Huntington's Chorea. This makes the idea that he's a sex fiend seem more of a running gag than a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.18.129 (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Parallels with Sherlock Holmes

- Series creator David Shore has said that House's character is partly inspired by Sherlock Holmes. The name "House" is a play on "Holmes" (with English pronunciation, a homophone for "homes"). --Dr who1975 03:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Why was the Sherlock Holmes Connection section removed?

70.75.46.80 (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Their are other hints, like Houses Secret Santa gift... Which got deleted from the page when I noted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.46.80 (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In the latest episode "Joy to the World" Wilson tells a story to Taub and Kutner about Irene Adler being "the one that got away". He then tells them he is kidding but I think the story and the fact that it is about an Irene Adler is definately a Holmes parallel that should be added. 98.112.54.21 (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)HJ

"Gay subtext"

Katie Jacobs says the gay references to House and Wilson are intentional. Should I add it to the article? See [1] in which she says "What I love is that the audience feels, and I feel, that there’s potential for House and Cameron. I think there’s potential for House and Cuddy. There have been a lot of gay references to House and Wilson. [laughs] And I think we’re going to play with all of that." mirageinred 13:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think its worth a mention as long as its objective. BethEnd 05:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor clarification

On this edit, I meant to say that although there is a "gay subtext," House's "I love you" to Wilson could have been said in a different context. mirageinred 15:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Atheism?

I'm not really a huge fan of the show but in many of the episodes that I have seen, House is portrayed as an outspoken atheist. His beliefs are even the premise for a few episodes. Should this be added to the article? 72.79.98.201 01:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes. Either I must have deleted it while I was trying to condense the article or it wasn't mentioned. Please add a source if you can. If you can't it's okay, because there are plenty of episodes that mention his atheism. mirageinred 03:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so he's an atheist? In that case, he probably shouldn't be listed under both Fictional Atheists and Fictional Agnostics. It's very difficult to be both at the same time, right? Clevomon 11:54 EST, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That was the previous concensus. Some users disputed that he was an atheist so both categories were used. I guess you can remove the agnostics category if you want to. I personally don't agree with both categories being on one page because they're contradictory. mirageinred 04:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that in light of the knife-in-socket episode, this needs to be discussed again. I would say that this leans him more towards the agnostic, as he's willing to risk his life to see whether there's something on the other side. If he were an atheist, would the biological explanation which he gave to the patient not have sufficed? Also, House has never denied the possibility of a god, only mocked those who believe in a personal one, and more often than not just to get a rise out of them.

I think the current text:

He is a staunch atheist and openly mocks colleagues or patients who express any level of belief in any aspect of religion.

is bad for a number of reasons. Firstly, we really don't have enough solid evidence to back the claim that he is a 'staunch atheist'. Secondly, house openly mocks most people, for any reason or none. He mocks plenty of people because of their race and sex, should we also say that he is racist and sexist? To state that House is an atheist is purely speculative, laden with agenda, and as such wholly un-encyclopedic. I suggest we remove the line in its entirety, it already sticks out as the un-sourced line in an otherwise well sourced article.--62.31.76.158 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Prior to this past season, I would have agreed with you. I personally felt that the evidence wasn't conclusive that he was an athiest as compared to agnostic, but I think this past season (including the episode you cite) clearly shows that he is an athiestic not agnostic. He does the experiment not because he agnostic, but rather because he wants to be proven wrong or to determine the truth---"What did he really see?"Balloonman (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't this answered in [Three Stories] when Cameron asks him, "You find it more comforting to believe that this is it," he replies, "I find it more comforting to believe that this isn't simply a test." That is a statement of belief against an afterlife. While not a complete statement of atheism it certainly does rule out belief in most religions. Furthermore (directing this at Mr. IP) while House openly mocks most people for mostly any reason. When he does he does have a reason. Not once, in my memory of the show, has he mocked anyone for their atheistic beliefs. Theist, yes. Atheist, no. To me it sounds like Mr. IP wants it removed because he is "laden with agenda". -- Greyed (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the word "staunch" can be removed, but it's clear that he is an atheist. миражinred (speak, my child...) 20:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey fellas, been a while since I looked at this discussion, I won't repeat my thoughts here you can look in the archive if your intrested but I would like to bring up what somone else sourced in the previous discussions.

This link: http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2006/12/15/01 has a interview with one of the producers of the show that states him as an atheist. Quote by David Shore: "Atheists, to me, fall in the same category, to some extent, as lawyers, in the sense that people hate them, in general but like their own. They know House. They like House. They don't care he's an atheist – I don't think." Hope this refresher helps. TheSittingDuck (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

An interview on the subject helps immensely - I would agree this uncategorically supports the notion (although it seems that this is now a misnomer) that the character is an atheist. Wisdom89 (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching Season 4, Episode 7, and Wilson claims that House is a practicing Wiccan. I also heard House mention it in a previous episode (but I didn't make a note of it.) However, the belief system of Wicca seems a bit incongruent with House to me. I guess if the producers say that he's an Atheist, then it should stay in the article, but perhaps it should be noted that there is some question about whether or not that is accurate. 87.209.13.176 (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't take that too seriously. Wilson was just screwing with House in my view. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

He's certainly an atheist, but why does the article say he's a nihilist? I don't see much evidence of that. MazeMaster (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

His atheism basically stems out of his nihilism. I can't think of a good example off of the top of my head, but it has come up many, many times, especially whenever he talk to or gets psychoanalyzed by Wilson. (There's probably some good quotable quotes about House's nihilism during 2nd season episodes.) Trust me, watch enough House and it becomes obvious. --Hnsampat (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, it was me who added the nihilist bit to the article. I myself have the same problem as Hnsampat: I know there are some good quotes for it, but I just can't remember the whats and whens of them. Next time I have a House marathon I will have to make some notes or something of the episodes. It would proved doubly useful, because then it would be easier to find reviews of the episodes that are likely to contain interesting opinions on the character(s). Back onto nihilism, I explicitly remember Wilson saying House has a nihilist attitude (not sure if he was talking to House or to another doctor), so if anyone can find that quote it would be great. Deamon138 (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've watched every episode multiple times, and read a fair bit of "nihilist literature," whatever that is, and I would conclude that House leans more towards existentialism than classic nihilism. It is implied continually, and often stated and admitted by House himself that the meaning for his life is to "solve the puzzle," what Wilson dubs the "Rubik's Complex." I don't think you'd catch any self-respecting nihilist claiming their life has meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. You'd catch an existentialist claiming that their life has meaning they've created, meaning different to most people though. Methulah (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

But House doesn't claim there is meaning to his life, or life in general, in fact it is fairly obvious that he thinks that life has no meaning, and chooses to believe that life "isn't just a test" (One Day, One Room). His thing about trying to solve the puzzle is an addiction of his, not something that gives him meaning. A nihilist can still do important things without them having to mean anything, else why would Nietzsche have written all those books? Deamon138 (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, it's inconsistent. This is really to do with there being a number of different writers, each bringing their own interpretation of House to the table. Sure, House readily hurls abuse at any religious adherent, but being irreligious doesn't make you an atheist. Also, look at this quote:

"You took a chance, you did something great. You were wrong, but it was still great. You should feel great that it was great. You should feel like crap that it was wrong. That’s the difference between him and me. He thinks you do your job, and what will be, will be. I think that what I do and what you do matters. He sleeps better at night. He shouldn’t."

There is no atheistic precedent for that standpoint. If you're an atheist and only believe in the natural world, you're tied to the idea of Laplace's Demon (with a little quantum randomness thrown in if you like), and the other doctor (sorry, I forget his name) has got it right, whatever will be WILL be. So if he is an atheist, he's not a very good one (not a very good nihilist either for that matter). Also, it's worth noting that if he were a real person, he wouldn't make the list of atheists here on wikipedia, having never stated this position himself. I think all we can say for sure is that he doesn't believe in an interventionist god, but that doesn't make him an atheist.--86.128.33.162 (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how being an atheist necessarily "ties" one to Laplace's demon or any other philosphical notion. If one doesn't believe that a supreme deity of some sort exists, then one is an atheist, pure and simple. But, regardless of that, instead of arguing over the metaphysics of atheism, nihilism, etc., here, can't we just come up with some compromise language? Like, what if we say that, "House is critical and skeptical of religion"? --Hnsampat (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, if one takes a materialist standpoint (as any rational atheist would have to), one has to accept that consciousness is simply the result of a complex system of chemical reactions. Given enough knowledge of the system, a third party could hypothetically predict how a person will react in any given situation. As such, we are simply going through the motions, and however much we might agonise over a decision, we always end up doing what we would have always done in the first place. So whatever will be will be, and ultimately nothing we do matters, and for House to suggest otherwise is illogical.

So yeah, switch it to something like "House is critical and skeptical of religion", although I don't think that's strong enough. Maybe "House is highly derogatory of anyone expressing religious belief" or something similar. --86.128.33.162 (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Deamon138, Nietzsche was by no means a nihilist, and in any case, I did not suggest that a subscription to a nihilistic worldview restricts one from any particular endeavor, just they, by definition, not find meaning in that endeavor, which is completely and utterly at odds with the show's suggestion that House does indeed find meaning in "solving the puzzle." As for atheism, I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of atheists would believe in free will. That's not to say I personally find that reasonable, just that it is indeed widely held. I'm certain that House is intended to be an atheist. His creators have themselves stated it, and even if they were unaware of some the potential philisophical standpoints of the character, I'm fairly certain he'd be categorised as an atheist by most, and that he believes in free will and its implications should not restrict us from classifying him as such. 'House is an atheist, and is often critical of religion or openly abusive towards those who hold religious beliefs.'Methulah (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I would sooner err on the side of caution than insult his intelligence. And ultimately we have to trust the tale rather than the teller.--86.128.33.162 (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

First to the IP, I want to say that there can be no argument that House is an atheist. Atheism is ipso facto, a belief in no God. House doesn't believe in one, it is obvious from watching the show, and sources agree. There is nothing further that can be explicitly worked out about a person if you know they are an atheist. Atheists can take meaning from life, and they can't. It is up to the individual atheist.

All that is obvious from watching the show is that House doesn't believe in an interventionist god. He remains one of the few characters on the show who hasn't stated their position of belief. However the creators intended the character to be, the character has since been developed by any number of writers. --86.128.33.162 (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"if one takes a materialist standpoint (as any rational atheist would have to)" An immaterialist standpoint is completely compatable with a belief in no God.

I don't see how any thinking atheist can believe in the supernatural, yet deny the possibility of any sort of god. As such, I think it's an insult to House's intelligence to call him an atheist. --86.128.33.162 (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Given enough knowledge of the system, a third party could hypothetically predict how a person will react in any given situation." Only if determinism holds. Determinism doesn't hold in most interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, although there are some interpretations that keep determinism (as someone about to study Physics at uni from October, I hope determinism does stick around!).

I touched on the Quantum argument in my first post, but ultimately it's irrelevant, as randomness is no sort of free will either. --86.128.33.162 (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"So whatever will be will be, and ultimately nothing we do matters, and for House to suggest otherwise is illogical." It might be your personal view that House's beliefs are illogical, but since the sources say otherwise, that would be original research on your part.

It's not my personal belief, it's evident to anyone capable of reason, yourself included clearly, given your response to Methulah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.33.162 (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To Methulah:

"Nietzsche was by no means a nihilist" Well yes it's true that Nietzsche is a lot more complicated than just "Nietzsche is a nihilist", but he is very much intimately linked to nihilism, and certainly modern nihilism is based on a lot of his views.

"House does indeed find meaning in "solving the puzzle." But no-one has ever suggested that House gets meaning from solving the puzzle, only that he likes solving them. Liking something and getting meaning from something are no the same thing. In fact, his liking is pretty damn strong i.e. kind of like an addiction of his. This does not disqualify him from being a nihilist.

"As for atheism, I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of atheists would believe in free will." This is quite an interesting situation: we have Methulah here saying that atheists are mostly believers in free will, and the IP saying that atheists are determinists. The only way you can both be right is if we say that Atheism = Compatibilism. But this is not the case. The vast majority of people see determinism and free will as mutually exclusive, and of those that do, I would say that most atheists (but certainly not all) are determinists. I really can't see most atheists believing in free will as you conjecture. Some will, but not all, so the IP is slightly closer to the truth with that one imo.

Incidentally, I just found a source for his nihilism which is what I wanted, so I shall add that, but would like to find specific bits of episodes that mention/suggest it as well, though I haven't got time at the moment, but if anyone can find any quotes from episodes that would be great! Deamon138 (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And that concludes this course, entitled "Philosophy 221B: Nihilism, Atheism, and House, M.D.", given by Prof. James Wilson of FOX University. Class dismissed! --Hnsampat (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"All that is obvious from watching the show is that House doesn't believe in an interventionist god. He remains one of the few characters on the show who hasn't stated their position of belief." No it is obvious he doesn't believe in God. He's even said words to that effect, and we have SOURCES saying that he is an atheist. House is not a deist.

When has he ever said words to that effect? And again, the sources are from people who have only played a role in shaping a character, and also they're in the awkward position of having created a character who's a lot smarter than they are.--86.128.33.162 (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"I don't see how any thinking atheist can believe in the supernatural, yet deny the possibility of any sort of god." Read the immaterialism article again. Believing in immaterialism doesn't mean that you believe in the supernatural.

Suggesting that House would have to be an immaterialist is a rather convoluted way to get around the contradiction. Shouldn't that go in the article too, if it's necessary to justify the position? --86.128.33.162 (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"I touched on the Quantum argument in my first post, but ultimately it's irrelevant, as randomness is no sort of free will either." Please read Interpretation of quantum mechanics, and you will quickly see that QM must either forgo determinism or forgo the Principle of locality i.e. local realism isn't true. The overwhelming scientific consensus among physicists is that due to Bell's theorem, both concepts aren't possible together, and at least one must be wrong. Hence, you will see that most interpretations decide to reject determinism and instead keep local realism.

While you're right that that if quantum theory is true, the universe is non-determinable, there remains a high level of predictability to it, if there weren't, we couldn't do any science. But this is irrelevant given that randomness is no free will either.--86.128.33.162 (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"It's not my personal belief, it's evident to anyone capable of reason, yourself included clearly, given your response to Methulah." It is your personal belief, given the fact that most physicists reject determinism (see above), and even if they didn't, science is still a POV. Hence it is a belief, and therefore original research. I see no sources that say House is a deist, or anything else you have suggested.

I haven't suggested he's a deist, I am suggesting we leave it ambiguous, as the show has.--86.128.33.162 (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh and Hnsampat: ROFLMAO! I agree, seriously though, this whole discussion has got completely off topic, we're barely even talking about House now, and since the sources say he is both an atheist and a nihilist, this is getting us nowhere! Deamon138 (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"And again, the sources are from people who have only played a role in shaping a character, and also they're in the awkward position of having created a character who's a lot smarter than they are." It doesn't matter what sources say it, so long as they are reliable. Just because you don't agree with the conclusion of the sources doesn't mean we should put your ideas in the article. That is original research.

I don't want an idea put in, I want a bad idea taken out. How reliable a source are opinion pieces from Blogcritics? And don't forget he'd still fail to meet the criteria for the wikipedia list of atheists.--86.128.33.162 (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Suggesting that House would have to be an immaterialist is a rather convoluted way to get around the contradiction. Shouldn't that go in the article too, if it's necessary to justify the position?" I am not saying that House is an immaterialist, only that just because he is an atheist, doesn't mean he is a materialist. You can't be 100% sure of anything about the character of an atheist except they don't believe in God. House may be a materialist, or he may be a immaterialist. No source, and nowhere on the show, has discussed this, so it is not wise for you to go: "House is an atheist, and therefore he must be a materialist".

Calling him an atheist forces his hand, he's either an entirely illogical materialist, dimwitted and hasn't thought it through, or subscribes to some crackpot alternative, be it immaterialism, existentialism, or similar. All of these detract from the credibility of the character.--86.128.33.162 (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"While you're right that that if quantum theory is true, the universe is non-determinable, there remains a high level of predictability to it, if there weren't, we couldn't do any science. But this is irrelevant given that randomness is no free will either." Yes QM makes predictions else it wouldn't be science, but this has no bearing on whether it is deterministic or not. They are two different concepts. If QM is non-deterministic, it would be random, but of course, if there are non-local hidden variables, then QM would be deterministic, and thus not random, but as I said, most physicists reject that interpretation (I think because the information would have to travel faster than light, but I'm not sure on that one). Anyway, you're right something being random doesn't necessarily entail free will (see Compatibilism which I mentioned above), but it can do, and that's my point. If determinism doesn't hold, as most physicists say, then your original point that started this discussion of QM doesn't hold, i.e. that "Given enough knowledge of the system, a third party could hypothetically predict how a person will react in any given situation." That was what you said, so I have been saying that determinism isn't necessarily true, in which case, a third party would NEVER be able to predict exactly how they will react. I never mentioned free will as automatically coming from the majority of interpretations of QM, but now you've mentioned it, some people see it as a possibility.

In, laymen's terms, 'things' don't behave in the same way as sub-atomic particles (schrodinger's cat, complexity theory, and all that jazz). This is why we can carry out experiments in a lab time and again, and expect the same results time and again, and why, given enough knowledge of the variables involved in the human decision making process, you should still be able to predict behaviour to a high degree of accuracy. But, for the third time, this really isn't relevant to the discussion, unless you care to explain how it does afford a freedom of will.--86.128.33.162 (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"I haven't suggested he's a deist, I am suggesting we leave it ambiguous, as the show has." Actually yes you have suggested he might be a deist, up above you said, "All that is obvious from watching the show is that House doesn't believe in an interventionist god." If you think he doesn't believe in an interventionist God, then that leaves two possibilities: that he believes in an non-interventionist God (deism) or he doesn't believe in God at all (atheism), forgetting such oddities as Pan- this and that, and Spinoza's God. Therefore, you suggested he might be a deist. But the show nor the sources have left this ambiguous. For instance, where has it been said that he doesn't believe in an interventionist God? God has never ever been qualified like that on the show as far as I can recall. Either way, the sources disagree with you. They say he is an atheist. You say he might not be. You are not a reliable source. Therefore, we go with the sources, and say he's an atheist! Deamon138 (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's clear from the show that he doesn't believe in an interventionist god, given his criticism of prayer and faith healing, there's plenty of quotes for that, that's no trouble. What's unclear, and a decidedly shaky suggestion, is that he rules out the idea of any sort of god. It's a false dilemma to insinuate that because he doesn't believe in an interventionist god, he must be a deist. As you hinted at, there are many different ideas of god, and let's not forget the numerous agnostic positions. As I say, the show has left it ambiguous, so should we. As for your sources, are blogs even admissible? Even if they are, how neutral is a source where the author declares themself to be an atheist within the text?--86.128.33.162 (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, enough already. This discussion has gone on for far too long. Here's a simple compromise. We change, "He is an atheist and a nihilist," to "He is seen as an atheist and nihilist." Regardless of the exact metaphysics of atheism and nihilism and House's worldview and what-not, it is clear that the popular perception of House is as an atheist and a nihilist, a fact that we can cite using the the Entertainment Weekly article that we cite. Can we please bring this discussion to an end now? --Hnsampat (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Whilst certainly true, I don't know that it's encyclopedic. But sure, it works.--86.128.33.162 (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

BlogCritics is a good enough source for this article as far as I'm aware, not great, but okay, and besides, there are many more sources that assert his atheism that we could use. Have a look at Wikiquote and do a Ctrl+F for "atheist/m", "God", "belief", "faith", "religion" etc, and refresh yourself in how openly mocking he is of a belief in God: there are many many quotes there that could be gathered to show he's an atheist. Anyway, because Hnsampat has his hands on his hips and is glowering at us, I'll have to try to settle for the last word if I can, by saying, no offense, but in the rest of what you just said, you are seriously flawed when it comes to physics and philosophy (or should I say Life, the Universe and Everything!) concepts... Deamon138 (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'll have the last word here, and it'll be this: congratulations Dr. Deamon138 and Dr. 86.128.33.162, your doctoral dissertation on the subject of atheism, nihilism, and House, M.D. has been accepted. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"I don't see how any thinking atheist can believe in the supernatural, yet deny the possibility of any sort of god." But House doesn't believe in the supernatural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.184.96 (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Free Will is supernatural. --86.128.33.162 (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

He left Stacy?

Is there a specific quote that backs this up? Most of the second season seems to suggest she left him, after being pushed away by his (unspoken?) resentment that she went behind his back while he was in a coma. Vice versa, isn`t there a quote somewhere that specifically says she left him? Calling all micro-fans here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.52.171.29 (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wilson mentions having to take care of House after she left, implying that she took off on him, not the other way around BethEnd 14:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Also Mark Warner says in the last ep Season 1 (to Stacy): "You left him and he just had a limp!" I assume her husband would know the story of who left who. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.52.156.191 (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

House chooses to be House

I like the idea so much that if it is an opinion, I don't realize it, but I see House's meeting with the buraku doctor as the defining moment of his life.

"They hated him. But they listened to him. Because he was right."

He must have realized at that moment that if he followed in that doctor's footsteps, he'd have unbelievable power. No one would deny him anything as long as he was right. And if his father was as abusive as he claimed, he would find that kind of power irresistible. That's why he was just the same before the infarction, because he could be. His leg and the pills are just excuses that others make for his behavior. He's a Randian "aristocrat of talent", and he milks it for all it's worth.

And, though I admit it makes me a jerk, I'd be House if I could. I've been abused, and I'd love to share the wealth while living as I wished. User:Kalaong 23:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is textbook Original Research. Dlong (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

How it original research? Okay, I will make it a direct quote:

"This guy, he knew that he wasn't accepted by the staff, he didn't even try. He didn't dress well. He didn't pretend to be one of them. The people that ran that place, they didn't think that he had anything they wanted. Except when they needed him. Because he was right. Which meant that nothing else mattered. And they had to listen to him." -- Gregory House, on why he chose to become a doctor Episode #307, "Son of Coma Guy"

The stuff about his father may be conjecture, but he said that people that hated this guy listened to this guy because he was right! You think he wasn't talking about both the buraku and himself? He was an asshole before he lost his leg, and this is obviously why - because he could. And if I ever get to where House is, I will choose to be just like him, and this is why. And I probably won't be alone. User:Kalaong 17:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please thoroughly read WP:NOR and WP:V Wisdom89 (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

History

In tonight's (November 27, 2007) Episode, he mentions getting an A on the MCAS, which is a standardized test in Massachusettes. This could be a joke, but it could also be a refrence as to where he spent his early childhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.23.58 (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he said MCAT - which the Medical School admissions exam Wisdom89 (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

He left her or she left him?

Based on what I know about House, I would guess that he left her, but I don't know for sure. Does anybody have a source? mirageinred 00:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, check out previous discussions/archives of the talk page.Balloonman 02:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article

After a thorough review of this article, I feel that its promotion to Good Article status is acceptable for the following reasons: 1. Prose is quite engaging and lucid 2. Substantial reliable sources (although some sources should be amended such that they don't reference episode descriptions on Wikipedia. 3. Article is quite stable with no visible edit warring 4. No Original research that I can see Wisdom89 (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not every statement in Wikipedia needs a source

Please stop removing this statement "Dr. James Wilson and Dr. John Watson have the same initials, and the same honorifics" from to article.

Your edit comment was: "Wikipedia is not based on truth, but WP:V. The article is already chock full of OR - we don't need more..find a source."

If you insisted on a source for ever statement that was obviously true (and included all those with even less certainty) in Wikipedia, then the dictionary would have to be mostly deleted.

You referred me to WP:V. I point out to you what it says at the top of that page: "This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."

The article refers to the importance of citing "surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known". I don't need a source for such a basic statement of fact (which is not OR), and as a basic fact, it is immediately "know:" to the reader. A basic relevant statement of fact is not OR, and is not something that is likely to be "challenged". --David Broadfoot (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Note to User:Wisdom89... Your credibility is on very shaky ground given that you stated in the "Good Article" section above that this article has "No Original research that I can see" and then exactly 90 minutes later in your edit summary reverting my edit you stated that "The article is already chock full of OR" !!! --David Broadfoot (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The good article review decision was made after my reversion of your statement, not the other way around. The problem with a series overview is that it's nearly impossible to find reliable third party sources, specifically occurrences within the show. However, we already have a section that dedicates itself to discussing the parallels between Sherlock Holmes and Gregory House - which is referenced and out of universe for the most part. After giving the article several dozen reads after, I came to the conclusion that most of what appeared to be OR couldn't be amended - just as you wouldn't prevent an article about a movie from ascending ranks for a plot summary lacking citations. Wisdom89 (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, it was the other way around.. but my point was that there was no editing done to the article between when you said it was chock full of OR, and 90 minutes later when you said that there was no OR in the article. --David Broadfoot (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I will refrain from reverting or removing that statement, but as a stand alone tacked on at the end of the section with no inline cite seems a bit awkward. Just saying. Wisdom89 (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The lack of finishing cite to balance it of is one of those things that is of minor import. The whole para is awkward actually, being a list of discrete facts. I tried to improve the sentence itself though just now. --David Broadfoot (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the statement should be removed, because I do believe it is OR. Yes, Watson and Wilson have the same initials but adding the sentence makes it seem as the same initials were an intentional effect by the writers to emphasize the similarity. The paragraph about parallels to Sherlock Holmes is not to list every similarities Wilson or House share with Holmes or Watson that the viewers may see; it is about listing how the parallels influenced House/Wilson as a character. mirageinred (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That section is certainly not just about the parallels influencing House/Wilson as a character. It is about any number of parallels between the two stories. For example, it also refers to Rebecca Adler and Professor Moriarty. David Broadfoot (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that was OR too. Btw, the part regarding Professor Moriarty has a source. миражinred (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your rationale for adding back the sentences regarding the same initials and Adler was that not everything needs a source. You are right in saying that you don't need a source to see that James Watson and James Wilson have the same initials. However, you seem to have the impression that the section is for listing "any" similarities between the Sherlock Holmes and House. However, Wikipedia is never about an indiscriminate collection of information. The definition for Original research is "unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas." Following the definition, the parts regarding Adler and the same initials do seem to constitute OR which should be removed. миражinred (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Direct parallel between the job descriptions of Holmes and House

The fact that they both do almost the exact same job is not just a similarity, it is definitely a direct paralell: the exact nature of their jobs is to solve complex cases that others in their fields cannot. I agree that my source for House's job was the wrong choice, but considering it is an established fact of the show it surprisingly isn't really specifically cited anywhere. I think that is more of a parallel than the fact that both of them are drug users, although that is still perfectly acceptable. (Independentwoman (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

Independentwoman, I commented on your talk page. миражinred (speak, my child...) 04:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend that you read the Wikipedia policy on original research. It's not that you're wrong, it's just that synthesizing sources to a new conclusion isn't acceptable. It seems like you have a lot of potential to be a great editor, though, and I look forward to seeing you around the project! (Also, please don't blank threads on a talkpage.) Bellwether ^B_C 05:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientific merit

It would be interesting with a section about how far from reality the cases in the series go. I guess at least some of the cases to some extent are based on medical facts, but how much is pure fiction? Mlewan (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I can answer that question. The show has multiple medical consultants and writers who are also doctors (It was on CNN.com years ago). I believe that the extent of the fiction in a case is when they made up a new condition (a new heart defect) in the season 3 finale. Correct me if I am wrong however. Typer525 ^Talk 23:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

About 19 of the 43 references in the article are internal wikipedia sources. If most of those 19 references would be siwtched to real ones, than this article has a good potential to become a featured article. Nergaal (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No. What's cited are the episodes who happen to have an article at Wikipedia. миражinred (speak, my child...) 11:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cameron

Why isn't there ANY discussion about Cameron? Their "relationship" lasted almost 3 seasons. Nergaal (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am guessing that the main reason why is because of the whole Chase/Cameron relationship in season 3. And I think the one time House and Cameron kissed, Cameron had an ulterior motive (I believe it was to get a blood sample from House). Typer525 ^Talk 01:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nervous ticks?

House has several interesting customs/nervous ticks that should be presented in this article. Some examples: playing the big ball and the cane; with PSP; etc. Nergaal (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

I removed the recently added images as they are out of place and really didn't add anything to the article. They simply do not convey any more information than the text already does. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think unfree images should be added unless they really add something to the article in ways text can't. миражinred (speak, my child...) 11:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

An addition to the parallels to Sherlock Holmes section

I am thinking af adding some more little bits of information to give a more detailed reason for why their is a similarity, more specifically, I am planning to research subtle signs that show up in only one episode of the show --Ilikemangos (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as you use reliable sources why not =). Beware of WP:SYN by the way. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reuben sandwich

There are several episodes (e.g. Daddy's Boy episode 5 season 2, and The Socratic Method season 1 episode 6) where others suggest that Gregory House enjoys reuben sandwiches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.36.204 (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

But, is that information notable? Also, do we know for sure or is it simply our speculation? --Hnsampat (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

He's also "enjoying a reuben" in Son of Coma Guy (season 3 episode 7). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.36.204 (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter that he eats a reuben sandwich in a few episodes? One can also say he enjoys playing video games (from season 1 where he plays with a GBA and a PSP on a few episodes). As a matter of fact, that particular tidbit was in this article but was removed because of it was not notable (the point Hnsampat is making). Typer525 ^Talk 05:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mis-use of his cane.

House holds his cane on the same side as his leg injury - which as any doctor could tell you, is the wrong way to use a cane (it should be in the opposite hand). Is this a relevant point to put in the article (maybe under a plot hole/error section)? 132.203.169.198 (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No, since pointing out "goofs" is considered original research. However, you should contribute that point to IMDb. Just out of curiosity, why not hold the cane on the same side as the injury? I would have thought that one would need to hold it on the same side as the injury, since the injury would render that leg less effective and so it would need extra support from the cane. --Hnsampat (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that how to use a cane properly constituted common knowledge, and not original research. As to your question, it's exactly the issue of support which is why a cane should be held on the opposite side. When you hold a cane on the opposite side to the injured leg, you're providing maximum support - the leg and the cane create two equal points to either side of the good leg, allowing the good leg to move freely while both the cane (and thus an arm) and the bad leg only support half the body weight. With the cane on the same side, the bad leg is nearer to the leg that's moving than is the cane, meaning it would be supporting more weight than the cane. (In addition, keeping th ecane on the 'bad side' means that the patient would always need to shift their balance with every step, making falls much more likely). (edited to add: Just checked IMDb, and it's addressed there. Apparently he does it to piss off his physiotherapists. Apparently it was addressed in episode 3.8 Is this notable then as a character attribute?) 132.203.169.198 (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I knew that there was a proper way to use a cane, but I never knew exactly what it was. Also, I think this bit of "trivia" was in the trivia section from a year or two ago that got integrated into the rest of the article. Typer525 ^Talk 17:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No, a person can hold a cane however they want. Just because you are 'meant' to hold a cane one way doesn't mean you have to. I've seen, heard of etc. plenty of people who hold their cane in the 'wrong' hand, and most of them would probably punch in the face you for saying this. People do whatever feels comfortable, we are all individuals and don't have to live how the medical books tell us to. If you have to use a cane for the rest of your life you will use it however you like to, not the way the physics teacher tells you is most efficient. 86.149.31.67 (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI everyone, there is reference to this in the show. In the episode "Whac-a-Mole", House goes to see a physical therapist, and she says "Have you considered using your cane on the correct side." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuck in sanity (talk • contribs) 21:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The explanation of the use of the cane seems disjointed and rushed, as though it were tossed at the end of the section because there was no better place for it; consider revising the presentation of it. Maybe lead into it with established medical practice, or a reference to the "Whac-a-Mole" episode, perhaps, then finish with the creator's quote. The way it is doesn't read particularly well. tanankyo (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have to perceive that perhaps House's knowledge of his "misuse" of his cane adds to his character as not wanting to follow custom, and such, and unwilling to do what other tell him to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleapwns (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Specifically what House suffers from

given his symptoms, does he suffer from complex regional pain syndrome or is it neuropathic? or something completely different. I'm not a doc, so maybe someone has an answer given the symptoms he suffers from.67.184.99.68 (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

or neither of those? just trying to contribute to this article and make it more detailed.67.184.99.68 (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't really say what he suffers from unless it's specifically stated on the show or by one of the show's producers or writers. Otherwise, we're engaging in original research. --Hnsampat (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is partially nerve related, the surgery that removed the dead muscle tissue from his leg also removed/damaged several nerves. I think Cuddy, in the arc where House got temporary use of his leg back, said that the ketamine treatment House got might have allowed his nerve cells to regrow. Typer525 ^Talk 17:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

House's Languages

The article claims that House has a level of understanding of a great many specifically mentioned languages. However, the only three languages that the references provided seem to indicate to me that he understands are Spanish, Portuguese and Hindi. Can somebody explain where it is established that he understands the other languages mentioned? --Susurrus (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The only one I know for sure is that he spoke Chinese (Mandarin) in "Sleeping Dogs Lie" (Episode 2.18). I think the Hebrew claim comes from him saying "Mazel Tov" (Hebrew) several times throughout the series. House's father was stationed in Japan for some time so I assume House learned Japanese that way. And Latin is the origin for many medical terms. Typer525 ^Talk 04:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides watching the episodes, have any of the creators or writers of the show actually mentioned anything about the character's comprehension of other languages? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

An IP has added Yiddish as a language that House speaks. Is this right? I don't remember it. Does he actually speak it, or is this just based on pop culture references that House makes to people (in this case his Jewish friend Wilson, or that Jewish couple in an episode of season 4)? In fact what's the difference between Yiddish and Hebrew anyways? At the moment the article says he speaks "Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, Japanese, Hebrew, Latin, Yiddish and Hindi." Hindi: yes I agree he is fluent as judged when he read Von whatchamacallits article in the Indian journal (season 2). Mandarin yes also. Although House says something in effect that he can only speak a couple fo phrases to the Chinese girl, those phrases are kinda hard I imagine so he must be pretty adept at it. I don't particularly remember him speaking Spanish or Portuguese, but that could be true. But Japanese? When? And Latin? When? Surely not all the medical names for things in Latin, that doesn't count, they are now part of the English vernacular, even if they are technical terms. However, whether we need all these languages or not, it is clear that House is adept at picking up languages quickly, and I'm sure there's a word for that kind of thing. If anyone thinks of such a word that fits that definition, maybe it needs adding to the article? Deamon138 (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I looked the Spanish, Portuguese and Latin ones up. Spanish is from the episode in Humpty Dumpty (Episode 2.03) when he speaks to the mom of a clinic patient. Portuguese is from Fidelity (1.07) when he reads a medical article, which was in Portuguese. Also in Whatever It Takes, House uses Portuguese to diagnose the CIA agent (by differentiating between the Portuguese terms for chestnuts and Brazil nuts). And in in Don't Ever Change (Episode 4.12), House says, "And I call you Cutthroat Bitch, well, quod erat demonstrandum. And I speak in Latin because I don't try to hide what an ass I am." I assume this is the Latin whoever added Latin to the list. However, the phrase "quod erat demonstrndum" is used often in the form "Q.E.D." which is used at the end of any formal math proof. I do not know specifically any instances where House spoke Japanese but I assumed it was true based on the reason I already mentioned. And I thought Yiddish was a dialect of Hebrew with some Germanic words mixed in. Typer525 ^Talk 01:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If no editors can find reliable second party publications/sources that establish House's level of foreign language comprehension, I am going to remove the information. Watching DVDs of the show is insufficient. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, I do not think there is anything definitive online from the creators/writers of the show in regards to House's multilingual status. But I believe one can find references to all the languages on the list (with the possible exceptions of Japanese or Yiddish) by using episode guides/summary (or fan-made transcripts, which I believe are copyright infringements) with what I posted earlier (in which I provide which episodes show House knowing one language or another). I am personally too lazy to look them up at the moment. :P But, I will post a few if the mood strikes me the next few days. Typer525 ^Talk 01:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine - I'll see if I dig something up online, but I fear it may be futile. I'd like to include the info. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here are my thoughts now:

• Spanish: I'll have to rewatch 2.03!
• Portuguese: Yes. Chestnuts and Brazil nuts are hard enough words for someone to know in another language for them to be fluent in it.
• Mandarin: Yes, as I said above.
• Japanese: No. Just because his Dad may have known Japanese, doesn't mean House does. If however there was an episode that he spoke it (I don't think there was) or someone comes along with a cite from the writers/producers etc, then that's different. Right now, there's no reaon to assume he knows this one.
• Hebrew/Yiddish: No. Mazel Tov is a fairly common word used a lot especially in pop culture. I've heard it used on loads of other shows.
• Latin: No. Quod est demonstartum is pretty much part of the English vernacular. As Typer525 said, it's used in Mathematical proofs, and if people to know/use it they don't have to speak Latin. Most people who tend to use it in coversation are one (or more!) of three things: funny, an ass (as House said) or a geek. Depending on your perspective, House could be all three of those!
• Hindi: Yes, as I said above.

By the way, Washout89 (or anyone else) do we really need to have a secondary source for this, and not use the episode? It seems a lot of cites (although I haven't checked so I'm not certain) on here are for specific episodes. What policy/guideline is it that says we can't do this? I'm just confused, because we can use the written word for a cite (eg a book) , but can't use video? Okay, here's an example: in the last episode so far, Amber died. Would we have needed a cite for that to specifically come from a second source, or if there was none (thankfully there is), could we have used that episode as a source? Or is there no cutoff point? I hope you can help me understand this. Deamon138 (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suggested the Latin and Japanese theories in an attempt to explain their inclusion. I could not specifically cite a particular episode from when I was watching House, both new episodes and reruns on TV (during the strike, I need that hour of House every week). However, I think there might be some validity to the Hebrew/Yiddish claim. Just a gut feeling. I will look that one up when I have time, I am too busy for my own good right now, college applications and all. Typer525 ^Talk 03:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A definite no on the Hebrew and the Yiddish (for the record, Yiddish is a dialect of German, pretty much the only Hebrew it contains are loan words.) House only knows common phrases that are widely known among non-speakers (at least among Americans that watch a wide variety of shows, such as The Daily Show.) As an analogy; lots of Americans can tell you what Salaam Aleikum means, but very few can actually claim any significant "level of understanding" of Arabic; they don't even know basic Arabic grammar. Smw543 (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

House's DOB?

In the Season 1 Episode "The Socratic Method" (1-06) House goes through a birthday. The airing date is December 21st, 2004. The previous episode two weeks prior "Maternity" (1-04, Air Date Dec.7 2004) House gives the date of an autopsy performed during the episode as taking place on December 2nd, 2004, 5 days earlier than the air date. This can be explained by the shooting date or just the final cut date of the episode.

This should put House's birthday at anywhere around December 16th to December 21st. I think it's simplistic to assume Laurie and House share the same birthday, let alone age. The social security card could be a props mix-up or just a mash-up of Laurie's own data on a fake card, but being British he doesn't have a SS card.

Thoughts? I just don't think the referencing for the Birthday is legit

And now I'm going to go hurt myself for posting about the biographical data of a fictional character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.94.7 (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC) In "No Meaning" the close-up on House's hospital bracelet shows his DOB as June ?? (too lazy to look it up now) and Shore says in the commented DVD version of this episode that they decided to use Laurie's DOB for this. They simply ignored that an earlier episode had it in December. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.52.171.186 (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Chess

In the episode "The Jerk" (penultimate one of season 3), he is shown to be a good (at least) chess player. Any ideas where this should be added on the page? Deamon138 (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Georg Haas?

I was vandalizing the Nephrology article to include Gregory House, and I noticed an uncanny similarity in the spelling of Gregory House and Georg Haas, a notable nephrologist who did something involving hemodialysis. Possible relation? 74.56.236.39 (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure how to respond to your open admission that your edits to Nephrology were vandalism and made in bad faith, but to answer your question, I seriously doubt that there's supposed to be an deliberate relation between George Haas and Greg House. House got his name because of its similiarity to "Holmes" ("homes", get it?) and the writers always intended for House to be a "medical Sherlock Holmes." The only connection the two men share is the nephrology connection. By the way, I strongly suggest you not get into the habit of routinely vandalizing serious articles with pop culture edits. It's irritating to the people who edit those articles and it reflects badly on people who edit these House-related articles, both of whom are working hard to build good, encyclopedia-quality articles. --Hnsampat (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This truly is the most random comment I have ever seen. I guess I'll see many more like it. Wikipedia is drawing me in.... Deamon138 (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least the anon is upfront with his/her intention to vandalize/history of vandalism. Perhaps this is a first step in the process of reformation since this comment seems constructive. Nevertheless, Hnsampat summed it up nicely. The observation is keen and interesting, but simply not true, and definitely not verifiable. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes he was upfront. It was like he casually came up and mentioned it. For some reason it reminds me of this. Lol! Deamon138 (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, fer christ's sake it's just vandalism. It's a matter of a button push to reverse it. Heaven's forbid that someone needs go through such a strenuous process. 74.56.236.39 (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, most vandals just do what they do and disappear, because they get some kind of inate pleasure out of being an irritant for others. But, you're unique in that you not only waste your time making edits that you know to be unconstructive, in bad faith, and bound to be reverted, but then also take the added step of defending your vandalism on a talk page! It's kind of amusing. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems the vandal isn't amused by a little xkcd. Somebody needs to prioritize their warped sense of humour. Deamon138 (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending anything, my god. Such anger! I've never known such passionate dedicants before. 74.56.236.39 (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Vicodin

I noticed this sentence, "However, the chronic pain in his leg comes back and House starts taking Vicodin once again." which is the first mention of Vicodin in the article. It is not until later on that it is mentioned that he has an addiction to Vicodin. Either this first instance of Vicodin needs to be edited, or we need to mention Vicodin even earlier than this. Any suggestions? Deamon138 (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did he earn his undergrad from?

The article say he received his undergrad degree from Hopkins. Later it mentions that while doing his undergrad he was caught cheating and was expelled, finishing his studies from Michigan. So which one is it? Wikihonduras (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It should say that he went to medical school at Hopkins after he was caught cheating. After that, he goes to Michigan to finish medical school. I believed that he went to Hopkins for undergrad but after the episode with the PI finding out about his cheerleading picture, I am not so sure anymore. (if you follow House) мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The cheerleading picture in question is actually fake, as House admits to being decent in Photo editing, and thus creating the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleapwns (talk • contribs) 22:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You must not have paid much attention in that episode, since the PI later deduces the photo was not actually a fake. Some guy (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Another Holmes nod?

In tonight's episode, Wilson makes reference to a prior case, a woman named Irene Adler, with whom House was obsessed. It's a fairly clear nod to Holmes, who was also obsessed with a woman named Irene Adler. Anyone know if it's been confirmed by anyone involved with the show? --BRPierce (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Empathy vs Sympathy (Introduction)

The intro contained the statement "House is also often portrayed as lacking empathy and sympathy for his patients," which is untrue (actually only half true.) Although he rarely sympathizes with his patients (making the rare exceptions all the more significant), he nearly always is able to empathize, using the most common definition of empathy as being able to understand a persons thoughts and feelings. While this usually results in sympathy, House is clearly an exception. House, in fact, constantly demonstrates a capacity for empathy, such as in when he breaks down the motives behind peoples actions. A great example of this is in "Half-Wit," the episode where everyone thinks he has brain cancer: as each member of his team comes into his office to comfort him, he "cheapens it" by explaining why they came (culminating in Chase being there because it was "[his] turn.") Really, though, you could find ten to twenty examples in any given episode.

Basically, sympathy and empathy are like two sides of the same coin; sympathy is the emotional side, and empathy is the intellectual side. House is hardly lacking in intellectual capacity but rarely exhibits (sympathetic) emotions. It seems there was an error at the mint when printing House's coin. Smw543 (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be a good example of what you mean Smw543: In the episode The Socratic Method, House shows a rare display compassion when he lies to the kid about the Mother turning the kid in to Child Services. This spares the kid the knowledge that his Mother did so. Usually, House would have told the kid the truth, as he usually only lies to get a diagnosis and has little or no care for the feelings of others. As is typical for House, he also hides his act under a pretense of wanting to see no more of the child. This wouldn't be possible without empathy and sympathy.66.41.44.102 (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

House's Major?

What did House get a degree in? This is sort of important - the other characters in the show have specialties - plastic surgeon, immunologist, neurologist, etc. What kind of doctor was House originally? I don't see this in the article - if the show has ever mentioned his original field, it should be added to the article. Some guy (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't "major" in a medical specialty. That comes from residency training after you have already earned your medical degree. But to answer your questions, House specializes in infectious diseases and nephrology (kidney stuff). It says this right in the info box. kingdom2 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we list House as a fictional murderer?

There is an anon who is quite insistent that House be listed as a fictional murderer because of the events and dialogue from the episode "Informed Consent". I do not think that we should for a couple of reasons:

1. The circumstances which make House a "murderer" are not outright killing but assisted suicide, and my problem is that the word "murderer" has a very specific connotation. "Murdering" someone implies taking a life purposefully and with malicious intent. That is how the courts view it as as well. If a homicide is an accident or lacks malice, then the courts usually rule it as either manslaughter or negligence.
2. The very addition of this category is personal bias. Those who support the right to die and assisted suicide would not see House as a murderer, and those that do not support those things do.
3. And finally, I believe that this is not the situation that the Fictional Murderer category was made for. The category seems to be largely populated with criminals, supervillans, and monsters - plainly bad characters - while this situation is in more of a fuzzy, gray area, as obvious by the disagreement.

Those are my opinions. Let the discussion begin. kingdom2 (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I agree with Kingdom2. Looking at Category:Fictional_murderers, it's clearly intended for evil characters for whom murdering is their job or having murdered (in the generally agreed sense of the word) is the central focus of their role in the story. Including House is just axe-grinding. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom2 pretty much said it. 1. We don't know if he ever actually euthanized any patients; all we have are the words of House and Wilson, and as the good doctor would no doubt remind us, everybody lies! 2. Even if he has euthanized patients, that isn't what the category in question is for. If it were Category:Fictional doctors who euthanize patients, then absolutely. But House doe not fit in with the spirit of the category, even if he fits into it technically (which I don't think he does). faithless (^speak) 10:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dutch-America?

Where was it ever stated that House is Dutch-American? 189.4.250.18 (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone? 189.4.250.18 (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It was in this episode. See the part about his stories of childhood abuse. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Symbolism?

Im wandering if there is any symbolism in the name House —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.182.30.6 (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Parallels to Sherlock Holmes. kingdom2 (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Link to Metroid games

In the first season, there are 2 or 3 episodes where Dr. House has a black Nintendo Game Boy Advance, and he's playing one of the Metroid games. In episode 14, a Nintendo DS is possibly seen, although it might be a PDA or something. In episode 15 it's revealed to be a DS for sure, and he's playing Metroid: Prime Hunters on it. So... 1) Does Nintendo have an advertising contract with Fox? 2) Can it be inferred that Dr. House is a fan of the series, or possibly inferred that there's a reason for that (e.g. strong female lead, or pure escapism)? NathanJ1979 (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Odds are they just wanted to save money and not buy multiple games by just having him play the same game. If it was marketing it would be more obvious and if House is a fan, such an assertion lacks sources or dialogue references to be notable. kingdom2 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it is a different game for what that's worth, and on top of that the DS is capable of playing GBA games, so even if the GBA simply broke or whatever, he'd still be able to play the same game on the new hardware. But he got a new game as well. Also, I'm no expert on sources, but while you got me on dialog (so far it's not brought up except as a tangent) it's quite clear what he's playing with and it's in a few episodes. Though, you may be right that it isn't notable. Still, if there were a section on quirks of the show (of which there are probably many) it would be noted, as well as the UPS truck they have on call that never leaves the hospital. It can be seen in the aerial shots, though it only appears to be a brown panel truck. There are however, various aerial shots, and in one you can plainly see the yellow UPS shield logo, although it isn't clear. Lastly, sorry for posting at the top, as I wasn't sure of the order of things. Figured, new post, should be visible. Ah well... NathanJ1979 (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oxycodone <-> Hydrocodone

Hi, in the paragraph "Character history" it states "The season finale shows this to have been a hallucination; House is still on pain medication and it is revealed that he has been taking Oxycodone". However, he was using hydrocodone, which is vicodine. One can see the "o" in front of "codone" in the close-ups of the prescription bottle. Bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.55.69.138 (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Are spoilers necessary?

Gee, thanks for the spoiler on the dad DNA test. The rest of the world may not have seen the latest season. Is it really necessary to add these kinds of details immediately, when they constitute spoilers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.52.171.186 (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it is. WP:SPOILER. 77.254.5.200 (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Food

What about his habbit of stealing food,money for food or not paying for it in the Princeton canteen or how it is called in the hospital.Almost in half of episodes he does it and everybody knows.It shows that he is treated as special in the hospital(he also never wears medical coat).I think it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.124.0.7 (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Asperger Syndrome

The article mentions that in the episode "Lines in the sand", Wilson suggests to Cuddy that House may have Aspergers, and then says to House that he does not believe this. I think it should make clear that his choice of words indicates that House put him up to this. Gazok (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)