Misplaced Pages

Talk:Louis C.K.: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:30, 5 May 2021 editMbroderick271 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users541 edits →NPOV disputeTag: use of deprecated (unreliable) source← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:06, 20 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,274,182 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 5 page: Traditional, stage and stand-up.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(183 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|vital=yes|listas=C.k., Louis|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=b|filmbio-work-group=yes|listas=C.k., Louis|filmbio-priority=low}} {{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-work-group=yes|filmbio-priority=low}}
{{WikiProject Comedy|class=b|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Comedy|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=b|importance=low|DC=yes|DC-importance=low|USTV=yes|USTV-importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject United States|importance=low|DC=yes|DC-importance=low|USTV=yes|USTV-importance=Mid}}
}} }}
{{Annual readership}}
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Entertainers|class=B}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Louis C.K./Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}}


{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Louis C.K./Archives/|format=Y|age=2160|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes|minkeepthreads=3}}
== Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2018 ==


== Sexual misconduct allegations in own section ==
{{edit semi-protected|Louis C.K.|answered=yes}}
"On November" = "In November" ] (]) 12:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
: {{done}} – <span style=" background: #fff; font-weight: 700; padding: 1px 4px; margin: 0px 3px 0px 0px; border: 2px solid #000; box-shadow: 3px 3px #000;">]</span> 13:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


As a fan of Louis CK and as someone who is largely okay with him returning to comedy, it's still a little strange for me that his sexual misconduct allegations are described - allbeit in full - in a subsection paragraph of his career.
== Comedian makes jokes; pearls were clutched ==


They are a prominent part of his life and career and should be in their own top level section after both his career and personal life. It doesn't do their significance justice otherwise. ] (]) 10:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Dear, ]
:Per ], "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section", in order to follow a ] and ]. As you say, this ''is'' a part of C.K.'s career, and that's why it should be within that section. — ] (''']''') 11:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I see no need to include on this page the wailing from pundits due to and Twitter's response to a comedian's jokes (referring to the latest "furor" in particular). Misplaced Pages is not the Burn Book from Mean Girls where you "update" it anytime '''your or your peers'''' feathers are ruffled. Be mature and strive for objectivity at all times.
::It definitely needs its own section. For it to be one sentence in a giant section on his career accomplishments diminishes what he did to these women. ] (]) 21:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
] (]) 02:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
:::Where are you getting "one sentence" from? It's seven paragraphs under "2017: Sexual misconduct revelations" and a paragraph under "2018–2020: Return to stand-up comedy". — ] (''']''') 17:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
:Shocked that there is still not a section for this and that it is buried in the career section ] (]) 17:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


== "C.K." as short form of name ==
: Hi JKRichard,
: You should perhaps refamiliarise yourself with the core content policies of Misplaced Pages.
: ] says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources".
: These activities have received significant coverage in published sources, so should be included here.
: In addition, please ]. ] (]) 18:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


Just to be clear, I understand and support the reasoning behind using the last name of someone as the short form of their name, at least in their basic article. In fact, I think this method can have a number of benefits, besides expediating the reading of the article, such as facilitating a neutral and yet respectful distance in the phrasing of the article's content.


However, in the case of Louis C.K., using the letters 'C.K.' as the short form—as it is done all through this article—seems weird and artificial to me, for the simple reason that this isn't his last name.
== Improvement to section "Career", subsection "Return to comedy" ==


Basically, it doesn't make sense to me that I'm reading the letters "C.K." again and again while having already been told from the article's first paragraph that his actual last name is Székely and knowing that the two letters are simply a kind of sign-off he uses to not confuse people about the spelling of his actual last name.
Where the article currently reads "On December 31, 2018, a stand-up set from C.K. from Long Island was leaked in which he joked about Auschwitz, non-binary people as well as the victims of the 2018 Parkland shooting, which drew heavy condemnation on social media."


I propose that the short form "C.K." is changed to *either* "Székely" or "Louis C.K." throughout the article.
Would it not be more accurate to change this to read: "On December 31, 2018, a fan-recorded stand-up set from C.K. from the comedy club Governor's in Levittown, NY was leaked in which he joked about Auschwitz, non-binary people, as well as the victims of the 2018 Parkland shooting, which was subsequently seen as controversial on social media."


I find both options perfectly acceptable in the context of this article—although I think it might read slightly more effortlessly if his artistic tag, "Louis C.K.", is simply spelled out in each case.
This fixes grammar and provides a more specific location and source of the material. Although there are quite a number of vocal sources critical of this material, there is also a large group of comedy fans defending his style of provocative comedy on the original leaked video and comments sections of many of the cited sources—therefore it would be more accurate to consider the reaction "controversial" since there is no consensus of opinion. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Thoughts and/or opinions?
==Philanthropy section relevance ==
Observation: most people and BLP articles don't have sections highlighting their philanthropy (except for those who are notable primarily or solely through their philanthropy, of course). Clearly, CK's philanthropy (like many rich people) is not inconsiderable, but is it noteworthy and is its inclusion on Misplaced Pages here appropriate? ] (]) 16:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
:I've seen quite a number of BLP articles on Misplaced Pages that discuss the subject's philanthropy. The section is referenced with third-party sources, so I don't see any reason to remove the information, although the information doesn't necessarily need to have its own, devoted section. So if someone wants to move this information into the "Personal life" section, then that would be fine too, I suppose. --] (]) 16:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


Thanks ] (]) 13:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2019 ==


:I'd love to see some examples from other articles about artists known by a similarly artificial name. Thanks! 🙂 ] (]) 13:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|Louis C.K.|answered=yes}}
:I agree. In the article about ], he is always referred to as "Combs" (his real surname) despite the fact that most readers know him by his nicknames P. Diddy and Diddy. But then again, I'm not particularly well versed in the customs of such details and the fact that Combs had different nicknames throughout his career may make the two situations uncomparable. Still, "C.K." is weird. Not even a surname. ]<sup>(])</sup> 22:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Change the website from louisck.net back to LouisCK.com.
louisck.net is a hacker exploit site that is not controlled by the comedian Louis CK or any of his representatives. ] (]) 23:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
:] '''Partly done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> I've removed the link to the .net site. I didn't add the .com site, because it says it's closed. ]]] 08:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


== Blind status of 2012 Gawker piece ==
== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-11-29T19:22:47.956802 | Louis CK - Horace and Pete.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 19:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


I was a little surprised to see the article say his sexual misconduct had first been reported in Gawker in 2012, and followed the links to find a 2015 article.
== Louis CK Personal Life with Blanche Gardin ==


I found on following the links that the 2012 article was a blind item that described the allegations without a name but a descriptor that many could have surmised his name from. Then in 2015 they linked that item and named him. I think this is an important distinction and updated that paragraph to be a bit more precise, and with the Wayback Machine version of the 2012 article. ] (]) 19:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
The current version of the article state that Louis CK and Blanche Gardin have broke up but there are no official sources for that.
:Oh, weird. I realize the above flaws were in a very old (2017) version of the page I was looking at, now the whole thing is completely different, but I clicked "edit" from that and for some reason it effectively meant I was reverting to that old version plus my edits. Sorry! Reverted my whole edit, it's not needed. --] (]) 20:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
The "source" cited in the article is a reupload of a standup scene of Blanche in 2016 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs1FWH4l8pA) which is totally out of subject. Here is the original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeUtQsHCit8 <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Sex offender ==
Should it be stated that he is a sex offender or even be listed in the opening line? Louis C.K. is an American stand-up comedian, writer, actor, filmmaker, and a '''''sex offender'''''. Why or why not? ] (]) 04:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
: I would have to say no because he's never been convicted of a sex crime and is therefore not a sex offender. ] (]) 06:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Simply he is not. He is a true comic genius and generous enough to explain his side. ] (]) 02:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

== Multiple citations fail verification ==

Most of the references cited for early life contain no information whatsoever about his early life. Is this a numbering error or just deliberate fabrication? ] (]) 22:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

:I've found that some editors stick uncited claims within cited passages. For early life, that's a blatant ] vio, and any uncited personal-life claims need to be removed. Thanks for the head-up.--] (]) 23:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

:I worked on the first two paragraphs; will do the others later.--] (]) 00:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Louis C.K.|answered=yes}}
] ] (]) 22:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
:{{Done}} added ]. (You can link a category by using a colon at the start e.g. the previous link was produced by <code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code>.) — ] (''']''') 00:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
::Sorry, the Hungarian-Jewish descent is already there, it's enough.(] (]) 19:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC))
:::{{Ping|KIENGIR}} can you explain in what way? What do you mean by "it's enough" and with respect to what guideline/policy? I'm really struggling to work out what you could mean based on the categories in question and my knowledge of ] categories. Or maybe you're saying it's ] (why this but not the others)? — ] (''']''') 20:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
::::Sure, may point is the father is of Hungarian-Jewish descent (solely in the family of Jewish descent).(] (]) 21:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC))
::::: I went ahead and reverted your edit. I think it'd be better to argue why it should be removed, rather than why it should be included, as it's objectively true he's of Mexican-Jewish descent. ] (]) 01:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{Ping|CaffeinAddict}},
::::::our policies are clear, regardless how you wish to argue, consensus is needed, until then the status quo versions will stand and may be reverted to (your re-revert does not change this). What do you mean by "objectively true"?(] (]) 02:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC))
:::::::Objectively true? It's well documented he is a descendant of a Mexican-Jewish ancestry? It's... very clear in the article "C.K.'s father is of Mexican and Hungarian descent. C.K.'s Jewish grandfather, Géza Székely Schweiger, had immigrated from Hungary to Mexico, and to appease his Mexican wife raised Luis in the Catholic faith. C.K.'s mother, an American, is Irish-Catholic." Therefore, Mexican-Jewish. ] (]) 03:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::Am I correct in that you're saying "Mexican-Jewish descent" is not applicable because one parent is (Hungarian-)Jewish and the other parent is Mexican (rather than one parent being Mexican-Jewish)? — ] (''']''') 03:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::Well, it's a bit borderline and complex. E.g. Majoritity of the Jews in the Kingdom of Hungary were Hungarian Jews, but after the country was dismembered some became Czechoslovak citizens, so per changed nationality they me as well identified as Czechoslovak Jews, however, it does not mean they arent originally Hungarian ones (culture, language, etc.). Here the same analogy could be made if that grandparent became a Mexican citizen. So 50%-50% you may argue for favor or against, cca.(] (]) 11:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC))

== Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Louis C.K.|answered=yes}}
Change "Louis Székely" to "Louis Alfred Székely"

Source: https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/bostonglobe/obituary.aspx?n=mary-louise-sz-kely-davis&pid=193121372 ] (]) 03:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
:: Done. ] (]) 05:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

== NPOV dispute ==
The article as currently written significantly understates and minimizes the serious workplace sexual harassment allegations against Louis CK. The problems begin in the introduction when the harassment allegations are referred to by the vague term "sexual misconduct" and continue through to the section dedicated to the matter where the emphasis is repeatedly placed on CK's claims that he always obtained consent from those he harassed before he harassed them. It would seem either passionate fans or paid representatives of CK himself are editing/watching this page in order to tilt to reflect CK'S preferred narrative, although the possibility cannot be ruled out that this lack of neutrality happened by accident.
] (]) 20:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

:We should stick with the term that sources use &ndash; ], at Misplaced Pages, just means fairly representing what reliable sources have to say; your opinions on the matter aren't relevant. From the sources used in the article:
:* {{tq|"Louis C.K. Is Accused by 5 Women of Sexual Misconduct"}}
:* {{tq|"Louis CK accused by five women of sexual misconduct in new report"}}
:* {{tq|"Louis C.K. responds to sexual misconduct allegations: ‘These stories are true’"}}
:The only problem I ''did'' notice with the article was the use of "harassment" when it wasn't actually in the NYT source. The only possible issue is that these articles could be cherry picked, but googling around most do stick with "misconduct" (though '']'' did ). And yes, before you ask, I'm not a fan of his or a paid shill either. &#8209;&#8209;] (]) 21:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
: {{Ping|Volteer1}} I should begin by apologizing for offering unfounded speculation about the motivations of other editors, I only meant to suggest that the article gives the impression that it has been shaped in large part by paid representatives or dedicated fans which is an unfortunate outcome for any article. I have no reason to believe any editors of this article have been paid, and I was a dedicated fan of Louis CK myself for many years so I don't think it's inappropriate for fans (former or current) to edit the page as long as they follow NPOV. The problem is that the article doesn't reflect a neutral point of view, which is my focus here. With that in mind, you have identified a significant part of the problem which is the sources currently used in the article. Of course it's true that the sources you have listed do not use the term harassment, but then again if a paid representative or passionate fan of Louis CK were editing this page, they would avoid using a source that used the term 'harassment' now wouldn't they? The available news stories and analysis covering the scandal use a broad range of terminology, but a vast number of them deploy the term harassment (in the headline in many cases, in the body of the article in others) as you can see here:
:* {{tq|"The sexual harassment allegations against Louis C.K., explained"}}
:* {{tq|"Louis C.K. Admits to Sexually Harassing Women in Statement: ‘These Stories Are True’"}}
:* {{tq|"Louis CK The Latest Star To Fade Under Sexual Harassment Charges"}}
:* {{tq|"Louis C.K. to Perform in Israel for First Time Since Sexual Harassment Admission"}}
:* {{tq|"What are the Louis CK masturbation claims and what has he said about the sexual harassment allegations?"}}
:* {{tq|"What Happened to the Women Louis C.K. Harassed?"}}
:* {{tq|"A Timeline of the Louis C.K. Masturbation Allegations"}}
:* {{tq|"Louis C.K. Jokes About Sexual Harassment In New Set, Appears To Have Learned Nothing Again"}}
:* {{tq|"Louis C.K.’s Public Statement Unnervingly Misunderstands the Concept of Consent"}}
:* {{tq|"Louis C.K. needs to make real amends before he gets a comeback. Here's how he can start."}}
:* {{tq|"Margaret Cho pushes back against Louis C.K.'s return to the stage in the wake of #MeToo"}}
Nomeclature of course is not the only problem with this article. Because if you read any of the articles (including the Times piece that broke the story, any of the pieces that use the term "misconduct" or any that use "harassment") the allegations described fit the textbook definition of workplace sexual harassment. So whether we use the term harassment or misconduct, what's most important is that the nature of CK's behavior is conveyed accurately in a neutral way. Previous editors have put the emphasis of the entire section on CK "asking for permission" and otherwise insinuate that some of CK's victims were amused rather than horrified and disturbed by his behavior. Additionally, they end the section by relating CK's personal apologies to his victims without mentioning that in one case his apology revealed a further episode of harassment against a victim who has not yet been identified. Compare this article to the one on ] and you'll notice that despite the fact that Strauss-Kahn has been acquitted or otherwise had all charges dropped against him, the seriousness of the allegations against him is conveyed in the article, and the prominence of the scandals in Strauss-Kahn's life is likewise represented accurately, whereas in this article they have been practically relegated to a footnote. ] (]) 09:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Mbroderick271}} the page history of this page is publicly known, so which editors specifically are you saying are "passionate fans or paid representatives", because in either case that's a problem we want to know about? As for the content, I've made an edit ] because there's no sense in listing topics with no comments on what C.K. said about them, but other than that if you have concrete suggestions of sources that are missing, places where facts are unsourced or taken out of the context of the source (I couldn't find the Auschwitz stuff in the sources in the article), or material that should be reworded then either make those changes yourself, and if someone disagrees we can discuss, or lay out the specific changes here. — ] (''']''') 21:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Bilorv}} I apologize for offering what came off as wild speculation about the motivations and/or financial arrangements of other editors. I simply wanted to express that the article gives the impression that it has been shaped in large part by paid representatives or dedicated fans which is an unfortunate outcome for any article. I have no reason to believe any editors of this article have been paid, and I was a dedicated fan of Louis CK myself for many years so I don't think it's inappropriate for fans (former or current) to edit the page as long as they follow NPOV. I want to personally apologize to you or anyone else who may have felt impugned by my earlier comments. I have proceeded to do as you have recommended and made changes to the artiicle myself. Thank you for the advice. ] (]) 09:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
:::Yes this, I'd like to see as {{Ping|Bilorv}} has mentioned a specific list of accused paid-contributors that are in violation of ] before you can make such a claim. Which is a pretty serious one. ] (]) 02:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Mbroderick271}} - My counter-point would be that the articles that focused on C.K.'s assassination of character in 2017 ''overstate'' and ''maximize'' the consensual private sexual conduct of a man made very public and that expanding these issues to beyond what they have become in the story of his life would certainly go against ]. Oh guess what? I don't get paid to edit either nor do I have an affiliation - you'll find most of my edits are on Canadian COVID-19 statistics and not on Louis C.K. ... ] (]) 02:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
:::I don't understand what you're talking about. C.K.'s conduct wasn't "consensual". Nor can I see any articles which say that there was any "assassination of character" in 2017. — ] (''']''') 07:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:06, 20 October 2024

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Actors and Filmmakers
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconComedy Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Television / District of Columbia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Sexual misconduct allegations in own section

As a fan of Louis CK and as someone who is largely okay with him returning to comedy, it's still a little strange for me that his sexual misconduct allegations are described - allbeit in full - in a subsection paragraph of his career.

They are a prominent part of his life and career and should be in their own top level section after both his career and personal life. It doesn't do their significance justice otherwise. 79.66.8.116 (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:CSECTION, "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section", in order to follow a neutral point of view and due weight considerations. As you say, this is a part of C.K.'s career, and that's why it should be within that section. — Bilorv (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
It definitely needs its own section. For it to be one sentence in a giant section on his career accomplishments diminishes what he did to these women. 2603:7000:6039:F00C:881B:EFDD:9BC5:46F3 (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Where are you getting "one sentence" from? It's seven paragraphs under "2017: Sexual misconduct revelations" and a paragraph under "2018–2020: Return to stand-up comedy". — Bilorv (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Shocked that there is still not a section for this and that it is buried in the career section SarcasticOwl (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

"C.K." as short form of name

Just to be clear, I understand and support the reasoning behind using the last name of someone as the short form of their name, at least in their basic article. In fact, I think this method can have a number of benefits, besides expediating the reading of the article, such as facilitating a neutral and yet respectful distance in the phrasing of the article's content.

However, in the case of Louis C.K., using the letters 'C.K.' as the short form—as it is done all through this article—seems weird and artificial to me, for the simple reason that this isn't his last name.

Basically, it doesn't make sense to me that I'm reading the letters "C.K." again and again while having already been told from the article's first paragraph that his actual last name is Székely and knowing that the two letters are simply a kind of sign-off he uses to not confuse people about the spelling of his actual last name.

I propose that the short form "C.K." is changed to *either* "Székely" or "Louis C.K." throughout the article.

I find both options perfectly acceptable in the context of this article—although I think it might read slightly more effortlessly if his artistic tag, "Louis C.K.", is simply spelled out in each case.

Thoughts and/or opinions?

Thanks Dalgard (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd love to see some examples from other articles about artists known by a similarly artificial name. Thanks! 🙂 Dalgard (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree. In the article about Diddy, he is always referred to as "Combs" (his real surname) despite the fact that most readers know him by his nicknames P. Diddy and Diddy. But then again, I'm not particularly well versed in the customs of such details and the fact that Combs had different nicknames throughout his career may make the two situations uncomparable. Still, "C.K." is weird. Not even a surname. Nursultan Malik 22:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Blind status of 2012 Gawker piece

I was a little surprised to see the article say his sexual misconduct had first been reported in Gawker in 2012, and followed the links to find a 2015 article.

I found on following the links that the 2012 article was a blind item that described the allegations without a name but a descriptor that many could have surmised his name from. Then in 2015 they linked that item and named him. I think this is an important distinction and updated that paragraph to be a bit more precise, and with the Wayback Machine version of the 2012 article. Minivet (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, weird. I realize the above flaws were in a very old (2017) version of the page I was looking at, now the whole thing is completely different, but I clicked "edit" from that and for some reason it effectively meant I was reverting to that old version plus my edits. Sorry! Reverted my whole edit, it's not needed. --Minivet (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories: