Talk:Louis C.K.

Archives (Index)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

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^(talk) 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)