Talk:Eric Foreman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 The 'Original Research' Problem 2 Racism 3 Academic Plagiarism 4 Merge proposal

[edit] The 'Original Research' Problem

There is no problem with original research in this article, I'll argue a few of them, but they are riddled through the article with no discernible rhyme or reason. I'd wager a guess that whoever did so hasn't watched the series. If anyone has a problem with me doing this, let's start up a discussion please.

He is a neurologist and was hired by House three days prior to the series' pilot episode (implied in the un-aired version of the pilot). I don't see how that would require any research outside of watching that episode. It's obviously canon and has every right to be mentioned in Foreman's Wiki.

Never getting below a 4.0 grade point average, it is strongly implied that he performed the best academically, compared to his two co-workers, Dr. Allison Cameron and Dr. Robert Chase. This was discussed in the pilot as well. We learned that Foreman had very impressive grades, so much so that Cameron felt the need to confront House on what basis he hired her. Cameron was impressed, and said she did not do as well, and while it's possible Chase and Cameron had never discussed grades, I'd say the safe bet is on Foreman having preformed better than him as well. In either case, the wording, strongly implied is perfect for this situation, no warning is called for.

Man, this just goes on and on. Watch the series, then edit the wiki. I'm removing them.

Anything that involves interpretation of facts (i.e. deciding what is "implied" by dialogue) fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. This is not an essay site where users are invited to write up their interpretation of the character. If there is a notable analysis published in a reliable source, we can include those opinions and attribute them to the author. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meaning it should rely mostly on secondary sources. If it is necessary to rely on primary material (the show is a primary source) to include passages that advance a point of view or interpretation, then those passages should not be included. As I said in my edit summary, I decided to add tags rather than delete material because I held out hope that the questionable passages could be improved. Croctotheface 05:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, Never getting below a 4.0 grade point average, it is strongly implied that he performed the best academically, compared to his two co-workers, Dr. Allison Cameron and Dr. Robert Chase. is wrong, but Never getting below a 4.0 grade point average, he performed the better academically than his co-worker, Dr. Allison Cameron. is okay?

The second passage is certainly better writing because it avoids using a meaningless passive voice construction. However, that is not the point. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If it is necessary for us to write an original character analysis because none already exists in a reliable published source, then a character analysis of Foreman is just not appropriate content for the encyclopedia. The dialogue from the pilot is presented to support the point of view that Foreman is smarter than Chase and Cameron. It is not our job, per WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:SYN, to do this kind of thing. However, the problem would be a bit less bad (but still bad) if the presentation were more like your second sentence. Croctotheface 05:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So all that's supposed to be there is, "Foreman never got below 4.0 GPA in school"? Without any reaction this fact had? Sorry if I'm coming across as slow, I'm just having a hard time following (I read the articles you linked to, and I'm about to reread them, but you've obviously got a better grasp of this than I). ALSO, if you could take a look at the Chase article? It's practically a fanfiction, I've given up on trying to keep it unbiased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.215.129.85 (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

There are probably things we can say. I certainly agree that Foreman is depicted as "the smartest" compared to Chase and Cameron, and there is may be enough references to this in the show that I'd be comfortable calling it a "factual" issue about the character rather than something interpretive. In "Euphoria", House says something to the effect of "Foreman's way smarter than you" to Cameron. If the lines I tagged were reworked to avoid being interpretive, most, if not all, of the content could stay. I'm comfortable assembling a history of the character just based on the show, so long as it's not interpretive. Besides, if you mention that he never got below a 4.0, readers get the message that he's really smart. Croctotheface 05:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism

Is it just me who thinks that "Although House is shown to make outright racist jabs at Foreman, there is definitely a sense of mutual respect between the two, as seen in the episode "Safe," in which House allows Foreman to use the black marker and write on the infamous differential diagnosis white-board." is pretty hypocritical? It's just pseudo-racism as House actually has nothing against black people, nor Foreman. In my opinion at least. AllynJ 10:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academic Plagiarism

There should probably some discussion of Foreman's theft of Cameron's article; it was one of the few significant events that transpired between Foreman and either Chase or Cameron.

[edit] Merge proposal

Note: The merge suggestion was added by User:Eusebeus at 16:05 UTC on 30 March 2008.

Waiting for the reason(s) behind the merge proposal. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is this considered for mergeing? Eric Foreman is still a main character playing a major role in the most recent episodes. TheSittingDuck (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)