Talk:Herbert (Family Guy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents


[edit] Height and weight?

Resolved. This information should be sourced to a specific episode where the information is stated to avoid original research. Benjiboi 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Where in the show does it explain Herbert's height and weight?

Yeah! Like, were in the show does it mention that his name is Herbert? Ace Fighter 01:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Scripts...? IronCrow (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please cite the episode where this character's height and weight are given. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] season three

Resolved. Done.

i remember him on an episode in season three when chris is a paper boy, and he says "oh reach in my pocket and get the tip" trying to sound like "there is money in my pocet and my arthritis prevents me from gettnig it out" rather than its other meaning. can anyone remember which episode this is? and possibly change it on the main article Fwed66 13:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

i think it might be in the episode Emission: Impossible but i'm not certain Fwed66 14:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

To Live and Die in Dixie. His first appearance.

-Ben Simon

[edit] trombone player?

Wasn't Herbert the trombone player in the house band for a promo for "The Winner" entitled "Late Night with Stewie and Brian?"

-S. Baldrick

[edit] LGBT cat

I've removed the "fictional gay men" category again. If Herbert likes little boys, then he's a pedophile. If he likes men, he's gay. The two are not the same, and from what I read in the article, he's a pedophile. Please don't put him back in the fictional gay men category until and unless he develops a relationship with a man, not a boy. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

He's in Fictional LGBT characters now. I think it should stay, but I didn't add it. IronCrow (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not crazy about this categorization, but Herbert seems consistently to be depicted as a male who goes for males, and is transgendered at least in fantasy. The category isn't called Positive fictional depictions of LGBT characters". / edg ☺ ☭ 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Goes for "males"? Or goes for "boys"? I'm not convinced he belongs in the cat - not because he's a negative stereotype (after all, Saddam Hussein (South Park) is in the cat). But because he seems to me to be a pedophile, which is not the same thing as being gay. Does he have any relationships with grown men? If not, I don't think he belongs in the cat. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
How grown is "grown"? I think the relationship that Herbert wishes for in the "Somewhere That's Green" sequence seems more like an adult relationship than an adult-child relationship. I think Herbert is attracted to young men, and understands himself as not wanting the role of a male heterosexual. "LGTB" doesn't strictly mean "gay", so I don't think a highly functional relationship (in terms of what the gay male community might recommend or aspire to) would be required for this categorization. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually he is an ephebophile generally although with Stewie one could argue he has pedophilic tendencies. Benjiboi 04:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
He also seems to have more than a passing interest in an animate tree... though I don't know if it was an adult or not. --Tyrfing (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
That was a parody of a movie and no sexual insinuations were involved; also his passing interest was that the tree was attacking Chris and Mr. Herbert successfully rises to Chris' defense. Benjiboi 15:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
"Are you a giving tree or a receiving tree?" yeah, no insinuations... unless it means something different to what I've assumed. --Tyrfing (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that last part wasn't broadcast so I never saw it but agree that it does show a kinky maturity although BDSM doesn't infer sex or sexuality. Benjiboi 08:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it means what you think, but it was just a parody of Lord of the Rings Ctjf83talk 00:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Up to a point yes... but well... Gandalf x Balrog? :O --Tyrfing (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First appearance

Resolved. Reworded to make neutral, good catch. Benjiboi 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"At the end, he leaves 113 messages on the phone, and they are all about Chris." - But wait, not all 113 messages are shown, so how would it be possible to know they are all about Chris? 24.14.72.182 03:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last Name

Resolved. Reference required. Benjiboi 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How is his last name Herbert Pitters? i never herd that on the show User:LongBay

Yeah. Unless someone can cite a source for his last name, I think the page should be moved back to its original location. C1k3 07:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

"Following the first several episodes of Season 6, fans of the show have began to turn on the character of Herbert due to his recently excessive appearances in episodes. The most common criticism of Herbert is that he is a supporting character yet has been appearing more and more frequently like the show's main characters do."

Where is this coming from?? How can we be sure that all fans feel this way, and not just 3 guys on a forum somewhere? At least post a link to the source... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbcentral (talk • contribs) 09:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Not a pedophile"?

Huh?

Aren't there plenty of scenes of him making advances on prepubescent children? For example, Stewie in Movin' Out, the child pickpockets in Barely Legal, etc. 72.81.251.2 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the level of hairsplitting on this issue qualifies as in-universe attempts to reconcile details of a fictional character's behavior as if it occurred in the real-world. A fictional character should not be required to consistently conform with the DSM-III standard. The writers of the show obviously treat Herbert as a pedophile, at least within the broad vernacular definition, and Herbert is depicted being attracted to teenagers and children. They are probably not making a distinction between ephebophilia and pedophilia, or if the distinction has been considered, they may keep this open-ended to avoid limiting story possibilities.
Were I writing this article without concern of being pedantically reverted, I would describe Herbert as a "pedophile (/ephebophile)". However, I know it will not be resolved that easily. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've rewritten a bit of this but would support adding pedophile in relation to Stewie, otherwise think we need to use ephebophilia terms where appropriate. Benjiboi 11:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "a matter of debate"

Added to Sexuality:

Herbert's sexuality is a matter of debate.

By whom? No debate appears in the show, and I doubt there are notable external examples. This is a fictional character, and for this article to explore the possibilities of what Herbert "really" is is way in-universe.

While editors of this article nitpick over pedophile/ephebophile/gay, such debate is itself neither part of the character nor a notable subject. Perhaps the best approach would be to discard the clinical terms and say Herbert is attracted to adolescent and pre-adolescent boys.

The term "transgender identity" is also original research here as cross-dressing has other possible explanations. This character could (for example) identify with a female sex role while still considering himself male. Or he could be a transvestite when inside his house.

Also, is there an example of any character besides Chris calling him "Mr. Herbert"? Cos Chris sometimes gets things wrong. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not totally incorrect, Edgarde. Adults, who some early teenagers and children are knowledgeable of may call someone "Mr. |First Name|", as a sign of respect. 74.12.11.202 (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Joe Caron

[edit] Age

The age field needs to be left out. Herbert's age is not given in the show. Herbert's military service is also not made clear in the show. Recent estimates based on his medals are original research, and presume the animators deliberately and correctly chose a uniform that would match the character's intended age. However, it is possible they chose this artwork for other reasons, or simply chose a uniform that "looked right" without much concern for anachronism. And later episodes can "reveal" it was not his uniform. Or it may never be mentioned again, and discarded from the show's already-loose continuity. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research tag

I reviewed the section and removed the tag once. I personally think an OR tag needs to be accompanied by a discussion of what exactly is OR in the section for the tag to remain there. We should fix it if it's wrong. Could editors please post items that need to be fixed if they aren't going to fix them? Benjiboi 22:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised you need them pointed out, but here goes. So first we need to ask where this list of appearances has been sourced? If the answer is "by Wikipedia editors documenting the contents of DVDs", then that's original research. The easiest way to identify WP:OR is usually to address statements with "Says who?" If the answer is "some Wikipedia editor's interpretation" then you've got original research. It's very hard to avoid original research in articles that rely so much on fancruft. Some examples;
  • To Love and Die in Dixie: In his first appearance, Chris is delivering newspapers to Herbert's house with Herbert trying unsuccessfully to persuade Chris to come inside. In the process he states about women, "Who needs 'em?", revealing he may be misogynist and gay. Says who?
  • Family Guy: Live in Vegas: He sings the Broadway song One Boy, which is from Bye Bye Birdie and is sung by a female character about her boyfriend. Says who?
  • Road to Rupert: Herbert can be seen in line at the Griffins' garage sale. Approaching Chris, Herbert asks him if he is selling any "clothes he wore in the summer." Chris then tells Herbert that all he has is a pair of shorts, to which Herbert replies "Sweet Jesus!", although this may be in shock to the large size of the shorts, rather than lusting after the item. Says who?
  • The Tan Aquatic with Steve Zissou: Herbert drops Chris as his paper boy in favor of a rival paper boy, Kyle. This is presumably because Kyle was better looking than Chris. Says who?
  • It is still unknown if Chris becomes his paper boy again, though it is evidenced in later episodes that Herbert still has feelings for him. Says who?
  • His uniform suggests that he is a veteran of the United States Army in both WWI and WWII who held the rank of Corporal. Says who?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Escape Orbit (talk • contribs) 23:37, 13 March 2008
You can save the snarkiness for off-wiki use, just because I asked for feedback doesn't mean I'm unaware of what original research is. I think you may be mistaken as well in assuming these are all examples of original research as they seem to be supported by the work itself and in context. I agree that the wording in some of the above examples could be better to be clear that it is the material that is making those assertions rather than the editors. Benjiboi 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The grandparent editor is not being particularly snarky. These are direct quotes; all are original research leaning heavily on the editor's interpretation, and need to be fixed. The Live in Vegas example may not be obvious, but it is leading.
Part of the problem is this article is dominated by plot recap, so it inappropriately emphasizes in-universe content; in other words, the list of appearances should mostly be removed. There is a Family Guy Wiki that would welcome this much episode recap. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you thought I was being snarky, but the examples seem clear enough. You say "the material is making these assertions". And again I have to reply "Says who?" Unless the TV show is actually flashing explanations up on screen, it is all interpretation, i.e. original research. You could argue that they are being obvious and of course that's what you're supposed to interpret, that's the whole joke, but it still involves you (or whoever added these) doing the interpreting. As soon as you, as an editor, source information and then take even the smallest step in deciding about what it means, then you are performing original research. No matter how obvious it may appear to be. How is the reader to know that you haven't completely missed the joke and your interpretation is totally off the mark? That's why Wikipedia requires reputable cites. Basically, as edg suggests, this is fansite material, not Wikipedia material --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well firstly, civility doesn't need to be compromised to share one's concerns, it's off-putting to other editors who obviously are making a good faith effort to improve the article. Secondly, I disagree that this material isn't useful or interesting to our readers, apparently all those who added the material and have improved upon it disagree. Thirdly, it would be refreshing to see such energy displayed here put into improving the content rather than disparaging how others have got it wrong. If something needs to be rewritten maybe just do it? I have to go work on another few articles that are being targeted so will excuse myself from this. Benjiboi 19:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The fix for this problem would involve removing much information based on inference and unencyclopedic plot detail better suited for a fansite. Benji, would you be okay with us removing such information? I've tried this sort of cleanup before in this article, and stuff was restored quickly (and, as I recall, angrily). / edg ☺ ☭ 19:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)