Talk:Gregory House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gregory House article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article Gregory House has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-Importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
About archives

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Parallels with Sherlock Holmes

- Series creator David Shore has said that House's character is partly inspired by Sherlock Holmes.[1] The name "House" is a play on "Holmes" (with English pronunciation, a homophone for "homes").[2][3] --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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Great series, but Hugh cannot do an American accent -- this almost ruins the show!

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 BC 05:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)