Talk:Peter Griffin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Peter Griffin is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
April 3, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Archive
Archives
2006 | 2007

FAQ
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

Contents


[edit] Cleanup

OK, I have just done a general cruft removal. This article should be built up to meet WP:FICT and WP:WAF. This requires real world information on creation, development, and real world impact, which I'm sure is quite possible. The in-universe information should be redifined and rewritten to provide an accurate portrayal of the character. One episode things shouldn't be mentioned, and there should be no original research. If you have a claim, it should be backed with reliable sources. Example articles can be found under "media" on the featured article list. TTN 16:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it ready for featured status yet? TheBlazikenMaster 16:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It's very far away from being an FA, let alone a GA. The current information needs to be rewritten and beefed up based upon reliable sources instead of purely from the episodes. There also needs to be developed development and reception sections, again, based off of reliable sources. The popular culture section should reflect on how the character is used in popular culture rather than giving every minor detail. If enough information is available, a mass media section can be split off of it. TTN 16:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
you are going to have to compromise. some stuff needs to be left in there. let's try and work together. Ono 21:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
as you can see, i tried to merge our info together, in the info box, i referenced his fav band, and i took out the family at the bottom, b/c of the relative at the top. his fav car is obviously a station, b/c that is what he drives. i will fix the intro paragraph soon. Ono 21:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have a problem with the episode citing.

Resolved.

First off, why is the date linking necessary? (as this template assumes)

Second, the episode link doesn't work for some reason.

I was thinking if someone watching this page is an expert on citing templates, I hope so because I need help. Redlinks are never good for an article, so I need some help. TheBlazikenMaster 00:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Wow, I can't believe this. It's hilarious how people fix problems noted on talk pages, and leave NO reply at all on the talk page. Anyway thanks. TheBlazikenMaster 16:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FG assessment

  • contains no out-of-universe content
Not even one of these? TheBlazikenMaster 10:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Meh. Guest appearances and parodies aren't very far from in-universe, and most of them lean trivial. Consider these:
  • WP:WAF#Secondary_information — examples of "real-world" information.
  • Jabba the Hutt — fictional character with good out-of-universe content, and disciplined, concise in-universe content. Featured article I think.
I included both these examples in a rant I wrote today.
The stuff in Stewie Griffin about the aborted plans to "out" Stewie is good out-of-universe. I'd like to see what WikiProject Dogs would add to Brian Griffin. / edg ☺ ★ 14:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk about crude...

"Peter worked at a country club/resort in Newport, RI, as a towel boy, where he met Lois Pewterschmidt, whom he nailed in the changerooms."

Nailed. I mean, for God's sake. Nailed??? Sorry to whoever it may offend (if there actually is anyone that stupid), but I'm changing this to "had sex with". Geez, that line makes it sound like Peter himself wrote this article...172.209.112.222 19:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Nailed" is probably more in the spirit of the show. I changed this to hooked up with, but that's a little too causual and perhaps unclear. What I want to say is started a sexual relationship in an immediately physical way. Is there a better term for this? / edg ☺ ★ 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If it was meant to be in the "spirit" of the show, the whole article would sound like it was written by Peter himself. Can you imagine if the author of the Quagmire article made it sound as though it were written by Glenn Quagmire himself? The whole article would be innuendo and filled with the trademarks "Giggity-giggity-goo!" and "All-riiiight!" Nobody wants that, writing anything on Wikipedia in the spirit of anything apart from a proper encyclopaedia style just doesn't work. Writing the article in the style of who or what it's about for comedic effect is a popular tactic on Uncyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not a parody. So it should make sense above all else. 172.202.151.97 20:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mental retardation

Other than "Petarded", what episodes explicitly call Peter mentally retarded (in the clinical sense, not just meaning stupid)? I remember there being such a declaration in Texas, but if that were the only subsequent reference it could be a joke about the series status quo. Is there a third episode in which it is mentioned? Excuse the hairsplitting. / edg ☺ ★ 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

They did an ENTIRE episode stating that he was retarded. Do they really have to spell it out again in other episodes? Maybe your... nudge nudge wink wink.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Typing this slowly so you'll be able to keep up, G.
Yes, they have to mention it in other episodes. Otherwise it is considered a "single-episode situation", something the show throws away instead of keeping it as part of the show's status quo. Were this a real person, we could assume this character probably remains this way. However, this is a work of non-serialized, episodic fiction with multiple writers and weak continuity, so we cannot make that assumption. Hence my question.
Please consider reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), particularly the section The problem with in-universe perspective / edg ☺ ★ 09:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Come to think of it, it could be possible that the one with the test results was misjudging Peter. It wasn't proven by science that he is retarded, the only reason he acted so retarded in that episode is because he thought he could get away with everything. Edg, do you think that could be a possibility? Yes, of course it's a fiction, but sometimes it's a good idea to compare it with what/if it was real life, so we will be able to solve it correctly. TheBlazikenMaster 12:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that puzzling over the story's what if's is helpful here, because I don't suspect the writers are planting subtle clues. The hair I'm trying to split is Peter is either:
  1. A really dumb guy who's "comedy dumb", and called "retarded" in a Season 4 episode (Let's do an episode where Peter is diagnosed as retarded!), that is referenced in another, later episode, but it's not really part of the character's formulation.
  2. A "retarded" guy starting with "Petarded", and now this is part of the character.
I favor #1 cos I don't think it's a consistent part of the character. Subsequent references would be a good clue that this has been added to the Peter's outline, and I was looking for more than just the one later reference. We might be waiting for a DVD commentary on this one.
We're now giving this more thought than I had budgeted for the subject. / edg ☺ ★ 13:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Griffin Family Tree disputed

The naming and lineage in Image:Family-Guy-Griffin-Family-Tree.jpg are currently disputed in Talk:Family Guy. I've yanked that image from Family Guy, but not from Peter Griffin since it kind of demonstrates the amount of ancestors that have been depicted in the show. However, it seems to make assumptions about lineage and consistency that make it original research.

I'm waiting to hear from the uploader in Talk:Family Guy. If concerns are addressed, I'll restore the image to Family Guy. Otherwise I'll deleted it from here. / edg ☺ ★ 03:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This tree seems a lot more suitable for fansites than here. Just get rid of it, we don't even know if these are the real relatives of Peter. I assume a lot of those are from times when Peter makes up some random ancestor. TheBlazikenMaster 13:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Well put. Deleted 24 September 2007. / edg ☺ ★ 18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drawn Together appearances

Are appearances on Drawn Together at all notable? There's nothing unique or unusual about a cartoon character from another show appearing on Drawn Together. This was deleted today (for insufficient sourcing), and I'm proposing that such appearances are not by themselves worth adding to this article. / edg ☺ ★ 17:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, they shouldn't be here if which episode isn't specified. Are you saying that my reason of reverting was incorrect? But I agree, I'd love to see the scene itself to know if it's notable. TheBlazikenMaster 17:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying it's a good reversion, but maybe we should be more strict about letting it in at all, unless there's additional real-world notability (such as a lawsuit or something). All of Drawn Together is thinly-veiled parodies of other cartoon characters, so notability-wise such an appearance is up there with "water is wet". / edg ☺ ★ 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To do list.

I want this article featured. So please make a to do list, so we can get to work. TheBlazikenMaster 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. There needs to be substantially more real-world content, and character criticism that is not done by this article's editors. When this becomes thoroughly sourced and has substantial content that would be of interest outside the fandom, a request could be put in to the League of Copyeditors.
It will be a long haul to FA status (see the FA rejection). I'd suggest shooting for GA status for the time being. / edg ☺ ★ 23:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that's the goal then. After we're finished with that we should get it featured. First we have to worry about getting it into a good article. TheBlazikenMaster 23:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too short

Why did this article become so short? It was much better before! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.3.180 (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone help me reword this?

Various stories, flashbacks and cutaway gags reveal Peter-like ancestors and relatives including Peter Hitler, brother of Adolf; Moses Griffin, who led the Jews out of Egypt; the caveman that invented the wheel; Willy "Black Eye" Griffin, a silent movie star whose sole gag was getting hit in the eye; Osias Griffin, the wealthy owner one of the first dozen telephones; and a philosopher named Thomas Griffin, who used existential pondering as an excuse to his wife for remaining unemployed.[1] Many of these historical characters have wives or girlfriends bearing an obvious resemblance to Lois, family resembling the Griffins, and associates resembling Peter's neighbors.

I would go right ahead and remove it, but I have feeling that it isn't the best solution. I will be trying to reword it, help would be nice. TheBlazikenMaster 00:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope I am not being intrusive, but perhaps this will work?

In some episodes, stories, flashbacks and cutaway gags, almost always non-canon, reveal ancestors and relatives of the Griffins based on various historical figures, some of which include Peter Hitler, who is brother to Adolf Hitler, Moses Griffin, who led the Jews out of Egypt , Willy "Black Eye" Griffin, a silent movie star whose sole gag was getting hit in the eye, and a philosopher named Thomas Griffin, who used existential pondering as an excuse to his wife for remaining unemployed.[2] Many of these historical characters have relationships (i.e. wives, children, friends) bearing an obvious resemblance to other characters in the show

I cut out a few of the historical figures because they seemed less well know than Hitler or Moses. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 00:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My point is most of those don't reveal anything at all. They are just there for the sake of it. Believe it or not, Peter just thinks of something random with most of those ancestors. The only true reveal about Peter's family is his true father. TheBlazikenMaster 01:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, how did you want it reworded? --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 01:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Almost always non-canon is fine, go with that. TheBlazikenMaster 01:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, i see. I thought when you wrote that you were mad about the fictional attitude of it, like its fictional, so it should stay fictional in writing. Always non-canon could work. And, i assume you mean Mickey, Thelma, and Frances, who raised him, albeit not lovingly. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 01:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

His name is peter griffin. He was raised by Frances and Thelma GRIFFIN. He didn't meet mickey until way later. Im chaning the name to Peter GRIFFIN. Not Griffin/McFinnigan, as his legal name has no McFinnigan in it. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 01:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, you only have last name out of the father that raised you instead of your biological one? Don't worry, I won't ask further, I'm just curious. If I get useful answer I will add a hidden comment explaining why McFinnigan can't be added.TheBlazikenMaster 01:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, show me one official and/or fansite that uses the name Griffin/McFinnigan, and i will show you why it might belong, aside from that...Look, families are complicated, and names get hyphens and changed or whatever, the point is, talking out of universe (which is what wikipedia primarliy is), Peter is known as Peter Griffin. Heck, even in universe, i have not once heard him called Griffin-McFinnigan. My guess is, on his birth certificate (were he real), it would say Griffin NOT McFinnigan, as Thelma and Frances were the only ones to know about it until the episode. That, is your reason. Oh, and it also annoyed me at the format with which it was written. I have never seen a person called Jim Jones/Smith with a slash. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 04:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Bottom line: the character's name is "Peter Griffin". If an complex genealogy were part of this article and the relationship needed to be highlighted, then a construction like Griffin/McFinnigan might make sense in that part. But making that distinction is probably not necessary here, and anyway the character's name would still be "Peter Griffin". / edg ☺ ★ 12:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
No I don't have to show you any source, as I only wanted to know one thing. Thanks for that, I will now make a hidden note. TheBlazikenMaster 13:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. TheBlazikenMaster 13:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The path is complete, and all has been forth --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 20:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme Vandalism

I suggest this article be locked, or cleaned up due to the protruded "4 duh luz" section. It has absolutely nothing to do with Peter Griffin, nor the series itself. I'm 24, and I don't have the time, nor the patience to clean it up, so please, someone fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.155.86 (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing a revert can't handle. This article is too closely watched for vandalism to be a problem — usually it's corrected in minutes. / edg ☺ ★ 02:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican or not?

I don't own this episode myself, and am not American citizen either, but I really think instead of edit warring people should discuss whether or not he was born in Mexico. Let's just get to it then.

Discussion is necessary, since this kind of info keeps on getting removed and readded. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Griffin's brother

As shown in S05E02, "Mother Tucker", Peter has an evil brother. This might be worth adding to the list of his relatives, unfourntately I don't know the name of the brother so someone who knows it will have to add it. 83.250.0.80 (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thaddeus Griffin, already added to the infobox. I'm neutral about having him in the infobox. He seems more like a Giant Chicken than a "real" character. I don't see Thaddeus visiting the Griffins as part of a story or doing something a "real" character might do. Has Thaddeus appeared in more than one episode? / edg ☺ ☭ 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Yes Edgarde, Thaddeus has appeared in a few actually. All I can remember is that he rubs his handle-bar mustache and says (In a comicly evil way) 'Nhiaaaa'. Do you reckon it's worth creating an article for him. I'll go on Family guy's site now, and if I find a bio with some sources, I'll create one.

regards;

Cf38 (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


(By the way, I agree he is like the giant chicken Ernie; a running gag character perhaps? Still, I'll go on family guy's site and if I find some decent info, I'll create an article for him)

Cf38 (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cf: I don't think Thaddeus is notable enough for an article, especially since he does so little. I would recommend putting him on List of characters from Family Guy instead. Otherwise it will just be a historical account of every thing Thaddeus ever did, which is more a project for Family Guy Wiki than an encyclopedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I would actually say he doesn't belong on the character list either. I do alot of my editing maintaining that particular article, and I try to keep one-shot characters off, mainly because a new character emerges in just about every Family Guy episode. Before about a year ago, all of them were being added and the article got to be massive. Thaddeus has only appeared in Mother Tucker and I can't say I have seen him in another episode, although if someone knows of one, please correct me. Thaddeus is much like Stan Thompson, minus the fact that he has actually appeared on an episode. He will probably never be seen again and it mostly just a one-time joke. For now, I have been reverting IP addings of Thaddeus, since those are mainly the only editors who add him, but if someone has a good reason together, I would be more then happy to hear it. Saget53 (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Family-guy-peter-griffin8.jpg

Image:Family-guy-peter-griffin8.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it, I restored the old one. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heritage

All the following would apply to Peter's children, and by implication to Lois (who may be German American, I'm not sure).

[edit] Irish vs. Irish American

There is currently a binary edit war on how this character's ancestry should be linked from the Infobox, between Irish and Irish American. The Irish American article describes well the things Peter's Irish-ness may imply. Perhaps as an infobox space-saver, we should make it [[Irish American|Irish]]. Can we agree on this and stop the revert war? / edg ☺ ☭ 10:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican vs. Mexican American

I don't really favor either of these since an american born in another country who promptly returns to the United States really doesn't have a "heritage" from that country. For Peter this "heritage" was a single episode situation best elaborated on the episode page Padre de Familia (Family Guy episode). Can we agree to leave this out? / edg ☺ ☭ 10:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Someone with Irish and American parents who happens to be born in Mexico and hardly spends any lengthy time there wouldn't have Mexican "heritage". Technically it may be heritage by birthright, but heritage usually means actually having some family history there. He has mexican nationality but not heritage. Jabso 21:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of backstory and Mexican heritage

Apparently, user:Edgarde he has taken it upon himself to remove Peter's backstory because he believes information mentioned in specific episodes should be considered irrelevant to the character.

However, the episodes Peter's Two Dads and Padre de Familia (Family Guy episode) were devoted entirely to revealing the true identity of Peter's father and his place of birth. How is that information not relevant?

We would have to delete most of the information included in this article if we were to remove every piece of information mentioned in specific episodes. So either A) Delete every bit of information featured on specific episodes (instead of arbitrarily removing entire sections) or B) Leave his backstory aloneSamChambers (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. There was some agreement and no dissent above about removing "Mexican American" from his "heritage". It seems pretty obvious to me that an american born outside the country and quickly brought back in has no real "heritage" from that country. Peter's embrace of that heritage would be the main joke of that episode because (explaining the joke now, sorry) Peter is overreacting.
I retitled this section from Biography to Backstory because I was hoping we could agree on what the status quo presumptions are with this character — that should be a very short list — as opposed to gags and storylines that are usually discarded continuity-wise, with no effect on other episodes. An article that detailed events in this character's situations would go on for freaking ever after 100+ episodes, and would be unencyclopedic overkill since this is not actually a historical record of a real person. Also, it is far too in-universe. Deleting most of that information would actually be a good idea, since the article needs real-world content, not details collected watching TV.
The events in these two episodes would be really important if this were the biography of a real person. But in reality these things have no effect on Peter's character, certainly not in episodes in the years prior these episodes were aired, and considering the weak continuity of the show, they probably never will.
Consider the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) for more concerns. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parodies

I think that section should be rewritten in paragraphs not lists. What do you guys think? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably. The point of this is not just to take the dots out, but to create a "narrative", i.e. writing that makes a point. It could be a simple as "Peter is often parodied", but since practically everything in the public eye is subject to parody, the mere existence of parodies it not by itself pointing out. Any idea where we can take this as a paragraph? / edg ☺ ☭ 00:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I did what needed to be done. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter born in Mexico

Responding to this revert summary.

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), this is not a biography of a real person. Assembling a fictional biography based on events in the show is original research based on plot recap, which is not an appropriate task for an encyclopedia. It would however be a perfectly legitimate task for a fan site; perhaps we know of one.

Several years into the series, the writers decided to do an episode based on "what if Peter were an illegal immigrant?", and for this episode they make a story explaining Peter's fictional birth in that episode. Recapping this at length places undue weight on this episode, which does not rewrite previous episodes (and if it did, would still not have been in influence on how those episodes were written, since the idea would not have then existed). And with one minor exception (next paragraph) does not explain his character in subsequent episodes.

This is not a property of the character; it is a premise used for an episode. The character is consistently Irish-american. Since the "Nate" episode there have been one or two references to Peter being "black", and these have been effectively jokes. Since Padre, there has been one more reference to Peter being born in Mexico, and this was just to support another plot device.

Editors emphasizing the Peter's Mexican ancestry are emphasizing the original fiction over the real-world information by reconciling plot details into a true ancestry. The simple real-world information is this is a cartoon with inconsistent inter-episode continuity and lots of off-the-wall ideas.

WP:WAF specifically warns against creating a fictional character article or section written like a biography. Discerning the details of Peter's true ancestry is an obvious example of this mistake. Peter does not have a true ancestry because he is not a real person. Furthermore there is no (real-world) evidence the writers are deliberately "revealing" something that has been developed with any thought beyond "let's make Peter Tricia Takanawa's brother!".

Family Guy has run for over 100 episodes. We have plenty of material and could easily make an elegant 300kb in-universe biography on this character, had we the writing skills among us to do so. And it would be (to use FG's term, and WP's standard) crap. Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of information.

A fictional biography based on plot recap will never reach good article status on Wikipedia, and this sort of information should be pared down to a minimum. My suggestion would be to keep:

  • information needed to understand jokes made without explanation (i.e. that Peter can be presumed to make stupid decisions, or that Carter can be presumed to behave sadistically to Peter)
  • character traits made notable in secondary sources not related to the show.

What this article really (really really) needs is real-world information, not more plot recap. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Let's wait until it gets on DVD, and then and ONLY then we are 100% sure, in other words let's wait for the commentary. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Griffin And Children

I will once again voice my opinion about Meg Griffin being Peter's Daughter. During July and August of '07, There were numerous disputes over The validity of the claim that "Stan Thompson" was Meg's biological daughter. Apparently, the consensus was that the episode that said that was not to be taken seriously. However, I disagree. It was not a sideshow to take up time, so I still think that it should be mentioned as it had been before. Ono (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Further information: Talk:Meg Griffin#Stan Thompson Pt. 2, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), and WP:DEADHORSE
Not this again. Summary of my usual position: this is footnoted in the Meg Griffin article. It was a joke. This is not a real person, so perspective-wise it is not terribly important in this work of fiction. If necessary, I could explain this joke to people who don't get it, but I would be repeating myself. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Besides, it was just one line from Brian, how do you know he wasn't wrong? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
First off edg, how do you know it was a joke? If I am not mistaken, The "one line from Brian" was during the course of an episode, not a side skit, so that would lead one to assume that it could be taken seriously. Correct? How do you know that it wasn't an actual statement and therefore should be taken in the context of the show? Please do not mistake my simple statement above as anything more than my thoughts on a matter that i felt needed readressing. Oh, and don't worry, I understand the joke, and i certainly wouldn't want you to have to repeat yourself. Ono (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I apologize for my tone. The subject of Stan Thompson has become very annoying to me. I should have waited longer to post my reply to you.
The comment, which occurred 4 seasons ago, has had no demonstrable effect on the show or any of the characters. Whether this is an "actual statement", whatever that means, or isn't doesn't matter. WP:WAF proscribes against Using throwaway comments or jokes as a source of information. It's almost as if they had this discussion in mind.
Incidentally, the joke is a riff on how the family is casually neglectful of Meg, and comment on matters like this in her presence without concern that she should be told or that she would find out this way; this joke is delivered dryly so this behavior seems more shocking and cruel, which is the point of the joke. There's no reason to give it more weight than that; the idea that the producers may be planting clues about something that has yet to be revealed in a multi-season plot arc is original research at best.
If this article were a biography on Abraham Lincoln, this information would be worth including, because it would be about a real person. If this were someone we knew in real life, a friend of ours or something, it would be very important information. However, these are not real people, and none of these events are real, so perspective-wise it is not terribly important in this work of fiction. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
How do you know that it wasn't an actual statement and therefore should be taken in the context of the show? You should answer your own question. That one line doesn't prove anything, even if this was real, it's just one line. If it means so much to you, you have to prove that Brian's statement is true. I agree with edg, I'm also annoyed by the fact that we have to discuss it again. It has been decided that it shouldn't be included. There is a chance that Brian could have been wrong. You don't know if he was right or not, unless you can prove he was right, it doesn't belong to Wikipedia. Please respect that it isn't allowed here unless proven, and get over it. If you want, you can state it somewhere else on the Internet, but Wikipedia requires reliable source. You have yet to prove that this one line is true. So far you have only stated that it should belong here without any proof. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, I will repeat that it was just a simple statement. Obviously, I should have attempted to convey my thoughts in a different manner, because it seems that you have very strong feelings over it. "If it means so much to you, you have to prove that Brian's statement is true. I agree with edg, I'm also annoyed by the fact that we have to discuss it again." My sincerest apologies for have annoyed you. I just wanted to convey my thoughts on the matter, and I never said it "means so much to me". If it is not inappropriate, I don't appreciate the tone of your message. It seems that you are scolding me because of something I posted on a discussion page. I could easily understand your hostility if I had edited the page(s), or something to that nature, but that is not the case. Thank you for clarifying this matter for me.

Ono (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Look if I was being rude, I'm very sorry, I didn't mean to argue. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Role in Family Guy Star Wars Saga

I've been thinking that since the Family Guy Star Wars saga is starting to become pretty much a big deal that we should add a little section talking about Peter's portrayal of Han Solo, and do the same of all the other characters who appear in these episodes. Of course, you would probably find this to be completely unnecessary since the Star Wars episodes are clearly non-canon. It's just a thought; let's not try to start an argument if any of you think it's a stupid idea. Immblueversion (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This would be like adding a section on what Peter did in every episode, and there have been over 100 episodes. The articles for those episodes would be the correct place for this information. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought so; just making sure. Immblueversion (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait for the two other Star Wars spoofs to come out. Right now I don't think there's much to say besides "Peter = Han." Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] What is wrong with this image ?

Image:Familyguy Peter Griffin.jpg Answer here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex 8194 (talk • contribs)

The image has no sources, and that's a problem. We can't accept unfree images. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the source, just wait a little and then the image will apear somewhere: [1]

Being non-free is what is wrong with this image. Since free use images of this character may not exist, and Wikipedia is less permissive of "fair use" images (including promotional images) than is used to be, there may come a time when this article has no illustration of Peter. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't know why Alex is on about this. We already had a perfectly good image Image:Peter Griffin.jpg. Why do we have to replace it? Alex, stop this. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, I understand that --Alex 8194 (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I just thought that Image:Familyguy Peter Griffin.jpg looked better than the other one.--Alex 8194 (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not about whether or not we like the image. It's that you have to give the image a source. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I did give it, check properly ? --Alex 8194 (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Then how come it was tagged non-free before it got removed? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair use is not the same as free use. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway the current image in the article is ok --Alex 8194 (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It has a perfect fair-use tag on it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Making of the character.

Is any DVD of Family Guy available where I can get information like that? Because I'd love to use it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] His birthday

So i've seen a few things to indicate he was born in July. one episode he said he was a leo, but then in the The Fat Guy Strangler episode the doctor said, oh born in July, does that make you a cancer? Leo and cancer both are in the month of July. Any ideas? Holdyourhorseis (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can source it properly, I'd say go for it. Bet per WP:DATED don't add his birthyear, because he is a fictional character, and he doesn't age. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

idk but in one episode it states that he is 43 years old--The real rj (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not relevant to this section, this is discussing his birthday, what month he was born. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another good image gone...

It's NOT a good thing, we need the images so people don't have to use Google Images every time they want to see how something looks like. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Such images are only allowed under Wikipedia's fair use policy when they are "for critical commentary". Unless a free use image of Peter is made available (unlikely), we may have to do without. Copyright complaints are a very direct way in which Wikipedia could be financially harmed. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank god it's sourced now. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brother?

Peter has a brother named Thadeus he is even seen and refrenced by his mother in the series shouldnt he be placed in the info box? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.221.176 (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You should check the Table of Contents, cos Thaddeus is discussed earlier on this page. He is a one-shot gag from the episode "Mother Tucker", and seems to exist outside the continuity of the show. In fact, Thaddeus Griffin currently redirects to the "Mother Tucker" article. If this becomes a regular character, then we add him; seems unlikely. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Very unlikely indeed, unlike Peter's biological father, it isn't confirmed if he's truly his brother. It can be anyone with a mustache. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

But Thaddeus is also mentioned by Thelma Griffin in a later episode.

Is that so? Well, you should source that episode then. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fart jokes

While this was a good reversion of a trivial detail, it would be worth noting here that Peter is the main contributor to the shows oft-acknowledged flatulence humor. Some well-sourced second party references to the show's love of both deliberate offensiveness in general (I'm told Seth has stated they deliberately try to include offensive material) and fart jokes (explicitly acknowledged at least once within the show, plus there's all the actual farting) in particular should also be added to the Family Guy page. If this seems hard to write well, perhaps rather than making a buncha clumsy insertions, it might be good to compile them on a talk page, and then have someone work on a paragraph. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter's name

Shouldn't we write Peter's full name also outside the template? --Ivan Isaak (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meg

Should it be mentioned that he tried to rape Meg in "Airport '07"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.37.124 (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't because that's one episode situation that doesn't affect the show in any way. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The complicated non-continuity of Peter's ancestry

Family Guy has had fairly good continuity on several plot points. Peter's ancestry is not one of them. Nate Griffin looks like a black version of Peter Griffin, so why is BlazikenMaster so sure that Nate is an ancestor of Francis and not Peter? And why does Mickey McFinnegan look like an Irish version of Nate Griffin? The show has been far more consistent about Lois coming from a privileged background. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said I was sure or unsure of anything, it has already been discussed whether or not to include African American in the infobox. Just look at the archives. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, I never said Nate is an ancestor of Francis, I was mainly reverting something that has already been discussed. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Has there been any other reference to McFinnegan since that episode? And for that matter, is Family Guy coming back on in May or in September? (I'm looking forward to "Road to Germany"). Robert Happelberg (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That is indeed a very good question. I have only seen the FG episodes out on DVD, but even if he didn't make any other appearance, it's clear that in that particular episode Peter's Irish father is his true father. I doubt that Nate is related to Peter, and again I never said he is related to Francis so my best answer to this question: so why is BlazikenMaster so sure that Nate is an ancestor of Francis and not Peter? is Because I never said that, if I remember the episode correctly, Peter was mainly reading book or something. I'd find McFinnegan as Peter's father be more clear than Nate. Also don't forget that Nate hasn't made fair amount of appearances either. He was once more in Untitled Family Guy History, but he isn't actually a recurring character either. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well that's all speculation and your personal beliefs, no one has ever discussed the idea Nate Griffin might be Peter's Mother's grandparent. Until further citations are provided we shouldn't try and draw our own conclusion on what is true and what is not in the Family Guy universe, otherwise Wikipedia completely loses any credibility it once had. K.H (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)