Talk:The Cleveland Show

Added 'Controversy' Section

Being a fan of the show and watching it on Hulu, I can not help to notice the reaction from the public about its stereotyping of African Americans. A quick Google search will reveal significant outrage and debate about the shows content and its supposed proliferation of stereotypes to cater to a "white audience". Although I do not agree that the show is inherently racist, I believe that there is enough buzz out there about the show that the controversy must be addressed on this page. I implore you not to delete this section, but to add and refine it as you see fit. I have done my best to present the topic neutrally, yet in the interest of being encyclopedic, most of my references are from blogs.

70.171.34.28 (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it has been removed as we cannot use blogs as references. This is especially important when adding "Controversy" sections, which tend to become magnets for any dislike a person may have about a particular series. Your efforts are certainly appreciated, however, and if you can find reliable sources (community leaders, mainstream press, and so on) that present viewpoints critical of the series, that would be go along way towards making the material fit under Wikipedia's requirements. Please feel free to ask if you have further questions about this. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but I refer you to this article in the WSJ: [[1]]. I quote the article: "... as it matures, Wikipedia, one of the world's largest crowdsourcing initiatives, is becoming less freewheeling and more like the organizations it set out to replace. Today, its rules are spelled out across hundreds of Web pages. Increasingly, newcomers who try to edit are informed that they have unwittingly broken a rule -- and find their edits deleted, according to a study by researchers at Xerox Corp." Such rigid hierarchy and posturing is contributing towards Wikipedia's downfall. Might I also remark that the blogosphere is probably a more reliable source than the mainstream press, etc, because it is unfiltered, statistical news; circumventing the press and community leaders are the very raison d'etre of Wikipedia. 70.171.34.28 (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

How about just a "Reception" section? I'm sure that there are some official news outlets out there that give a review of the show, and possibly mention the racism issues. But in leiu of news outlets, I think blogs would be acceptable. Most mainstream repoters aren't die-hard fans of Family Guy, or even animation in general. So, I'm all for citing well thought-out, intelligent blogs on this page. I do agree, however, that allowing the citation of blogs would open the floodgates for vandals. Does Wikipedia explicitly forbid it? 121.208.146.223 (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Timeline continuity problem

Timeline continuity prob: Quahog 1982 (Zapped), Stoolbend 1984

How can Cleveland be a young college student in Quahog when Peter makes that 'Zapped' reference to Lois in 1982, but then be a high school student in Stoolbend to laugh at that geek w/ the computer in 1984 ("Field Of Streams" 01/03/2010)??? Macshill (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)