Talk:Family Guy: Difference between revisions
Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
::::Sounds good, just point me in the right direction and thanks.[[Special:Contributions/96.252.169.163|96.252.169.163]] ([[User talk:96.252.169.163|talk]]) 04:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
::::Sounds good, just point me in the right direction and thanks.[[Special:Contributions/96.252.169.163|96.252.169.163]] ([[User talk:96.252.169.163|talk]]) 04:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::[[User:Ctjf83/FG|Have fun!!]] Notify me here, or on [[User talk:Ctjf83|my talk]] when you're done. <font face="Kristen ITC">[[User:Ctjf83|<font color="#ff0000">C</font><font color="#ff6600">T</font><font color="#ffff00">J</font><font color="#009900">F</font><font color="#0000ff">8</font><font color="#6600cc">3</font>]] [[User Talk:Ctjf83|chat]]</font> 05:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
:::::[[User:Ctjf83/FG|Have fun!!]] Notify me here, or on [[User talk:Ctjf83|my talk]] when you're done. <font face="Kristen ITC">[[User:Ctjf83|<font color="#ff0000">C</font><font color="#ff6600">T</font><font color="#ffff00">J</font><font color="#009900">F</font><font color="#0000ff">8</font><font color="#6600cc">3</font>]] [[User Talk:Ctjf83|chat]]</font> 05:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::Please [[User:Ctjf83/FG|have a look.]] The error on the VanDerWerff reference should resolve itself when re-inserted into the article. I removed entirely some of the extraneous information. For instance I thought the partial censorship in Venezuela was unnecessary since it related only to one song and doesn't do anything to summarize international criticism. Also the criticism by Sarah Palin didn't seem important enough for a brief summary, since the opinion of one person who is not an established critic in the entertainment industry does little to illustrate criticism in general. (At the very least, we don't need to go into detail about how it was mentioned on her daughter's Facebook page.) |
|||
::::::Criticism of individual episodes is probably too detailed for this summary, but that can certainly go on the [[Criticism of Family Guy|dedicated article]]. I also removed the quotation-within-reference-tag from Amidi (2004) in the interest of keeping the reference section more neat and concise. Any further suggestions are appreciated.[[Special:Contributions/96.252.169.163|96.252.169.163]] ([[User talk:96.252.169.163|talk]]) 05:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:55, 27 October 2010
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Family Guy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 31 days ![]() |
![]() | Family Guy has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Family Guy. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Family Guy at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Family Guy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 31 days ![]() |
Guild of Copy Editors ![]() | ||||||||||||||||
|
Edit request from 68.58.160.38, 28 September 2010
{{edit semi-protected}}
The number of seasons is listed as 8. Being that the premiere of the 9th season just aired, I thought it might be pertinent to update this. Also, the end of the last sentence of the Origins section reads, "...but at the time the show was not bought until years later...", when it should read "...but the show was not bought until years later...". The former's syntax is incorrect; not a major issue, but it couldn't hurt to clean it up a bit.
68.58.160.38 (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Done Changed syntax. Number of seasons already updated. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Edit Request
Under the "Humor" subtitle, the following chain of words was noticed: "In the majority of episodes these occurs,..." whereas I believe it was meant to be said, "In the majority of episodes this occurs,...." --Nolan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.105.195 (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have rephrased it so that it makes more sense now. Thanks for bringing this error to its deserved attention. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Racist, Misogyny, generally despicable behavior
How is it that this article and even the Criticism article have almost no real mention of the frequent sexism, racism, homophobia, misogny, fat bashing...? One could go on. This stuff is blatant. It seems like the criticism section on this page has been written by apologists for the show as it characterises all criticism as being basically prudish. The prime example is the comment the "Canada Sucks" episode generated hate mail!? Or how every Asian female on the show with the exception of Asian reporter Tricia Takanawa is depicted as a product of Human Sex trafficking. I doubt there was hate mail for that, that is an unverified statement. But to correct that would be just the tip of the iceberg.
The show is constantly making Jew jokes, talking about rape, pedophelia, the most recent one they talk about the fat person dying as a relief. The shows supporters would surely argue that this is all ironic critical humour or somesuch. Critics of the show could say it normalises racism. Anyway these arguments are all missing! It really looks like this show has been whitewashed. Saying Canada Sucks is not an example of this shows offensiveness. Neither is it particularly sexual. A major theme of the show is people acting offensively - shock humour. But this is barely mentioned.
Don't get me wrong. I've watched every episode and have a soft spot for this show. I would make excuses for the show myself. But I'm going to point out the awfulness of the show first if no one else is doing it just for the sake of balance. This is not any kind of description of the actual show if racism and sexism are not addressed and that is just the first two!
Sorry I'm not just editing it to improve it myself but this is just too much work. Its a very popular show/topic. I find it unreasonable to assume that this stuff just got left out inadvertendly. I'm going to have to voice my suspicion that this article is the subject of a bit of whitewash. I'd like to appeal to those doing it that you don't help the show by misrepresenting it.Rusl (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- I say feel free to add it, with a reliable source. Criticism of Family Guy has more specific examples and Family_Guy#Criticism_and_controversy should have more general examples. I have the same feelings as you too much work to do alone. CTJF83 chat 16:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree with both of you. Elaborating on the impact ('normalizing racism') will need to be well sourced, of course. DP76764 (Talk) 17:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Adding Patrick Waburton as a Main Character
Title says it all. Joe is basically a main character and has appeared in a bunch of episodes. I was thinking that we could add him to the main character picture thing, rather than say he is a guest star.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course. Such a corrupt site that everyone only sees and responds to what they want to see and respond to.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- How about you WP:AGF...what does Fox say about him as being a guest or main? CTJF83 chat 22:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit Request: grammar
- Production
- Executive producers
- Show creator Seth MacFarlane has served
has an executive producer during the show's entire history, and also functions as a creative consultants.71.56.116.141 (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Show creator Seth MacFarlane has served
Stuff copy-pasted from the Simpsons
Am i the only one who has noticed that a LOT of text from this article is just copy-pasted from the Simpsons article (with, of course, any mention of "The Simpsons" changed to "Family Guy" or "Springfield" to Quahog"). For instance this sentence:
The show is set in the fictional city of Quahog, Rhode Island, and lampoons American culture, society, television and many aspects of the human condition.
or this one:
The show's humor turns on cultural references that cover a wide spectrum of society. Such references, for example, come from movies, television, music, literature, science, and history. The animators also regularly add jokes or sight gags into the show's background via humorous or incongruous bits of text in signs, newspapers, and elsewhere.
I dont know if wikipedia has any specific rules regarding this, but it just seems really, really cheap to me to write an article this way. And what's worse, some of that information doesn't even seem that accurate when talking about Family Guy. For instance, how often does Family Guy make jokes about science? I'm sure it has happen, but it's hardly something they do a lot. Also, the show doesn't have nearly as many semi-hidden text gags as The Simpsons does, so to specifically make mention of such gags in this article seems out of place (oh yeah, and the citation to that paragraph led to an article which didn't even make any mention of those kinds of jokes). And really, considering that the show is so often light on story in order to instead focus on individual gags (which stands in stark contrast to the classic Simpsons), do you really think it's appropriate to describe the show as having a lot to say about "the human condition"?.
Rattis1 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is a good point. The editor who copied the information might have considered doing so a clever allusion to the alleged similarities between Family Guy and The Simpsons, however this puts forth editorial bias and should be removed. My own thoughts are that the same text could be used on any nearly dramatic work with satirical overtones - animated or otherwise - not just The Simpsons. As long as the subject matter involves modern everyday life, you can argue that anything "lampoons...the human condition." Perhaps the introductory paragraph could end in a more objective manner such as:
- The show is set in the fictional city of Quahog, Rhode Island, and revolves around a middle-class American family.
- The other example you mentioned should also be rephrased in a more objective manner. Phrases like "turns on cultural references that cover a wide spectrum of society" are vague and not very descriptive, so they don't belong in an encyclopedia. How about this?
- The show makes use of contemporary cultural references in its humor. Emphasis is often placed on individual gags which make reference to current events and/or modern cultural icons.
- Of course there's nothing like citation to support any added information. I'm certain there are plenty of print and online sources describing the general premise of Family Guy's humor in an objective manner. At any rate I'm not able to edit since the article is semi-protected, but feel free to use & alter any of those examples as you see fit. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit request - condense Criticism and Controversy section to avoid duplication with separate Criticism of Family Guy article
{{Edit semi-protected}} Per the consensus reached on the talk page for the Criticism of Family Guy article, the section of this article dedicated to criticism should be merged with it. There are adequate references to write either a lengthy criticism section within this article, or to maintain a separate article for criticism; however there is no need for both. Duplicating information and exhibiting systemic bias by over-coverage of certain subjects detracts from the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole.
The simplest approach would be to remove all text from the section, except for the line "See Criticism of Family Guy" to direct readers to the appropriate article. Another option would be to condense the section within this article to a brief summary - one or two sentences - with the same line to direct interested readers to a more detailed discussion. Thanks in advance to anyone carrying out this edit request. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Not done I think you'll see that Criticism of Family Guy is far longer than Family_Guy#Criticism_and_controversy, which is the preferred way. The section on Family Guy should be a summary of the Criticism of Family Guy page. CTJF83 chat 04:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I realize that the two are not identical, but the Criticism & Controversy section of this article duplicates much of the information. While I appreciate your extremely swift response time of only 3 minutes, I would appreciate if you would read the talk page of that article and address the issues before making a decision on whether or not this request should be considered. The aforementioned section of this article is by far the longest, and much of the information is duplicated in the other article without a clear reason. This is reminiscent of devoting more coverage to lightsabers than the printing press. In order to be encyclopedic, by definition it must be a summary, and while I don't doubt the accuracy of all of the references involved I question whether they are needed to establish such a lengthy discussion on this subject in not one, but two places.
- Right now, the Criticism & Controversy section is - by raw word count - more than twice as long as any other section. Don't you think that this is excessive for a "summary", considering that there is an entire article dedicated to this subject as well? 96.252.169.163 (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree the summary is a bit long...would you be ok with me copying this to a subpage, that you can edit down, and then I'll read it over and move it back to the Family Guy page? I'm too lazy to trim it right now. CTJF83 chat 04:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good, just point me in the right direction and thanks.96.252.169.163 (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Have fun!! Notify me here, or on my talk when you're done. CTJF83 chat 05:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please have a look. The error on the VanDerWerff reference should resolve itself when re-inserted into the article. I removed entirely some of the extraneous information. For instance I thought the partial censorship in Venezuela was unnecessary since it related only to one song and doesn't do anything to summarize international criticism. Also the criticism by Sarah Palin didn't seem important enough for a brief summary, since the opinion of one person who is not an established critic in the entertainment industry does little to illustrate criticism in general. (At the very least, we don't need to go into detail about how it was mentioned on her daughter's Facebook page.)
- Criticism of individual episodes is probably too detailed for this summary, but that can certainly go on the dedicated article. I also removed the quotation-within-reference-tag from Amidi (2004) in the interest of keeping the reference section more neat and concise. Any further suggestions are appreciated.96.252.169.163 (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Have fun!! Notify me here, or on my talk when you're done. CTJF83 chat 05:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good, just point me in the right direction and thanks.96.252.169.163 (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree the summary is a bit long...would you be ok with me copying this to a subpage, that you can edit down, and then I'll read it over and move it back to the Family Guy page? I'm too lazy to trim it right now. CTJF83 chat 04:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Good articles without topic parameter
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- GA-Class Animation articles
- Top-importance Animation articles
- GA-Class Animation articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject Animation articles
- GA-Class television articles
- High-importance television articles
- WikiProject Television articles
- High-importance Animation articles
- GA-Class Animation articles of High-importance
- GA-Class American animation articles
- High-importance American animation articles
- American animation work group articles
- GA-Class Comedy articles
- High-importance Comedy articles
- WikiProject Comedy articles
- Unassessed United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Rhode Island articles
- Unknown-importance Rhode Island articles
- WikiProject Rhode Island articles
- Rhode Island articles with to-do lists
- WikiProject United States articles
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors