Talk:Peter Griffin

Peter and the 4th Grade

In the episode And the Weiner Is, Peter's life flashs before his eyes and we find out that he didn't actually pass the 4th grade until a few hours before the flashback. Should that be noted under mental ability or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.85.132 (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No because it is just a joke. Using throwaway comments or jokes as a source of information is specifically mentioned as something to avoid in Manual of Style (writing about fiction); doing so is "in-universe" because it is giving excessive weigh to something that probably does not matter, but would matter if it happened in the real world. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Rivalry with Earnie

Would the fact that Peter establishes the Earnie's grudge against Peter by traveling back in that constitute an ontological paradox? If it does, I'd like to add that fact to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? I vaguely remember Peter doing something to make Ernie mad, but can't remember. What episode is it, so I can take a look. CTJF83Talk 15:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It was Meet the Quagmires, the episode where Peter goes back in time to save his marriage, and ends up accidentally punching Ernie, explaining the grudge he holds against Peter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 07:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, with the expired coupon, is that what you mean? I don't think "back in time" episodes follow the normal order of things on the show CTJF83Talk 19:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, no, the expired coupon came in Da Boom. I'm talking about the reason Ernie gave him the coupon in the first place. Does that fall under the category of ontological paradox.

Second, how do you know back in time episodes are not canon? Did Seth MacFarlane say so himself? Otherwise, you're publishing original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's settle this

Look above, at the section titled "Peter and the 4th Grade." The response to that question is, and I quote, "No because it is just a joke. Using throwaway comments or jokes as a source of information is specifically mentioned as something to avoid in Manual of Style (writing about fiction)."

The gag about creationists being stupider than retards is only a throwaway gag in the episode Petarded, and is never even spoken orally, only written on a cardboard sign. Therefore, it doesn't belong here.! If it were a recurring gag, like that of Ernie the Giant Chicken, then it would belong, but it only makes a cameo appearance in one episode, and therefore is not notable enough to be included anywhere but the cultural references section of the Petarded article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be easier to believe that was your intent if you were removing the entire line about Peter's IQ test. But you've just been removing the clause about creationists, as if you felt personally offended as a creationist (I don't know if that's the case, but that's what the edit history makes it look like). Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right, Wikipedia isn't here to make sure people aren't offended by what is said on here. Dstebbins is currently blocked for 24 hours for vandalism and incivility. CTJF83Talk 16:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may play devil's advocate: Why is it so important for this article to repeat the slam against the creationists? The point of that paragraph is to show that Peter is not smart; that point can come across without slamming the creationists.

On the other hand, I must admit that the argument that "The gag about creationists ... is only a throwaway gag" doesn't hold water. A true throwaway gag is not motivated by the plot and it can be neatly edited out of the episode without affecting the storyline (that is, it's not part of the fabula or even the syuzhet). Nor was the gag about Peter completing the fourth grade as an adult a throwaway either: it was in a series of flashbacks, but those flashbacks were very clearly motivated by the plot and show a very clear relationship to the plot (in the last flashback he even says he has to take his son hunting).

Sorry for being so longwinded without clearly standing on one side of the line on this. ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, people need to not worry about creationists getting slammed. Deal with it!! If I complained every time gays got slammed in Family Guy, South Park or most shows, I'd be complaining non stop. Just take it as a fun joke, and move on! CTJF83Talk 22:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, the reason I didn't delete the entire sentence is because his retardation is a recurring gag. Second, gay jokes are also recurring gags because they appear numerous times throughout the series. I have no problem with creationists getting slammed as I'm not even one myself (more like creationary-evolutionist), so don't play the "you're just offended" bullshit because it's just that: Bullshit. Also, the throwaway gag thing does hold water because they could have had the entire episode without it. The episode would have held just as much merit and made just as much sense without that gag. Tell me, how is the creationist gag essential to the plot of this or any Family Guy episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

An I.Q. test confirms that his low intellect places him in a category below mentally retarded, but above Creationists.

We could remove the words "but above Creationists" and the line wuold still be grammatically correct _and_ get across the point that Peter is a retard. But on the ohter hand, those three words can help someone verify that the cited episode does indeed say what we say it does. Slappywag42 (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)