Jump to content

Talk:Road to Germany

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wodny (talk | contribs) at 00:17, 24 October 2008 (→‎New Cultural References?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAnimation Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Name of song played during scene

What is the name of the song played during the Jewish wedding and the beginning of the Nazi invasion of Poland?

It is a very catchy song.

Darabo (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)darabo[reply]



Not listed on tv.yahoo.com or any other TV listings website as of this date. Sunday after next FOX will air MLB playoffs. ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how to edit, but if someone feels like it,here are some more pop culture references.

  • The german scientist who says "we have much better luck developing this impressive collection of 100 luftballons" and then one pops. Is a obvious reference to Nena and the song 99 luftballons.
  • When the 3 of them ambushes three soldiers in a alley to get their uniforms, you can hear the sound of a blaster, much like the ambush Han Solo and Luke do on the deathstar.
  • When they crash against the mountain ala Indiana Jones and stewie says "We arent sinking, we are crashing" it sounds very much like Jar-Jar Binks.

/Tobbe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.12.47 (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Actually, Stewie is imitating the exact way Kate Capshaw delivered the same line in Temple of Doom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilwillhunting (talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Redundant?

All they had to do was go back and prevent Mort from going in? No adventure was required. But I had a few good laughs...

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.82.230 (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Cultural references

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Per WP:V the following material has been challenged and moved to the talk page until proper sourcing has been provided. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you examine any of these one by one, or did you just decide you didn't like the whole section? Let's examine them one by one, if you haven't already. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening music is a modified version of the theme to the hit WWII miniseries The Winds of War starring Robert Mitchum. OK, THIS IS AN OBSCURE ONE FOR THE YOUNGER VIEWERS.
  • When flying the plane, Stewie refers to Brian as "Goose", a reference to Top Gun. (this doesn't need a source) I'LL GIVE YOU THIS ONE.
  • Stewie claims that Rene Russo was born on September 1, 1939, but she was actually born on February 17, 1954. THE EPISODE ITSELF IS THE SOURCE FOR STEWIE'S WRONG BIRTHDATE FOR RENE RUSSO. THE RIGHT BIRTHDATE IS PROPERLY SOURCED AT THE RENE RUSSO ARTICLE SO IT'S UNNECESSARY HERE.
  • The scene where Stewie uses a skateboard-like plank to defeat a group of Nazis chasing him is a reference to a similar scene in Back to the Future. At the end of the scene, where the Nazis fall into a pile of manure (another Back to the Future reference), one of them exclaims "Das Poop!", a reference to Das Boot. The way Brian & Stewie enter the past is also a reference to how the DeLorean re-enters time in Back to the Future, as well as the return pad requiring uranium being a reference to the DeLorean requiring plutonium. FINE, CALL IT UNSOURCED.
  • On Stewie's Nazi uniform there is a McCain-Palin button. THE EPISODE ALONE IS ENOUGH SOURCE FOR THIS. WATCH IT AGAIN. RIGHT AFTER STEWIE PUTS ON THE NAZI UNIFORM AND STEWIE COMMENTS ON THE BUTTON, THE CAMERA ZOOMS IN ON IT SO ANYONE CAN SEE IT.
  • When Stewie enters the secret bomb facility dressed as Hitler, all of the scientists yell Hitler's name, much like Norm in Cheers. In the same scene, Stewie is given some much-need uranium by Mean Joe Greene, who appears for the second time on Family Guy and for the same line as his previous appearance. FINE, CALL IT UNSOURCED.
  • Stewie tells Brian that the slight action of stepping on a mosquito in the past could drastically alter the present, as in A Sound of Thunder. FINE, CALL IT UNSOURCED.
  • When Stewie, Brian and Mort run into Hitler and his guards, the scene where Stewie and Hitler perfectly mimic each other's movements like a mirror is a reference to Groucho Marx in Duck Soup. THIS IS AN OBSCURE REFERENCE EVEN TO ME.
  • Stewie and Brian fire a newspaper out of the torpedo tubes when attempting to escape the Germans in the U-boat. This is a reference to a scene in U-571 then they shoot a body out the torpedo tubes to make the germans think they've sunk the rogue U-boat. The newspaper also has a picture of Mickey Mouse shaking hands with Hitler (a reference to Walt Disney, who was thought to be antisemitic). I DIDN'T WATCH U-571, SO I DON'T KNOW.
  • After the pursuing U-Boat crashes, a number of police cars crash into each other. This is a reference to The Blues Brothers.

This is ridiculous. I don't know about all of them, but tons of them belong on the page regardless of sourcing. The Top Gun, Back to the Future, McCain/Palin badge and Rene Russo ones don't need to be sourced, they just need to be put on the page. Christ. If any of them aren't true, people in general will edit it.

i agree completely, this is a load of crap.

I wouldn't go that far, but there was a lack of think-through on that action. By The Red Pen of Doom's logic, we should also remove the entire plot summary until we can source it with something other than the episode itself. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The overall issue is yes, it's original research. But is it damaging to the article or Wikipedia in general? No. This is a much different issue than inserting unsourced information in a biography article. Sections like this exist in thousands of other film and television articles. Should they be tagged with an unreferenced section note, yes. But flat out removing them is unnecessary. GrszReview! 16:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The policy does not contain the exemption: "This policy does not apply to items that some editors consider not damaging to Wikipedia." And while these types of sections may appear in lots of other articles WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument for including them here. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More unsourced analysis and WP:OR

The opening theme was a remix of the opening credits of the miniseries The Winds of War, which was about WWII.

  • There is a recreation of a scene with the Hawk Men from Flash Gordon which includes the sound track done by Queen.
  • The scene where Stewie mirrors Hitler's actions is a recreation of a scene in the Marx Brothers film Duck Soup.
  • During the scene where the Nazis are chasing Brian, Stewie, and Mort , there is a reference to Back to the Future when Stewie falls off the motorcycle and rides a makeshift skateboard with the Nazis on his tail. Even the manure truck is present.
Some of those above, which are identified in this episode, should be included, such as the McCain-Palin-button Stewie wears or the Rick Moranis act. The episode as a primary source fulfills WP:RS for those cases where no interpretation is needed. After all, citing what happened in this episode is not OR. SoWhy 17:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The remark about the Germans not being invaded by the US for producing WMDs is not OR. Everybody knows there is a war going on. And don't try to pull Verifiability, not truth, since one can easily verify the claim. I did enjoy how the Nazis were voting for McCain though. Watch the white house try to censor that scene..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.224.127 (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Everyone" doesnt need to verify the claim, only the editor who wishes to include it in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still find it hilarious that so many people still think that watching a TV episode and then describing what one saw in the episode is "original research." Michiganotaku (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Describing what one saw is not original research. Making the analysis of what one saw and deciding that it is a parody of this or a spoof of that or a commentary on something else IS the heart of original research. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are cases of both of those here. To assume a reference to a specific Star Trek episode based on a single sound effect seems a big stretch to me and calling it OR may possibly be justified. But the McCain-Palin button gets zoomed in nice and big, so that's a clear cut case of "Describing what one saw," and a citation for something other than the episode itself is practically superfluous. ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. Anyone know what's up with the tag slamming?[reply]
The McCain Palin button has been incorporated into the Plot section (although it is merely a gag and not part of the plot) and so using it as a discussion point is no longer valid in this context. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wow. Let the record reflect that the McCain Palin button shall never again be brought up purely on the authority of Red Pen of Doom's say-so. Anton Mravcek (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They, quite frankly, don't need the references or anything. I think the term "Wikipedia Nazi" fits in here, pretty well. FallenMorgan (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we actually get back to discussing the content of the article? For instance, do you have a source that can verify some of the analysis or else a valid reason why this "Cultural references" section should be exempted from the no original research policy?-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain why Winds of War needs a citation for the fact its about World War II? It has a wiki link to its own article that says its about World War II. I'm not sure what other source material you need. It's at the library and your local book store not to mention a google search will confirm its about World War II. Seriously though is its own wiki article not enough? If it's not why is the article still up? Skywayman (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a source that that's what the music in the beginning was. GrszReview! 00:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tag was at the very end of the statement, after the subject being about WW II. That implied the war was the fact in dispute, not the music. I know its 25 years later now but that music was well known when the mini series premiered. Here's a source on the music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxYy3RyhQPA Skywayman (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Btw the Duck Soup reference was parodied on I Love Lucy 50 years ago. Harpo Marx caught her in his hotel room while she was disguised as Harpo. They did that bit in a doorway with Lucy trying to convince him he was looking at a mirror. It worked for several minutes until . . . At any rate Duck Soup might be obscure but that was one of Lucy's most famous gags. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7Th2dnSsXw Skywayman (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Cultural References?

Hi. I noticed a "Bill and Ted's" reference while watching "Family Guy", saw that it was missing from the current list of "Cultural References", and added it. Dp76764 removed my addition, commenting "completely unsourced WP:OR":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Road_to_Germany&diff=246633988&oldid=246633680

No original research. Okay, I get that.

However, all but 2 of the current "Cultural References" have [citation neeeded] on them -- they don't have sources either, and probably of the same flavor: stuff an author noticed when watching the episode.

I see above that "Unsourced Cultural References" has been an area of active discussion. But if we tolerate the current set of unsourced cultural references, it seems silly to prevent an additional one from being added. Better the list be complete, even if unsourced.

I'd like to see my "Bill and Ted's" reference back. It belongs there if the others do. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.252.140 (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we cant be bothered to apply WP:V to this cultural reference section because "there are so many others" where it hasnt been applied yet, well then why should we bother having and applying ANY of our policies, we can just let Wikipedia become one huge blog-a-fan-a-ad-a-POV site and forget about trying to write an encyclopedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great attitude RedPen. Some of them are sourced. It aired yesterday! Given time, sources will emerge. Perhaps you should take a break from this page. GrszReview! 02:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment on content, not contributor. So it only aired yesterday, why is there a need for anything other than the basic essentials in the article today? When references are found, then content can be added. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are to many. What should remain are obvious ones that can be seen and ones that are sourced. The Indiana Jones reference can be seen in the show, as the music is playing for example. GrszReview! 02:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring that it is an Indiana Jones reference is analysis/interpretation that needs to come from somewhere other than a Wikipedia editor. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it can eventually. But for now with adding, deleting, and sourcing it's easier as a list. I'm working on finding sources for the ones that don't have one yet. Brain Blessed guest-starred as Prince Vultan, I just need a source. GrszReview! 15:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section looks really good currently. [1] Nice work on the sources! Dp76764 (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it looks good. All we needed was time to find sources. GrszReview! 19:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Marx brothers mirror actions reference is considered an obscure source, but it has been referred to in hundreds of television shows. If people don't actually know it's from the Marx brothers, they're gonna recognize it from other references to it. I personally recognize it from watching Lucille Ball and Harpo Marx do it together on "I Love Lucy". She happened to be impersonating him at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.215.137 (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the characters are being pursued by two submarine objects there's is a reference to Terence_Trent_D'Arby with his song Wishing Well as a sonar signature.

War in Iraq Debate

Several editors have expressed skepticism regarding the reference to the US War in Iraq. Under WP: Common Knowledge, specifically the section marked "Acceptable Examples of Common Knowledge", WP lists "Well-known historical fact." The US did invade Iraq, on the pretense that they were developing WMDs. Therefore, when Stewie quotes "Germany is building weapons of mass destruction? Why doesn't American go in...?", this is in direct regard to the US Invasion under the presumption that Iraq was building WMDs. Therefore, it appears the US Invasion falls under the category of common knowledge. If you need sources from 2002 when Bush stated the US was searching for WMDs, I'd me more than happy to list them here, but for the sake of time and simplicity, I move to remove (no pun intended) the [citation needed] tag from that line. Neo16287 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The problem is that it's not sourced that the US invaded Iraq for oil, and more importantly it's not sourced that they were referring to Iraq. Your assumptions are your own synthesis, which is an unacceptable source for an encyclopedia. GrszReview! 19:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did I ever say it was for oil? Neo16287 (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, the underlining point is until there is a source that he was referring to Iraq it cannot be added. GrszReview! 19:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely. The episode is showing you a '1' and a '1' and assuming that you will conclude '2'. Ie: they are not explicitly stating anything about Iraq; they are merely implying it. I completely agree that the line was about Iraq, but without a clear source, we can't make that statement here. Dp76764 (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose anybody here has Seth's email? >.< Neo16287 (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm not denying the fact they were referring to Iraq, with Seth being liberal, I guarantee they were referring to the current war. But adding it is your own OR and that is unacceptable for Wikipedia. Yes it is common knowledge that we invaded Iraq, and they have oil, and they "were building WMD", but it isn't common knowledge that Brian and Stewie was referring to the Iraq War CTJF83Talk 19:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely by now there is a renowned critic or pundit who can confirm the reading so many of us have already come up with? ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mean Joe Greene identified as such in the show?

I am on a dial up so I cant really access the video link used as a source and I dont remember the actual language from the episode: Is the character actually identified as Joe Greene within the show itself or is this more original research?? -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was Mean Joe. Stewie thanks him. Add back the Winds of War trivia! You should be happy there was a twenty year old out there who can hand you that one on a platter. Hardly anyone else my age will get it!Obriensg1 (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations to you. But I was not asking if YOU knew it was Mean Joe Greene, I asked if Greene was specifically identified within the show, or whether the identification has come from outside the show - if within the show the video link provides primary sourcing and we are ok; if not, we need a third party source to make the identification.-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he was. Several times. Stewie even comments "Thanks, Mean Joe! He's not really mean at all.", after he catches the uranium. --Stinkehund (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this encyclopedic?

We have sourced several of the "cultural references" to the primary source of the episode itself, giving us such informative material as:

  • Rick Moranis and the back-up singers from Little Shop of Horrors explain a situation to Brian.
  • On Stewie's SS uniform there is a McCain-Palin button.[4]
  • A newspaper shows Mickey Mouse shaking hands with Hilter.[3]
  • A German sailor refers to Mort as Art Garfunkel.[3]
  • Mean Joe Greene tosses Stewie a vial of uranium.[3]

To which many readers after viewing such content will say: So what? Can anyone provide an explanation of why any of these reproductions of gags from the show are encyclopedic? -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There gags, and the show is famous for them. But why not? GrszReview! 03:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repetition of gags from Family Guy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And why isn't it "encyclopedic"? It's about the show, and establishes a thorough explanation if it. GrszReview! 03:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting to your points in reverse: Where is the _explanation_ of the show? These are merely reproductions. And Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you'll be able to point out where this falls under WP:INFO that you quoted. GrszReview! 04:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you'll hastily and wrongly point to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but The Simpsons Movie, a featured article, contains and extensive "Cultural references" section. GrszReview! 04:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the movie using itself as a guideline...We know how to write CR sections! :) CTJF83Talk 08:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate these arguments. Cultural references are a big part of Family Guy, therefor, it should be included in the articales.--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Cultural references are a big part of Family Guy" - You still did not answer the question of how is a listing of the cultural reference gags in the episode encyclopedic? If you wanna go list all the gags, feel free to do so on your fansite, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And we don't have every reference. Just the sourced ones. GrszReview! 20:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, even though I would love to have every single refrence, I think that the sourced ones, and the obvious ones ("Thanks Mean Joe!)", SHOULD BE IN A LIST. The cultural references are HUGE part of Fam Guy, and if you take out the cultural reference section, that would be like denying that they exist. And don't say " it's not encyclopedic." The definition of "encyclopedic" is "having a comprehensive scope, especially of information or knowledge (either in general or on a specific topic)," and the debated section fits within that. And if you disagree with me, then you sir, are worse, than Hitler! (JOKE! JOKE! IT'S A REFRENCE TO RED EYE ON FOX NEWS! RELAX!)--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, they ripped it of The Simpsons episode "Homer vs. Patty & Selma" when it is said to Homer by the DMV supervisor. CTJF83Talk 19:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Please read our policies. If you are not interested in building an encylopedia but rather an indiscriminate collection of information or a repitition of the gags used in Family Guy, perhaps your energies are better spent in different place than Wikipedia.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHY FRIKKIN NOT? FallenMorgan (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:NOT is a very beloved policy, with no regard whatsoever for what draws the common folk to Wikipedia in the first place. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I swear to god, I'm so FRIGGIN' close to quiting this site. And what does "with no regard whatsoever for what draws the common folk to Wikipedia in the first place" mean? To me, that says that you don't care about: 1)the people who get on the site, 2)teens that use this for research, and 3)the people that make the donations, that allows this site to happen. Remember: Happy users = Donations =Wikipedia, and Unhappy users = No donations = No wikipedia. So shove that up you piehole!--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[with sarcasm] Opps, did I just say that? --BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Road_to_Germany&oldid=247284544"