Talk:Glenn Quagmire/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Glen Quagmire. As awesome as Family Guy is, I don't think individual pages for its characters are necessary. Quotations from said characters definitely do not belong in an encyclopedia (Family Guy was so full of saucy sayings that there would be no end to a list of quotations). Kricxjo 16:47, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Ok, maybe he doesn't deserve his own page, but at least fold the information back into the family guy article. (Including the quotes)
      • Though pretty much all the Futurama characters have their own pages. Marnanel 04:43, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Not to mention a great deal of the peripheral Simpsons characters.
      • I could fold back one of two of the quotes, but not all of them. As I said, Wikipedia a) is not a repository for quotations, and b) Family had so many funny saying that there would be no end to a list of quotations. Kricxjo 20:22, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • It's not a bad article, as these things go, but individual character pages are just a Bad Thing. Definitely merge (leave as redirect), with say two quotes or so. As for the rest... hmm, Wikiquote? -- Jake 20:05, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Megan's Law

In the episode "Emission Impossible" Quagmire mentions Megan's Law but decides not to elaborate. Not sure if this indicates he's a registered sex offender. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Given what he said before trailing off, I'd say the implication is pretty obvious. -DynSkeet (talk) 19:53, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Glen or Glenn?

During "The Cleveland-Loretta Quagmire", I noticed that the captions for the episode spell Quagmire's first name as "Glenn" vice "Glen". I realize that captions are not very reliable, but does anyone have a reliable source for either spelling? -DynSkeet (talk) 15:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • The official web site [1] spells his first name "Glenn" under Character Bios. It's a flash web site, so I can't link the page directly, but it shouldn't be hard to find. --Metropolitan90 02:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, the "Brian Goes Back to College" episode showed his name as "Glenn Quagmire" in the "A-Team" parody sequence. That's sufficiently canonical that I'll move the article to "Glenn Quagmire" and redirect accordingly. --Metropolitan90 02:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It turns out that Glenn Quagmire is a redirect to Glen Quagmire, so the move will be more difficult than I expected. --Metropolitan90 02:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
        • why not first edit out the redirect at 'Glenn', then move the article to it?.. just pray that some wikimaniac who refreshes "recent changes" every 10 seconds doesn't catch and revert it before you move the article.. so you better copy the current text.. i would do it, but since you are so eager :D hudd 22:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Because that doesn't work. Moves that are blocked by an existing article at the destination should go via WP:RM or a friendly admin. violet/riga (t) 22:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
            • oops.. thought it would consider the empty article as vacant one.. well, you learn something new every day. thanks violet! sorry wikimaniacs. hudd 23:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've sorted all of this now, though it might be advisable to look at the links and correct any occurrences of "Glen". Incidentally, the Family Guy Wiki entry for Quagmire might be of interest. violet/riga (t) 23:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

i don't know wat kind but i like qaugmire Oh! giggty-giggtyt-giggty-goo!

Well that was useful information. Oh, you should sign your comments, too. --Kinu 08:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You guys left Glenn as Glen in the article. I'll patch it up now :) Kareeser|Talk! 21:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

When you put the Subtitles on the Episodes, most of the time it is Glen. Infact, I've never seen it as Glenn. (I'm watching the UK released DVD's though, if that would make a difference.


I'm seeing both Giggidy and Giggity, although the Giggidies are all on the top half, while the Giggities are all on the bottom half. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Is he asian?

I'm trying to write a paper about positive asian american role models in television. My friend said that he's not asian, because he speaks english properly and doesn't have squinty eyes. is Quagmire a positive role model?
Yeah, I don't think he's either Asian or a positive role model. - furrykef (Talk at me) 06:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen?

Has Glenn Quagmire ever been compared to Charlie Sheen? Both in looks and their shady characteristics on TV.

  • I think if they ever think to do a family guy real-people movie, they should put Charlie Sheen as Glen :P

Silver mask cube 15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Quagmire in "Larry and Steve"?

In the original Cartoon Network short, "Larry and Steve," which started Family Guy, an airplane pilot is seen that both looks and sounds a lot like Quagmire. Did anyone else notice this?

Quagmire and "The Todd"

Is it just me or do quagmire and "the todd" off of Scrubs seem to have very similar traits?

It's just you. Mannycalavera 07:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


He's jewish??? What episode is that from? -Taco325i 21:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen every episode and had no clue he is Jewish, unless there is a source it should be taken out Tspydr10 20:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree - just watched "When I wish upon a Weinstein" and when they are talking about making money by having Jewish accountants, Quagmire does not say that he is Jewish himself. The implication of the scene is that none of them (Peter, Quagmire and Cleveland) are Jews. Riddley 23:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
When was Quagmire's ancestry stated as Portuguese?
It hasn't been although a portuguese son is seen in one episode. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fre k (talkcontribs) 14:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

BAH!!! POV!!! POV!!! POV!!! POV!!! POV!!! POV!!! POV!!! POV!!!

The article currently reads

he isn't above having sex with women who used to be men,

Is it, then, the accepted judgement of Wikipedia that one can be above having sex with women who used to be men? Does Wikipedia take the position that it is degrading? — 05:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but it's mentioned because it's presumably abnormal, and is part of his character. And being degrading isn't mentioned or implied anywhere; "isn't above" doesn't imply negativity anymore than "is alright" in the same context. But if you want, instead of talking here about two words, just change them as per my suggestion.--Cyberdude93 09:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It was changed from “he has no problem with having sex with women who used to be men” to “he isn't above having sex with women who used to be men”. -- 12:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. Did Wiki just get a Tranny lobby?

Resemblance to Neil Sedaka

I searched the web and could not find any sites other than Wikipedia and its mirror sites that contained any statements comparing Quagmire's appearance to Neil Sedaka's. Please remember (or learn) that Wikipedia is not a place for original research. I have seen pictures of Neil Sedaka as a young teen idol, and he has never had any of the exaggerated features that Quagmire has. They may look a little bit similar, but that definitely should not be a reason to assume that Quagmire's appearance was based on Sedaka's. In particular, saying that Quagmire most closely resembles a young Neil Sedaka seems somewhat POV to me, given that he has also been compared to people varying from Bob Hope to Arnold Schwarzenegger. I am fairly young myself and not particularly familiar with Sedaka's physical mannerisms, and I have never watched Family Guy, so I do not particularly know that much about Quigmire, other than what is stated in the article. But, would someone please explain Quigmire's similarity to Sedaka in greater detail. In my opinion, this statement should either be cited to a reliable source or removed from the article.

Andrea Parton 03:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


I noticed that the current image used is really bad quality, Does anyone have a better image? I have one that could possible be used:


Any thoughts? LiverpoolProductions 02:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have it in png? His shirt and pants are covered with jpeg artifacts. Good kitty 20:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Quagmire's name

Joshua Quagmire is a wellknown American cartoonist, according to Wikipedia. I have to assume the Family Guy's character is names as a tribute to him, not necessarily to his sexual enthusiasms. He likes to go giggidy giggidy when he finds a hot girl, he is opne funny guy, and in some episodes, he has his own minisode!!

Trivia section changed to Glen Quagmire#Character origins

After considering another editor's request, I refactored the Trivia section, and threw some of it out, per WP:AVTRIV. I hope this is okay.

If someone can verify the above name origin idea, it might make a good addition. / edgarde 21:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Way too much fancruft

This article has a tendency of taking random gags and deriving stuff about Quagmire's character from it. All the humor from this character stems from the premise that he's a sex-crazed maniac, but that's all there is to it: he's a sex-crazed maniac and the writers make jokes from that. It's completely meaningless to actually start deriving the ins and outs of his character from a bunch of dirty jokes. Because honestly, do you think the writers of the show are actually keeping track of each gag to build up some ridiculous Quagmire-canon?

I think it's fine for the article to illustrate how bizarre and deviant his sexual tendencies, but it should be more along the lines of "gags have shown Quagmire engaging in such and such" and not actually establishing facts about his character based on them. Otherwise you might as well take any random flashback of Peter Griffin fighting a giant chicken or being killed by a robot clone of himself and add that to his article too. --Foot Dragoon 04:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Some of the gags involving Quagmire occur frequently enough to be considered canon, to the limited extent to which the Family Guy writers bother with continuity. For example, Quagmire is obviously a part of the 'swinging set', and throws sex parties at his bordello-like home. He is also seen exhibiting a degree of contortion skill on several occasions, and it's clear that he has a strange and probably incestuous relationship with his mother. Most of the remaining gags involving Quagmire serve mainly to joke about how he'll have sex with almost anything, any time. Zzzzeta 07:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I find it odd that all of the examples for Peter you mentioned are manatee jokes, as opposed to the standard continuity largely referenced in this article. Also, I believe the chicken bit is actually part of Peter's article. 04:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Well even if my examples are flawed, the point still stands, Quagmire is just a pervert, and they make jokes off of that. There's no reason to gather all these isolated sex gags and build up some sort of sexual profile of him. As purely a comedy show, I doubt they even keep strict track of continuity. I'm not a hardcore fan who knows everything about the show, but if it's anything like the Simpsons or Futurama, there's probably a bunch of contradictions somewhere in there.--Foot Dragoon 04:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
100% Agreed. Family Guy freely breaks continuity to service gags.
By comparison, Futurama did attempt to maintain continuity, and had a multi-season plot arc. It seems really unlikely Family Guy would attempt anything similar. / edgarde 16:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Parody to Moe Szyslak

Since The Simpsons were in the air when Family Guy started, its probably that Glenn was a spoof or a more successfull Moe Szyslak,look at this:

Moe has a strained love life due to his vulgarity towards women and his ugly appearance. Despite this, Moe has had a number of romantic experiences, including sleeping with his bartender Collette [7], planning to elope with Edna Krabappel [8], dating a woman named Renee [9], dating a woman named Betty [10], and enjoying the company of many women after he had plastic surgery to correct his ugly appearance. [11] He has long been infatuated with Marge Simpson and has on occasion professed his love for her and tried to win her away from Homer. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Moe's romantic attractions have resulted in criminal behavior and run-ins with the law; he has stalked Maude Flanders and other townspeople, he must register as a sex offender, and he had a restraining order placed upon him. At one point he is seen on his way to a "V.D. clinic".[17] Moe has also proposed marriage to a WNBA mascot, even knowing that the character inside the mascot is a male, Gil.[2] Simonlebon 19:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

To suggest that Quagmire is a parody of Moe is reaching, to say the least. The two characters have virtually nothing in common, the "horny bastard" archetype is a pretty broad one and Seth MacFarlane says that Quagmire is based on 50's swinger/party animal cliches.

K00bine 10:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with K00bine. Look at this: "Moe has a strained love life due to his vulgarity towards women and his ugly appearance." Remember this is Glen Quagmire you're talking about. Saying he's unsuccessful with women pretty much contradicts everything about the character. 15:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fat chicks

I've been removing the italicized part of the following passage (from Ethics and sexual deviancy):

He has made references to prostituting himself to fat women ("Fat chicks need love too... but they gotta pay.") though he doesn't seem to like the idea of having sex with them.

This seems like original research to me. An alternative interpretation (for example) might be that Quagmire takes a sadistic enjoyment in making them pay for it.

Also, it seems like excessive detail, and since it's a "seems like", not encyclopedic.

Also, is this a single-episode situation? If so, it's really more of a gag than a characteristic, and should be either deleted or moved to the page for that episode.

Agreement? Dissent? Other? / edgarde 16:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A week or two ago he was in a bar and was hitting on a woman till she turned around and revealed she was much fatter than she looked from behind. Glenn found this gross.

It may have been the episode "no meals on wheels". Mayorcheese 23:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

But where's the prostitution? Is this proposed in more than one episode?
Besides, finding "fat chicks" "gross" isn't as distinctive to the character as is his tactlessness about the subject. I feel like finding obesity unappealing is not unusual in men. / edgarde 01:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

this entire discussion is based on a forgotten detail: q. never talks about prostituting himself to fat chicks. rather, he suggests it as a way peter can get the $50,000 needed to pay off the boat loan.Toyokuni3 (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No spoiler warnings in citation/reference sections

In this deletion, you explain No spoiler warnings in citation/reference sections.

Why not? Proper citations for these character traits will need to quote lines. Some readers don't want jokes spoiled, which would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work, per WP:SPOILER. This guideline does not in any place discourage spoiler warnings in citation or reference sections. / edgarde 17:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it should be left up to the cited sources to provide or not provide "spoiler warnings". In fact, this is one of the more sillier uses of the spoiler tag that I've seen. --Farix (Talk) 17:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I took a second look at the section and find that only specific episodes are being referenced. Which makes the placement of the spoiler warnings in the reference section doubly silly. --Farix (Talk) 17:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
So there seems to be a misunderstanding. The point of the spoiler tag is that there are jokes quoted in the references section. This is not a spoiler tag for the linked articles, or for the referenced episodes themselves, but for text that is readable in the citations. / edgarde 20:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I checked again and see nothing there that would constitute a spoiler in that section. --Farix (Talk) 20:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The language in the spoiler tags you deleted specificly said jokes would be spoiled. / edgarde 07:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, I saw nothing to spoil. But "Jokes are present" is not a compelling reason to use a spoiler warning. I would also suggest that the presence of the jokes be reconsidered as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a joke book. --Farix (Talk) 11:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Jokes are where character traits are expressed in this context, so using them in citations is appropriate. This is a compelling reason for using a spoiler warning.
Question: would you recognize any reason for using a spoiler warning? I need to know if I'm wasting my time discussing this with you.
This particular usage is not forbidden by WP:SPOILER, and it predates recent changes to the spoiler guideline so I don't think I need to prove it's not intended as an intent to circumvent the new policy. / edgarde 16:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The jokes aren't spoilers, they are just jokes. If you need to put a spoiler warnings around a joke, then the inclusion of the joke itself need to be rethought. We don't protect readers from jokes used in the context with the character. But perhaps what you should do is bring it to WT:SPOILER and get the opinion of other editors. --Farix (Talk) 17:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not so much a need as a courtesy. And the suggestion that information should be omitted for creating a spoiler is contrary to what is already stated on WP:SPOILER — deleting such information is an "unacceptable alternative".
While I personally dislike that Family Guy articles in particular tend to have jokes appended gratituously and unhelpfully, there is some need for this on character pages. Using citations for this aids readability (so that every statement isn't followed by two anecdotes) and helps keep this from becoming a joke book. The spoiler tags are helpful in this case, and not contraindicated by WP:SPOILER. / edgarde 17:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Just pure courtesy is no longer enough of a reason to include a spoiler warning. Instead, a compelling reason, based on if the viewers enjoyment will be severely damage.
If the jokes really are gratuitous, then they can be removed on the bases that they are unencyclopedic and/or gratuitous. If a joke is used to illustrate an aspect of a character, then it is not a spoiler. WP:SPOILER does not protect unencyclopedic content, whether the content is a spoiler or not. All that WP:SPOILER states is that you can't remove content on the bases of it being a spoiler. --Farix (Talk) 18:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I have given you a compelling reason. I feel you are not answering my questions, or recognizing how this situation is different from others.
As I said early on, jokes are easily spoiled for some readers. While there are people who memorize comedy albums and never get tired of repeating jokes, for me and many people jokes have a half-life, and hearing them for the first time in this forum is not a good way to enjoy them. This situation merits a spoiler warning at least as much as plot elements. This is a compelling reason.
As I've also already said, gratuitous jokes should not be on this page. I am not using this to defend unencyclopedic content. If anything, moving examples (which include spoilers) to citations should reduce the amount of unencyclopedic content.
You have yet to answer my question. Would you recognize any reason for using a spoiler warning? I feel like your objections are to problems in articles other than this one. / edgarde 19:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate having this moved to the article talk page. The largest percentage of people who would join this conversation will be defending Trivia, Cultural references, Goofs and Anecdotes sections. The convention I am trying to introduce is to prevent such forms, and to reduce or eliminate unencyclopedic content. Now the discussion will likely be clouded by the defenders of such garbage in whose ranks you seem to be lumping me.

You deleted this tag on your judgement. Nothing I'm doing is contrary to WP:SPOILER. I want it restored. It serves a purpose I have already explained. Your objections are to situations I am not posing.

I have eliminated a huge amount of trivia and joke cruft from this article.[3] [4] Your tag deletion is impeding this process. The spoilers-in-citations form I am introducing is for content that arguably cannot be removed (and per WP:SPOILER, should not be removed). Please revert your change. / edgarde 19:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the discussion here to get a wider gauge of the other editors' opinions since neither you nor I are going to agree. I continue to stand by my edit and will not revert it despite your demands for me to do so. If the other editors don't find you arguments compelling enough, then my edit will stand. But if a consensus forms backing your argument, then that will be that. --Farix (Talk) 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Waiting for feedback from Family Guy editors wasn't likely to help either, per reasons I gave in the above discussion. Not many people who edit this article are interested in removing, fancruft, or fixing poor writing, original research, and poor organization. / edgarde 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That's an incredible amount of bad faith on your part. --Farix (Talk) 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
And wouldn't you know, I'm suppressing an uncivil comment right now. But that wasn't bad faith, that was reportage. The tendency with Family Guy articles is cruft accrues every school day after a new episode. Episode talk pages especially feature much spirited defense of WP:OR and trivia. Here's a gem. / edgarde 23:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: spoiler warnings in citation/reference sections

This dispute is about the appropriateness of Spoiler tags in a References/Citations section. 19:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • In removing trivia and joke cruft from this article I found several jokes that arguably need to be kept to WP:CITE statements made about this character. These I moved to the citations section in the form of quotes using the {{cite episode}} tag. (I would like to implement this convention in other articles, such as this one.) I added a {{spoiler}} tag to the citations section[5] reasoning that jokes are easily spoiled. This tag was removed by two different editors as as "redundant"[6] [7], which it is not. I want it restored.[8] The above conversation between TheFarix (talk · contribs) and me is recommended reading. / edgarde 20:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • For starters, I think it's silly to start a formal RfC on this. If other editors wish to add their opinions to the discussion, they could have done so in the discussion above without a formal RfC. However, I still do not see how any of the quotes are remotely spoilable. Edgarde makes mention above that the jokes in the quotes have a half-life and are thus spoilable. I completely reject that idea as delivery is the key to a good joke, which Wikipeia can't replicate. That's why I don't see any compelling reason here to use spoiler templates in the citation section. In fact, I'll go so far to say that the citation/reference section is the one place where spoilers shouldn't be in, and as Tony states below, it is an indication of poor writing and organization. --Farix (Talk) 21:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there a compelling reason for a tag here? Moreover, the jokes don't seem especially amusing or significant. Couldn't the references be given without the wording of the jokes?
There is also an element of original research (and even not getting that this is a comedy program where characters say things for comic effect). For instance, reference 2 is to support the statement "A few gags even suggest that he is a registered sex offender" and the reference is to a gag in an episode which is quoted as "Well, in accordance with Megan's Law, I'm obligated to inform you, uh...". The statement and the reference to support it are probably more opinion than fact, and the giveaway here is that the writer has had to support his statement by interpretation of a primary source.
So the problem here doesn't seem to be so much use of spoiler tags as inappropriate or poor writing. --Tony Sidaway 20:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The question is about a tree, not the forest. Yes, the article is poorly written — for every tangent, gratuitious joke and observation based entirely in original research currently remaining in this article, I removed 5. / edgarde 21:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that's a red herring. The absents of the spoiler templates is not preventing you from fixing the poor writing, original research, and poor organization of this article. --Farix (Talk) 21:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Nor does it help. / edgarde 21:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The absents of the templates definitely doesn't hurt the article. --Farix (Talk) 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone going to look at this article if they don't watch the show? What on earth. - David Gerard 22:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Family Guy articles on Wikipedia should be written for general readership, not specificly for viewers/fans. / edgarde 22:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is a question. Has this character received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the show? If not, then either merge it into a list of character or send it to AfD. --Farix (Talk) 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right here, but I doubt an AfD would result in a deletion. Care to try it? There are dozens of Family Guy character articles, and literally all are worse than this one. And after that come the episode pages.
As for reliable sources, WP:EPISODE#Content states [a]n actual episode may be used as a source for information about the episode and constitutes a primary source. Such use does not constitute original research. I've not seen significant coverage on this or any Family Guy character, but I don't read about Family Guy outside of Wikipedia so I may be the wrong person to ask.
My intention here has been to trim these things without starting conflicts with the inclusionists. As for the position these articles should be either improved or deleted, yes I'm all for that — if you want to remove this junk, please go ahead. I am positively the wrong person for you to be complaining to about this. / edgarde 23:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jay-sus, what a mess. I think the original question was, do jokes need a spoiler warning, and I feel they don't. Giving away that Darth Vader was Luke's father is a spoiler, posting "Who are you calling scruffy looking?" is not. Let it drop edgarde. 21:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fictional rapists

This seems to be an absurd category; I'd consider removing this category from this page as it seems to lack a reliable source.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remove it. Family Guy characters are prone to overcharacterization based on single-episode situations. This crufts up the categories considerably, so it should be avoided. / edg 18:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

- He's a rapist, all right. At one point, he goes "I felt guilty once, but I woke up halfway through." In the episode where Meg is humiliated at a girl's birthday party, he goes to the house, and he is obviously having interested in sexual intercourse with the girl and her mother. He frequently orders roofie coladas whenever he goes on dates. In "Brian the Bachelor", he drugs the girl and carries her to a shed until he realises he is being filmed. During a musical number, he sings "I always try to find the hottest chick in the place/I crack her on the noggin with a lamp or a face/And then when she's unconscious, I do stuff to her face..." So yes, there is much evidence to support implications that he is a rapist. - Ndrly (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no positive evidence he is a rapist, or has ever rapped anyone! Read WP:OR Ctjf83Talk 05:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • One if by Clam, Two If By Sea - "I felt guilty once, but she woke up halfway through."
  • Brian the Bachelor - Quagmire drugs the Bachelorette (via her drink) and drags her to a shed, but suddenly realises he is being filmed, and so, opts to simply smell her flip-flop.
  • Stuck Together, Torn Apart - A bartender asks him if he will order the usual "roofie colada" for his date, implying that he has done so on many occasions. At the end of the episode, he appears near Jennifer Love Hewitt and orders a roofie colada for her. A roofie colada would likely be a pina colada mixed with rohypnol, the date rape drug.
  • Peterotica - "I always try to find the hottest chick in the place/I crack her on the noggin with a lamp or a face/And then when she's unconscious, I do stuff to her face..."
  • Stewie Loves Lois - (deleted scene, DVD) Quagmire is seeing off a girl at his place. Stewie shoots her, rendering her either dead or unconscious, and Quagmire says "All right", and drags her into his place, but then stops and says "What is wrong with me"

Watch any or all of these episodes, and you will see that Quagmire has, at the very least, tried to engage in rape. He has not always been successful, but his intentions were rape at some time. - Ndrly (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

He has once, I guess you guys don't watch family guy that often.

In the episode " Peter Griffin: Husband, Father...Brother? " Stewie ties up the head of the cheer leading team and leaves her tied up in a bathroom stall, Quagmire heads in to presumably use the bathroom, opens the stall where the head of the cheer leading team is, tied and gagged, and then Quagmire says " Dear Diary, Jackpot " then the episode ends. So it is obvious Quagmire has engaged in rape or molestation before. Irviding11 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

phone #

can we work it in somehow? its 911Д narcistPig (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the phone # is non-notable, excessively in-universe information that has no conceivable impact on how the character is written or what the audience can expect from him. It's also extremely trivial, not worth including. Perhaps you could add it to Glenn Quagmire on Family Guy Wiki, an external wiki instead. / edg 05:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
theres a family guy wiki? awesome!♠Д narchistPig♠ (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It's more than just awesome. They welcome a level of detail that Wikipedia would find unencyclopedic. And they want more editors. / edg 05:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Shouldn't Glen's wife Joan be in the info box? She is relevant. Lois brings her up in another episode other than the episode where she and glen get married. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

she's, dead.--Jakezing (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your point being? Does death mean that she doesn't exist any more? There are eleven deceased characters on the "List of Characters in Family Guy" page (including Joan). Voxamimae (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Bob Hope

I can't understand after all of this about Quagmire, not one person noted that he looks like Bob Hope. In the article, it is referenced he has bone structure similar to Stan from American Dad? Am I that old or are the people writing the article only in their 20's? If no one minds, I will make an attempt to add Bob Hope's facial similarities in the article? (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Please review the show before saying that. Stewie calls Quagmire "Bob Hope" in the episode Baby Not On Board Armyrifle (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course he looks like Hope, but Seth seems a bit reluctant to openly state that; here you can hear his own words about it:

Youtube video: Family Guy Seth MacFarlane & Seth Green ARE DRUNK! The Quagmire part: Some (apparently almost drunk) lady asked the question "Alright, is it me or does Quagmire look just like Quentin Tarantino?" Seth replied that he always thought Quagmire looked like Bob Hope, but Seth goes on to say that the Bob-Hope-look was not intentional, and when he starts to elaborate on his answer, the lady interrupts him and asks, "What's with the chin, ya know?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, when Seth says it himself in a video, then this is pretty reliable IMHO, but I guess videos are not yet good sources for Wiki. (sans sarcasm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Video is fine, just not Youtube. DP76764 (Talk) 20:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
source of video should matter more than host of video -- (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • True, there are exceptions (if it is an official release by a reliable source then youtube is ok). But, in most situations, this fails to be the case. If it's available on youtube, it should be available somewhere else (preferably a more reliable location). DP76764 (Talk) 17:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It cannot be found elsewhere, simply because these are pirated cell phone recordings of Seth MacFarlane himself. As Seth MacFarlane is an undisputedly reliable source, this pretty much closes the discussion. (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, Seth is a reliable source, but 'pirated cell phone recordings' are not reliable sources for inclusion in an article. Reliable sources must also be verifiable. DP76764 (Talk) 17:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Why not? Please describe your doubts, as I cannot see where they can come from at all. (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Because pirated cell phone recordings are illegal?? DP76764 (Talk) 17:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
So now the issue is no longer verifiability... it's legality (from my experience, such display of changing "reasons" is the practice of many serial deletionists... not that I'm calling you one or something). What does that have to do with the topic of this discussion? If you're concerned about legality, take that clip off YouTube. (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Illegality is part of reliability (my initial point), not a separate issue. Additionally, it applies to verifiability in terms of: other users cannot verify this source without breaking the law. Finally, YouTube is usually no more reliable than a pirated piece of material (though there are exceptions, of course). DP76764 (Talk) 18:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

FOX is notorious for taking down any video they seem fit (for legal reasons). This video's been there for a while, as have minute-long clips from Hulu. Besides, I couldn't find a specific ban in the article, to which you've pointed me. (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please prove the illegality/copyright breach? As far as I'm concerned, using a mediating site such as YouTube shakes off all responsibility from us as editors. (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you are sorely mistaken in that belief, but I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how to phrase this. (try reading through the WP:Copyrights area). That being said, the burden of proof is not on me to discredit the source, but on you to prove its reliability. DP76764 (Talk) 19:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You're splitting hairs my friend. We both know it's MacFarlane talking in that video, yet you keep insisting (feigned incomprehension?) on ignoring common sense... (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Or Neither of those. It doesn't matter if it really is MacFarlane, if the material is pirated/illegal, it's not acceptable to use. And you should finish reading the WP:COMMON article: "Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. While it is quite acceptable to justify your own actions by saying, "it seemed like common sense to me", you should be careful not to imply that other editors are lacking in common sense, which may be taken as a personal attack." DP76764 (Talk) 20:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Let's just wait for other contributors to voice their opinions. If I'm in the wrong, that's fine and I will support whatever decision is reached. However, I don't think that that will be the case. DP76764 (Talk) 20:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Link Leading to Disambiguation Page

I'm unable to edit this myself, as the page is semi-protected:

I've noticed that in the section titled "Job" the PTV page links to a disambiguation page, rather than the intended PTV_(Family_Guy) page for the episode in question.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxam (talkcontribs) 13:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Moral Enough to Not Perform Statuatory Rape

From the second paragraph of "Ethics and sexual deviancy" it is stated "He is also moral enough to not engage in statutory rape" but this quote from "Emission Impossible" condradicts that... "Well, in... in accordance with Megan's Law, I'm obligated to inform you that, uh... you know what, that's fine. I'll take the kids." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelda1899 (talkcontribs) 02:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Megans law isnt only about sex crimes against children-- (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, the issue might not be morality at all, but rather fear of being put in jail. He seemed fine with the tied-up cheerleader in the bathroom; also, when he's hired by Lois to avenge Meg's humiliation, Connie D'Amico tells him she's 16 and he replies with "18? You're first!" Anyhow, these are all POV's. (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Quagmire's Illegitimate children

Some episodes have shown Quagmire to have many illegitimate children such as "Peter's Got Woods" and "Tales of a Third Grade Nothing", so should there be some mention of it in the article? (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what happened

Anyone else notice this article has considerable less content from back here, did it contain no references or what? -PatPeter 21:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Some information considered unencyclopedic was removed in favor of a re-write (apparently a gradual one) per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Also, some of the detail on that version (such as the theme song) violated copyright. If you need lots if plot-derived detail, fansites like Family Guy Wiki might be more like what you are looking for. / edg 17:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


Why not include it? It would make the article more complete if it were included. Sure its only been referenced in one episode but that doesnt make it any less true. It was on his lisence therefore it should be considered as fact. You cant expect family guy to be referencing characters birthdates in every episode. User_talk:Dany44

It's unnecessary fan-cruft/trivia of the character and doesn't add anything significant to the description. DP76764 (Talk) 18:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, now it's a complete POV. Age is an important factor in describing a character and the latest episode finally reveals it. If we go by your definition, any detail can be defined as "fancruft," including the character's name, occupation or sexual deviation. (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Check the discussion here. Ages in most shows like this are inconsistent and do not correspond with the passage of time. As such, that makes them little more than fluff for the description of a character. What if he was 55 in the joke instead of 61? How would that make any difference whatsoever? DP76764 (Talk) 16:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
As inconsistent as it might be, it's still age - one of the basic characteristics. Why are you insisting it's a "joke?" Remember that POV pushing is inappropriate. As illogical as it might seem to you, this is the Family Guy universe. As long as his age is stated so explicitly, it is true (according to the FG universe), unless you can provide a source that proves it was a joke and Quagmire's real age is different. (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It is a mostly irrelevant characteristic (really all that matters is that he is an adult). Also, the show contradicts itself constantly, which will make it impossible to track (ex: Brian's varying ages). Most 'facts' in this show are intended as jokes, you realize. Let's see what input others contribute before making any changes. (thanks for protection, Xeno) DP76764 (Talk) 16:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Page protected for 24 hours to allow further discussion. I've also left a note at the FG wikiproject directing people here. –xeno (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"Most 'facts' in this show are intended as jokes, you realize" - and your source for this claim would be...? In this case, nothing is reliable - let's delete all FG articles because they're most likely jokes. I can't stress this enough: this is the Family Guy universe, not the real world... other logic may apply, it's fine. For example, Stewie's been 1 year old from the series' start until now - they even joked about it in an episode (I think it was The Former Life of Brian); however, it's still a fact in the FG universe. (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"in the FG universe" says it all. We need to try to keep articles based in the real world as much as possible, not in-universe/fansite style. See: WP:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). DP76764 (Talk) 17:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is about a fictional character created by Seth MacFarlane. Therefore, the character's age is part of MacFarlane's fiction, as are all other characteristics that are included in this article. Up until the latest episode Quagmire's age was never mentioned. (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Then what age is Quagmire in all the previous episodes? Real-world perspective answer: he didn't have an age—this is true for most of the series. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) dictates we not treat this character any other way.
This is part of the problem with in-universe perspective. Pretending we have now discovered the age he has been for the entire series is in-universe to the point of no longer writing about the real world, where as far as we know this detail was made up for that one gag. WP:WAF (not to mention WP:SYN) also cautions against constructing fictitious biographies based on (what are in the story) insignificant details. Best to avoid such details unless they help illustrate a more significant and clearly made point about the character. / edg 21:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Age is not important at all for a fictional character! If FG is any thing like the Simpsons, they will change the age to suit the episode. It is just fan cruft, that isn't necessary. For example, we removed Religion from the infobox, because too many people were warring over if Stewie was catholic or protestant. So we removed it, because it isn't important. A similar thing with Brian, when he saw jesus in I Dream of Jesus some how people just assumed he was catholic or christian, when in Love Blactually (I think) he said he is an atheist. Too many changing, non-notable details. If you notice, everything in the infobox, won't change, ie name, hair color, sex, relatives, etc. Those are the only things we should be listing. CTJF83Talk 21:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Age can be important for a fictional character, but it is not automatically important like it would be for a biography of a real person. In this case, it is not important. Assuming age is important as if this were a real biography is also an in-universe mistake. / edg 12:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

These parameters in the infoboxes can be left empty as well. As for your specific points:

  • Brian is a blatant atheist, if he saw Jesus and was awed... it figures.
  • Stewie was baptized, thus we assume he's Catholic. No proof has there been made otherwise, aside from the sheer fact that Lois is a protestant. To strengthen this assumption, he displays redneck Catholic-like qualities at times, such as aggressively attacking homosexuality by quoting the Bible when being a closeted homosexual himself; he also seemed to like the Bible stories as presented to him by Francis, the devout Catholic (who later baptized him).

Whoever is familiar enough with Family Guy will agree with me. As for the age: "what age is Quagmire in all the previous episodes? Real-world perspective answer: he didn't have an age" - pure bologna. Can you not have an age in the real world? The answer is: "we never knew his age until the latest episode." When you say "as far as we know this detail was made up for that one gag," do you see the POV pushing here? If we go by this logic, everything that ever happened in Family Guy is to be treated as a joke. Please explain how age is less notable than hair color. (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree Hair color isn't really important either, but you just did a whole lot of wp:original research in what you said. "thus we assume he's Catholic", redneck Catholic-like qualities, how do you know what the qualities are? he also seemed to like the Bible stories. You need to read up on original research. Also, I'm very familiar with FG, I have all 6 DVD volumes that are out. Why do you think we don't mention Peter Hittler, Thadeus Griffin, or Stan Thompson (Meg's "real father") at all? Cause they are unimportant one time jokes. If they mention Quagmire being 60 more, then sure, we might add it, but right now it is unimportant. CTJF83Talk 23:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Right now it is an one-off joke, so I wouldn't mention it. We can include it if the age gets confirmed in another episde. --Maitch (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
See the kind of crap we get if we add ages to one person, this just happened minutes ago. Peter's age has never been mentioned or hinted at once. CTJF83Talk 00:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, let me rephrase myself: he liked the Bible stories, he expresses it most vividly in Holy Crap. A baby that was baptized in a Catholic church is Catholic (unless, of course, evidence points otherwise)! In any case, exercising common sense is not against Wikipedia, I'm tired of linking to the policy...
As for specifics:
  • Stan Thompson should be mentioned. There's only one evidence that points otherwise (in I Never Met the Dead Man) but many other times it is stated that Meg is not Peter's biological daughter (might be even adopted, I cannot recall at the moment).
  • I still don't understand how you can selectively mark a part of the plot as a "one-off joke" and get away with it. Are there guidelines as for credibility of plot points? Has the FG production team confirmed that specific joke as being a non-canon gag? If not, all I see here is a bunch of Wikipedians indulging in pure original research and using it as a valid case for deletionism... am I the only one smelling the irony here?
  • Peter started as being 42 years old (confirmed in Stewie Loves Lois) and became 43 at some point (can't recall the specific episode though). Lois is two years younger than Peter, as confirmed in Let's Go to the Hop. Meg started as being 15 years old and became 16 17 in Peter's Two Dads. Stewie has been 1 year old ever since his birthday in Chitty Chitty Death Bang, they joked about it in Former Life of Brian.
Yes, some details that can be derived from Family Guy don't make sense at all, yet they are an integral part of the series - for example:
  • Jake Tucker has an upside down face and does not have a bottom.
  • Michael Moore does not exist. Neither do Rush Limbaugh, Lars Ulrich, Malcolm Jamal Warner etc.
  • Meg was born with a tail.
  • Bonnie was pregnant for at least 9 years.
  • Stewie was planning to take over Europe while being in Lois' womb. He also left a time bomb there, planned to go off on Lois' 50th birthday.
  • Characters' ages do not progress chronologically.
Not to mention the simple fact that there are no talking Martini drinking liberal dogs... or homicidal knowledgeable babies that speak with a Rex Harrison accent. Get it? It's a work of fiction, as I already said - different logic may apply. (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Quagmire's age is not a "plot point"—it's trivia. The guideline would be Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). / edg 13:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You linked to a policy that does not support this stand, please show me where this particular parameter is called trivia by Wikipedia's standards. Besides, I put thought into my replies, please do the same and answer my queries. (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information seems pretty clear. I have also explained at some length why this information is not important, per writing about fiction. / edg 21:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
IP, you are not understanding the concep to of unimportant trivia. His age is not important to a ficitonal show. I'm sure it will never be mentioend again. If you like to add that kind of trivial information, I suggest you go to and add all you want. Why on earth would we mention Stan Thompson? It was again a one time joke and was in one sentece, never to be mentioned again. Also, Quagmire's age had nothing to do with the plot at all! How can you think him mentioning his age is part of the plot. For example, in the Simpsons episode Viva Ned Flanders, Ned mentions he is 60, the whole plot of the episode is based on him being 60, and "never living a day in his life". That kind of age would be more useful, not a few sentences about Quagmire's age. CTJF83Talk 22:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I still see a lot of original research coming from you: "his age is not important"... "I'm sure it will never be mentioned again"... "Quagmire's age had nothing to do with the plot"... "that kind of age would be more useful, not a few sentences" and so on, coupled with the fact that you still insist that age is less important than, for example, size and shape of nose. And to Edgar - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information doesn't stress the importance (or lack thereof) of this specific characteristic. Again, this is all synthesis and original research. You decided that since they didn't choose the obvious (and predictable) pattern of making the whole episode about Quagmire's age (because it's mentioned at the beginning), it must have been a one-time joke that does not reflect the writers' intentions. Seems like some of you need to revise the relevant policies again (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH). The neutral point of view goes like this: they mentioned Quagmire's age, confirmed by two questions, hence the age goes into his bio. Who decides as for the level of importance/unimportance?
Finally, CTJF83 - care to reply to Peter's age dilemma? You claim to know FG fairly well... (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you resisted the urge to make ad hominem attacks (per WP:APR if you need a policy)—these are viewed as a last refuge of someone who cannot make a case for their position. You are still ignoring real-world perspective. / edg 10:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Age, part 2

No personal attacks here, plus I'm still getting nothing as for your original research. Besides, to quote CTJF83"Peter's age has never been mentioned or hinted at once." Since I have proved him wrong (Dr. Hartman tells Peter "You're 42 years old" in Stewie Loves Lois), I have the right to doubt the constructiveness of his edits. This is all related to Wikipedia/editing. (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We are getting very bogged down in side issues. Can you address my comment here? For most of the series, Quagmire simply has no age. To assume otherwise is taking an in-universe perspective. / edg 11:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've addressed it here — the exact quote would be:
As for the age: "what age is Quagmire in all the previous episodes? Real-world perspective answer: he didn't have an age" - pure bologna. Can you not have an age in the real world? The answer is: "we never knew his age until the latest episode."
So: for most of the series, Quagmire's age was unknown. Now that it's been revealed, it should be included in the article about him. Is it just me or does it make much more sense that the age was unknown rather than didn't exist? What does this outlook have to do with the real world? (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me for repeating myself, but here's the rest of what I said:

Pretending we have now discovered the age he has been for the entire series is in-universe to the point of no longer writing about the real world, where as far as we know this detail was made up for that one gag..

I guess the WP:OR in the position you are taking is that his age has been "revealed", as if this had been the case all along. It has not; for most of the series, Quagmire has not had an age. This has not changed. / edg 11:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh man... this is going nowhere. How, for f@^k's sake, can any real-world perspective assume one has no age??? The beginning of the episode reveals Quagmire's age by his friends looking at his driver's license and reacting with surprise. Where's the fallacy in that? (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

How, for f@^k's sake, can any real-world perspective assume one has no age???

Because Quagmire is a fictional character. If this were a real person, there would certainly have been an age all along. In fiction however, until one is written into the story, in the real world there is no age. See? / edg 12:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

See? "Until one is written into the story" says it all; it's been written into the story in FOX-y Lady. Not having an age is highly improbable, even for a real-world perspective onto fictional characters. Please find me a reliable source that can strengthen your point. (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Prior to this story, this character did not have an age in the real world. To be clear about it, this was not a {character portrayed as somehow having no age} nor was it a {character portrayed with an identified age}. Quagmire was 61 (or whatever) in this episode, and may be in future episodes (provided they don't do something different, like contradict it, or simply never refer to it again). However, in previous episodes, he had no age; this is entirely possible in the real world because this is not a real person.
To try and resolve it as if Quagmire were a real person (i.e. therefore he must have had an age all along and now we know it) is in-universe. In 10 years, this character has never been written as 61 years old (or whatever) prior to this episode, which is why it is not a "vital factor" (to re-use a term from previous discussion). If anything, his character was written with the appearance of a younger adult man for the duration of the series until now. / edg 13:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
He is portrayed as a human being, his mother is mentioned — therefore, he must have an age (even fictional human beings must have been born sometime). Not having an age is not an option, unless you portray a fictional species that one of its definitions is not having an age. Again, you are using your own point of view to make this Wikipedia related decision.
Aside from that, if this episode has revealed Quagmire's age and there is no contradicting evidence in the previous episodes, you cannot say that "if for the past 10 years they never bothered to reveal the age, it doesn't exist." On the contrary — here's the series proving you wrong, as if it were telling you: "By the way, Quagmire's 61 years old. Now, for the main plot..." (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, I'm not saying Quagmire is a magical being who can have no age. Perhaps you can re-read what I wrote. And it doesn't matter if Quagmire is a human being or Mickey Mouse—for 10 years, the age has not been part of his character. While some editors may find it fun to imagine we have discovered something about this person that has been there all along but we never knew, in the real world it's a throwaway line written for an episode that was aired in 2009. / edg 16:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I grow tired of repeating and reading the same things over and over. The consensus is clearly to not list his age. Time for me to move on. CTJF83Talk 19:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... no, not really, not at all (according to this, of course). To call the first minute of the episode "throwaway" or "minor trivia" is original research — an age is always assumed to exist. Again, no one explained why your assumption is Wikipedia's consensus. By the way, you never answered me as for Peter's age. I made my own mistake and I'm not hesitant to admit it - there's another "evidence" that Meg is Peter and Lois' real daughter (in Stewie Kills Lois, although Peter's stories are usually not credible due to his stupidity and unreliability). I personally proved to you that most main characters have a defined age, please address that point. (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, we didn't vote, we have reached a consensus that his age is not important. CTJF83Talk 06:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
How's that? Besides, you're still averting my questions. If you keep ignoring me, you will be no longer considered a part of this discussion. It is most critical that editors allegedly "in charge" of this project make such crucial mistakes regarding the most basic characteristics while basing their Wikipedia related decisions on the same mistakes. (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
no longer considered a part of this discussion? LOL, and who are you to make that decision. CTJF83Talk 15:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
When I ask relevant questions, ignoring them is highly uncivil (not to mention rude remarks such as "who are you"). I await your answers. (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Note - I've removed this article's request at WP:3o, because this is a dispute between more than two editors. I suggest going to WP:RFC. ƒingersonRoids 02:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

IP, why are you dragging this age thing on, and not letting it go? CTJF83Talk 02:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Age

Anyone unfamiliar with the RfC process should first read Responding to RfC's. The RfC process is for new comments from uninvolved editors. Please do not repeat the above debate in the RfC.

If you are already involved, you may add a concise statement on the dispute topic (only). It is recommended to link sections that state your case instead of repeating previous discussion at length.

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

Statement by edgarde (talk · contribs)
This character's age was mentioned in the premise to a joke in March 2009, 10 years after the show's debut. The age stated in this episode is not an important factor in this character. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) cautions against "Using throwaway comments or jokes as a source of information" and creating a "fictional character article or section written like a biography". Therefore, the most that can be said in this case is the character had

no age for the first 6 seasons, but in Season 7 his age is given as 61 (with his driver's license giving "1948" as his year of birth).

It is perhaps possible that the show's producers (or someone with similar knowledge) can be sourced stating the character's age was known to them much earlier, and thus had some effect on the character's development; in this unlikely circumstance, the character's age could then be considered an important factor in the character.
Unfortunately, this application of WP:WAF is being dismissed as WP:OR (or WP:SYN[9]) by the anon editor, who insists this is "blindly [quoting] the policy without fully understanding why it's there and what constitutes its essence."[10] I would welcome comment on whether my above analysis is itself WP:OR, or otherwise visually impaired. I'm not expecting everyone to read it, but this discussion begins at Talk:Glenn Quagmire#Age. / edg 15:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Statement by (talk)
The aforementioned episode begins with the following scene: the character is sitting in a bar with his friends, they show their driver's licenses to each other and the character's DOB is (obviously) printed on his license. Apparently, while he seemed to be in his mid-40's for almost 7 full seasons, we suddenly find out he is 61 (born in 1948). So far, this is a part of the script and it reveals one of the most basic characteristics — age. Normally, short vignettes such as that one would not produce significant information about the series/characters, but again, age is one of the basic characteristics when you describe a character, even a fictional one. Please understand that all I wanted was to add this character's age to his respective article.
Now for the WP:OR connection. edgarde (talk · contribs) insists that because his personal understanding of this is that the whole scene was a joke and did not really happen according to the plot, supposedly because they did not base the premise of the episode on that piece of information. This is pure original research, since the decision is based on his personal interpretation of the writers' intent. I am not dismissing his POV, I may disagree with it, but POV's are not allowed regardless. The neutral point of view is that if the character's age is announced, it should be included in their bio. If the scene is odd, it even should be encouraged that editors would add a short description around the age, just like I initially did here.
Finally, there is another editor — Ctjf83 (talk · contribs) — who seems to have taken Edgarde's side in the discussion. When I wanted to add the age to the Family Guy character infobox, he objected and stated that "most Family Guy characters' age is never explicitly referenced." As you can see throughout this thread, I successfully proved him wrong. Therefore, if this editor's input is based on misinformation, it cannot be considered constructive. Note that I've been trying to engage that user in a conversation in regards to this matter, but he has been blatantly ignoring that point. Furthermore, he is now trying to persuade me to "give up" and here are the quotes: "You are being ridiculous! Why can't you just accept... not listing his age?"... "[W]hy are you dragging this age thing on, and not letting it go?"
  • Comment: Taking other people's comments out of context (and selectively editing them) is not civil. The full quote is: "You are being ridiculous! Why can't you just accept the current consensus of not listing his age? Are you going to drag this out till you get your way and his age is listed?" DP76764 (Talk) 16:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Reaction to comment: Yeah, you're probably right, I should point at that user's personal animosity towards me in greater detail, as this discussion clearly indicates. Sure, start a crusade against me because I'm not accepting your POV quietly and submissively, let alone your lack of knowledge of the subject matter. And if you're on it, sweep any traces of evidence against your own misconduct, like here or here. (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
These are not personal attacks, nor are these unfounded. I have pointed to that user's indirect personal attack on me, as well as his or her editing patterns. And Edgarde — I urge you to stay civil, as opposed to this diff; I would strongly advise against telling other editors (be it directly or not) to "shut up and sit down." (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You might want to rephrase your comment, because it seems to imply that I had some role in the linked discussion. DP76764 (Talk) 17:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Maitch (talk · contribs)
I'm not sure if I should comment here since I only made one comment in the original discussion.
Family Guy is a fictional animated show that is made up of throwaway comments and jokes and in which the characters do not age. The show has several times made throwaway comments, which has not been followed up by another episode. Thus, Family Guy cannot be taken seriously for comments that are not confirmed by another episode. Therefore I would not mention the characters age unless it has been confirmed by another episode. Secondly, there is a big problem, since this episode actually mentions his birth year. Since the characters on the show do not age it will increasonly become problematic to justify why his age is getting older, but he looks the same.--Maitch (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Characters do age, although in a manner that does not seem logical. Stewie had a birthday in Chitty Chitty Death Bang, Meg had a birthday in Peter's Two Dads, Lois had a birthday in Stewie Kills Lois and so on. To determine something as being a throwaway comment/joke "because it didn't get confirmed in another episode" (where does this logic come from???) is anything but neutral. As for birth year — here is the exact dialogue:
Peter: Wait a minute, you were born in 1948?
Quagmire: Uhm... yeah.
Peter: You're 61 years old?
Quagmire: Yes sir.
It is biased to single out this scene and analyze the writers' intent without receiving their confirmation, I believe this is the very essence of WP:NOR. (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, nothing only listed in one episode should be mentioned. Should we mention that Peter had a horse leg in one episode? How about he had a job as an eye for (can't remember the actor), should we list every single job Peter has ever had? No, to all of those. Why? Because they are just one episode brief jokes that have never been mentioned again. If we did, the articles would never end. CTJF83Talk 19:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Another example with this is: in this past week's episode, Peter says he didn't get Meg a mumps immunization when she was an infant due to it 'being 1992 and I was more interested in (whatever)'. 2009-1992=17 obviously (her 'current' "age"). So how does this match up with the beginning of the series (in 1999) when she was 15 (1999-15=1984)? It doesn't. Additionally, implying that the characters age 'in a manner that does not seem logical' is itself WP:OR! DP76764 (Talk) 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
(to IP) No, it is no biased to wait for confirmation. It is good sense. And I do not single out this incident. I believe this should be the case with all throwaway comments. This is supported by WP:INUNIVERSE, which says "Problems associated with an in-universe perspective include: ... Using throwaway comments or jokes as a source of information." Also, I will no go into the discussion about birthdays. Lisa Simpson has had two, yet she remains 8. --Maitch (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh I like that DP! There comes the question is she born in 1984 or 1992, and how old is she really, 15 or 17, and why has she only aged 2 years in 10 real years? CTJF83Talk 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This was not a throwaway comment, it was the beginning of the episode (not a cutaway gag). The guys are sitting, talking, they mention Quagmire's age and move on. Also, we are not talking about The Simpsons. And to Dp76764 (talk · contribs) — Meg is not a real person, you cannot apply the same logic to her. She is 17 unless mentioned otherwise. Peter is either 42 or 43, I do not remember exactly whether he started as being 41 and turned 42 or started as being 42 and turned 43. Lois is two years younger than Peter, therefore she is either 40 or 41. Stewie, on the other hand, has been 1 year old since the beginning of the series. If I am not mistaken, Chris is two years younger than Meg, although I cannot source this speculation at the moment. Quagmire is 61 unless mentioned otherwise. This has all been explicitly stated. Age is an important factor, unlike a joke about Peter being Sandy Duncan's glass eye. (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Meg was clearly 15 as DP pointed out, how do you contest that IP? CTJF83Talk 20:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • See, this is where we all I disagree with you: age is NOT not necessarily an important aspect of these particular fictional characters. DP76764 (Talk) 20:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved parties

A character's age is defined in-universe -> mention the age when describing the character. This is a pretty normal way of preceding. I don't see any POV-pushing, OR or violation of writing about fiction guidelines. Those opposing this above don't appear to have pointed out any valid reasons for excluding this, and the flaws have been shown in what they have suggested. Additionally, the fact that one party chooses to remain anonymous should not be held against them, nor come into this discussion. OrangeDog (talkedits) 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Who has said anything about holding against him/her because the IP is anonymous besides you? CTJF83Talk 02:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
CTJF83Talk, you are not an uninvolved party, therefore please relocate your comment to the appropriate area. (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Throw away lines in single episodes should not be used to construct biographies. Seriously, a show like Family Guy has so little continuity and is filled with one off flash backs the idea of putting a characters age in a biography is a really bad idea. --Leivick (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties' replies to uninvolved parties

To Daniel J. Leivick (talk · contribs): As I explained numerous times, the part where Quagmire's age is mentioned is not a cutaway gag. It is clearly confirmed at the beginning of FOX-y Lady, therefore, we must accept it neutrally unless proven otherwise. (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have seen it, I know it is not in an actual cut away gag, but it is a throw away line. We don't need to list character ages based on single jokes. --Leivick (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
...and here's my question all over again (for the 43298764th time): what defines a joke as opposed to a valid line? Why did Chris' line to Brian from Fast Times at Buddy Cianci Jr. High (I thought your father's name was Coco and he was run over by a milk truck) make it to the character description, but age is such as giant issue here? (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
That shouldn't be in there either. We don't need detailed biographies for Family Guy characters as their life stories are not in any way important on the show (or in the real world) and change every time it is convenient to make a joke. Also I have this page on my watchlist, (one of the benefits) of having an account so I don't need to be informed every time you respond. --Leivick (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The question remains though: what defines a joke as opposed to a valid line? Looks like a whole bunch of original research to me... selectively choosing what was just a throwaway line and what was really intended. We must remain WP:NEUTRAL and list the age unless we're proven otherwise. Again, your way of thinking might lead to deleting virtually all FG articles because "these are all jokes." (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not hard, but common sense. When he says he is 61 from eating carrots and inserting them anally, does that not sound like a throw away joke to you? CTJF83Talk 01:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: It could be called a joke because: it was only mentioned once in one episode, was not a notable aspect to the plot of that episode, did not contribute to the development of the character and may never be commented upon again. The logic that 'hey, they said it in the episode, so therefore we must include it here' is a bad idea; as has already been mentioned, it would force us to include all the obvious jokes (horse legs, various jobs, anything and everything). Additionally, I find this section of discussion dubious: all that's happening is people 'replying' with the same logic and arguments already used (repeatedly) throughout this page. The new commenters have, ostensibly, already read through those arguments and taken them into account before commenting; there is no need to rebut their comments with the same old arguments. DP76764 (Talk) 21:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, in any case it isn't a matter of telling joke from serious plot element, it is a matter of throw away line versus character trait. Again encyclopedia articles on fictional topics should focus on real world impact and development, not in universe minutiae. --Leivick (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

  • To Ctjf83 (talk · contribs): My common sense also dictates me that the white aerobics instructor portrayed by Eddie Murphy in The Nutty Professor is an obvious Richard Simmons impression, yet I recall you removing that for being unsourced. There are a lot of obvious parodies in Family Guy that you'd remove without thinking twice. So the question is: why can your common sense take over WP:Verifiability whenever it's convenient to you, but for others it's wrong (even when the parody is so obvious they even throw a fourth-wall-breaking remark about it)? The age is one of the show's quirks, most Family Guy facts make little to no sense.
    • The Simmons parody is OR. CTJF83Talk 15:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
      • So if my common sense dictates the Simmons parody (as clearly intended) it's OR, but if your common sense dictates that the specific moment wasn't related to the overall development, it's not OR. Bias, anyone? (Incidentally, the Simmons parody is sourced.) (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
        • What source? CTJF83Talk 22:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
      • (to IP) All cultural references need a source to be included. "Common sense" does not take over WP:V, which says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". --Maitch (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • To Dp76764 (talk · contribs): Age is not the same as having a horse leg in a flashback. Come on now, this is a bit overdone...
  • To Daniel J. Leivick (talk · contribs): In the real world, Quagmire was described by Seth MacFarlane as "this 50's guy," not to mention he was modeled after Bob Hope. Considering these traits of personality, the birth year makes perfect sense. (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
If you can source it, the MacFarlane 50's guy quote would be a good, real-world addition to this article. Ditto the Bob Hope comment. / edg 12:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It already exists, in case you haven't noticed. My attempt to attribute that to Quagmire's age was dismissed by one of you as WP:SYN. (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Where does this exist? I agree with edg. If you can find a reliable source of MacFarlane saying he is a 50's guy guy, then you can keep the birth year. --Maitch (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Under Appearance, we could probably develop a paragraph on his anachronism, with the MacFarlane quote ("An appalling human being who is still caught in the rat-pack era"), and the "50's guy" quote the anon mentions above. In such a paragraph, this repeatedly-removed[11] plot quote

When Peter and Cleveland see his license, they are surprised to find out that Quagmire is 61 years old (as of 2009). He claims that carrots are his secret to looking so young when asked by Cleveland.
EDIT: Above wording struck in favor of the following. 22:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

To match the retro character, the episode FOX-y Lady reveals Quagmire's birth year to be 1948, making him 61 years old at the time, much to the surprise of his friends.

might be a sensible addition since it would be in context, and not presented as a hard fact about the character's age (unless the reader were prone to take it that way, as some editors here do).
Does this seem like a good solution? / edg 17:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like an excellent solution. I'm glad we've caught the same wave here for a change, I guess you see now where I was going all along. Small detail though: I'd write "born in 1948" instead of "as of 2009," as FG chronology is unexplainable at times. Look at this diff here — this was my first attempt to add the age; the wording there pretty much matches your proposal. (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the wording in that diff might be even better. My objection there would be changing the heading to Appearance and age, which gives undue weight to the age stated in this throwaway line (per everything I've said above). If the age statement can be kept in the context of Q's anachronism, I'd be okay with it. Downsides: some may call this WP:SYN since we don't have a source interpreting the joke this way; and we still don't have a WP:Consensus for reporting the age at all. / edg 22:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
EDIT: Striking my above proposed text in favor of the wording suggested by anon. / edg 22:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Since age does not fall under "appearance," we must state it in the relevant sub-heading, it's as simple as that. Regarding the alleged WP:SYN — it is no more WP:SYN than singling out a scene as "irrelevant" and "throwaway," as opposed to the more than sensible reference to Quagmire's anachronistic character traits.
In any case, thank you for having good faith in my contribution. (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Since no one opposes the final proposition by edgarde (talk · contribs), I am requesting a formal consensus regarding the matter. If no one reacts within 24 hours, I'll add the age. 10:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC) *My IP has obviously changed, sorry about that — talk page is actually here.
What is a "formal consensus"? The current consensus is not to include the age. I stated the compromise I would settle for, and what the problems with it might be. You are asking for a change in the consensus, toward which I don't see any motion.
P.S. If you wish to keep editing anonymously (which at this point I would not recommend, regardless of your stated reasons), please do not expect anyone to keep up with your address changes. Signing an IP address from which you are not editing, and claiming different IP address as your talk page, presents a nuisance to other editors. Please recognize this. / edg 13:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no current consensus. As for signing, I've stated my reasons; I think it's a nice gesture of me to explain myself in such detail. I wish I could say the same about some editors here. 14:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC) *My IP has obviously changed, sorry about that — talk page is actually here.

Further comment

The Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute section needs to be concise so Uninvolved editors can get caught up easily. Otherwise, few if any will respond to this RfC.

I"m going to ask one more time for the involved editors to move their non-statement threaded argument out of the Statements section and into Further comment (this section). The threaded opera just makes it hard for Uninvolved editors to hear the discussion. If you need to dispute something said in an editors statement, either move it here, or create your own statement. Please do this as a favor to uninvolved editors. / edg 23:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you are involved in this thread, I will ask you once more to move your comment (and my reply) from this section back to where it belongs please. As far as I'm concerned, the thread under the RfC section is over. In order to place comments here, we must let the uninvolved editors have their say first. (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


Giggity-giggity-goo was deleted with the former Catchphrases section. Does anyone object to adding this? We would need reliable, independent third party sources for this catching on as a popular term. So far, the best I have are these:

  • Belanger, Nick (2006-04-19). "FOX's best show symbolizes America" (subscription required). University Wire. Financial Times. He's an icon for a generation, giggity giggity. 
  • Woodson, Alex (2007-03-05). "Net effect: Voicetones are a 'Family' affair" (fee required). The Hollywood Reporter. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. Retrieved 2007-03-17. A tone with the show's neighborhood sleazeball, Quagmire, uttering his 'Giggity Allllright' catchphrase finished at No. 4 and for the week ending Feb. 18, it was No. 3, up 171% from the previous week. 

Not great. / edg 16:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)