Talk:Family Guy controversies/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sources that aggregate or analyze the Criticism of Family Guy?

I'm having a hard time finding sources about the Criticism of Family Guy. It seems the links in the article are to actual criticisms of family, but not secondary sources directly ABOUT the criticism. If this article is to exist on wikipedia we're going to need more than primary sources. Has anyone published any articles about the criticism of family guy? --TrollHistorian 19:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Small Change

Moved AIDS ref from list of sexually deviant practices to list of items controversially parodied on the sow, since AIDS is a disease, not a sexual practice. 80.73.220.12 00:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I actually just cleaned that whole bit up. There isn't really a lot of proof that family guy has caused controversy outside of the "You've got AIDS," "Wish Upon a Wienstein" and just general profanity and indecency.{unsigned|Jaderaid|2007-04-13 T18:48:52}}

Great. This article can get a lot shorter then. / edgarde 19:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I have serious notability concerns about this article. All the sources are about family guy and not about the criticism. There are probably 1 or 2 seth mcfarlane quotes about family guy criticism. This article should be about ABOUT criticism of family as an issue, not the fact that criticism exists and we should aggregate it. The fact is all this article does is prove family guy is notable, not that criticism of family guy is notable. We need sources which ARE ABOUT the criticism of familyguy not criticism of family guy. You see the difference? --TrollHistorian 16:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

By that same criteria, every Family Guy episode article should be removed, as well as character articles etc. Same with the Simpsons, as well as articles for each specific Pokemon. There are a lot of articles on wikipedia where its parent article holds the notability and sub-articles are made purely for more information on a section of the topic. I'm not saying that it's a good or bad thing, i'm just saying that there are more articles than just this example wherein the title of the article doesn't hold any specific notability by itself. -- jeffthejiff 18:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No there are policies for inclusion of TV episode summaries. Wikipedia has rules against Original Research, which is primarily what this page is (see WP:OR). There are no articles that I have seen that are about the criticism of Family Guy itself and not just criticism of family guy. Also see WP:Pokémon test because each pokemon can be verified and sourced if people really tried. I don't think your argument that the subarticle is playing off the notability of the parent article really holds much water. Do you have a policy to support that? All I know is there are no sources about the article and the article is WP:OR. --TrollHistorian 21:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Content_forking. --TrollHistorian 21:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_software_engineering and Old mirror of Criticism of Software Engineering to see what I'm talking about. This article consists of WP:OR and is a collection of links summaries and synthesis of other criticism article, but it is not a synthesis of reliable secondary sources which discuss the actual criticism of family guy. --TrollHistorian 21:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• • If every episode of Family Guy that's ever aired is considered notable enough to have its own article, and every episode of Family Guy that HASN'T aired is ALSO considered notable enough to have its own article, then I don't see why an article devoted to all the CRITICISM of Family Guy isn't notable enough to have its own article. Sylocat 06:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • They're not saying that "Criticism of Family Guy" isn't notable enough to have its own article. They're saying that this article does not have any actual sources discussing Criticism of Family Guy as a topic; they are all sources discussing Family Guy critically. The article, as written, is a sort of Original Research. I don't know if I completely agree with their reading of the rules, but I do understand it. 64.95.27.5 15:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)sean
      • Well now there are a few secondary sources documenting the criticism, such as the sources from E! and Broadcasting & Cable. Given how detailed this is and now that is meet WP:NPOV and such, I find this article acceptable per WP:FORK because this show has been noted for being a bit off-color and unconventional, as the (cough cough) Parents Television Council has noted.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Pruning

Some of the more aggressive deletions that are currently being made (by anonymous users) and summarily reverted might be considered constructive if good explanations were included in the edit summaries, or on this Talk page. This article has for a long time been rife with original research, WP:TRIVIA and off-topic statements. / edgarde 18:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mad Magazine

Mad Magazine parodies rag on their subjects by formula — No you clod, this stupid show! — so I don't think they can be taken seriously as criticism. Can the Mad Magazine section be removed without much grief?

The cover illustration is worth keeping as it illustrates a point made by other critics, but the section itself is overkill and WP:TRIVIA. / edgarde 20:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. Jaderaid 07:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice. / edgarde 14:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

I can't find any proof of this either; I don't agree that it should be left on the page uncited if the only proof is on IMDB. Removed. If someone finds proof, I'll be happy to see it back.Jaderaid 07:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

AIDS?

"Subjects that have been called to attention are the series' controversial jokes about a number of sensitive issues,[4] including AIDS.[5]" Wasn't the joke about AIDS mocking the ways in which you can deliver bad news and not people with the actual disease? I mean, the joke would have worked the same if it were leukemia, but that is harder to fit into a song I think. It wasn’t taking on the sensitive subject of AIDS, really. Surely there are better examples then that one. Chewbacca1010 18:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

AIDS jokes were pretty taboo for a long time — John Waters still swears he'll never do one — so it's pretty edgy (compared to cancer, for example), and the controversy over the Family Guy AIDS joke (unique among the formerly overlong list of topics) is really the one incident causing a notable controversy, and for which a citation was found. / edgarde 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Unoriginality?

Are there no articles to cite about the lack of originality on the show? It seems that nearly 100% of the humor is derived from very overtly referencing and parodying other works. Many of the cutaway gags are direct copies of scenes from films or other shows (in the episode Road to Rupert, one scene is directly lifted from Star Trek II while a 5 minute sequence superimposed Stewie over Jerry the Mouse).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Radaar (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you can help by finding references?

Incidentally, referencing and parodying are not the same as "lack of originality", though excessive reliance on referencing might be a valid criticism in itself. / edgarde 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why we would need cites. It's pretty blatant that Family Guy is stealing from other shows, The Simpsons, and using their Material. An example is The Courtship of Stewie's father and Rosebud both Homer and Peter play in a box that was meant for their children and both run off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.20.100 (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Misogyny

I sincerely hope this doesn't get too contentious. Personally, I do now know of any show on Basic Cable more misogynistic than FG. This is seriously underrepresented. I don't know if I can be an authority (citations 'n all) on pointing this out in an accurate manner. Any thoughts? Nitcomb 02:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar might uncover some quality criticism, but one needs to wade through .DOCs and .PDFs (and grade C term papers it seems).

I'd suggest ditching the term "misogyny" (you should see what crawls out of the Wiki-woodwork when that word gets used) and using simpler, more specific terms.

Portrayals of women

• Lois: Initially a Marge Simpson-esque scold, evolves into a male fantasy. (Though I'm simplifying considerably.)
• Meg: MacFarlane admits the main cause of her problems in life is that he doesn't know how to write for women.
• Majority of other women: bims.

In fairness, most of the male screen time goes to Stock Dumb Guy (Peter, Chris, occasional others). But there are more well-developed male characters than female.

Treatment of women

And while the treatment of women on this show is probably ironically misogynistic ...

• depictions of misogyny
• "gloves off" cartoon violence (deliberately equivalent to violence against male characters)

... I'd sure want my kids to be aware of a few things before they watched this show.

Can I source this stuff? No, it's WP:OR. Citing episodes doesn't work for this because we need WP:NOTABLE criticism, not our own observations. / edgarde 05:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and original research taggage

At the type I type this, Criticism of Family Guy is tagged for the following:

• {{neutrality}} -- see WP:NPOV
• {{weasel}} -- see WP:WEASEL
• {{Original research}} -- see WP:NOR
• {{Primarysources}} -- see WP:NOR#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources

Can we yank some of these, and restore as needed to the relevant sections instead of the article header? If anyone wants to check all the current citations and sprinkle {{fact}} tags where needed, that might help.

I've not read all the Family Guy vs. Godzilla sections, so maybe they need work. I've demoted those to subheadings of Rivalries with other cartoonists. / edgarde 00:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay I made it to through.

Neutrality

There was some language suggesting various parties "attack" Family Guy. This is toned down. / edgarde 13:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Lately, I've noticed some edits to this article that attempt to "de-neutralize" the article this is a recent example. In other words, the editors want this "criticism" page to strictly reflect criticism against family guy, but not the other side views. Does this article necessarily need an NPOV by Wikipedia standards, or does the subject matter of this article warrant that it can just be "self-explanatory" (you know what I mean)? Andrewlp1991 05:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it does, otherwise you give a distorted picture of what actually happened, for example the South Park episode was not a vindictive attack, it was more balanced and reasoned. There's no need to be such a bleeding heart about these things.--Crestville 11:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Weasel

I think the article is pretty specific at this point. / edgarde 13:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Some WP:OR ...

Given the sheer number of The Simpsons episodes, and the fact that they are both 30-minute animated television shows that air on the same network, comparisons between The Simpsons and Family Guy, as well as other FOX animated series, are sometimes unavoidable

... has been snipped. And {{fact}} tags are now installed where I've noticed a missing or broken citation. / edgarde 13:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources

This tag may be mistaken. According to WP:EPISODE, "An 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." Which is pretty logical. Does anyone see a reason to keep this tag? / edgarde 13:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fancruft

This won't be popular, but a lot of gratuitous (not relevant to Criticism) material, mostly joke recaps and unneeded plot spoilers, is snipped. If someone feels this should all be documented, Wikipedia probably isn't the place. The Wikia Family Guy wiki might be a very good place. / edgarde 13:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Tags removed

Yanked these since no one has been interested in discussing the article in the week since I asked. Lead section could use some work. / edgarde 08:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Weinstein: FOX "edited" version vs. Cartoon Network version?

I wasn't sure if the Weinstein episode was edited on Cartoon Network. I didn't even know it was edited on FOX. Didn't Cartoon Network air the Weinstein episode first? Someone may want to look into this... -RedBlade7 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Similarities to The Simpsons

I just found some interesting videos on Youtube that can maybe be put on the Wiki page.

[censored!]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.115.179 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but unless Fox has said this material can be shared freely (and we can be sure they have not), this material is a copyright violation. See Wikipedia:External links on this. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a repository of links, images, or media files. / edg ☺ ★ 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

American Dad

Is it relevant to also include criticisms against American Dad in this page? I noticed a ref to the show on the "Entertainment Weekly" section, and I know that the Parents Television Council has also criticized American Dad for much of the same reasons as they criticize Family Guy. However, because this article is called "Criticism of Family Guy", I was just posting here to ask whether I should keep or remove the American Dad references here. I found some links for PTC criticism of American Dad: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] --Andrewlp1991 21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep it just Family Guy in this article. The items you're suggesting might be good for starting a Criticism section in the American Dad article. / edg ☺ ★ 17:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, so I'll go edit the American Dad article to add a "Critical reception" section that it already lacks. --Andrewlp1991 05:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow 4 PTC "Worst of" awards, that's some work. Maybe American Dad needs a PTC "Worst TV Shows of the Week" awards chart as well. / edg ☺ ★ 00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to South Park criticism

There is a video on YouTube (yes, I read the comment about Wiki not being a repository, but this is not just a fan video) of Seth MacFarlane addressing Harvard graduates. In it, he does make a comical response to the criticism that South Park makes.

"The boys at South Park are absolutely correct. Those cutaways and flashbacks have nothing to do with the story. They're just there to be funny, and that is a shallow indulgence that South Park is quite above, and for that I salute them."

Anyone want to add it, or is it just irrelevent. It kind of contradicts the creators of SP commenting that they haven't had any blowback from the Cartoon Wars episodes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.128.95 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good addition to Wikiquote.

This article tends to wander into irrelevance when it details the feuds. An article called South Park feuds with Family Guy would be incredibly fascinating to some editors, but the subject is better suited to the Family Guy Wiki than Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ★ 14:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Phantom of the Opera

Not really a defense of the show by any means; a tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) was popular with the masses but professionals within the industry cringe when they hear its name. Paliku 08:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy vs. Arrested Development

I just deleted this section again, having already deleted the same information two days ago. I don't see this as a criticism of Family Guy. I don't think it is necessary to record every on-air joke that somehow includes Family Guy. I don't think every mention of FG on another TV show is either notable or criticism, let alone notable criticism.

Is there something here I'm not seeing? What I'm getting from this is that Arrested Development isn't a exactly ratings champion (stop the presses), and Fox is more supportive of popular shows like Family Guy. This is not a criticism of FG or even Fox (as far as I can see), but a joke about Arrested Development's own situation. Doen't belong in Criticism of Family Guy. / edg ☺ ★ 02:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a subtle dig at the show itself but it's overall a criticism of Fox's annoying popup ads that ran on the bottom of the screen during their shows at the time.

I specifically remember that joke airing because a couple weeks before it aired there was a really annoying and obtrusive "Family Guy" ad during "Arrested Development" (it pretty much looked exactly like the web-based popup in the actual "AD" episode) and I immediately thought "that point of that joke is gonna be lost when the shows come out on DVD because the real ad is obviously not gonna be on that episode".

It looks like that's the case, but for the record the joke is about Fox having "Family Guy" ads like that running during "Arrested Development".GuruAskew 05:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if this were confirmed, it would be too slight and ambiguous to be notable. However, your interpretation of this as a "subtle dig" at Family Guy is at best original research. / edg ☺ ★ 02:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Put it back in so it can be discussed first before removing it. Don't delete it until it has been fully discussed. I think it is a reputable section since they did make a direct criticism not only to Fox but also Family Guy. If it was a criticism to Fox only then why didn't they also show American Dad and Simpsons ads, both which also had heavy promotion? Please discuss it first to get other opinions before removing the section. --ČσъяạβҜ †Talk† 01:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

But it is not a criticism of Family Guy. It is a mention of Family Guy. Fox's advertisements of Family Guy are not part of the show. This does not merit inclusion. / edg ☺ ★ 02:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving this to talk page to address CobraBK's concern that this can not be discussed without people seeing it, even tho it is visible in the diffs I link at the top. Please don't demand information be included in the article simply because it is disputed. / edg ☺ ★ 03:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy vs. Arrested Development
In the episode of Arrested Development titled Sword of Destiny (season 2 episode 37 aired in March 2005), there was a short instance of Family Guy popup ads appearing over the website of a character in the show. It was criticism to both Family Guy and FOX because the the creators of Arrested Development were notified by Fox that they were cutting their program short from 22 to 18 episodes during this time because of Fox's decision to return Family Guy in May 2005. The popup intrusion joke was a result of the Fox website having a tenancy of extreme popup advertising and Fox's limited promotion of Arrested Development.

Parents Television Council

EW citations for PTC

moved from User talk:Lighthope, where no discussion occurred, and re-written

The insistence that the Entertainment Weekly citation is "simply not a valid source" is not explained beyond Lighthope's first comment. Entertainment Weekly is itself a credible source. Use of "anonymous sources" is a common practice, and does not by itself invalidate news reporting. In fact, off-the-record sources can be more valuable when official sources have greater reason to be contrived and circumspect.

I restored the Entertainment Weekly quote because:

• It corroborates the Mediaweek citation — it is the only source I know of that doesn't simply echo the Mediaweek story.
• It provides evidence that PTC letter-writing campaigns are an issue past 2003

It is neither necessary nor desireable to insert an placeholder factoid for the second citation, as was done in this edit, so I have restored both citations together with a hidden comment explaining the 2nd citation. I would really prefer this be discussed here instead of in edit summaries, especially since this has apparently become an Edit war. / edg ☺ ★ 09:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that anonymous sources are used in journalism to add authenticity to a story, Wikipedia (or any encyclopaedia work) is not reporting news, but rather is a work of reference which by standard must be verifiable. Anonymous sources by themselves are not verifiable. I am certainly unaware (and am willing to be corrected) of any encyclopaedia using anonymous sources as their reference, even in a cooberating (sp?) manner.

While the anonymous EW source cited by above does indicate that the story of complaints to the FTC by a single group has a life beyond the original reporting in a journalistic sense, the EW article provides no reference for any of its interview quotes (naming themn simply "Executive 1, Executive 2, etc.", nor does it even date the actual interview itself.

Based on the above, the EW article does not qualify as a valid, encyclopaedic reference except to demonstrate continuing interest in the original report which is itself referenced.

Therefore, the EW reference should be deleted as it provides no credible scholastic value save for evidence of ongoing interest. Lighthope 05:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand you, "evidence of ongoing interest" is one of the reasons the EW reference is kept; this is is something I have said above, and in this article's revision history. / edg ☺ ★ 05:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The manner that you have the EW reference listed is misleading. I had edited the post to make it more clear that the EW reference was in fact referring to ongoing interest, but you changed it back and blurred it again. This Revision as of 03:16, 6 October 2007 is the better, more clear, and less dishonest way to use the EW reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lighthope (talk • contribs)

I don't appreciate the insinuation that this is "dishonest". This is a link to Entertainment Weekly, not to "anonymous sources". Demonstrate that EW mades this sort of information up, and you'll have a point. I'm restoring the version you propose as a compromise, but I dislike it because it adds pointless verbiage, introducing a factoid that doesn't help the article. / edg ☺ ★ 06:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed the complaint note

I have removed the mention of the PTC's dominance of all the FCC's content complaints. Although true from the two given references, that factoid is irrelevant to the overall focus of this article, which when talking about the Parents Television Council, should be focus on their criticisms against Family Guy. --Andrewlp1991 05:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The text in question:

the organization, which is believed to have generated most of the indecency complaints received by the FCC[6] [7]

I think this should be retained for readers unfamiliar with the PTC (whose name I didn't know when I first edited this article). Otherwise PTC appear to be scolds of no more importance than the blogger who writes Family Guy sucks, and appear to be given too much space in this article. To say PTC is known merely "for its outspoken critical views of Family Guy" understates the PTC's real-world importance considerably (and this article spends dangerously little time in the real world).

One thing that may make that sentence difficult to edit is another editor insisted on adding the phrase

a concern that has spanned several years

I considered this phrase superfluous and distracting, but no one else objected. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree with you, Edgarde, so I restored the text I initially deleted. Thanks for the response. --Andrewlp1991 06:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)