Talk:Family Guy controversies/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The PTC Section

This reads like a biased Tirade against the PTC. How is it relevant to to their criticism of Family Guy that the PTC files 1,10,50,99 or 100% of indecency complaints? That has no effect on content of their complaints or the controversy between them and the producers. If people want to learn about the PTC they should read that article. If you are going to include this, why not add in how the PTC is funded, or who their membership is and how that might relate to Family Guy, all of these things are arguably more related then what percentage of all indecency complaints regarding all possible television come from the PTC. Also NPOV, who "believes" that the PTC generates most complaints, do you believe it, does your dog?(!)... the source is right there, so just name that. There's no need to use vague ambiguous terms like "is believed" when you can name someone specific. Hvatum (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...I just changed the "believed to have filed" part. A discussion from November 2007 had a decision to keep the FCC complaints part, because, (quoting editor Edgarde) "[the statement] should be retained for readers unfamiliar with the PTC...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)." --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Brent Bozell has more criticism in his article, Fox's "Comedic Genius".

Take a look at this sentence: "The Parents Television Council, a watchdog group founded by L. Brent Bozell III of the conservative Media Research Center, has a stated mission to 'promote and restore responsibility and decency to the entertainment industry', has published outspoken critical views of Family Guy."

This whole (badly-constructed) sentence is (admittedly, indirectly) npov as the description of PTC could — and should — be on its own page, easily reached by clicking on the appropriate hyperlink. Its presence here serves little more than to discredit the PSC — and its criticisms — (as in "oh, those brainless conservatives again!") before the latter are even read.

And how about Seth McFarlane's sentence ("That’s like getting hate mail from Hitler. They’re literally terrible human beings") getting centered (!), boxed (!), and italicized, just to make (100%) sure we know what kind of clueless Nazis — I mean, what kind of critics — we are dealing with (and Seth has to doea with!) here?! Asteriks (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That quote struck me as out of place for both continuity and NPOV reasons. I strongly recommend that it is removed.Sjrsimac (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking of how to include Seth McFarlane's quote while maintaining NPOV. The quote should be removed from this page and moved onto Seth McFarlane's page.Sjrsimac (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The quote's move to Seth MacFarlane's article is complete.Sjrsimac (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Trying to address the issue of the reference section being longer than the article itself, I trimmed down a lot of the quotes within the ref tags. The point of including a quote is to make it easier for the article reader to find the referenced text within a large work, yet some of these quotes were as long as the article they cited (!). If a reader is going to take the editor's word for it that the citation is accurate, they won't need to use the reference; if they want to research it for themselves, they can simply go to the source and do so. Either way, there's no need to make the in-ref quote longer than needed. This is especially true for online references, which includes nearly all the references in this article. Also, removed a couple refs that were either redundant (two articles cited when one is simply quoting the other) or unnecessary. After all did it really need 3 refs to establish that PTC is a watchdog group, and 7 more to establish that they are critical of FG before developing that very point for three more paragraphs?

I didn't do much to the content of the PTC section, but I still think the article is reading more like an article about the PTC. As such, using the PTC for the bulk of the references and then interpreting them for the reader comes dangerously close to original research. I don't want to trim any more on my own without first asking consensus, especially article content, but it would benefit from being based more on the articles 'about' PTC's criticism of Family Guy than simply quoting the criticism itself. As I noted below, the topic of the article is not "Family Guy" but "criticism of Family Guy", so determining WP:Weight given to PTC's criticism is completely independent of the number of times the PTC itself can be cited. I'm certainly not saying the PTC criticism is non-notable, and there are a decent number of third party citations covering it, but most of the references in that section go to PTC directly and it's a little overkill. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Quotations in refs section

Hi folks, and happy new year!

Anyway, as new criticisms of the show come up (particularly from America's moral fundamentalist group, Parents Television Council) it appears that the references section is getting more fat...actually should I say TOO fat due to the inclusion of too many quotes. I doubt that we really need to quote every single source we cite. I admit that I did contribute several of the quotes to be coherent with the others' formats. But now I think we should start removing unnecessary quotes. As for quotes we think are really significant to the criticisms, I think we could use "block quotes" format within the main part of the article. So please pitch in and help if you agree, and drop some suggestions here.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Familyguyonsouthpark.png

Image:Familyguyonsouthpark.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JimmyCorrigan.jpg

Image:JimmyCorrigan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Futurama

I removed the reference to Futurama. I fail to see how Fry hanging a Family Guy calander in his apartment counts as "criticism" of the show. Seeing as Futurama was also cancelled by Fox, and in fact owes its resurrection to the success of Family Guy, it could just as easily have been an homage to the show.

70.49.144.133 (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. I believe it was more of an homage, and not criticism. Well said! Milonica (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed. The Criticism by other cartoonists section has a history of in-universe interpretation and excessive plot detail, so it needs to be watched for editors promiscuously logging simply any mention on another show. Keep up the good work! / edg ☺ ☭ 11:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

They had a comic promting the return of Futurama that showed a scene of Peter running off with two sacks of money from the Cartoon Network, and since Matt Groeing has on several occasions insulted Family Guy on The Simpsons, I'd say it was a insult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.194.28 (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, especially as the calendar says something along the lines of "12 Laughs in a Year" which could be interpreted in two different ways! 194.75.129.200 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It seemed pretty clear that it was a jab at Family Guy's expense. How on Earth it could be seen as a "homage", when the feelings about Family Guy on the part of Groening and co. are so well known, I'll never know. Nightscream (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Clerksle.jpg

Image:Clerksle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Seth MacFarlane comment about the PTC

Shouldn't his entire quote be presented and not just part? While a bit inflammatory it does stay on topic:

"Oh, yeah. That’s like getting hate mail from Hitler. They’re literally terrible human beings. I’ve read their newsletter, I’ve visited their website, and they’re just rotten to the core. For an organization that prides itself on Christian values—I mean, I’m an atheist, so what do I know?—they spend their entire day hating people. They can all suck my dick as far as I’m concerned." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.1.234 (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The topic is Criticism of Family Guy, so the added detail in this quote doesn't really enhance the article. The two sentences quoted in this article are sufficient to demonstrate that MacFarlane does not take their criticism very seriously. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute tag on FG v. SP section

There's a tag indicatating that the neutrality of the Family guy v. South Park section is disputed, but I don't see any such dispute here on the talk page. What's the reason for the tag? (Morethan3words (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

Road To Germany/About Last Night...

Found an article in the L.A. Times where Trey Parker was inspired to make the episode "About Last Night" from the scene in "Road To Germany" where Stewie finds McCain campaign button on a Nazi's jacket. Basically he called it lame. Should we work this into the article? Here's the link http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/south-park-crea.html 70.132.145.110 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That might be good to add to the article for that episode. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I'd find it hard to believe this article meets notability guidelines. I've seen much more relevant articles kicked, and though I saw numerous things cited throughout the article, I'm not sure which of them would actually qualify as "reliable sources." 74.232.251.244 (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

IGN.com, Entertaiment Weekly, the Parents Television Council, MediaResearch.org,; they all seem reliable to me, particularly since the information that they support is their own criticism of the show. Nightscream (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I just don't see why this page exists. It seems to me perfectly appropriate to mention criticisms on the Family Guy page, but an entire Wikipedia page devoted to criticisms of an animated sitcom? Does this seem like an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia entry? Phiwum (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Why is the fact that it's an animated sitcom relevant? If there's an article for say, Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code (which I believe, was previously called Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code), why not articles on criticisms of works in other media or genres? If it's a publicized subject with sources to establish its noteworthiness, why not? Nightscream (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why then is there no article on the criticism of The Simpsons? You may or may not be old enough to recall, but The Simpsons was hated with a fiery passion by the media when it first started, and for many seasons in, shirts featuring the characters were universally banned in schools, slogans lead to punishment when used, parents hated the show. Revrant (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There could be lots of possible reasons:

• Because no one thought to make one.
• Because the criticisms you mention of The Simpsons predate Wikipedia to a greater degree than that of FG, and therefore, the sources for it would be harder to come by, and the editors on this article may even be too young to remember that prior criticism, or not even have been born during it.
• Because that criticism might not have been as widespread or diverse as the criticism directed toward FG, and therefore, it wouldn't fill an article.

Your question seems to imply that there is some centralized, "top-down" authority on Wikipedia that has decided that one article would be created, and another would not. In fact, Wikipedia is a decentralized, bottom-up project, in which each individual editor participates how they wish, guided by the obvious bias of their knowledge and interests. A person or persons may have decided to create this article, but that doesn't mean they're required to be consistent and create a myriad of other articles consistent with the same theme; you contribute however you wish, and however you're able to. But if you feel there's enough material to fill a similar article regarding The Simpsons, and have sources for it, then by all means, be bold, and create it! :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Having read this talk page (including the 'unbalanced sources' section below) I'm wondering if this article is worthwhile - most of the main article consists of criticism of Family Guy based on it's taste, decency and unsuitability for children, and other general controversial themes. This is true of most 'adult' cartoon series to a degree; Only the last two sections refer to specific criticism of the show based on other concepts.

Would it make more sense for the last two sections to be incorporated in the main Family Guy article, in the 'Criticism and Controversy' section, and to create a new article about criticism of 'adult' cartoons in general? One of the biggest issues raised by organizations like the PTC is that it is a cartoon, and cartoons are often for children; another is the offensive potential of the subject matter, such as the mockery of religion - this occurs on other cartoon series, such as The Simpsons and South Park. Bertcocaine (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There's certainly nothing wrong with an article on criticism of adult cartoons, so long as that topic is judged to be encyclopedic, and so long as there are sufficient reliable sources for it that would not violate WP:SYNTH. But I don't see why an article on criticism of Family Guy cannot remain. Also, the section on anti-religious bigotry is not centered on its suitability for children. Nightscream (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I should have phrased that better. By 'organizations like the PTC' I meant groups that criticize media such as entertainment, and not specifically groups criticizing such media due to influence on children; the second comment groups like Answers in Genesis. I think my point still stands - the majority of this article is a big list of criticisms by the PTC; A small section on religion, which is common to many shows of this ilk (in nature of complaint not specifics) and two small sections that could easily be included in the main FG article. Compare this to the more extensive and varied article on South Park controversies. Bertcocaine (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Family Guy South Park.gif

The image File:Family Guy South Park.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Tags

I removed the notability and ref tags. The article is a B-class article in multiple Wikiprojects, indicating that it is well sourced. It is also notable, as the Family Guy WikiProject has classified it as of mid-importance. --Jtalledo (talk)

I disagree with removing these tags. The {{Primary sources}} tag doesn't mean this article lacks sources—it means it lacks independent, secondary sources, without which the notability of anything mentioned in this article can be called into question. The {{Notability}} tag follows from this.

It is also worth considering that this some of the "issues" discussed in this article are excessive fan wank. For example, the weight given to jokes made on other shows reads too much into those jokes. These may also raise {{Notability}} concerns. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the tags should stay removed for now. This is a criticism article, and by nature criticism does come from people's opinions. As for the issues such as reading too much into jokes, those problems would be better suited for an original research, POV, or essay tag. These kinds of problems have nothing to do with notability - the Family Guy project itself has ceded that this article is notable.

The moral objections part of the article seems fine, but I do admit that the "Criticism from other cartoonists" section does need clean up. There's too much quoting and back and forth. I'll fix it soon. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess we're in agreement. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Sources Unbalanced

Aside from the section on criticism of FG from other animators, this whole article reads as though it would be better titled ' Parents Television Council vs Family Guy'. Given that the values of 'Family Guy' are so different from the stated values of parentstv.org, (and these values are their raison d'etre), their criticisms carry less weight - not enough weight for most of the article to rest on their comments and that of their founder L. Brent Bozell III. A wider spread of criticism is needed for this article to retain credibility.

Another problem with the wholesale reliance on PTC criticisms, is that PTC looks at TV programming purely from the perspective of its suitability for viewing by children from the ages of [2 to 17 years old]. As the article states quite clearly that the Executive Producer of the show has indicated that the programme is not suitable for viewing by children, then it seems that most of the PTC's criticisms are misdirected. Mis-scheduling and misrating of the show are criticisms of the networks, not of the show or of its content. Much other criticisms noted imply that 'The content of Family Guy is bad because it has many adult humour themes, but as an animated show it is attractive to children.' Again, not a relevant criticism for an avowedly adult show. More holistic criticism is necessary for this article.

I'd like some feedback on my comments above before I go to work on this.Centrepull (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems more like you mainly disagree directly with the PTC, not with this article. Of course Family Guy is not for kids, but that's what the PTC does - it rails against ALL prime time shows that have adult content. It doesn't matter that you agree or disagree with their reports, methods or whatever. What matters is that they're a notable organization that has criticized the show. And as such, their criticisms deserve to be mentioned. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You are missing my point. The PTC's criticisms are mentioned in the article, again and again and again, to the point where they form almost all the criticism of the show mentioned in the article (aside from other animators, whose criticism seems to be on a different basis). I'm not arguing that their criticisms should not be mentioned, I'm arguing that the sources of criticisms are unbalanced in number and overweighted in the PTC's favour, given that they are avowedly an organisation that looks at the content of children's shows. Family Guy is not a children's show. Nothing to do with their notability, more to do with the basis of their criticism. As you say, this is mere 'railing'. There are 80 references in the article, and the vast majority of them reference the PTC, Bozell, L. Brent III, or the Media Research Center. PTC's overall notability should not mean that the article should be so unbalanced. Perhaps you (or someone else) could help with sourcing some criticisms from other directions?

I was not making any comment on the PTC's criticisms, other than they appear to be mainly criticisms of the network's behaviour rather than of 'FG' per se. What I think of their criticisms doesn't matter, but perhaps many of the complaints listed would be better moved to a page criticising Fox Network.

It would improve the article if it didn't mainly consist of complaints from one source that an adult show contains very adult themes and jokes. At the moment there is only enough plausible material here to make a 'Criticism' section of the main Family Guy article, and I'm tempted to propose that this page is deleted and some of its content amalgamated with the main FG page. Centrepull (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay - I think I understand your point a little bit better. Your original post mixed in your own opinions about the PTC (e.g. that their arguments carried "less weight", and criticism of their perspective on television programming). So in the context of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, your chief concern seems to be that there is a lack of secondary sources. I definitely agree with that, but I think we can find some reliable secondary sources to replace the primary source stuff. I think we should keep this article though. Even we do cut down the PTC stuff (half the current size of the section seems reasonable to me), all the criticisms would still take a sizable chunk of the Family Guy article, and make that article look less neutral. So a merge wouldn't be a viable option. Anyway, thanks for the clarification and I'll find some secondary sources as soon as possible. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism by South Park creators

I have reviewed the refs listed for the section about the supposed opinions of the South Park creators, and removed most of the paragraph. The first link is dead (resets to 'Exclaim' home page) and the remainder of the section is either not present in the article referenced, or supposition. While the Reason article does mention support from other cartoon writers, this could well be satirical. Listing the contents of South Park episodes as the opinions of Parker and Scott is not valid unless they have explicitly stated that to be the case, since the show is entertainment and fictional. This read like a section in the main family guy article, which I have also removed for the same reasons. If someone can find working links that support the information that would be great.

As I don't have the South Park DVD commentary mentioned I cannot confirm or deny the correctness of the following paragraph, although such a statement would likely be available in a web based source if anyone can locate it? Bertcocaine (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I restored the Reason reference. Parker clearly states that the staff of two of the shows expressed support. Whether this is true or not, or whether it was in jest, Stone is quoted as saying that it happened. I re-worded it to include the fact that it was Parker's claim. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I restored the reference to Exclaim - it is located here: http://exclaim.ca/articles/questionaire.aspx?csid1=70 --Jtalledo (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree on the Reason quote. But I'm not convinced that the Exclaim article is a valid source; They are clearly intelligent guys, but other quotes from that same interview suggest to me that that is not a reliable source of facts:

'MS: There are new pirates now taking over ships in Malaysia or something. But they're not as cool.

TP: If they dressed up like old pirates?

MS: That would be pretty fucking good.

'What do you fear most?

TP: Germans.

MS: That's not a bad fucking fear, I must say.

TP: They're going to freak out and try it again.

MS: That's a great quote that I think Dennis Miller said about the new Pope. He said, “Whenever I see a German in power with throngs of people I start getting nervous.” I don't want to judge the German people, but you kind of have to. And I'm especially fucked if they rise again, because I'm a Jew berry. They picked me off the Jew tree.'

I don't think that they seriously fear Germans, or think that Somalian Piracy is good as long as they dress the part. Everything they do is satirical, and so everything they say to the media should be treated with caution. Bertcocaine (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Should things they say to media be taken with a grain of salt? Of course. Anything anyone says in an interview should be taken with a grain of salt. But the fact is that they vocalized their distaste towards South Park being compared to Family Guy and we can't discount that. I've re-edited to section to say that was their statement. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Family Guy controversies/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

"Mid" importance because of the FCC controversy. B class, lots of stuff, mostly well sourced. Needs more out-of-universe criticism, and less stuff inferred from watching other cartoons. For instance, the DVD commentary quotes where the South Park guys explain their loathing of FG is many times more valuable than dozens of between-show jabs. / edg ☺ ★ 00:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Trig Palin joke controversy

• Palin, Sarah (2010-02-16). "Sarah Palin: Fox Hollywood – What a Disappointment".
• Williams, Mary Elizabeth (2010-02-16). "Did 'Family Guy's' Palin joke go too far?". Salon.com. Salon Media Group.

Surprised no one's added this one yet. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Tone/Errors

This entire article looks like it was written by a 12-year-old...spelling/gramattical/punctuation errors galore. Also has the tone of "I think Family Guy is kewl, here's some stuff that they did that was funny and got people mad lolz"...

I don't have the time right now to fix all the errors though. 162.136.193.1 (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You are invited to fix some of these errors when you find time. Thanks in advance. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with the original complaint. I did what I could to clean up the sections that I stumbled upon, but this entire article really needs to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.100.194 (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks! / edg ☺ ☭ 14:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a picture of Seth MacFarlane?

This photo is unrelated to the subject matter and only serves to demonstrate to readers that the criticism is directed a cheerful man. Seth MarFarlane's appearance has no bearing on the quality of his show. With these reasons, I have removed his photo from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjrsimac (talk • contribs) 06:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You've come up with one more reason for having this image that I would have.

No strong keep/remove opinion, but I don't think it's needed. If it were MacFarlane reacting to criticism, I'd say his expression conveyed a lot; but it's probably not that. For some reason, I feel a need to keep the image of Sarah Palin looking beauteous in the eyes of her constituency. Are we cool with this? / edg ☺ ☭ 11:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No strong opinion here either, but I work at a newspaper, and sometimes we include mug shots of people who are quoted, regardless of if their expression is germane to the quote (tone, content, etc.). Sometimes, it is just a standard mug and other times it's one of several on hand to fit the mood. (Same goes with the Sarah Palin mug in the controersey surrounding the episode "Extra Large Medium" (where sarcastic references were made to her)). On a related note, we have many Family Guy-related articles (particularly episodes) with mug shots in them of the various people involved with the show. Maybe with this discussion in mind, someone should talk about it and determine if the mugs are relevant there, too. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)]]

Leaning towards leaving it out but I'm wondering: is the article well-balanced with having only a picture of Mrs Palin? What's the guideline for balance/npov/etc for mugshots? DP76764 (Talk) 16:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictures should aide in describing certain things in the context of the article. Palin's picture is probably important since the text in question directly relates to her. Most of the article text doesn't directly refer to Macfarlane, just the show itself. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

While Palin's mug is germane to the Palin controversey section, one could also argue that regardless of whether MacFarlane's mug belongs on this page, many of the other Family Guy episode-related pages don't relate to either he, nor voiceover artists nor other people on his show's staff, but yet, there have mugs. My point being, we need to be consistent. Oh, and MacFarlane-related text is mainly his response to the criticism of the Parents Television Council, etc. Yes, even though he is shown smiling at a press conference (yes, I can see the "he's deflecting the 'oh-so-evil' things the PTC is saying" argument here), one could argue it may belong here because he is speaking and the section relates to him; he's responding to what somebody said about the show he created and is known for, whether it is positive or negative. Agree with Dp76764 — we need to take a look at NPOV, not only to ensure the text is fair, but also that the pictures are fair. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)]]

NPOV has nothing to do with pictures. It has to do with an opinion being espoused in the text. The inclusion of pictures is a matter of content/style. The prevailing notion about pics with lots of articles, not just Family Guy ones is that since the picture is free, we should use it, even if it doesn't have much to do with the text (e.g. a pic of Macfarlane and the caption "Seth Macfarlane wrote the story for this episode". Well, duh. He's the creator of the show, it's not like the picture helps describe anything - it's just there so we can put a picture there). --Jtalledo (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the same argument could be used against the Palin pic; it doesn't really describe anything, it's just there so we can put a picture in. However, I don't see this as an excuse to delete that pic as well. I see it more as an opportunity/invitation for someone to some writing on MacFarlane's and the show's reaction to the criticism they receive. (If appropriate for the article) DP76764 (Talk) 04:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Non notable statement

The animated film Bender's Big Score, which is based on Matt Groening's other show, Futurama, featured a Family Guy Laugh a Month calendar. MacFarlane later appeared as a Las Vegas singer in the Futurama film Into The Wild Green Yonder, and Bender from Futurama appeared briefly in the episode "The Splendid Source" in 2010.

-- How is this notable and why is it mentioned under the "Controversy and criticism by other cartoonists" section? 72.144.27.84 (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The calendar bit is arguably related to the schism between Groening's production and McFarlane's, but I agree that the rest is not. Nightscream (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Some editors like to log every reference they see in excessive detail. Such writing should be trimmed without mercy.

I would add that if something is only "arguably" criticism, it should probably be left out, per WP:OR is a policy is needed. This is especially so if it's a passing joke. Comedy writers may be willing to forgo accuracy in favor of whatever gets a laugh—if Family Guy has taught us anything, it's that—so calling such bits "criticism" is reckless. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Family Guy article

I couldn't believe this article existed for long when I first saw it, but after reviewing the entire talk page and edit history it has become clear that the entire article still exists because of the user edg. Both policy and common sense tell us that this is not the way Wikipedia was meant to work.

If you try hard enough, you can find dozens of acceptable sources covering criticism of any subject which has its own Wiki article, but that does not mean we should go against common sense and make an article specifically dedicated to its criticism. This should be merged with the Family Guy article under the criticism section. Those who disagree please state your reasons below, thanks. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Why does the existence of an article dedicated to criticism of a subject go against common sense or policy? Nightscream (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

An article putting forth the opinions of an individual editor goes against common sense AND policy. The existence of a criticism article goes against neither, but common practice is to add a criticism section to the parent article. In this case, one already exists (and is quite lengthy by wikipedia standards) so there doesn't seem to be a reason to duplicate that information in its own article without a good reason.

To answer your question, I never said that the existence of an article dedicated to criticism of a subject goes against common sense or policy. However, for the topic to be notable, the criticism of the subject itself must meet notability guidelines. Think of it this way: let X be a random subject and Y be the published critical response to that subject. If Y becomes significant, then X meets the standard for notability; thus X should have its own article, and Y can be used as references for the article about X. You then write a Wikipedia article about X, and cite Y in the references. All good so far. Now let's say that you really like one of those articles and make a separate wikipedia article about it. Y is written about X, and meets the guidelines as an acceptable source for X, but Y is not an acceptable source for Y. In fact, Y isn't notable at all unless it meets the notability guidelines independently of the subject it's written about. Y is not notable simply because X is notable.

If the criticism itself (Y) had received coverage that was both uniquely substantial and independent of coverage of X, then Y could certainly be considered notable. Let's call the criticism-of-the-criticism "Z". Just because Y is significant enough for X to merit its own article, doesn't mean Y should also have its own article; that would depend on the significance of Z. If there had been (i.e., Z is significant per acceptable source guidelines), then Y would be notable enough to have its own article, but all of that has absolutely nothing to do with X despite Y having been written about X.

If that's getting a little too complex, just think of this as an example. Faulkner's novel The Sound and the Fury has received considerable study and criticism since it was written 80 years ago. Obviously, it's notable enough to merit its own Wikipedia article, and entire books have been written about this book. Does that mean that all of the other books about The Sound and the Fury also need their own article? No, of course not...unless one of these books itself had received significant and independent coverage. Let's say hypothetically, the book "The Most Splendid Failure: Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury" by André Bleikasten suddenly started receiving significant coverage and criticism. Then we could look at all of the articles and books written about Bleikasten's book and make the determination of notability. In doing so, we would have to look only at coverage of Bleikasten's work, not coverage of Faulkner's original work. (This hasn't happened, I'm just using it as an example. Faulkner's original work is X, Bleikasten's work is Y, and the hypothetical coverage of Bleikasten's work is Z.)

Simple determination, per Wikipedia policy. Y is coverage of X; if Y is significant, reliable and independent, then X is notable. Z is coverage of Y; if Z is significant, reliable and independent, then Y is notable, but this cannot be dependent on the notability of X.

After reviewing each reference individually and carefully, it appears that they uniformly fall within group "Y" rather than group "Z". In other words, the references themselves are coverage of Family Guy, not coverage of criticism of Family Guy. As of writing this comment there are 92 sources which I won't discuss individually, but I don't see any that actually cover the article topic itself. Now, the existence of published criticism certainly merits the use of a "Criticism" section in the primary article, but the topic of this article isn't Family Guy. The topic is Criticism of Family Guy, and the topic does not appear to have received enough significant and independent coverage to merit its own article.

On that basis, I suggest that this article be merged with Family Guy and incorporated into the criticism section. Reasons summarized:

• Avoid duplicated information
• More concise, organized, and standardized
• Sources in this article are more appropriate for the parent article

Lastly, a common sense point: consider if every book, play, film, and TV show which had its own article also had a new article created for criticism as well as a criticism section in its own article. This would detract from the encyclopedia as a whole by making it more disorganized and frustrating if the reader had to go to multiple places just to read about criticism on a single subject. Our task is to improve Wikipedia on the whole, and this should be considered when splitting articles. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Where does the article put forth the opinions of an individual editor? I see no evidence of this in the article (indeed, I myself have removed instances where editors added POV material to it), and the article's edit history shows a multitude of different editors who have worked on it, as with any other well-developed article. You mentioned "user edg". Who's this? I don't see any such editor in the most recent edits, or even among its earliest.

Common practice is to maintain a certain section in a parent article, unless and until enough valid material accumulates to fork it into its own article, with a summarized section on it remaining in the parent article. This is explained in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style).

The sources used in this article appear to me to be valid enough to establish notability for it, as they provide material for criticism of Family Guy independent of Family Guy itself.

Any other book, play, film or TV show could also have an article on criticism of it if it met the same criteria. This would not detract from Wikipedia, disorganize it or frustrate any reader. The reader goes to the parent article for a summary on the topic as a whole, and to a given fork, and only that fork, for treatment of a more specifi aspects of it. (Why you think they'd have to go to multiple forks just to read about criticism, I don't know, since no one is advocating more than once fork for that one aspect of a parent article's topic.) Wikipedia is filled with such forks, and rightfully so.

Also, Wikipedia expects editors who intend to edit beyond mere one-off edits to sign in for an account. It's free, takes seconds, you can use a pseudonymous username, and it's easier for others to address you and get to know you as an individual. Nightscream (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"The sources used in this article appear to me to be valid enough to establish notability for it, as they provide material for criticism of Family Guy independent of Family Guy itself." Could you provide examples? As I said, I went through the entire reference list and found it to uniformly contain coverage of Family Guy, not coverage of criticism of Family Guy. I was using the XYZ example above to try to illustrate the difference, but perhaps I confused the issue more and apologize if that is the case. If the criticism section becomes sufficiently long and is independently notable, yes it can be moved to a new section in lieu of keeping a lengthy criticism section in the original article. The criticism section in the original article is by far the largest section of that article - by raw word count, twice as large as any other section - and this article duplicates much of its substance.

Just to be clear, sources need to be coverage of criticism of Family Guy, not coverage of Family Guy.

There is an unfortunate but unavoidable tendency for Wikipedia to become lengthy and over-detailed regarding topics of current interest (see systemic bias). I fear this article exemplifies the quote that Wikipedia has a "longer entry on 'lightsabers' than it does on the 'printing press'." Wikipedia is not intended to be a chronicle of current trends and popular notions - so in theory, an article on Criticism of Family Guy should be as long and equally-detailed as an article on Criticism of Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Yes in practice this is impossible, since presumably a lot more people today will be interested in editing and researching for an article related to Family Guy than to Alfred Hitchcock Presents. It's our job as editors to take the relatively large amount of information available and decide what information is important enough to include, and which references to keep and which to remove in order to keep an article reasonably concise. I'm bringing this up because the current length of Family Guy criticism section plus the current article is getting out of hand. It would be highly uncommon to find a paper in a scholarly journal this brief, and yet over 90 references...and we're just talking about an article that deals with the criticism of a cartoon show. I'm not suggesting to remove the information entirely, but that the two sections need to be merged more appropriately. My personal thoughts are to remove the criticism section of Family Guy entirely, and simply have it link to this article. However, other possibilities are to leave it in the Family Guy article and delete this one, or simply condense the criticism section of Family Guy to a brief paragraph and then direct readers here for more information.

This is where common sense comes into play: this is not a thesis on the criticism of Family Guy, it's an encyclopedia article. Disproportionately over-detailing certain articles adds to the perception of systemic bias and diminishes the encyclopedia as a whole. For example, do we really need to know in an encyclopedic article that the Parents' Television Council petitioned Burger King? This seems way over-detailed, maybe the editor felt it was an important example, but are eight (!) references really necessary to establish the PTC's position on one particular aspect of its criticism of Family Guy? I'm glad someone took the time and effort to do such meticulous research, and they could certainly use all of this wonderful research to produce a review article on the subject in a more appropriate venue. However, this is an encyclopedia and by definition is meant to provide only general, summarized information. I'm not questioning the accuracy of acceptability of any of the references - I'm asking if all of this information is truly encyclopedic. As a compromise and in the interest of consensus, I'm suggesting that a lengthy and highly-detailed criticism section should only be on one of two places: either this article, or the criticism section of the parent article.

Registration is encouraged, not required. I could go into a lengthy discussion for reasons why one may choose to IP-edit in lieu of a username, but that would be off topic. Please restrict this discussion to the articles at hand.

I suggest we both step back for a bit and let other editors share their thoughts so we can develop a consensus. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"My personal thoughts are to remove the criticism section of Family Guy entirely, and simply have it link to this article" Sounds like the best approach. As you alluded to, the section on the Family Guy article is long and duplicates much of the information. However, the criticism is verifiable by reliable sources. So as not to detract from the Family Guy article, it should probably just link to this one. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that registration was required. But it is easier to address someone with some type of name than with a collection of numbers. It is for this reason that I tend to bring this up to anonymous IP editors who participate in discussions, including here, since it's easier to discuss "the articles at hand" with this protocol. Nightscream (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion but I personally do not agree with the use of pseudonyms and that is all that need be said on that subject. On the Talk:Family Guy it was agreed to reduce that article's criticism section to a summary. I'm adding any properly cited information from that article to this one that is not already present. Since this may further lengthen the article, I'm again asking any interested editors to condense the article into something more concise. In particular please re-check references and remove any information that lacks citation or is not supported by its reference. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Al Jean

The info on Al Jean's position as a "particularly outspoken critic" of Family Guy appears to be improperly cited. There's six citations for that section and none of them establish him as a very vocal or outspoken critic - they all either refer to a single line response he gave during an interview, or contain unrelated info:

[1] Googling about for "The Daily Star UK", etc, suggests this is a supermarket tabloid. Its reliability notwithstanding, the article bases its statements on Jean's response during the UGO interview (#3).

[2] This article reproduces his statement made during the UGO interview; no other reference to Jean is made in this article.

[3] This is the actual interview to which #1 and #2 refer. When asked about Family Guy he said:

I wasn't a big fan of Family Guy. To be honest, I thought it was a little to derivative of The Simpsons to the point where I would see jokes we did on The Simpsons or The Critic on Family Guy. They should be more original.

Responding to a question doesn't make him an outspoken critic. From the three references above, there's only one statement that Jean made. It might well be a notable criticism (one which requires only a single reference), but from a single response given during an interview in which he was asked about Family Guy, it would be improper to infer that he is a "particularly outspoken critic".

[4] This was used out-of-context to support the claim that Jean and MacFarlane have a personal dispute. In the source article, Groening, Jean, MacFarlane are in a room together with the columnist, when MacFarlane says:

"Matt and I get along very well," MacFarlane said. "People want us to hate each other. We get along extremely well. He's a wonderful guy. Seriously."

Jean then chimes in with a joke:

"Seth and me, on the other hand," Jean quipped, "not so much."

(quip n: a. A clever, witty remark often prompted by the occasion. b. A clever, often sarcastic remark; gibe.)

So the source itself is saying that this comment is not meant seriously. For the article to use this line to support the serious claim that claimed that "he doesn't get along with MacFarlane" is taking it out of context. If anything, the source supports the point of view that people want to perceive genuine animosity between The Simpsons and Family Guy staff where none exists, but that's a discussion topic for a forum and this subject does not belong in the article.

The other two references simply cite The Simpsons, where Jean is once credited as "Al 'Family Guy' Jean". However ironic the intent might have been, interpreting this as criticism is clearly original research and has no place in the article without third-party coverage.

I'm keeping mention of Jean in the article, but removing the irrelevant/out-of-context information about him. I looked for other sources, but couldn't find anything except that one comment in the UGO interview. If someone could add verifiable references that establish him as a genuinely outspoken critic of FG, then it should be added back in. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)