Talk:List of characters in the Family Guy franchise/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Joe Swanson Incontinence

There has been an ongoing discussion as to whether Joe Swanson's (fecal and/or urinary) incontinence is worthy of inclusion in the character outline. KlappCK is of the opinion that it is while oknazevad believes it is not. Please see the link to the latter's talk page for some background on the discussion. We are hoping that the community can come together for a resolution on the matter. KlappCK (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And to summarize my thoughts, it seems a relatively minor detail. It's not the sort if thing mentioned every appearance. But I would like to hear from others. I just ask that the discussion continue here (don't need a ton of extra messages on my talk page). oknazevad (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

For reference, my argument for its inclusion is that it referenced on multiple occasions in the series and its inclusion in Wikipedia would consist a single internally hyper-linked word, incontinent, appearing in the same sentence that notes his paraplegia. I am of the opinion that a character detail that receives even a passing reference on multiple occasions is worthy of a one word acknowledgement. As a reference point, note that, at this time, at least two sentences of his one paragraph character description are dedicated to explaining his paraplegia.KlappCK (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that this is a trivial detail that does not need to be included, especially since its root cause is his paraplegic condition. Using Klapp's logic, we should also include the information that Stewie has a micro penis, as it's been mentioned a couple times as well. Neither of these details belong in their respective articles because they have no real real-world impact on who/what the characters are; they are merely in-universe character cruft (aka trivia). DP76764 (Talk) 17:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, other details about Stewie that are arguably as trivial as his micropenis are included in his character description. Nevertheless, the fact that Joe Swanson unlike Stewie Griffin, does not have his own wiki page, makes it difficult even to make such a comparison of criteria for inclusion. On the other hand, if we were to look at other characters listed on this page who do not have their own wiki, one can easily find many instances of similar triviality (of which I will demonstrate only a few for brevity):

Barbara Pewterschmidt: She often speaks in an English accent. Carter often calls her "Babs."

Bruce: Bruce is a mustached Southerner who...

Carter Pewterschmidt: ...and also a billionaire industrialist, shipping mogul, and owner of several major companies

By Dp76764's reasoning, it would seem arguable that Barbara's accent and Carter's pet name for her are equally trivial pieces of information, as would be Bruce's mustache and Carter's status in the shipping industry, since one could argue that none of these details belong in their respective articles because they have no real real-world impact on who/what the characters are; they are merely in-universe character cruft (aka trivia). If we are going to maintain such an interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines on the subject of triviality for Joe Swanson, it would seem that the only egalitarian path forward from such a resolution is to apply the same standard to all characters. In my mind, such a mindset begs the question "would we rather add a one word detail about one character, or remove several words, phrases and/or entire sentences from all the other characters where equally appropriate?"KlappCK (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, having paraplegia does not necessarily mean you are incontinent.

Basic description of easily observable facts (mustaches, nicknames, profession) are fine to keep as they give a basic description/understanding of the character. The incontinence, much like Stewie's short member and Quagmire's use of carrots are entirely different (apples v oranges, my friend). Are those details necessary for a casual reader to understand the character? No? Then it's trivia. DP76764 (Talk) 23:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not quite follow your reasoning. How is Barbara's accent or pet name, or Bruce's mustache necessary for a casual reader to understand those characters? If you can reasonably explain the distinction I would be happy to concede your point. Furthermore, Carter's being in the shipping industry is referenced less often than Joe's incontinence, so I also fail to see how such a trivial detail about Carter passes as an easily observable fact but Joe's incontinence, in the face of Bonnie changing his diaper and his paraplegia (as you were quick to point out) does not. KlappCK (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Things like names and appearance are basic descriptions of the characters; like female, teenager, baby, fat, skinny, unemployed, fisherman, etc. Knowing that Carter is a wealthy mogul is basic to understanding his character. Knowing that Joe has bathroom issues (if this is worth including, then how about his impotence too?) is not basic to understanding him. Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter (this was a request for comment, no?).

Upon reflection, a section detailing his frustrations in life might be worth including if it were well sourced. Ideally, I'd like to see it come from DVD commentary or something (if that exists on this subject). DP76764 (Talk) 16:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I agree that knowing Carter is wealthy is essential to understanding his character. In fact, I think that it is as essential to understanding Carter as Joe's paraplegia is to understanding his character. The distinction I was trying to make is two-fold:

1)In which industry Carter made his fortune has no more bearing on the show's universe than does Joe's incontinence.

2)By detailing the facial hair or pet name of one secondary character and completely omitting something as life altering as the fecal incontinence and even impotence of another character (and I encourage you to read our articles on these subjects if you find that assertion disagreeable), to me, seems out of balance.

As I had alluded to earlier, simply stating that Joe has paraplegia would be enough for me, if it were enough to say that Carter was very wealthy (and please note that I am not singling out Carter; this is just one example). On the other hand, if we are willing to keep increasingly obscure details about one or more other characters on this page, we should provide equal consideration for all of them. In my mind, leaving in obscure details about virtually every other character that would not pass the basic description and basic understanding test without including something this significant, is at best an act of bias that marginalizes his condition, and at worst an act of editorial injustice.

Regarding sourcing: I don't believe we will likely find any details about Joe's disability in the DVD commentary. What is much more likely is that, at best, we would be able to point to episodes in which his incontinence is referenced, which, as is evidenced elsewhere in the page, appears to be well sourced enough for inclusion.KlappCK (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought about Bruce (or his mustache, if you will). A description of appearance is pretty basic, if you ask me.

As for the idea that Joe's incontinence is "life altering", that would be true if we were talking about a real person. We're not. We can't read into an aspect of a fictional character that isn't portrayed as major issue, unless someone else does it first in a reliable source. ) That said, there is a valid point made about Joe not having his own article. He did until it was merged here due to concerns of lacking independent notability. If some commentary on the character can be found, then re-establishing a separate article may be the best course of action. oknazevad (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Joe is not a real person, so questions of human dignity don't play into this debate as they otherwise would. My point was more in the direction of why are we allowing the inclusion of some equally under-sourced character traits while omitting others? In real life, I would still imagine that whether or not one has a mustache is less self-defining than the inability to refrain from soiling your pants. Our own article on fecal incontinence has this to say about its "life altering" characteristics: Subjects relating to defecation are often socially unacceptable, thus those affected may be beset by feelings of shame and humiliation. Some do not seek medical help and instead attempt to self-manage the problem. This can lead to social withdrawal and isolation, which can turn into cases of agoraphobia. To me, this seems at least as noteworthy as an aesthetic change to one's appearance.KlappCK (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC

I moved this paragraph. Please don't put responses inside other's postings. It's a bit rude. Also, no need to (boldface) shout. I answer below. oknazevad (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not opposed to this idea, as long as we can reach a consensus that that is the best course of action. I would also prefer not to be on the hook for doing all of the prerequisite research and subsequent development on the subject.KlappCK (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that Joe's incontinence is referenced in more than one episode qualifies it as a recurring character trait. As Wikipedia's article on paraplegia indicates, paraplegia does not necessarily imply incontinence; so Joe being a paraplegic does not make incontinence a given, nor is it redundant. There shouldn't be an issue having this information in the article. It being trivial is merely an opinion. Geeky Randy (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, if its triviality is a matter of opinion, then its triviality relative to other character traits that have been mentioned in this article (and specifically this discussion) should be self-consistently reasoned. I have not yet received a reasonable explanation as to why the way I maintain my facial hair is more important than my inability to choose when to defecate. Failure to do so, as I have indicated earlier, relegates this editorial decision to (cultural) bias regarding a taboo subject.KlappCK (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This series' foundation is triviality. But I digress, it is a pretty frequent and notable aspect of his character that he is unable to have sex and wears a diaper. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You are so right. Much (if not all) of this entire article is trivial. However, I am of the opinion that every trivial detail is created equal, as it were. We (the Wikipedia community) clearly have different ideals on what constitutes triviality even in a fictional universe. We now have five users on this thread (2 for and 2 against- I leave myself out since I started the discussion). How do we reach a consensus?KlappCK (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you asked...with regards to triviality, I'd fall back on the question of, "has it received any significant third-party coverage?" If so, then I would argue it's worthy of inclusion. If not, then I think the argument that "it's trivial" has merit and the mention should be omitted, especially since while it may have been mentioned frequently, it hasn't (as far as I can recall) been a key factor in any episode to date. Doniago (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I am behind you 100%, Doniago, provided that we are willing to apply the same standard in every instance of triviality. By way of example, I have pointed to Bruce's mustache and Barbara's pet name as at least equally trivial pieces of information (which, by the way has not received any significant third-party coverage). Conceding at the outset that I am an inclusionist, I am of the opinion that we would not have much left on this page if we removed every character detail that was at least as trivial as the one under discussion. In fact, this has been a key point in my arguments: Either we include what I believe would be an absolutely non-trivial detail about Joe Swanson, at least if he were a real person, or we begin the arduous process of cutting out a lot of fat from this article to get each character description to conform with the inclusion rules you (and others) have proposed. I believe that the majority of Wikipedians, myself included, would prefer to have the content they have added remain on this page, which is why I am in favor of keeping this detail about Joe on it.KlappCK (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to go either way on it (most particularly, I'm not likely to cut a lot of material from an article of this nature), but it has been my observation that articles like this one tend to acquire a lot of material that really probably isn't of interest to a general reader, and drift away from WP's general standards and ideals. I think there's a valid argument that while the article might contain less material if anything not covered by third-parties was removed, it might also improve the quality of the article overall and in particular make it more encyclopedic rather than a hotbed of cruft or trivia (which is not to say that is how I currently perceive it). Just my two cents...I'd certainly want the input of others before making any drastic changes. Doniago (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we stand at relatively similar positions on the subject, my only difference being that I ultimately favor just adding the aforementioned hyperlinked "incontinent" adjective in Joe's character description. Perhaps someone with a little more experience than me will know how (and take the initiative) to call a vote on the subject matter, if we only we could come to an agreement one what we would be voting for or against in the context of this discussion.KlappCK (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd still like to see a source (surely there's DVD commentary on this?) of some sort. We should also mention his erectile difficulties, as those are mentioned at least as often as this detail and are (perhaps) stressed more due to its affect on his relationship with Bonnie as well. Also, the mustache stays! It's a basic descriptive element (like Louis' red hair, etc). DP76764 (Talk) 23:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with the keeping of the mustache on the grounds that it's clearly visible in any episode in which the pertinent character appears. Pretty much agreed on the rest of what you said as well. I don't recall anything being said of Joe's incontinence in earlier DVD commentaries, but I don't have most of the later sets. Doniago (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Above, Klapp wrote "In real life, I would still imagine that whether or not one has a mustache is less self-defining than the inability to refrain from soiling your pants." Some thoughts on this. Firstly, when describing a fictional character, especially a drawn one, aesthetic appearance is very important; it is one of the key ways that characterization is expressed. Bruce's mustache, and name for that matter, are stereotypes of gay men that were common in the early 80s; their use reinforces the nature of the character as a stereotypical (presumably) gay man (never actually been said, as a matter of fact). It's not trivial, it's part of how the creators have defined the character. So describing what the character looks like is something we should definitely be doing.

Meanwhile, real life considerations of what are defining are decidedly less important when dealing with fictional characters. Joe's incontinence has only been mentioned in passing a couple of times, and hasn't had any impact on actual plots (though correct me if I'm wrong). That says to me that it's not considered a significant, defining trait by the show creators.

i think we must be careful to not state something as defining a character when it's not depicted as such in the series. I agree that there's certainly a bit of that in the article as it stands. Character name, appearance, occupation, and significant, recurring personality traits are what we should limit it to. There's a bit of leeway in the latter, so future discussions such as this are likely to happen again, but that's a strength of Wikipedia, not a weakness. oknazevad (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel that since Joe's erectile dysfunction is the subject of a plot (or at least what leads into its plot), namely Bonnie cheating on Joe, it warrants mention. It can easily be stated "Joe was injured in the line of duty and made a paraplegic. He is unable to have sex, and his incontinence requires that he wear a diaper." It's different from, say, that one-off joke that Peter used to be a woman - this hasn't been contradicted. Since we discover that he has these problems, we never see him contradicting these facts. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Since oknazevad has repeatedly latched onto Bruce's mustache as a very important character trait, although it is clearly no less a matter of opinion than my own about Joe's incontinence, let us focus on something about which no one seems to be arguing: Carter's pet name for Barbara. I would hope that even oknazevad could agree that this character detail is fat, and details like it should be removed for the sake of neutrality, unless, of course, we can just agree that Joe's incontinence is of sufficient importance relative to other character details in this article to merit inclusion. To me, this follows the most basic of human reasoning.KlappCK (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd certainly be okay with removing the bit about "Babs" (or even moving it to the Carter sectio, as; it's more about him and his attitude towards Barbara; even there it's pretty trivial). And I've softened towards the mention of Joe's incontinence, but I still think it's far less important than mentioning his impotence, as the latter has driven some plots/subplots. oknazevad (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Saying that he has a mustache tells the reader a major aspect of his physical appearance. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine, the mustache stays. Would everyone be content if we simply altered Joe's bio to state that he is an "impotent incontinent paraplegic"?KlappCK (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we should keep paraplegic as the primary adjective (ie: listed first) as the other two conditions are far less of a factor in his character than the lack of functioning legs. Something like: "... is a paraplegic who also suffers from impotence and incontinence". $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 17:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't give a fuck how the sentence is constructed as long as his incontinence (and I suppose, now, his impotence) is mentioned and it is hyperlinked to our wikipedia article on the subject.KlappCK (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am going to try editing the page with the phrase Dp76764 has suggested. If anyone still has a problem with inclusion of the material, we can keep hashing it out here.KlappCK (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine. oknazevad (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for the constructive debate.KlappCK (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sections

I think it would be better to divide the characters into sections to make it better for readers.--BertSampson (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I would note that there's discussion pertinent to this matter in earlier threads above. Also, please outline what you have in mind. Your proposal is rather vague. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I support what he says BertSampson. They should be sections of the relatives of the Griffins, Quaghog families, reporters, etc.--85.60.191.59 (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I also think it would help readers to orient themselves.--ToonsFan (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reorganization may be ok (depending on how its done) but the addition of minor characters lately is completely unnecessary. DP76764 (Talk) 21:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to section off anymore than we have. To whom would it be relevant to, if we were to section off the list based on their profession, lineage, etc.? An average person with no knowledge of the series would not care about this sectioning, and the fanbase should have very little trouble navigating the list with minimal sectioning. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Tricia Takanawa

Possibly inspired by assignment reporter for KTTV Tricia Takasugi in L.A.? --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Got a source? Otherwise just speculation. DP76764 (Talk) 04:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe Swanson

I don't know if someone deleted him, but he isn't in the list at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.88.117.31 (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He was removed yesterday, I restored him and he is listed there now. Perhaps you're viewing a cached version. –AnemoneProjectors– 17:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Parts of this Page are a Nightmare!

Jeesh. I just edited the page, changing a whole bit about Joe Swanson. I edited the section concerning Swanson being injured by heroin criminal Bobby Briggs. The writing was some of the worst I've ever read - absolutely not proofread in any way, with poor wording, run-on sentences, etc. etc. I would have taken the whole damn thing out as per "Be Bold," but I'm afraid to violate Wiki's unwritten rule - "don't piss other people off." There was one source for the whole clusterf_-! of a section, and it didn't appear to be reliable. I glanced around at other portions of the writing on this page, and I saw a lot that was pretty horrendous. This is a big article, so it's not like I can fix it all myself, though I'm glad to help, but I request two things: 1)Can someone with a good grip on the English language go through this and fix the poor writing that I see mussing up this article? 2)Can some reliable sources be cited? I know it's difficult to find sources that explain plotlines, etc., but there must be some way - right?

Cheers! "Yes...It's Raining" 16:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ya, too many fans just add random stuff and poorly write it. If I'm bored at work some night, I'll read it over. CTF83! 22:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, deal. I'll do some, too, when I have a few minutes break from college work. It just seems like such a shame; it'd be nice to have a reasonable list of characters and simple backgrounds for them, but Wiki's rule that anyone can edit is definitely not doing this page any favors. Please, people, if you're reading this before altering this article in some way - at the very least, type it up in Microsoft Word, since it'll tell you if your spelling or grammar are completely wrong. I love Wikipedia, and I understand the "anyone can edit" idea, but I really think it and voting for president should be handled the same way - anyone can do it, provided they can score over 100 on an IQ test first! Cheers, "Yes...It's Raining" 14:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

God and Jesus Christ

I noticed there's no entries for God or Jesus Christ in the article, yet both play significant roles in a number of episodes throughout the series (especially Jesus, like in "I Dream of Jesus" or "Family Goy"). Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 11:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Then by all means, proceed. I'm sure you have their blessing. Chunk5Darth (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Was Carter Pewterschmidt based on Wade Gustafson in the film Fargo?

I've just watched Fargo and couldn't help notice the similarities between the character Wade Gustafson (rich guy whose daughter is kidnapped) and Carter Pewterschmidt. Both are rich and very determined, but their voices are almost identical. Has anyone ever heard (and can cite) whether Seth MacFarlane used this character as a reference for Carter?ML5 (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Joe Swanson, concerning Bobby Briggs

The whole section about Bobby Briggs is far too detailed. I'm all for citing the information that Joe was actually crippled by Briggs, but it is absolutely unnecessary to include almost a whole plot of the episode. After all, the section should be about Joe, not Bobby Briggs. You could just say that Joe eventually and unintentionally killed Briggs by shooting him in both legs and finally got his closure on the whole thing. That section really has to be revisited. Chris-schannes (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Accident

I accidentally deleted the majority of the page. Please help! Crummymummy (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Why does Joe not have a page when the other characters do?

Created the Joe page last night but it was redirected. All of the other characters in the bear as well as Mayor West off the top of my head have pages. Joe is a major character (his voice actor isn't credited as starring) but that, I feel, here is irrelevant. What I want to know is: how come Peter Quagmire and Cleveland get their own pges while Joe does not? Thank you The brave celery (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@The brave celery: You might want to ask Dp76764 directly who with this edit created the redirect in the first place. I have pinged them now, hopefully they will be alerted to this discussion and point out where the consensus to redirect was established. Regards SoWhy 14:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that was 6 years ago. Apparently it was decided on the talk page or something. Looking at the article previous to it, there was very little, if any, sourcing and barely any content. That's probably why. I'm not against having an article, but if it resembles the previous incarnation then I'd have to disagree DP76764 (Talk) 14:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

New episode with the death of Angela Jones

Peter's boss, Angela will die in Season 17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylerwyler1 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Death of Diane Simmons

Has anyone ever found any interviews or anything with Seth as to why he killed off Diane Simmons? Spartan198 (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)