# Talk:Road to Germany

What is the name of the song played during the Jewish wedding and the beginning of the Nazi invasion of Poland?
It is a very catchy song.
Darabo (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)darabo

I am wondering this too. Does nobody know? 129.107.81.12 (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It is from the soundtrack to The Winds of War, song is titled (Through Poland to a Jewish Village) which was preformed by the Nuremberg Symphony Orchestra. Nobadeeftw (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Not listed on tv.yahoo.com or any other TV listings website as of this date. Sunday after next FOX will air MLB playoffs. ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I dont know how to edit, but if someone feels like it,here are some more pop culture references.

The german scientist who says "we have much better luck developing this impressive collection of 100 luftballons" and then one pops. Is a obvious reference to Nena and the song 99 luftballons.
When the 3 of them ambushes three soldiers in a alley to get their uniforms, you can hear the sound of a blaster, much like the ambush Han Solo and Luke do on the deathstar.
When they crash against the mountain ala Indiana Jones and stewie says "We arent sinking, we are crashing" it sounds very much like Jar-Jar Binks.
/Tobbe  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.12.47 (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 
Actually, Stewie is imitating the exact way Kate Capshaw delivered the same line in Temple of Doom.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilwillhunting (talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 

All they had to do was go back and prevent Mort from going in? No adventure was required. But I had a few good laughs...
-G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.82.230 (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but the police car pile up is a reference to an earlier Family Guy episode. I don't remember which one, but there is a scene (which itself may be a Blues Brothers reference) where a bunch of police cars crash into each other. This was just a spin off the previous occurrence, only in German waters for obscurity. 129.107.81.12 (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi.  I noticed a "Bill and Ted's" reference while watching "Family Guy", saw that it was missing from the current list of "Cultural References", and added it.   Dp76764 removed my addition, commenting "completely unsourced WP:OR":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Road_to_Germany&diff=246633988&oldid=246633680
No original research.  Okay, I get that. 
However, all but 2 of the current "Cultural References" have [citation neeeded] on them -- they don't have sources either, and probably of the same flavor:  stuff an author noticed when watching the episode.
I see above that "Unsourced Cultural References" has been an area of active discussion.  But if we tolerate the current set of unsourced cultural references, it seems silly to prevent an additional one from being added.   Better the list be complete, even if unsourced.
I'd like to see my "Bill and Ted's" reference back.  It belongs there if the others do.   Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.252.140 (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC) 

If we cant be bothered to apply WP:V to this cultural reference section because "there are so many others" where it hasnt been applied yet, well then why should we bother having and applying ANY of our policies, we can just let Wikipedia become one huge blog-a-fan-a-ad-a-POV site and forget about trying to write an encyclopedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Great attitude RedPen. Some of them are sourced. It aired yesterday! Given time, sources will emerge. Perhaps you should take a break from this page. GrszReview! 02:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Please comment on content, not contributor. So it only aired yesterday, why is there a need for anything other than the basic essentials in the article today? When references are found, then content can be added. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there are to many. What should remain are obvious ones that can be seen and ones that are sourced. The Indiana Jones reference can be seen in the show, as the music is playing for example. GrszReview! 02:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Declaring that it is an Indiana Jones reference is analysis/interpretation that needs to come from somewhere other than a Wikipedia editor. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems like we're well on the way to listing every single gag from this episode.  Ideally, I think this section should look like the corresponding section in Road to Rupert.  $0.02 Dp76764 (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it can eventually. But for now with adding, deleting, and sourcing it's easier as a list. I'm working on finding sources for the ones that don't have one yet. Brain Blessed guest-starred as Prince Vultan, I just need a source. GrszReview! 15:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Section looks really good currently. [1]  Nice work on the sources! Dp76764 (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it looks good. All we needed was time to find sources. GrszReview! 19:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The Marx brothers mirror actions reference is considered an obscure source, but it has been referred to in hundreds of television shows. If people don't actually know it's from the Marx brothers, they're gonna recognize it from other references to it. I personally recognize it from watching Lucille Ball and Harpo Marx do it together on "I Love Lucy". She happened to be impersonating him at the time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.215.137 (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC) 
While the characters are being pursued by two submarine objects there's is a reference to Terence_Trent_D'Arby with his song Wishing Well as a sonar signature.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wodny (talk • contribs) 00:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC) 

Saying obvious cultural references need citations is like saying 2+2=4 needs a citation, or "the sky looks blue" needs a citation, or "water is wet" needs a citation, or "broken bones are painful" needs a citation.  There's content that's potentially very subjective, and then there's thing which really fall well below the threshold of subjectivity. --173.28.14.41 (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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

No. The problem is that it's not sourced that the US invaded Iraq for oil, and more importantly it's not sourced that they were referring to Iraq. Your assumptions are your own synthesis, which is an unacceptable source for an encyclopedia. GrszReview! 19:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Did I ever say it was for oil? Neo16287 (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Whatever, the underlining point is until there is a source that he was referring to Iraq it cannot be added. GrszReview! 19:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Precisely.  The episode is showing you a '1' and a '1' and assuming that you will conclude '2'.  Ie: they are not explicitly stating anything about Iraq; they are merely implying it.  I completely agree that the line was about Iraq, but without a clear source, we can't make that statement here. Dp76764 (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't suppose anybody here has Seth's email? >.< Neo16287 (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL ... if only ... Dp76764 (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not denying the fact they were referring to Iraq, with Seth being liberal, I guarantee they were referring to the current war. But adding it is your own OR and that is unacceptable for Wikipedia. Yes it is common knowledge that we invaded Iraq, and they have oil, and they "were building WMD", but it isn't common knowledge that Brian and Stewie was referring to the Iraq War CTJF83Talk 19:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Surely by now there is a renowned critic or pundit who can confirm the reading so many of us have already come up with? ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Grsz's argument seems pretty weak. I mean, what else could he be referring to? Who *did* say anything about oil? 08:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.81.12 (talk) 
Grsz's argument is a rephrasing of wikipedia's primary policies: WP:V / WP:OR. If you think arguments based on our primary policies are weak, then perhaps you should consider whether or not you wish to become a Wikipedia editor. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Okay, if we keep arguing, we won't get anything done. How 'bout this. I have a Fam Guy disscussion section on my talk page. How about we go there and try and get a compromise. That way we can try and get all this settled. Just go to the table of contents, look for "Family Guy Disscusions", and look for "Refrence Sections: Keep or Get Rid Of?" That sound good.--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

PS- I'm sorry if I hurt anyone with my comment. I ment it as a joke, and, I am sorry.--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The real question is "Cultural references: how do we source them in a manner that supports Wikipedia's mission to be an encyclopedia." -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I personally believe that reference #3 should be removed. Citing a cultural reference to the episode itself is a useless citation. Indeed we have Template:Cite episode, but I think that was designed more if you're citing the writer and/or director of the episode (which would be included in the credits), so I don't think citing a cultural reference to the episode itself is valid. I removed it but was quickly reverted, so I need some input. Cheers, Qst (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This content 

In the 2000 episode "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein," Peter sings "Even though they killed my Lord, I need a Jew," and Seth MacFarlane had defended the lyrics on the grounds that Peter is an idiot, ignorant of his own religion. In this 2008 episode, two different Jewish characters allude to the idea that Jews are responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
has been repeatedly added in violation of WP:SYN. There is nothing in the above content that is connected to "Road to Germany". Number 1) the source is a primary source from which we as Wikipedia editors cannot make any interpretations 2) the court case was filed a year before this episode was aired and so cannot be referring to anything within this episode and to claim it does is clear WP:OR. 
I have done my maximum of 2 removals in 24 hours and so ask that someone else help keep the article clean. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the interpretation that is being made? All this is saying is that a prior episode made a very controversial statement on Jewish deicide. If the reader wants to make the conclusion that this new episode's statements confirm or deny the prior statement on the very same topic, that's his business, but we're not making the conclusion for him nor offering any interpretation. Anton Mravcek (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Have you read WP:SYN? It is a violation of wikipedia procedures to take source A that talks about event B and apply source A to event C which is not discussed in source A. We have source A a primary source legal document that does not reference event C this episode of Family Guy. Such interpretations are not allowed. You may make arguement to include that primary source in the article on episodes that it directly references or in the overall Family Guy article, but you can not use it here without a third party published source making the conneciton.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with Red Pen, this is clearly WP:OR.  You can't cite something unrelated to this episode with the intent of the reader drawing their own conclusion; that's just indirect original research. Dp76764 (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
If the problem really is "primary source legal document A that does not reference event C this episode of Family Guy," then why is the entire paragraph being deleted. It would be like deleting from Othello that Shakespeare had expressed racist views about Moors in an earlier tragedy. Robert Happelberg (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
And without a source, it is completely original research and completely not allowed. Find a published reliable source that talks about this episode and its characterization of Jews. It shouldnt be that hard, but if you cant find a source that talks about this specific episode, it cant be in this article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
People bend over backwards trying to satisfy your demands but it's never good enough. What is the real reason that you're fighting this? Are you offended on behalf of the Jews about this? ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Please stick to discussing the content of the article, and not the contributors. Dp76764 (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Tell me, what is the "interpretation" or "synthesis" that is being made by mentioning a previous episode that touched on an idea that this episode reinforces twice? ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
From WP:OR "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas".  By trying to 'link' the two episodes together (without an external, reliable source already doing so), you are speculating on a 'pattern of behavior'.  Now, if you removed the mention of the older episode and kept the information purely to this episode (cited, of course, like the other tidbits in this section), I believe it would not constitute OR anymore.  But linking the two episodes together is an attempt to draw a conclusion, and that make it original research. Dp76764 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's see. "Weisstein" is a Family Guy episode. "Road to Germany" is a Family Guy episode. Nope, I don't see any link whatsoever either. Carla Bondicteuresse (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no link for this article.  This article is about "Road to Germany", not about "Weisstein".  Linking it to another article is clearly OR. Dp76764 (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
What about the link between Othello and Titus Andronicus? If it's good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for Family Guy. (Thanks to whoever it was back there for the Shakespeare analogy). Carla Bondicteuresse (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
You'll note that that entire section is marked as unsourced/OR?  And regardless, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS then applies.  Just because it's in that article doesn't mean it belongs in this one. Dp76764 (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anyone trying every single rule they can think of in order to delete all mention of there being other Moors in Shakespeare besides Othello. The entire arsenal is being focused on this Family Guy episode. It's OR, so citation are added. That makes it SYN, so citations are removed. No matter what anyone does, no matter to what lengths they go to, there is always a rule to just completely shoot it down with no more effort than typing some acronym. I can't wait to see what rule will be invoked when a scholarly journal publishes on the topic. ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
There has been, basically, *1* rule that has been quoted (SYN is a subset of WP:OR).  The problem with the citation is that it has nothing to do with THIS episode, which is what this article is about.  As soon as there is a citation linking this episode with 'past behavior', then by all means, it should added; nobody is arguing against that.  It seems to me that you've run out of arguments for its inclusion and are now resorting to attacking the policy system instead.  As I said before, if you mentioned the line in this episode without trying to link it to the other episode, I don't think that would be OR, so why is that not an acceptable inclusion until a source backing the rest of the link becomes available? Dp76764 (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not attacking the policy system; no policy system can protect itself against misuse and perversion. It's not original research to mention that which someone else has created. It's not synthesis to make statements if one doesn't actually synthesize or interpret anything. By the logic that's been applied here, it's original research to say that this is the fourth "Road to" episode. Come on. ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a totally different logical argument.  My point is, this article is about this episode.  Mentioning a previous episode in this way begs people to draw conclusions.  That is original research.  Basically this mention is trying to assert that there is a pattern of behavior (unsourced as yet); I believe that WP policy indicates that we should keep this assertion out of the article until it can be properly sourced.  Specifically because this article is about THIS episode, attempting to draw conclusions and links to other episodes in an unsourced manner is the very definition of original research (even if you're not flat out saying it, but leaving all the 'pieces' there for people to conclude it on their own).  On a side note, discussing a trend such as this really belongs more in the main FG article (or maybe the Criticisms of FG article).  With proper sources, there's no reason not to include this idea in one of those articles (if it isn't there already). Dp76764 (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
This episode wasn't created in a vacuum. So you can't cite other shows, fine. But can't even cite prior episodes of the same show? That's crazy. Despite all the talk of manatees, this show's writers are aware of what they've written before. Anton Mravcek (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course they are, but linking episodes together to draw a conclusion IS original research. Dp76764 (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
This of course is all regardless of the fact that even saying the rabbi is referring to Jesus is WP:OR. 

"And so we had him crucified..."
Crucified who? GrszReview! 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Note, that I am in no way offended by any of this, but I see no point in mentioning it at all. If there is a recurring theme of "oppressive attitudes towards Jews", it should be on the FG page, not an episode page. CTJF83Talk 21:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Citing a cultural reference to the episode itself is a useless citation."- Qst (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)"
I dissagree with this statement. I think that the episode itself can be sited, as long as the original airdate, (in Family Guy's case) the version of the episode (FOX, Adult Swin/TBS, DVD, ect.), and roughly how far along into the episode it is (in the sence of time).--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a citation to a primary source which for purposes of providing encyclopedic content is essentially useless. All that such a reference can do is provide a repeat of a gag from the show- which, as has been discussed numerable times, is generally not encyclopedic content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I think it should be removed. If nobody objects in the next few days, I will remove it, as its a useless citation. Qst (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I just read this talk page, and I understand the hotly contested nature of trivia shuch as this, but an explanation to that reference would be appreciated, I think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.224.202 (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC) 

I think it's silly how hotly contested this bunch of random pop cultural references has become. Especially given that this episode handles far more consequential issues. Anton Mravcek (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The cultural references section is currently in paragraph style, reverting my previous edit to list-ify it. I wonder, if that was a good idea...Those facts are much better readable for the readers when they are in a bulleted list, while as a paragraph it currently sounds like a bunch of sentences joined together without any connection. But I'd like to hear other opinions first before reverting it back. Regards SoWhy 13:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia ideal is for smooth-flowing paragraphs. Right now that section is a paragraph but very clunky. If we weren't so bogged down in disputing references that are clearly stated in the dialogue of the show, maybe we could actually work on making that paragraph flow smoothly. ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I probably reverted it from list to paragraph at least a few times. All GAs I, and all other Simpson Proj members have gotten, are in paragraph form, so I just follow that. CTJF83Talk 19:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
[Removed Good Faith copy and paste text, as it looked like SoWhy had posted twice, but BrianGriffin-FG was just agreeing.]

Yes yes yes! I could not agree more.--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I did my best in cleaning up the paragraph formatting, to make it more reader friendly. CTJF83Talk 20:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read our guidelines for what constitutes a reliable source. Continued insertion and re-insertion of blogs and personal web pages is disruptive behavior. Sources must have some type of editorial board oversite/peer review or a stellar reputation for fact checking.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No matter what source we come up with, you will find a way to say it's unreliable. Or you'll find some other rule. Or you'll create a new rule for the sole purpose of legislating anything that goes against your authority. The only thing that you will not have a problem with are the things you authorize. You've created a can't-win for anyone outside your group. Pointing this out is a violation of WP:CIVIL, so I'll probably get a warning template slammed on my talk page.
There was an episode of Family Guy in which a donkey refuses to believe Kevin Bacon was in Flashdance. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Umm, Cromulent Kwyjibo, Kevin Bacon wasn't in "Flashdance". The scene you're refering to, the donkey said Bacon wasn't in "Footloose"70.132.145.110 (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
When you continue to use blogs and chat forum posts and personal web pages, of course they are going to be removed as unreliable sources. I would suggest that you actually read the guidelines so that you can follow them. If after reading the page you have questions about what the page means, ask at the WP:RS talk page to get clarification. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I can read those guidelines until I'm blue in the face. My interpretation is going to be wrong no matter what. I'm just too stubborn to learn that I have no right to edit Wikipedia regardless of whether or not I'm correct or not with the facts. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
From WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", so it doesn't matter who is correct with facts. DP76764 22:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Why would we put everyone's and any random person's opinion in their blog, in a review of the episode? They are clearly not notable reviewers, and these pages would never end, due to any blogger being allowed to link to their blog. By the way, Cromulent, you pointing out something that we disagree with isn't uncivil, as long as you don't say it in an uncivil matter. CTJF83Talk 01:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
That's theoretically true. But it's not how it's being practiced. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

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) 02:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

While hosted by the LA Times, it is not clear to me that this blog is subject to the editorial oversight that is required for a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a reference to the german song "99 Luftballons" by Nena.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.217.242.189 (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC) 
 Yes, it is, also edited, got undid, quite annoying. Looks like Wikipedia admins seem to be uneducated, despite the huge knowledge of the site. Anyway, I have tried on reinserting it, I am curious if it gets undid again.
Norbert79 (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced trivia doesn't belong in these articles, thank you.  We do not need to list and explain every single gag in every single episode; there are already plenty of these bits of trivia listed in the article. DP76764 (Talk) 20:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, rly? Maybe because it's unamerican? Quite interesting seeing other trivias left on other episodes, which had almost nothing to do with the actual episode yet to be read, as they refer to something american? Come on, I can see a lot of angry people on the discussion page mocked by you stiff necked guys. Get out of your cage.
Norbert79 (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Making personal attacks doesn't negate Wikipedia policies.  Please try to remain civil. DP76764 (Talk) 20:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Seth MacFarlane on a Loveline apperence, there's no musical number because the episode is a tribute to a 1980s miniseries about WWII. I'm 99.99% sure that the miniseries was The Winds of War, but there's that .01% doubt. Does anyone have the audio from that episode of the show so we can conform it? (It was on January 12 2009, I believe after 11 oclock. A caller called in and asked why there wasn't a musical number) --Lsnicket (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember that. I was pissed because I missed about 45 minutes of it, and lovelineshows.com, the fan archive site, closed down a few days before. I've tried to get the audio from the show, but I can't find a free download or torrent, and I'm not a Loveline club member.Is anyone a Loveline Club Member? Because the show is probably still up. With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Intersting if Seth MacFarlane said that because yes the music is from Winds of War. The episode parodies the miniseries several times. Even though it is in your face obvious in various notes here the admins appear to feel the reference is to obscure. Skywayman (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of information in the discussion page that should be in the article, but has been sticken do to lack of citations.  A lot of this stuff is so painfully obvious that, really, there shouldn't be a need for citations, except for perhaps links to other Wikipedia pages.  (i.e., the wedding scene as an homage to The Winds of War).   I really think there should be some sort of threshold of subjectivity, below which citation isn't necessary, unless the content becomes credibly disputed.  Some of these items where a citation is being required is practically like asking for a citation for "2+2=4" or "water is wet." --173.28.14.41 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really the same thing, read WP:V...at least the very first sentence. CTJF83Talk 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
By that logic, I could write that Iraq really had weapons of mass destruction .  If you don't care whether content is true or accurate, just that you can reference an article or website that states such, then Wikipedia need to change it name to GIGO.  --173.28.14.41 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? You know that reference is grossly out of date. WP:Point CTJF83Talk 19:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, my first time trying to add ACCURATE, TRUTHFUL, and FACTUAL information to wikipedia (in Road to Germany) has been "educational" to say the least, and sufficient to dissuade me from trying to contribute to Wikipedia.  In fact, it's been so educational, I'm off to find an alternate to Wikipedia who's content and editorial policies are more common sense, and less contrived. --173.28.14.41 (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I really screwed up the tags. Anywho, half the cultural references, the last half, seem to be original research. Lots42 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Road to Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090718001718/http://cdn.emmys.tv/awards/2009ptemmys/61stemmys_noms.php to http://cdn.emmys.tv/awards/2009ptemmys/61stemmys_noms.php
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5msfotyxq?url=http://cdn.emmys.tv/awards/2008pte/60thpte_noms.php to http://cdn.emmys.tv/awards/2008pte/60thpte_noms.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081022065654/http://www.tvguide.com/Episode-Recaps/family-guy/Family-Guy-Episode-27362.aspx to http://www.tvguide.com/Episode-Recaps/family-guy/Family-Guy-Episode-27362.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101023083128/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/10/20/sunday-tv-ratings-desperate-housewives-tops-night-but-fox-animation-draws-youth/6506 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/10/20/sunday-tv-ratings-desperate-housewives-tops-night-but-fox-animation-draws-youth/6506
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)