Talk:Glenn Quagmire/Archive 1

message: *Glen Quagmire. As awesome as Family Guy is, I don't think individual pages for its characters are necessary. Quotations from said characters definitely do not belong in an encyclopedia (Family Guy was so full of saucy sayings that there would be no end to a list of quotations). Kricxjo 16:47, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

message: During "The Cleveland-Loretta Quagmire", I noticed that the captions for the episode spell Quagmire's first name as "Glenn" vice "Glen". I realize that captions are not very reliable, but does anyone have a reliable source for either spelling? -DynSkeet (talk) 15:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
*The official web site  spells his first name "Glenn" under Character Bios.  It's a flash web site, so I can't link the page directly, but it shouldn't be hard to find. --Metropolitan90 02:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that was useful information.  Oh, you should sign your comments, too. --Kinu 08:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glen or Glenn? 

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

message: Has Glenn Quagmire ever been compared to Charlie Sheen? Both in looks and their shady characteristics on TV.
* I think if they ever think to do a family guy real-people movie, they should put Charlie Sheen as Glen :P
Silver mask cube 15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charlie Sheen? 

message: Is it just me or do quagmire and "the todd" off of Scrubs seem to have very similar traits?
:It's just you. Mannycalavera 07:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quagmire and "The Todd" 

message: I searched the web and could not find any sites other than Wikipedia and its mirror sites that contained any statements comparing Quagmire's appearance to Neil Sedaka's.  Please remember (or learn) that Wikipedia is not a place for original research.  I have seen pictures of Neil Sedaka as a young teen idol, and he has never had any of the exaggerated features that Quagmire has.  They may look a little bit similar, but that definitely should not be a reason to assume that Quagmire's appearance was based on Sedaka's.  In particular, saying that Quagmire most closely resembles a young Neil Sedaka seems somewhat POV to me, given that he has also been compared to people varying from Bob Hope to Arnold Schwarzenegger.  I am fairly young myself and not particularly familiar with Sedaka's physical mannerisms, and I have never watched Family Guy, so I do not particularly know that much about Quigmire, other than what is stated in the article.  But, would someone please explain Quigmire's similarity to Sedaka in greater detail.  In my opinion, this statement should either be cited to a reliable source or removed from the article.
Andrea Parton 03:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Resemblance to Neil Sedaka

message: I noticed that the current image used is really bad quality, Does anyone have a better image? I have one that could possible be used:
Any thoughts? LiverpoolProductions 02:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have it in png? His shirt and pants are covered with jpeg artifacts. Good kitty 20:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image?

message: After considering another editor's request, I refactored the Trivia section, and threw some of it out, per WP:AVTRIV. I hope this is okay.
If someone can verify the above name origin idea, it might make a good addition. / edgarde 21:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Trivia'' section changed to [[Glen Quagmire#Character origins]] 

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

message: This seems to be an absurd category; I'd consider removing this category from this page as it seems to lack a reliable source.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remove it. Family Guy characters are prone to overcharacterization based on single-episode situations. This crufts up the categories considerably, so it should be avoided. / edg ☺ ★ 18:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There is absolutely no positive evidence he is a rapist, or has ever rapped anyone! Read WP:OR CTJF83Talk 05:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional rapists 

message: can we work it in somehow? its 911Д narcistPig (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, the phone # is non-notable, excessively in-universe information that has no conceivable impact on how the character is written or what the audience can expect from him. It's also extremely trivial, not worth including. Perhaps you could add it to  instead. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: theres a family guy wiki? awesome!♠Д narchistPig♠ (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more than just awesome. They welcome a level of detail that Wikipedia would find unencyclopedic. And they want more editors. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  phone # 

message: Shouldn't Glen's wife Joan be in the info box? She is relevant.
Lois brings her up in another episode other than the episode where she and glen get married.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.221.176 (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: she's, dead.--Jakezing (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Family

message: I can't understand after all of this about Quagmire, not one person noted that he looks like Bob Hope.  In the article, it is referenced he has bone structure similar to Stan from American Dad? Am I that old or are the people writing the article only in their 20's?  If no one minds, I will make an attempt to add Bob Hope's facial similarities in the article?68.249.106.28 (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Please review the policy on original research before thinking about that. DP76764 (Talk) 04:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Please review the show before saying that. Stewie calls Quagmire "Bob Hope" in the episode Baby Not On Board Armyrifle (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Of course he looks like Hope, but Seth seems a bit reluctant to openly state that; here you can hear his own words about it: 
Youtube video:
Family Guy Seth MacFarlane & Seth Green ARE DRUNK!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWP6oGbkWNg
The Quagmire part:
Some (apparently almost drunk) lady asked the question "Alright, is it me or does Quagmire look just like Quentin Tarantino?" Seth replied that he always thought Quagmire looked like Bob Hope, but Seth goes on to say that the Bob-Hope-look was not intentional, and when he starts to elaborate on his answer, the lady interrupts him and asks, "What's with the chin, ya know?"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.147.55.212 (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: *Without a definitive statement in a reliable source, this is all original research. DP76764 (Talk) 20:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, when Seth says it himself in a video, then this is pretty reliable IMHO, but I guess videos are not yet good sources for Wiki. (sans sarcasm)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.147.55.212 (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Video is fine, just not Youtube. DP76764 (Talk) 20:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: source of video should matter more than host of video --71.131.30.178 (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

text: *True, there are exceptions (if it is an official release by a reliable source then youtube is ok).  But, in most situations, this fails to be the case.  If it's available on youtube, it should be available somewhere else (preferably a more reliable location). DP76764 (Talk) 17:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

text: *Yes, Seth is a reliable source, but 'pirated cell phone recordings' are not reliable sources for inclusion in an article.  Reliable sources must also be verifiable. DP76764 (Talk) 17:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Please describe your doubts, as I cannot see where they can come from at all. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Because pirated cell phone recordings are illegal?? DP76764 (Talk) 17:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So now the issue is no longer verifiability... it's legality (from my experience, such display of changing "reasons" is the practice of many serial deletionists... not that I'm calling you one or something). What does that have to do with the topic of this discussion? If you're concerned about legality, take that clip off YouTube. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Illegality is part of reliability (my initial point), not a separate issue.  Additionally, it applies to verifiability in terms of: other users cannot verify this source without breaking the law.  Finally, YouTube is usually no more reliable than a pirated piece of material (though there are exceptions, of course). DP76764 (Talk) 18:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

text: *Just because they haven't had it taken down, doesn't mean it's legal. See: Wikipedia_policy#Legal_and_copyright.  If the material is not legal then it is not acceptable here.  DP76764 (Talk) 19:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please prove the illegality/copyright breach? As far as I'm concerned, using a mediating site such as YouTube shakes off all responsibility from us as editors. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think you are sorely mistaken in that belief, but I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how to phrase this. (try reading through the WP:Copyrights area). That being said, the burden of proof is not on me to discredit the source, but on you to prove its reliability. DP76764 (Talk) 19:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're splitting hairs my friend. We both know it's MacFarlane talking in that video, yet you keep insisting (feigned incomprehension?) on ignoring common sense... 87.69.177.35 (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Or Neither of those.  It doesn't matter if it really is MacFarlane, if the material is pirated/illegal, it's not acceptable to use.  And you should finish reading the WP:COMMON article: "Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. While it is quite acceptable to justify your own actions by saying, "it seemed like common sense to me", you should be careful not to imply that other editors are lacking in common sense, which may be taken as a personal attack." DP76764 (Talk) 20:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

text: *Let's just wait for other contributors to voice their opinions.  If I'm in the wrong, that's fine and I will support whatever decision is reached.  However, I don't think that that will be the case. DP76764 (Talk) 20:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bob Hope

message: I'm unable to edit this myself, as the page is semi-protected:
I've noticed that in the section titled "Job" the PTV page links to a disambiguation page, rather than the intended PTV_(Family_Guy) page for the episode in question.
----  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxam (talk • contribs) 13:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Fixed. DP76764 (Talk) 16:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Leading to Disambiguation Page 

message: From the second paragraph of "Ethics and sexual deviancy" it is stated "He is also moral enough to not engage in statutory rape" but this quote from "Emission Impossible" condradicts that...
"Well, in... in accordance with Megan's Law, I'm obligated to inform you that, uh... you know what, that's fine. I'll take the kids."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelda1899 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Megans law isnt only about sex crimes against children--71.131.30.178 (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, the issue might not be morality at all, but rather fear of being put in jail. He seemed fine with the tied-up cheerleader in the bathroom; also, when he's hired by Lois to avenge Meg's humiliation, Connie D'Amico tells him she's 16 and he replies with "18? You're first!" Anyhow, these are all POV's. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moral Enough to Not Perform Statuatory Rape 

message: Some episodes have shown Quagmire to have many illegitimate children such as "Peter's Got Woods" and "Tales of a Third Grade Nothing", so should there be some mention of it in the article?12.37.71.169 (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quagmire's Illegitimate children 

message: Anyone else notice this article has considerable less content from back here, did it contain no references or what? -PatPeter 21:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some information considered unencyclopedic was removed in favor of a re-write (apparently a gradual one) per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Also, some of the detail on that version (such as the  theme song) violated copyright. If you need lots if plot-derived detail, fansites like Family Guy Wiki might be more like what you are looking for. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow, what happened 

message: A character's age is defined in-universe -> mention the age when describing the character. This is a pretty normal way of preceding. I don't see any POV-pushing, OR or violation of writing about fiction guidelines. Those opposing this above don't appear to have pointed out any valid reasons for excluding this, and the flaws have been shown in what they have suggested.
Additionally, the fact that one party chooses to remain anonymous should not be held against them, nor come into this discussion. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Who has said anything about holding against him/her because the IP is anonymous besides you? CTJF83Talk 02:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: CTJF83Talk, you are not an uninvolved party, therefore please relocate your comment to the appropriate area. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by uninvolved parties 

message: The Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute section needs to be concise so Uninvolved editors can get caught up easily. Otherwise, few if any will respond to this RfC.
I"m going to ask one more time for the involved editors to move their non-statement threaded argument out of the Statements section and into Further comment (this section). The threaded opera just makes it hard for Uninvolved editors to hear the discussion. If you need to dispute something said in an editors statement, either move it here, or create your own statement. Please do this as a favor to uninvolved editors. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are involved in this thread, I will ask you once more to move your comment (and my reply) from this section back to where it belongs please. As far as I'm concerned, the thread under the RfC section is over. In order to place comments here, we must let the uninvolved editors have their say first. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further comment 

message: Giggity-giggity-goo was deleted with the former Catchphrases section. Does anyone object to adding this? We would need reliable, independent third party sources for this catching on as a popular term. So far, the best I have are these:
*
*
Not great. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catchphrase