Talk:Family Guy controversies/Archive 1

message: One minor point is that Deicide and crucifixion are not synonyms.
I'm still not sure why this page isn't deleted. Essentially any form of entertainment (and TV shows particularly) can be simplified to one or two base elements, and then those elements can be (over)exaggerated to prove lack of complexity. It's almost self-perpetuating.
In the beginning Southpark essentially revovled around shock topics and vulgar language (and arguably still does); the "messages" they seem to pride themselves on are incredibly anti-everything, holier-than-thou and pretentious. Unfortunately any criticism of Southpark is immediately branded as Christian conservatism, both being spheres of thought I certainly do not consider myself a part of.
Its also apparent with recent seasons that the Simpsons' producers have decidedly attempted to 'adultify' or tone up their jokes, to make them more cross-referential, and ultimately, more like Family Guy. This is not to say the Simpsons has become a carbon copy of Family Guy but its is in my opinion impossible to deny that Family Guy has changed somewhat the teen to adult cartoon industry.
I like all three of these shows for different reasons, but I find the Simpsons is often far too kiddie, South Park far too anti-everything, and the Family Guy far too repetitive. So shouldn't we thus have a page of 'Cross-criticism of the Cartoon industry' or something more general? Because I don't see any Criticisms of South park or the Simpsons, yet this article is longer than the one on the East Coast of the United States. Go figure. --Cuomo111 06:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it would make a hell of a lot more sense to just include "Criticism" sections under each cartoon;most articles based on movies or what not have these sections and I think it would probably make more sense to do that.--Ashmole 22:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: I think the speech speaks for itself and we don't need to explain to the reader what he ment. Other opinions are welcome.Jaderaid 04:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MacFarlene's Harvard Speech

message: I deleted the Mad Magazine section because Mad mocks and criticizes almost everything, including itself.
Might still be worth mentioning however.
Jmlk17 21:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mad Magazine 

message: Is it just me, or has Family Guy transmogrified into Seth MacFarlane's vehicle to attack the Bush administration?  I mean, isn't that what American Dad is for?  At least when The Simpsons do it thru Lisa, they parody knowitall self-righteousness.  The anti-Bush stuff just isn't that clever or funny, IMHO it's lazy.  Polemics aren't funny, including this one.
:This is a weird criticism. There have been maybe one or two significant Bush parodies; while I agree that they weren't the most
memorable incidents on the show, there is no way anyone can reasonably argue that Family Guy has become a "vehicle to attack the Bush administration"; to say so reflects a bias--ie, specific attention afforded to a very minor aspect of one or two recent episodes. All in all I'd estimate that less than 10 minutes of combined air time in the show's history has been used to criticize Bush or his administration (though I havn't seen the last 2 or 3 episodes).
How many episodes have they acctually taken a shot a Bush in? MacFarlane did say that he was going to make fun of Bush more when the show was revived and I agree he has; but I don't see how its gotten to be excessive.
:The reason behind the page is because the show has gone further than any show to my knowledge. And it seems to be very controversy worldwide, hence this page. But the fan demograhic is there. I dont think this page puts the show down in any way.
:The Bush shots I can think of...
*Bush acting like a toddler and crying over toys or something similar.
*"If you don't want to invade Iraq, you're gay."
*The cutaway to Bush being late to fight in Vietnam (I believe it was Vietnam).
:And I think there may be one more. I've heard this criticism before, and it's idiotic. 3 or 4 Bush jokes within 30 episodes? I could make a better argument that the show's sole purpose is to reference Star Wars by the same logic. And Bill Clinton was parodied in earlier seasons, such as, off the top of my head, E. Peternus Unum and Da Boom, and I believe there was a joke in the pilot. The difference is, like every political comedy medium, the focus of Clinton jokes was his sexual escapades, while the focus of Bush jokes is criticism of his decisions. Obviously, that's much more likely to be misconstrued as commenting negatively on the President, but what else is there to make fun of Bush for? -- Viewdrix 21:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-'Hiatus' Criticism 

message: Is there any place where you got the fan criticism from? I think the episodes from season 4 are a little more original than the episodes from the first three season. Also, i rarely see any of the "other" characters mentioned in season 4
I've got to agree with that. It seems the author(s) of most of this article are using the page as a soapbox to publish their own opinion of the show. The only section with any merit is "Moral Criticism and Controversy", since it is verifiable. I might suggest that this article be deleted or have the moral controversy section merged into the main Family Guy article. I just kind of stumbled onto this by accident; it definitely needs sprucing up. Dreyvas 19:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged this article again (an anonymous user removed it), however I doubt anybody will cite any sources.  If that is the case then I think this would be a perfect afd candidate. Jtrost (T | C | #) 19:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan Criticism 

message: i think this article is more or less someone who doesnt like the show using wikipedia as a soap box to complain about it.
where are the references. i would have this article removed or trimmed and merged with the main family guy entry.
"Too Funny To Sleep" citation added. Oddly enough, when I added it correctly it displayed incorrectly. Even when I just did it now, the entire page deleted. Must be doing something wrong.
the Simpsons VS FG page that had that cover of MAD displayed incorrectly and went to the bottom of the page where the notes were. So I just did link [1] and it takes you to the "Too Funny To Sleep" pageEAB 09:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  where are the sources... 

message: Actually, I think its bloody damn ridiculous that people are not only offended by this show, but that celebrities are offended as well.  Oh, for the Love of God.  it's obvious now, why people prefer fantasy over reality. The real world sucks, because for the most part, people have lost their sense of humor.  It's as if a collective of various bugs crawled up the asses of most of the people in this world, and died and festered there; unable to leave no matter how much that person tries, to get rid of their infestation.  It's even funnier that people believe God would be offended by this show.  The crazy thing is, God's got a strange and twisted sense of humor. After all, He made the dumbasses who get offended by this show.  If people don't like this show, then they don't have to watch it.  Nobody's coming to their house with a sawed-off shotgun, and forcing them to watch it and enjoy it, now are they?
:"Actually, I think its bloody damn ridiculous that people are not only offended by this show, but that celebrities are offended as well."  What in the world are you talking about?  The only celebrities mentioned in this article complain about the quality of writing, the quality of animation, and the originality of the material.  None of the celebrities mentioned are complaining about being "offended."  Methinks that far too many people jump to using the phrase "offensive" as a stock-excuse for not being funny, yourself included, even when it's not at all appropriate to the context of the conversation. Schrodinger82 02:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To Schrodinger82 and the original poster,
Wikipedia talk pages are not chat rooms or message boards. They are soley for discussing ways to improve the quality of articles. Please do not post useless messages like this one on Wikipedia's talk pages. Thanks! --Tuspm 19:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I think it's funny

message: I think this article has been up long enough for authors to find sources it.  However, there still are very few.  If this article is not substantially cleaned up within one week (March 6) I will mark it for deletion. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I should have been more clear.  I believe that there is not enough verifiable information for there to be an entire article on this.  So unless someone can come up with a good, well researched article, I think it'd be best to delete this article and merge all relevent, factual information into the main article.  If I were to remove all "disputed information" then this article would be virtually blank, hence why I believe we do not need this article. Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Jtrost, there are "entire articles" for individual episodes of Family Guy.  In fact, from the looks of it, their are "entire articles" for each and every episode of Family Guy individually.  Including some that haven't even aired yet.  And although I've only glanced at a few of them, zero citations, zero references, and almost as long as the current article in question.  Just out of curiousity, how many of those have you marked for deletion? Schrodinger82 02:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I was taking a look due to the AfD and took the opportunity to make some quick changes.  I may have left an unneccessary tag.  Will go over it again. Thatcher131 02:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *One of us must be missing something.  I moved the blanket tag to the Family Guy vs Simpsons section.  The Other peers and critics section has cite tags regarding EW but not Smith and Mandel. Thatcher131 04:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that's because I took it off as soon as I saw itGuruAskew 04:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *I think what should be done with DVD commentaries is to create a footnote and indicate in which episode or on what DVD volume the comment occurs.  That is obvious in the case of Clerks TAS, but needs to be added for the Simpsons creators saying they hate FG. Thatcher131 04:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that's gonna be tough.  I supplied that info but with 7 seasons on DVD I don't even know if I could narrow it down to which season it was, let alone which episode. Hopefully someone going through them now will see this and provide the specifics, the "Family Guy" bashes are there and they're pretty common.GuruAskew 04:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any special rush; leave the tag up and if no one else picks it up, maybe you'll find it by accident the next time you're home with the flu :) Thatcher131 05:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding the comment that the Simpsons creators think FG is less family-friendly, I removed the comment about the Simpsons recent episodes being rated TV14, because the ratings are decided by Network Standards&Practices, not the producers of the individual shows, and many times producers feel their shows are rated too high because S&P are lawyers worried about a backlash, so we probably can't put that on Groening et al. Thatcher131 04:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing sources 

message: The show was voted one of the top 10 worst shows in 2001 by Entertainment Weekly, ranking at number 5.
Maybe it was, but the source is a link to 5 television shows considered the worst of 2001 by Ken Tucker. It was not a vote, or at least that is certainly not apparent from the language he uses.
Here is a worthy successor to Arli$$ as the Awful Show They Just Keep Putting on the Air, a phenomenon as inexplicable as where Larry King gets all his suspenders. As long as they keep bringing back Family Guy, a hunk of ugly animation, I'll keep using it to line the bottom of this barrel.
68.9.205.10 00:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I did. How does it look now? 68.9.205.10 16:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *That looks fine.  I did change the generic inline reference to the  template which provides a bit more information.  The same (or related cite templates) could be applied throughout the article but I haven't done it yet. Thatcher131 16:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entertainment Weekly 

message: Shouldn't this say something less colloquial?--Greasysteve13 04:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the leap and changed it.  It may be a bit awkward, but go ahead and change it if you think of something better. Nice use of English in a talk page.  Rare. =)  --Mboverload 04:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do my best.--Greasysteve13 06:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lightning rod of controversy?! 

message: In the fifth episode of season one : a hero sits next door, after about eight minutes, a guy in a red shirt offers gum to a guy in a blue shirt that appears to make him addicted to drugs.
The guys in blue have a T on their shirt, and the red have a P on their shirt.  They both start laughing in a dumb way.
Now Terrance and Philips always start laughing at each other, and they also wear a T and P on their shirt.  The only difference is that Philips is the one in blue in South Park.
What do you think?
Evilbu 09:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrance and Philips : a hero sits next door 

message: Why was my edit of adding the amendment song removed?  I don't get it?
Evilbu 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Amendment song 

message: Would "Criticism of Family Guy" belong in a real encyclopedia or would it be rejected for its lack of necessity?  If it would not belong there, why, then, would it belong on Wikipedia [aka Wiki Encyclopedia]?
A real encyclopedia probably wouldn't even have a page about family guy in the first place. I'm of the school that believes wikipedia should be as big and as comprehensive as we can make it. This belongs here. Jaderaid 23:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in agreement with Jaderaid. The same argument could be leveled against half of the stuff on Wikipedia, lists of Fighting Fantasy books, episodes of Babylon 5, The Onion, etc. This stuff makes Wikipedia different. Who knows, maybe somebody out there is really really needing (not wanting, but needing) to find out the criticism of Family Guy. And for the record, I'm a Family Guy fan. Phileas 06:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Family Guy is an important part of American pop culture now, so responses to it are (in my opinion) a valid topic for a Wikipedia article. The fact that "real" encyclopedias lack articles on such topics is just one more reason why I never seem to use them. Difference engine 20:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Not only would a real encyclopedia no have a page on Family Guy, but I also seriously don't that it would have individual pages for each and every episode of Family Guy that ever aired, as well as pages for the episodes that haven't.  Schrodinger82 01:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would this belong in a real encyclopedia? 

message: I'm getting fed up with this.  A long time ago (maybe even back when this was part of the main "Family Guy" article) I added the following statement:
"Groening, on the other hand, has never acknowledged any such friendship with MacFarlane."
You would think that this quote would be simple enough.  It's NPOV, it doesn't say that Groening has confirmed the friendship nor does it say that he's denied it.  It merely says that he hasn't acknowledged it, which is simple and more importantly, it's true.
What gets me is that the poor whiny little "Family Guy" fans that cling to their hopeless denials over the fact that pretty much everybody working in animation hates "Family Guy" just can't accept the reality of the situation.
This is what it comes down to: Groening hasn't said "hey, I hate Seth MacFarlane" just like he hasn't said "hey, Seth MacFarlane and I are BFF".  If you must modify the line to say "Groening, on the other hand, has never acknowledged nor denied any such friendship with MacFarlane" you have to add all sorts of other extraneous hypothetical redundancies to the statement.  Let me offer up a suggestion to those who insist on adding "nor denied":
"Groening, on the other hand, has never acknowledged, nor denied, nor described as orgasmic, nor praised to high heaven any such friendship with MacFarlane."
The word "acknowledge" is more than adequate to describe the situation here.  For better or worse, Groening has not acknowledged MacFarlane's comments and that is what the sentence conveys perfectly.
If you insist on changing that line I suggest you hit up the Wiktionary and look up "acknowledge" and then think long and hard about what you should do about the fact that you're upset that the creator of one show you like doesn't like another show you like.</ref
Pot to kettle: "You are black",RentACop 20:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The constant whiny additions of "nor disavowed" to the Groening comment 

message: Why does there seem to be this obsession on the internet with who does and who doesn't like Family Guy? Does it really matter? Rubber cat 21:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it doesn't really matter.  It's just something to discuss. --mboverload 22:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I don't see why this needs its own article. I thought we could merge it with the Family Guy article. The Family Guy article already has a criticisms section in it and I was thinking we could merge this article and put it in that section. If someone can give me a good reason why not to merge these articles, I will remove the tag. --Tuspm 17:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought it was stupid for it to have its own article so I suggested we merge it. That's all. --Tuspm 13:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The article is just way too large to be merged into family guy. It would make up like half the family guy article. 72.130.177.246 07:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge With Family Guy 

message: I deleted that section because it is unsourced and I can't find any evidence of it. Jaderaid 00:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dave Chappelle

message: Definition of Criticism:
The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works. 
^Criticism doesn't necessarily imply *negative* commentary. How about we include some POSITIVE criticism of Family Guy to balance out all the negative criticism? Surely SOMEONE notable out there must have something *nice* to say about Family Guy; it's unfair to have an article about criticism of the show and only list the negative criticism; we should give equal time and space to the *good* things that have been said about the show.
Go out there and find some, slugger! Jaderaid 07:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why we can't have a section dedicated to positive reviews, I'm just too lazy to go find them myself.Jaderaid 06:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Positive Criticism?...

message: Nancy Franklin's New Yorker article is in fact roundly positive, she says that toilet humour IS very funny, that family guy ISNT JUST a 'fartfest', that '“Family Guy” is laugh-out-loud, timelessly loopy—it’s a Dadaesque vaudeville turn, often literally.'  Furthermore, not only was the New Yorker episode of family guy not in response to the article, it is mentioned in Franklin's article, bemusedly apologising for the lack of toilets as a gesture of her fondness for the show.
It'd be nice to keep reference to this article in, so for now I am going to remove the word 'rant' as it isn't a rant, as anyone who read the article may inform you.
*There, I rounded out the summary and now we have some postive criticism too. Two birds - One stone. Jaderaid 18:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nancy Franlink 'rant' 

message: Why isn't there a section discussing the stupidity of that show.  It revolves entirely around stupid and unfunny 1-liners that the idiotic fanbase laughs at every time they are heard.  It is a drain on people's intelligence, nearly equal to right wingism, alcohol, drugs, or tobacco.  205.166.61.142 18:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that, maybe, just maybe, that might be a little POV. Just maybe, but I'm throwing it out there. -- Viewdrix 19:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page should be three times the size it is now.  Try to find what you can, there is plenty of criticism out there.  Just watch out for Jaderaid, he will delete it.
Oh shucks hypermagic, I do my best. Would you like me to show you how to sign your comments?Jaderaid 05:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupidity 

message: Has anyone ever heard of The Magazine before?  Sure, there is a picture proving it's existence but is it really that well-known to be included on this page?  It's obvious that The Simpsons, South Park, the Clerks cartoon, Jimmy Corrigan, and animation legend John Kricfalusi should be here.  Two highly esteemed and celebrated magazines like The New Yorker and Entertainment Weekly belong here too.  But The Magazine seems to be something that came up when someone did a google search looking for a positive review of Family Guy and this was the only thing that was found.--Hypermagic 19:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Magazine? 

message: It's a very common opinion among fans that, after season 3, the humor fell sharply. The change is incredibly obvious, so it seems possible to write about that objectively. Anyway, if the majority of fans are aware and critical of the change, it makes sense to put this in the article.
I honestly don't get that; I don't see this "incredibly obvious" change. The show feels exactly the same to me and there's been plenty of funny material in seasons 4 and 5. Either way, this article isn't a soapbox for fans (or non-fans) to preach their opinion of the show. That's the sort of stuff that belongs on a messageboard, not wikipedia; not until someone notable says "The humour declined after season 3", anyway.K00bine 21:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  After season 3 

message: I love Family guy but one thing that really frustrates me is their inability to pull together all the jokes into a story. They have so many cut-aways and at times it almost like a cartoon sketch show. Anyway, I noticed in the Versus South Park section this is mentioned, but I wondered whether it warrants a section of its own?
Is there enough criticism of the way the show is written to warrant this as a seperate section? The cut-aways are often very good, but I do think that Parker & Stone have got a point - i'm impressed because I thought I was the only one who was frustrated by it.
ny156uk 15:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything it is the single most defining aspect of the show's hummour and thereby the entire show. At least since season 3. This is explained at great length in the "comedic approach" section of the Family Guy article. If there was to be an own section in the criticism article however, we would have to gather enough sources to show that this is indeed a common criticism, prefarably one that existed before Cartoon Wars. — Mütze 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I hadn't checked the main article, just stumbled across this from a Southpark page. Having had a quick read of that part I, personally, think it tackles the issue reasonably well. Thanks ny156uk 19:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioned in V. South Park part but maybe not strongly enough?

message: Why does the citation of Groening's statement about an affectionate relationship between the two shows link to a MacFarlane interview? Did Groening actually say those words? I can't find it in the linked page.
I would like to officially voice my opinion that this is the lamest and least noteworthy article I have ever read on Wikipedia. This entire article could be summed up in 3 sentences on the Family Guy article itself:
"Family Guy has come under criticism from other animated television show creators for its non sequitur humor and fairly mundane animation. It has been the subject of parody on The Simpsons and South Park. MacFarlane and the Family Guy staff has always taken these criticisms well in interviews, while insisting the show does provide an original and humorous take on American life."
See that wasn't so hard, was it?168.39.166.218 18:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation