Talk:Family Guy controversies/Archive 2

message: I'm having a hard time finding sources about the Criticism of Family Guy. It seems the links in the article are to actual criticisms of family, but not secondary sources directly ABOUT the criticism. If this article is to exist on wikipedia we're going to need more than primary sources. Has anyone published any articles about the criticism of family guy? --TrollHistorian 19:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources that aggregate or analyze the Criticism of Family Guy? 

message: Moved AIDS ref from list of sexually deviant practices to list of items controversially parodied on the sow, since AIDS is a disease, not a sexual practice. 80.73.220.12 00:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. This article can get a lot shorter then. / edgarde 19:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Change 

message: I have serious notability concerns about this article. All the sources are about family guy and not about the criticism. There are probably 1 or 2 seth mcfarlane quotes about family guy criticism. This article should be about ABOUT criticism of family as an issue, not the fact that criticism exists and we should aggregate it. The fact is all this article does is prove family guy is notable, not that criticism of family guy is notable. We need sources which ARE ABOUT the criticism of familyguy not criticism of family guy. You see the difference? --TrollHistorian 16:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By that same criteria, every Family Guy episode article should be removed, as well as character articles etc. Same with the Simpsons, as well as articles for each specific Pokemon. There are a lot of articles on wikipedia where its parent article holds the notability and sub-articles are made purely for more information on a section of the topic. I'm not saying that it's a good or bad thing, i'm just saying that there are more articles than just this example wherein the title of the article doesn't hold any specific notability by itself. -- jeffthejiff 18:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No there are policies for inclusion of TV episode summaries. Wikipedia has rules against Original Research, which is primarily what this page is (see WP:OR). There are no articles that I have seen that are about the criticism of Family Guy itself and not just criticism of family guy. Also see WP:POKEMON because each pokemon can be verified and sourced if people really tried. I don't think your argument that the subarticle is playing off the notability of the parent article really holds much water. Do you have a policy to support that? All I know is there are no sources about the article and the article is WP:OR. --TrollHistorian 21:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Content_forking. --TrollHistorian 21:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Some of the more aggressive deletions that are currently being made (by anonymous users) and summarily reverted might be considered constructive if good explanations were included in the edit summaries, or on this Talk page. This article has for a long time been rife with original research, WP:TRIVIA and off-topic statements. / edgarde 18:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. / edgarde 14:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pruning 

message: Mad Magazine parodies rag on their subjects by formula — No you clod, this stupid show! — so I don't think they can be taken seriously as criticism. Can the Mad Magazine section be removed without much grief?
The cover illustration is worth keeping as it illustrates a point made by other critics, but the section itself is overkill and WP:TRIVIA. / edgarde 20:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. / edgarde 14:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mad Magazine

message: I can't find any proof of this either; I don't agree that it should be left on the page uncited if the only proof is on IMDB. Removed. If someone finds proof, I'll be happy to see it back.Jaderaid 07:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship

message: "Subjects that have been called to attention are the series' controversial jokes about a number of sensitive issues,[4] including AIDS.[5]"
Wasn't the joke about AIDS mocking the ways in which you can deliver bad news and not people with the actual disease? I mean, the joke would have worked the same if it were leukemia, but that is harder to fit into a song I think. It wasn’t taking on the sensitive subject of AIDS, really. Surely there are better examples then that one. Chewbacca1010 18:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AIDS jokes were pretty taboo for a long time — John Waters still swears he'll never do one — so it's pretty edgy (compared to cancer, for example), and the controversy over the Family Guy AIDS joke (unique among the formerly overlong list of topics) is really the one incident causing a notable controversy, and for which a citation was found. / edgarde 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AIDS?

message: Are there no articles to cite about the lack of originality on the show?  It seems that nearly 100% of the humor is derived from very overtly referencing and parodying other works.  Many of the cutaway gags are direct copies of scenes from films or other shows (in the episode Road to Rupert, one scene is directly lifted from Star Trek II while a 5 minute sequence superimposed Stewie over Jerry the Mouse).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Radaar (talk • contribs) 
:Perhaps you can help by finding references?
:Incidentally, referencing and parodying are not the same as "lack of originality", though excessive reliance on referencing might be a valid criticism in itself. / edgarde 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unoriginality? 

message: At the type I type this, Criticism of Family Guy is tagged for the following:
* -- see WP:NPOV
* -- see WP:WEASEL
* -- see WP:NOR
* -- see WP:NOR#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources
Can we yank some of these, and restore as needed to the relevant sections instead of the article header? If anyone wants to check all the current citations and sprinkle  tags where needed, that might help.
I've not read all the Family Guy vs. Godzilla sections, so maybe they need work. I've demoted those to subheadings of Rivalries with other cartoonists. / edgarde 00:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lately, I've noticed some edits to this article that attempt to "de-neutralize" the article this is a recent example. In other words, the editors want this "criticism" page to strictly reflect criticism against family guy, but not the other side views. Does this article necessarily need an NPOV by Wikipedia standards, or does the subject matter of this article warrant that it can just be "self-explanatory" (you know what I mean)? Andrewlp1991 05:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it does, otherwise you give a distorted picture of what actually happened, for example the South Park episode was not a vindictive attack, it was more balanced and reasoned. There's no need to be such a bleeding heart about these things.--Crestville 11:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:N|Neutrality]] and [[WP:OR|original research]] taggage 

message: There was some language suggesting various parties "attack" Family Guy. This is toned down. / edgarde 13:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lately, I've noticed some edits to this article that attempt to "de-neutralize" the article this is a recent example. In other words, the editors want this "criticism" page to strictly reflect criticism against family guy, but not the other side views. Does this article necessarily need an NPOV by Wikipedia standards, or does the subject matter of this article warrant that it can just be "self-explanatory" (you know what I mean)? Andrewlp1991 05:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it does, otherwise you give a distorted picture of what actually happened, for example the South Park episode was not a vindictive attack, it was more balanced and reasoned. There's no need to be such a bleeding heart about these things.--Crestville 11:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: I think the article is pretty specific at this point. / edgarde 13:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel

message: Some WP:OR ... Given the sheer number of The Simpsons episodes, and the fact that they are both 30-minute animated television shows that air on the same network, comparisons between The Simpsons and Family Guy, as well as other FOX animated series, are sometimes unavoidable 
... has been snipped. And  tags are now installed where I've noticed a missing or broken citation. / edgarde 13:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: This tag may be mistaken. According to WP:EPISODE, "An actual episode may be used as a source for information about the episode and constitutes a primary source. Such use does not constitute original research." Which is pretty logical. Does anyone see a reason to keep this tag? / edgarde 13:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary sources

message: This won't be popular, but a lot of gratuitous (not relevant to Criticism) material, mostly joke recaps and unneeded plot spoilers, is snipped. If someone feels this should all be documented, Wikipedia probably isn't the place. The Wikia Family Guy wiki might be a very good place. / edgarde 13:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fancruft

message: Yanked these since no one has been interested in discussing the article in the week since I asked. Lead section could use some work. / edgarde 08:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags removed

message: I wasn't sure if the Weinstein episode was edited on Cartoon Network. I didn't even know it was edited on FOX. Didn't Cartoon Network air the Weinstein episode first? Someone may want to look into this... -RedBlade7 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weinstein: FOX "edited" version vs. Cartoon Network version? 

message: I just found some interesting videos on Youtube that can maybe be put on the Wiki page.
[censored!]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.115.179 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but unless Fox has said this material can be shared freely (and we can be sure they have not), this material is a copyright violation. See Wikipedia:External links on this. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a repository of links, images, or media files. / edg ☺ ★ 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarities to The Simpsons 

message: Is it relevant to also include criticisms against American Dad in this page? I noticed a ref to the show on the "Entertainment Weekly" section, and I know that the Parents Television Council has also criticized American Dad for much of the same reasons as they criticize Family Guy. However, because this article is called "Criticism of Family Guy", I was just posting here to ask whether I should keep or remove the American Dad references here. I found some links for PTC criticism of American Dad:      --Andrewlp1991 21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it just Family Guy in this article. The items you're suggesting might be good for starting a Criticism section in the American Dad article. / edg ☺ ★ 17:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, so I'll go edit the American Dad article to add a "Critical reception" section that it already lacks. --Andrewlp1991 05:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow 4 PTC "Worst of" awards, that's some work. Maybe American Dad needs a PTC "Worst TV Shows of the Week" awards chart as well. / edg ☺ ★ 00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: American Dad

message: Not really a defense of the show by any means; a tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) was popular with the masses but professionals within the industry cringe when they hear its name. Paliku 08:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phantom of the Opera