Talk:Peter Griffin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Peter's age

Someone switched Peter's age to 46, when in reality he's around 42 or 43. Stewie stated that Peter was 42 on "Brian Does Hollywood". Based on the fact it only appears a year has passed during the course of the series I think it's safe to say he's still around 42 or 43. Jam

As with Homer Simpson and Ned Flanders, some editors like to take a stated age and add real time to it, as if each real year counts on the show too. Obviously they don't, because the kids never age that much. Prometheus^-X303- 04:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It was mentioned in a recent episode. It was either 42 or 43. Or possible 41.

In the "The Tan Aquatic with Steve Zissou", Lois says that he is 43, so HE IS 43!!!--BrianGriffin-FG 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

42 and 43 are the two numbers that have been explicitly mentioned in the dialogue. Any number based on calculations from the flashbacks is to be taken with a grain of salt if it's Peter who's telling the story, since his memory is very unreliable. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter age messup in "Meet the Quagmires"

In the controversial episode Meet the Quagmires, Peter said he was 18 in 1984. He cannot be 18 in 1984 since he was 23 back then. He was already 18 by 1980. You cannot be 18 two times. 1984 and the age of 18 (as well as the episode I mentioned) sucks. 206.255.186.75 14:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's very confusing, that's why it's best to just have Early 40's as his age. TheBlazikenMaster 15:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't need info about when Peter was born that's why I reverted that.

See this, there should be info that will be valid for decades to come. I find it unnecessary to add when a fictional character is born. As fictional characters age at unusual rate than real people, and (most often) not at all. Also imagine if ALL editors of Peter Griffin quitted, or nobody cares about changing his birth age anymore. Then this info would be invalid. This info would be useless after fifteen years. We should try to avoid things that can be out of date after few decades. TheBlazikenMaster 20:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Besides, we already have the age of Peter in the box, that's all we need. TheBlazikenMaster 20:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Peter's age keeps on changing from Early 40's into something else.

Is there anything that can be done? I'm sick of reverting this, since it's being changed too often. I tried hidden message, but no, a lot of people ignore these things, so tell me what can be done about this? TheBlazikenMaster 20:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter's Father

I added a bit of information stating that Peter's real father is Peter McFinnigan as shown in the latest episode. Glotnot 02:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems Family Guy has introduced yet another plothole by stating Francis is not Peter's father. How could Peter be related to all of the ancestor Griffins (most of which look very similar to him) if he is not a Griffin? And I'm not talking about the throwaways; I'm referring to established ones like Nate Griffin. And by the way, it's Mickey McFinnigan, not Peter :p The S 05:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I read the article, and the sentence "Peter Griffin was born in Quahog, Rhode Island, 43 years ago, to Mickey McFinnegan and Thelma Griffin" makes it sound like they were married (or at least dating), not that they had a one-night stand in Ireland. I would change it, but I can't think of another way to put it.--BrianGriffin-FG 20:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we can agree that this is a plot hole and we should address it as such until there is verification in this predicament. And by the way, BrianGriffin-FG, you owe me a million dollars cause I corrected your spelling in that comment. - Jumpmansbro 5:02 P.M., October 1 2007 (MDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.70.173 (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter's Name

I'm not entirely sure we should have the McFinnigan name in - after all, while he may be McFinnigan's son, his name is still Griffin, and I don't remember any move to make it double-barrelled. mattbuck 00:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hand Choice?

In the episode Petarded Peter writes with his left hand during the test despite being raised Catholic(to my knowledge, to Catholics lefthandedness is a sign of Satanism, so they bring up Children as right handed) I do not kow Where this could belong or if it does belong. Can somebody help me? I'm new here so I don't know how to do everything. Bluebrody7 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

presumably he wasn't brought up by catholics in the 18th century so it's ok to be lefthanded

but where should this go? religion, personality? Bluebrody7 10:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

in the episode The Cleveland-Loretta Quagmire he plays guitar right handed, but in the latest episode(It Takes a Village Idiot, and I Married One) he plays guitar left handed.--Numberwang 12:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter's Occupation

When was he fired from the Pautucket Brewery? I remember that he lost his job (along with anyone who worked there) in Hell Comes to Quahog, but wouldn't everyone get there jobs back when it re-opened. Also, I remember in the commentary for Jungle Love, somebody says that this job has given them more material than any other of his jobs. Why would they get rid of it?--BrianGriffin-FG 19:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I want this article featured.

There are no POV tags, no cleanup tags. I think it MIGHT be ready. Check top of the page for more details. TheBlazikenMaster 20:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It now got a tag. I suppose it won't be featured after all. TheBlazikenMaster 21:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Man, that's some trifling hating! Another Slappywag Among Petorians 22:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I should've known that it's not ready yet to be featured. When the voting closes, we shouldn't nominated it again until many months have passed, and possibly protect it to keep it clean from vandals. TheBlazikenMaster 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I can see from just glancing over the page that it lacks images which is enough to get it rejected. This article needs images! JameiLei 16:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can update it. What this article needs is what this character is based on. Images would be good, we also need a lot of references. TheBlazikenMaster 16:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

True. We need some inline citations. If you think it can't be done, look at Bulbasaur - 847 words of references about a single Pokémon. JameiLei 23:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, everything can be done. One of my wishes is this article to be featured, and with help from wikipedians from all around the world, I know the wish will come true. I know it's VERY hard, but I don't care. If it can never be featured, at least it should be good enough. Nothing is impossible if we all work together. Google search might help us get more references. I know we can do it. I also know it isn't gonna be easy. TheBlazikenMaster 00:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Evil Twin Thaddeus

From edit summary for removing it from article: Evil twin huh? It isn't that I don't believe you, but we need some source. Something that apears in one episode doesn't count.

I personally believe it should be left in. MOST things in Family Guy appear only once. All peter's occupations apart from fisherman, toy inspector and brewery worker in fact. Heck, I'm not sure I consider Peter's McFinnegan ancestry anything but a throwaway. Keep it, it's citeable. mattbuck 18:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you at least refresh our memories and tell us the title of the episode in which Thaddeus appeared? Another Slappywag Among Petorians 23:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but it has been discussed that things that appear only once aren't necessery true. It's been confirmed that Peter can't tell difference between a dream and his life history. Sometimes he talks about Griffins that don't exist, and never did, in other words makes them up. So, what's your proof? TheBlazikenMaster 18:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Other things in Family Guy that have appeared more than once: that Lois is the daughter of the snooty Pewterschimdts, that Joe had his accident at Christmas, that Meg does birdcalls, that Chris has artistic talent, ... feel free to stop me anytime here. Another Slappywag Among Petorians 23:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that. Writers of this article should know the difference between what Peter is thinking, and what happens in his real life. I bet this guy does, but it would be nice if the guy that posted it will specificy which episode. After all, like said in the failed candidate, we need a lot of references. TheBlazikenMaster 23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google search reveals the episode is "Mother Tucker." However, Thaddeus appears so briefly and just for the sake of one joke that I don't think it's worth mentioning in the Peter Griffin article (Thaddeus is and should be mentioned in the appropriate episode article). Compared to, say, Nate Griffin, Thaddeus Griffin is barely relevant in a general overview of Peter's life. Anton Mravcek 21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thick as chowder?

Just a query as to what one of the phrases in the first few sentences means? Maybe the language should be changed or a relevent wikilink could be inserted?

His voice, which has a thick-as-chowder Rhode Island accent, is produced by the show's creator and lead writer, Seth MacFarlane.

Is it a common phrase or just in America? Cheers, Jack 22:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

New image.

We need new image. The older one was removed as it wasn't a fair use. Discuss. TheBlazikenMaster 16:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the best one we already have. I hope someone will upload fair-use image of Peter Griffin as he is in the cartoons. TheBlazikenMaster 16:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too. As it stands now, the picture of Peter when things "got too real" is duplicated. Another Slappywag Among Petorians 19:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Could we not use the chicken one? At least that shows peter as he is in the cartoon. mattbuck 19:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, I don't know. Anyway, we need a picture of him alone. If you feel like it's necessery to have him fighting the chicken, I wouldn't care, I really don't know wether or not you should. TheBlazikenMaster 09:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved, thanks to Ayokimmie. TheBlazikenMaster 22:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice picture, and it shows him engaged in one of his favorite activities. Well done. ShutterBugTrekker 17:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject

C'mon, there must be SOME WikiProject Peter can be part of, but the problem is I can't figure out what. WikiProject Fox doesn't seem to exist..... TheBlazikenMaster 09:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I added it to a WikiProject. TheBlazikenMaster 19:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Meg's relationship?????

Why is Meg listed as a step-daughter? I don't seem to recall this being in any show, especially as Lois doesn't have any children in any of the flashbacks in any episode. Meg's page says that Peter is her father. Its really not a big deal, but looking through the article it just nagged at the back of my mind. Chibimech 12:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See Screwed the Pooch#Notes, or watch that episode again. Whether this was just a one-off joke that the writers will never reference again or an actual canon fact, I couldn't tell you. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd love to see that episode. But if it's a thought/flashback then it wouldn't be real. But if it's actually in the episode outside Peter's and other characters' mind, then it could be real. I don't have volume 2 on DVD. Well, I guess we just have to wait and see. TheBlazikenMaster 22:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Incest!?."

the article states that Peter's interest in Babs is evidence of incest fantasy. This is ridiculous as Babs is not blood related to him. Also, it is also mentioned that he had (or faked) intercourse with Lois's father, yet this is not considered incest. I propose we change that whole section, as his Babs fantasy is not incest, nor does it belong with discussion about bisexuality or homosexuality (Theglobeismyeye 14:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

I agree. It's not incest if they aren't related by blood to you, which neither Lois' Mother or Father are. If Lois died or divorced Peter, he could freely marry Babs with complete legal consent, it shouldn't be any different when they are married. It isn't incest when Lois and Peter have sex, so why should it be when the family member is another degree seperate? There is a reference to incest in Airport '07 when Peter becomes a redneck however, making advances towards meg, but this may not be an indication that he is actually interested in that, it may just be that he is being a stereotypical redneck. Chibimech 09:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

However, there is a possibility that both Lois and Peter are related by ancestry when you think about the episode, Untitled Griffin Family History. - Jumpmansbro 5:44, October 1 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.70.173 (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that episode was mainly stuff coming from Peter's mouth. How can we tell if he didn't make all that up? TheBlazikenMaster 16:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We need footnotes.

There are no foodnotes at all. That's what makes this article unable to become featured. Peter is a famous character. Let's make this article good article before making it features. I can't make any footnotes, but someone should do it. I'm bringing it to attention here because most articles have them. Yeah, who is with me? TheBlazikenMaster 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Larry.

I added a sentence about that Peter is based on Larry, but that's not enough. We need a whole section about what Peter is based on. Common, Peter deserves one. And also add some footnotes. TheBlazikenMaster 15:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter's appearance outside family guy section.

I think section like that is needed, as he did have some appearances outside Family Guy.

Look into my sandbox for an example.

So what do you guys think? Of course it isn't worded correctly, I haven't seen any of the episdoes listed.

But this is the section I'm talking about. I will have it on the article tomorrow, if there won't be any opposers. TheBlazikenMaster 17:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, since there aren't any objections, I will add it. It's just a little section, so I don't think it's necessery to have a poll on this. I just made this discussion so people can discuss the section. TheBlazikenMaster 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Date of Birth

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vvhNCAGElfY - at 2:50 it's implied he was born in July. 212.108.17.165 12:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but there's a whole range of 20 days in July that could be. Or 10 days, I forget. Still doesn't narrow it down enough. Another Slappywag Among Petorians 21:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Peter's Charisma

There should be a reference to Peter's superhuman charisma. This is manifested both as sex appeal and his ability to get people to do things. Both of these traits have been exibited through the entire series. Examples of the sex appeal are how easily he attracted Jennifer Love Hewitt, Molly Ringwold and Lois' mother. He regularly misdirects people to react a certain way even when there is evidence to the contray such as convincing the other male characters that Dr. Hartman violated them during thier prostate exams, convinced a mob that his teenage daughter was injured in Vietnam when she wasn't even born at the time. He even leads an entire stadium of people in a musical number in the middle of a football game. This happens often enough that it is more a charater trait of Peter than just a plot device. Vismaior 12:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Helpers

HEY! ARE YOU A FAN OF Family Guy! DO YOU WANNA GET ALL THERE DVDs! DO YOU WANNA SLEEP WITH MEG! IF YOUR ANSWERES ARE YES YES YES, than why, she's ugly. IF YOUR ANSWERES ARE YES YES NO, THAN JOIN THE FAMILY GUY HEPERS! JOIN NOW! JOIN NOW! JOIN NOW!--BrianGriffin-FG 18:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, can we discuss this?

Resolved

I really wanna know why you guys keep reverting me? I mean, aren't all appearance cameo? Just explain why you keep reverting me, and please correct me, explain to me WHY do you keep reverting me on the outside family Guy session? TheBlazikenMaster 18:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. You simplified race in the infobox to just "Irish American" and it's stayed that way, no one's reverted that. Another Slappywag Among Petorians 22:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

i did bother it, and i also referenced the different heritages. i would prefer that they are left alone; i suppose that if you want to remove it, you can. Ono 19:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about "appearance outside Family Guy" section, how is The Ringer appearance any less acceptable than the rest? TheBlazikenMaster 10:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Common, can we discuss what I officially wanted to discuss? TheBlazikenMaster 23:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Common, I can't believe this, the article is good but the talk page is deserted.

Let me ask this simply:

"How is Ringer's appearance any more unnotable than the rest?"

Common, I know you all hate as well, then you are trying to do good edits, and get reverted without explaination. TheBlazikenMaster 00:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Common, I need to know how it's more unnotable, I seriously need to know. Common, this encyclopedia isn't good one if we don't discuss it. TheBlazikenMaster 16:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is unfair, I just wanna know HOW the appearances of the list are more important than other appearance. I need to know, common. I know the cleaning discussion is important, but so is this. TheBlazikenMaster 23:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Common, if it's easy to remove it, HOW HARD can it be to explain to me? TheBlazikenMaster 20:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

IT IS A USELESS CAMEO APPEARANCE LASTING ALL OF TWO SECONDS. I AM SORRY THAT IT GOT REVERTED, BUT IF IT BOTHERS YOU SO MUCH, PUT IT BACK. THE REASON THE OTHERS ARE MORE NOTABLE IS BECAUSE THEY LASTED LONG ENOUGH TO BE NOTICED BY SOMEONE (OTHER THAN YOU) =). PLEASE USE THE TALK PAGE FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT SOMETHING GOT REMOVED. IF YOU KNOW WHO REMOVED IT, GO TO THEIR TALK PAGE AND ASK THEM WHY. DON'T CONTINUE TO SAY THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN. THANK YOU. Ono 21:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'll try to do that next time. Oh and I haven't seen any episode, or movie of that, so it isn't noticed by me. TheBlazikenMaster 21:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That is all right. And when you use "common" are you meaning for it to sound like "come on"?

Yes. TheBlazikenMaster 21:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

connie dechico? What the hell?

Resolved

I can't remove it from the article, I tried, but it's still at the bottom of the page, I even used Microsoft Word to search but found nothing. Can someone help me? TheBlazikenMaster 00:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found out, the template was vandalized, I fixed that. TheBlazikenMaster 00:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

OK, I have just done a general cruft removal. This article should be built up to meet WP:FICT and WP:WAF. This requires real world information on creation, development, and real world impact, which I'm sure is quite possible. The in-universe information should be redifined and rewritten to provide an accurate portrayal of the character. One episode things shouldn't be mentioned, and there should be no original research. If you have a claim, it should be backed with reliable sources. Example articles can be found under "media" on the featured article list. TTN 16:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it ready for featured status yet? TheBlazikenMaster 16:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's very far away from being an FA, let alone a GA. The current information needs to be rewritten and beefed up based upon reliable sources instead of purely from the episodes. There also needs to be developed development and reception sections, again, based off of reliable sources. The popular culture section should reflect on how the character is used in popular culture rather than giving every minor detail. If enough information is available, a mass media section can be split off of it. TTN 16:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

you are going to have to compromise. some stuff needs to be left in there. let's try and work together. Ono 21:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

as you can see, i tried to merge our info together, in the info box, i referenced his fav band, and i took out the family at the bottom, b/c of the relative at the top. his fav car is obviously a station, b/c that is what he drives. i will fix the intro paragraph soon. Ono 21:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the episode citing.

Resolved

First off, why is the date linking necessary? (as this template assumes)

Second, the episode link doesn't work for some reason.

I was thinking if someone watching this page is an expert on citing templates, I hope so because I need help. Redlinks are never good for an article, so I need some help. TheBlazikenMaster 00:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, I can't believe this. It's hilarious how people fix problems noted on talk pages, and leave NO reply at all on the talk page. Anyway thanks. TheBlazikenMaster 16:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:FG assessment

• contains no out-of-universe content

Not even one of these? TheBlazikenMaster 10:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Guest appearances and parodies aren't very far from in-universe, and most of them lean trivial. Consider these:

• WP:WAF#Secondary_information — examples of "real-world" information.
• Jabba the Hutt — fictional character with good out-of-universe content, and disciplined, concise in-universe content. Featured article I think.

I included both these examples in a rant I wrote today.

The stuff in Stewie Griffin about the aborted plans to "out" Stewie is good out-of-universe. I'd like to see what WikiProject Dogs would add to Brian Griffin. / edg ☺ ★ 14:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk about crude...

"Peter worked at a country club/resort in Newport, RI, as a towel boy, where he met Lois Pewterschmidt, whom he nailed in the changerooms."

Nailed. I mean, for God's sake. Nailed??? Sorry to whoever it may offend (if there actually is anyone that stupid), but I'm changing this to "had sex with". Geez, that line makes it sound like Peter himself wrote this article...172.209.112.222 19:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Nailed" is probably more in the spirit of the show. I changed this to hooked up with, but that's a little too causual and perhaps unclear. What I want to say is started a sexual relationship in an immediately physical way. Is there a better term for this? / edg ☺ ★ 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If it was meant to be in the "spirit" of the show, the whole article would sound like it was written by Peter himself. Can you imagine if the author of the Quagmire article made it sound as though it were written by Glenn Quagmire himself? The whole article would be innuendo and filled with the trademarks "Giggity-giggity-goo!" and "All-riiiight!" Nobody wants that, writing anything on Wikipedia in the spirit of anything apart from a proper encyclopaedia style just doesn't work. Writing the article in the style of who or what it's about for comedic effect is a popular tactic on Uncyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not a parody. So it should make sense above all else. 172.202.151.97 20:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Mental retardation

Other than "Petarded", what episodes explicitly call Peter mentally retarded (in the clinical sense, not just meaning stupid)? I remember there being such a declaration in Texas, but if that were the only subsequent reference it could be a joke about the series status quo. Is there a third episode in which it is mentioned? Excuse the hairsplitting. / edg ☺ ★ 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

They did an ENTIRE episode stating that he was retarded. Do they really have to spell it out again in other episodes? Maybe your... nudge nudge wink wink.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Typing this slowly so you'll be able to keep up, G.

Yes, they have to mention it in other episodes. Otherwise it is considered a "single-episode situation", something the show throws away instead of keeping it as part of the show's status quo. Were this a real person, we could assume this character probably remains this way. However, this is a work of non-serialized, episodic fiction with multiple writers and weak continuity, so we cannot make that assumption. Hence my question.

Please consider reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), particularly the section The problem with in-universe perspective / edg ☺ ★ 09:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it could be possible that the one with the test results was misjudging Peter. It wasn't proven by science that he is retarded, the only reason he acted so retarded in that episode is because he thought he could get away with everything. Edg, do you think that could be a possibility? Yes, of course it's a fiction, but sometimes it's a good idea to compare it with what/if it was real life, so we will be able to solve it correctly. TheBlazikenMaster 12:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that puzzling over the story's what if's is helpful here, because I don't suspect the writers are planting subtle clues. The hair I'm trying to split is Peter is either:

1. A really dumb guy who's "comedy dumb", and called "retarded" in a Season 4 episode (Let's do an episode where Peter is diagnosed as retarded!), that is referenced in another, later episode, but it's not really part of the character's formulation.
2. A "retarded" guy starting with "Petarded", and now this is part of the character.

I favor #1 cos I don't think it's a consistent part of the character. Subsequent references would be a good clue that this has been added to the Peter's outline, and I was looking for more than just the one later reference. We might be waiting for a DVD commentary on this one.

We're now giving this more thought than I had budgeted for the subject. / edg ☺ ★ 13:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Griffin Family Tree disputed

The naming and lineage in Image:Family-Guy-Griffin-Family-Tree.jpg are currently disputed in Talk:Family Guy. I've yanked that image from Family Guy, but not from Peter Griffin since it kind of demonstrates the amount of ancestors that have been depicted in the show. However, it seems to make assumptions about lineage and consistency that make it original research.

I'm waiting to hear from the uploader in Talk:Family Guy. If concerns are addressed, I'll restore the image to Family Guy. Otherwise I'll deleted it from here. / edg ☺ ★ 03:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This tree seems a lot more suitable for fansites than here. Just get rid of it, we don't even know if these are the real relatives of Peter. I assume a lot of those are from times when Peter makes up some random ancestor. TheBlazikenMaster 13:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well put. Deleted 24 September 2007. / edg ☺ ★ 18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Drawn Together appearances

Are appearances on Drawn Together at all notable? There's nothing unique or unusual about a cartoon character from another show appearing on Drawn Together. This was deleted today (for insufficient sourcing), and I'm proposing that such appearances are not by themselves worth adding to this article. / edg ☺ ★ 17:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, they shouldn't be here if which episode isn't specified. Are you saying that my reason of reverting was incorrect? But I agree, I'd love to see the scene itself to know if it's notable. TheBlazikenMaster 17:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying it's a good reversion, but maybe we should be more strict about letting it in at all, unless there's additional real-world notability (such as a lawsuit or something). All of Drawn Together is thinly-veiled parodies of other cartoon characters, so notability-wise such an appearance is up there with "water is wet". / edg ☺ ★ 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To do list.

I want this article featured. So please make a to do list, so we can get to work. TheBlazikenMaster 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. There needs to be substantially more real-world content, and character criticism that is not done by this article's editors. When this becomes thoroughly sourced and has substantial content that would be of interest outside the fandom, a request could be put in to the League of Copyeditors.

It will be a long haul to FA status (see the FA rejection). I'd suggest shooting for GA status for the time being. / edg ☺ ★ 23:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's the goal then. After we're finished with that we should get it featured. First we have to worry about getting it into a good article. TheBlazikenMaster 23:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Too short

Why did this article become so short? It was much better before! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.3.180 (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone help me reword this?

Various stories, flashbacks and cutaway gags reveal Peter-like ancestors and relatives including Peter Hitler, brother of Adolf; Moses Griffin, who led the Jews out of Egypt; the caveman that invented the wheel; Willy "Black Eye" Griffin, a silent movie star whose sole gag was getting hit in the eye; Osias Griffin, the wealthy owner one of the first dozen telephones; and a philosopher named Thomas Griffin, who used existential pondering as an excuse to his wife for remaining unemployed. Many of these historical characters have wives or girlfriends bearing an obvious resemblance to Lois, family resembling the Griffins, and associates resembling Peter's neighbors.

I would go right ahead and remove it, but I have feeling that it isn't the best solution. I will be trying to reword it, help would be nice. TheBlazikenMaster 00:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope I am not being intrusive, but perhaps this will work?

In some episodes, stories, flashbacks and cutaway gags, almost always non-canon, reveal ancestors and relatives of the Griffins based on various historical figures, some of which include Peter Hitler, who is brother to Adolf Hitler, Moses Griffin, who led the Jews out of Egypt , Willy "Black Eye" Griffin, a silent movie star whose sole gag was getting hit in the eye, and a philosopher named Thomas Griffin, who used existential pondering as an excuse to his wife for remaining unemployed. Many of these historical characters have relationships (i.e. wives, children, friends) bearing an obvious resemblance to other characters in the show

I cut out a few of the historical figures because they seemed less well know than Hitler or Moses. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 00:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My point is most of those don't reveal anything at all. They are just there for the sake of it. Believe it or not, Peter just thinks of something random with most of those ancestors. The only true reveal about Peter's family is his true father. TheBlazikenMaster 01:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, how did you want it reworded? --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 01:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost always non-canon is fine, go with that. TheBlazikenMaster 01:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, i see. I thought when you wrote that you were mad about the fictional attitude of it, like its fictional, so it should stay fictional in writing. Always non-canon could work. And, i assume you mean Mickey, Thelma, and Frances, who raised him, albeit not lovingly. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 01:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Name

His name is peter griffin. He was raised by Frances and Thelma GRIFFIN. He didn't meet mickey until way later. Im chaning the name to Peter GRIFFIN. Not Griffin/McFinnigan, as his legal name has no McFinnigan in it. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 01:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, you only have last name out of the father that raised you instead of your biological one? Don't worry, I won't ask further, I'm just curious. If I get useful answer I will add a hidden comment explaining why McFinnigan can't be added.TheBlazikenMaster 01:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, show me one official and/or fansite that uses the name Griffin/McFinnigan, and i will show you why it might belong, aside from that...Look, families are complicated, and names get hyphens and changed or whatever, the point is, talking out of universe (which is what wikipedia primarliy is), Peter is known as Peter Griffin. Heck, even in universe, i have not once heard him called Griffin-McFinnigan. My guess is, on his birth certificate (were he real), it would say Griffin NOT McFinnigan, as Thelma and Frances were the only ones to know about it until the episode. That, is your reason. Oh, and it also annoyed me at the format with which it was written. I have never seen a person called Jim Jones/Smith with a slash. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 04:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line: the character's name is "Peter Griffin". If an complex genealogy were part of this article and the relationship needed to be highlighted, then a construction like Griffin/McFinnigan might make sense in that part. But making that distinction is probably not necessary here, and anyway the character's name would still be "Peter Griffin". / edg ☺ ★ 12:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No I don't have to show you any source, as I only wanted to know one thing. Thanks for that, I will now make a hidden note. TheBlazikenMaster 13:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. TheBlazikenMaster 13:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The path is complete, and all has been forth --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 20:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Extreme Vandalism

I suggest this article be locked, or cleaned up due to the protruded "4 duh luz" section. It has absolutely nothing to do with Peter Griffin, nor the series itself. I'm 24, and I don't have the time, nor the patience to clean it up, so please, someone fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.155.86 (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing a revert can't handle. This article is too closely watched for vandalism to be a problem — usually it's corrected in minutes. / edg ☺ ★ 02:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mexican or not?

I don't own this episode myself, and am not American citizen either, but I really think instead of edit warring people should discuss whether or not he was born in Mexico. Let's just get to it then.

Discussion is necessary, since this kind of info keeps on getting removed and readded. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter Griffin's brother

As shown in S05E02, "Mother Tucker", Peter has an evil brother. This might be worth adding to the list of his relatives, unfourntately I don't know the name of the brother so someone who knows it will have to add it. 83.250.0.80 (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thaddeus Griffin, already added to the infobox. I'm neutral about having him in the infobox. He seems more like a Giant Chicken than a "real" character. I don't see Thaddeus visiting the Griffins as part of a story or doing something a "real" character might do. Has Thaddeus appeared in more than one episode? / edg ☺ ☭ 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes Edgarde, Thaddeus has appeared in a few actually. All I can remember is that he rubs his handle-bar mustache and says (In a comicly evil way) 'Nhiaaaa'. Do you reckon it's worth creating an article for him. I'll go on Family guy's site now, and if I find a bio with some sources, I'll create one.

regards;

Cf38 (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, I agree he is like the giant chicken Ernie; a running gag character perhaps? Still, I'll go on family guy's site and if I find some decent info, I'll create an article for him)

Cf38 (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cf: I don't think Thaddeus is notable enough for an article, especially since he does so little. I would recommend putting him on List of characters from Family Guy instead. Otherwise it will just be a historical account of every thing Thaddeus ever did, which is more a project for Family Guy Wiki than an encyclopedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I would actually say he doesn't belong on the character list either. I do alot of my editing maintaining that particular article, and I try to keep one-shot characters off, mainly because a new character emerges in just about every Family Guy episode. Before about a year ago, all of them were being added and the article got to be massive. Thaddeus has only appeared in Mother Tucker and I can't say I have seen him in another episode, although if someone knows of one, please correct me. Thaddeus is much like Stan Thompson, minus the fact that he has actually appeared on an episode. He will probably never be seen again and it mostly just a one-time joke. For now, I have been reverting IP addings of Thaddeus, since those are mainly the only editors who add him, but if someone has a good reason together, I would be more then happy to hear it. Saget53 (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Family-guy-peter-griffin8.jpg

Image:Family-guy-peter-griffin8.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it, I restored the old one. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Heritage

All the following would apply to Peter's children, and by implication to Lois (who may be German American, I'm not sure).

Irish vs. Irish American

There is currently a binary edit war on how this character's ancestry should be linked from the Infobox, between Irish and Irish American. The Irish American article describes well the things Peter's Irish-ness may imply. Perhaps as an infobox space-saver, we should make it [[Irish American|Irish]]. Can we agree on this and stop the revert war? / edg ☺ ☭ 10:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Mexican vs. Mexican American

I don't really favor either of these since an american born in another country who promptly returns to the United States really doesn't have a "heritage" from that country. For Peter this "heritage" was a single episode situation best elaborated on the episode page Padre de Familia (Family Guy episode). Can we agree to leave this out? / edg ☺ ☭ 10:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Someone with Irish and American parents who happens to be born in Mexico and hardly spends any lengthy time there wouldn't have Mexican "heritage". Technically it may be heritage by birthright, but heritage usually means actually having some family history there. He has mexican nationality but not heritage. Jabso 21:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of backstory and Mexican heritage

Apparently, user:Edgarde he has taken it upon himself to remove Peter's backstory because he believes information mentioned in specific episodes should be considered irrelevant to the character.

However, the episodes Peter's Two Dads and Padre de Familia (Family Guy episode) were devoted entirely to revealing the true identity of Peter's father and his place of birth. How is that information not relevant?

We would have to delete most of the information included in this article if we were to remove every piece of information mentioned in specific episodes. So either A) Delete every bit of information featured on specific episodes (instead of arbitrarily removing entire sections) or B) Leave his backstory aloneSamChambers (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. There was some agreement and no dissent above about removing "Mexican American" from his "heritage". It seems pretty obvious to me that an american born outside the country and quickly brought back in has no real "heritage" from that country. Peter's embrace of that heritage would be the main joke of that episode because (explaining the joke now, sorry) Peter is overreacting.

I retitled this section from Biography to Backstory because I was hoping we could agree on what the status quo presumptions are with this character — that should be a very short list — as opposed to gags and storylines that are usually discarded continuity-wise, with no effect on other episodes. An article that detailed events in this character's situations would go on for freaking ever after 100+ episodes, and would be unencyclopedic overkill since this is not actually a historical record of a real person. Also, it is far too in-universe. Deleting most of that information would actually be a good idea, since the article needs real-world content, not details collected watching TV.

The events in these two episodes would be really important if this were the biography of a real person. But in reality these things have no effect on Peter's character, certainly not in episodes in the years prior these episodes were aired, and considering the weak continuity of the show, they probably never will.

Consider the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) for more concerns. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5