Talk:Road to Germany

Name of song played during scene

What is the name of the song played during the Jewish wedding and the beginning of the Nazi invasion of Poland?

It is a very catchy song.

Darabo (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)darabo

• I am wondering this too. Does nobody know? 129.107.81.12 (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• It is from the soundtrack to The Winds of War, song is titled (Through Poland to a Jewish Village) which was preformed by the Nuremberg Symphony Orchestra. Nobadeeftw (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not listed on tv.yahoo.com or any other TV listings website as of this date. Sunday after next FOX will air MLB playoffs. ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont know how to edit, but if someone feels like it,here are some more pop culture references.

• The german scientist who says "we have much better luck developing this impressive collection of 100 luftballons" and then one pops. Is a obvious reference to Nena and the song 99 luftballons.
• When the 3 of them ambushes three soldiers in a alley to get their uniforms, you can hear the sound of a blaster, much like the ambush Han Solo and Luke do on the deathstar.
• When they crash against the mountain ala Indiana Jones and stewie says "We arent sinking, we are crashing" it sounds very much like Jar-Jar Binks.

/Tobbe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.12.47 (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Actually, Stewie is imitating the exact way Kate Capshaw delivered the same line in Temple of Doom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilwillhunting (talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Redundant?

All they had to do was go back and prevent Mort from going in? No adventure was required. But I had a few good laughs...

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.82.230 (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Cultural references

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Per WP:V the following material has been challenged and moved to the talk page until proper sourcing has been provided. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you examine any of these one by one, or did you just decide you didn't like the whole section? Let's examine them one by one, if you haven't already. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• The opening music is a modified version of the theme to the hit WWII miniseries The Winds of War starring Robert Mitchum. OK, THIS IS AN OBSCURE ONE FOR THE YOUNGER VIEWERS.

• When flying the plane, Stewie refers to Brian as "Goose", a reference to Top Gun. (this doesn't need a source) I'LL GIVE YOU THIS ONE.

• Stewie, Mort, and Brian jump out of the plane on an inflatable raft, landing on a mountain, similar to a scene in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. FINE, THIS ONE, TOO.

• Stewie claims that Rene Russo was born on September 1, 1939, but she was actually born on February 17, 1954. THE EPISODE ITSELF IS THE SOURCE FOR STEWIE'S WRONG BIRTHDATE FOR RENE RUSSO. THE RIGHT BIRTHDATE IS PROPERLY SOURCED AT THE RENE RUSSO ARTICLE SO IT'S UNNECESSARY HERE.

• The scene where Stewie uses a skateboard-like plank to defeat a group of Nazis chasing him is a reference to a similar scene in Back to the Future. At the end of the scene, where the Nazis fall into a pile of manure (another Back to the Future reference), one of them exclaims "Das Poop!", a reference to Das Boot. The way Brian & Stewie enter the past is also a reference to how the DeLorean re-enters time in Back to the Future, as well as the return pad requiring uranium being a reference to the DeLorean requiring plutonium. FINE, CALL IT UNSOURCED.

• On Stewie's Nazi uniform there is a McCain-Palin button. THE EPISODE ALONE IS ENOUGH SOURCE FOR THIS. WATCH IT AGAIN. RIGHT AFTER STEWIE PUTS ON THE NAZI UNIFORM AND STEWIE COMMENTS ON THE BUTTON, THE CAMERA ZOOMS IN ON IT SO ANYONE CAN SEE IT.

• When Stewie enters the secret bomb facility dressed as Hitler, all of the scientists yell Hitler's name, much like Norm in Cheers. In the same scene, Stewie is given some much-need uranium by Mean Joe Greene, who appears for the second time on Family Guy and for the same line as his previous appearance. FINE, CALL IT UNSOURCED.

• Stewie tells Brian that the slight action of stepping on a mosquito in the past could drastically alter the present, as in A Sound of Thunder. FINE, CALL IT UNSOURCED.

• When Stewie, Brian and Mort run into Hitler and his guards, the scene where Stewie and Hitler perfectly mimic each other's movements like a mirror is a reference to Groucho Marx in Duck Soup. THIS IS AN OBSCURE REFERENCE EVEN TO ME.

• Stewie has Rick Moranis and the backup dancers from Little Shop Of Horrors explain the situation to Brian. DIDN'T STEWIE EXPLICITLY IDENTIFY THEM AS SUCH IN THE EPISODE?

• Brian Blessed as Prince Vultan of Flash Gordon leads an attack against Nazi planes. FINE, NEEDS CITATION.

• Stewie and Brian fire a newspaper out of the torpedo tubes when attempting to escape the Germans in the U-boat. This is a reference to a scene in U-571 then they shoot a body out the torpedo tubes to make the germans think they've sunk the rogue U-boat. The newspaper also has a picture of Mickey Mouse shaking hands with Hitler (a reference to Walt Disney, who was thought to be antisemitic). I DIDN'T WATCH U-571, SO I DON'T KNOW.

• After the pursuing U-Boat crashes, a number of police cars crash into each other. This is a reference to The Blues Brothers.

This is ridiculous. I don't know about all of them, but tons of them belong on the page regardless of sourcing. The Top Gun, Back to the Future, McCain/Palin badge and Rene Russo ones don't need to be sourced, they just need to be put on the page. Christ. If any of them aren't true, people in general will edit it.

i agree completely, this is a load of crap.

I wouldn't go that far, but there was a lack of think-through on that action. By The Red Pen of Doom's logic, we should also remove the entire plot summary until we can source it with something other than the episode itself. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The overall issue is yes, it's original research. But is it damaging to the article or Wikipedia in general? No. This is a much different issue than inserting unsourced information in a biography article. Sections like this exist in thousands of other film and television articles. Should they be tagged with an unreferenced section note, yes. But flat out removing them is unnecessary. Grsz^Review! 16:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The policy does not contain the exemption: "This policy does not apply to items that some editors consider not damaging to Wikipedia." And while these types of sections may appear in lots of other articles WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument for including them here. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

More unsourced analysis and WP:OR

The opening theme was a remix of the opening credits of the miniseries The Winds of War, which was about WWII.

• There is a recreation of a scene with the Hawk Men from Flash Gordon which includes the sound track done by Queen.

• The scene where Stewie mirrors Hitler's actions is a recreation of a scene in the Marx Brothers film Duck Soup.

• During the scene where the Nazis are chasing Brian, Stewie, and Mort , there is a reference to Back to the Future when Stewie falls off the motorcycle and rides a makeshift skateboard with the Nazis on his tail. Even the manure truck is present.

• When they are shot down they leap out of their plane in a raft, slide down the mountains and into a river. This is a reference to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenofDoom (talk • contribs)

Some of those above, which are identified in this episode, should be included, such as the McCain-Palin-button Stewie wears or the Rick Moranis act. The episode as a primary source fulfills WP:RS for those cases where no interpretation is needed. After all, citing what happened in this episode is not OR. SoWhy 17:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The remark about the Germans not being invaded by the US for producing WMDs is not OR. Everybody knows there is a war going on. And don't try to pull Verifiability, not truth, since one can easily verify the claim. I did enjoy how the Nazis were voting for McCain though. Watch the white house try to censor that scene..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.224.127 (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Everyone" doesnt need to verify the claim, only the editor who wishes to include it in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I still find it hilarious that so many people still think that watching a TV episode and then describing what one saw in the episode is "original research." Michiganotaku (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Describing what one saw is not original research. Making the analysis of what one saw and deciding that it is a parody of this or a spoof of that or a commentary on something else IS the heart of original research. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There are cases of both of those here. To assume a reference to a specific Star Trek episode based on a single sound effect seems a big stretch to me and calling it OR may possibly be justified. But the McCain-Palin button gets zoomed in nice and big, so that's a clear cut case of "Describing what one saw," and a citation for something other than the episode itself is practically superfluous. ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. Anyone know what's up with the tag slamming?

The McCain Palin button has been incorporated into the Plot section (although it is merely a gag and not part of the plot) and so using it as a discussion point is no longer valid in this context. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Let the record reflect that the McCain Palin button shall never again be brought up purely on the authority of Red Pen of Doom's say-so. Anton Mravcek (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

They, quite frankly, don't need the references or anything. I think the term "Wikipedia Nazi" fits in here, pretty well. FallenMorgan (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we actually get back to discussing the content of the article? For instance, do you have a source that can verify some of the analysis or else a valid reason why this "Cultural references" section should be exempted from the no original research policy?-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain why Winds of War needs a citation for the fact its about World War II? It has a wiki link to its own article that says its about World War II. I'm not sure what other source material you need. It's at the library and your local book store not to mention a google search will confirm its about World War II. Seriously though is its own wiki article not enough? If it's not why is the article still up? Skywayman (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It needs a source that that's what the music in the beginning was. Grsz^Review! 00:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The tag was at the very end of the statement, after the subject being about WW II. That implied the war was the fact in dispute, not the music. I know its 25 years later now but that music was well known when the mini series premiered. Here's a source on the music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxYy3RyhQPA Skywayman (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw the Duck Soup reference was parodied on I Love Lucy 50 years ago. Harpo Marx caught her in his hotel room while she was disguised as Harpo. They did that bit in a doorway with Lucy trying to convince him he was looking at a mirror. It worked for several minutes until . . . At any rate Duck Soup might be obscure but that was one of Lucy's most famous gags. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7Th2dnSsXw Skywayman (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

New Cultural References?

Hi. I noticed a "Bill and Ted's" reference while watching "Family Guy", saw that it was missing from the current list of "Cultural References", and added it. Dp76764 removed my addition, commenting "completely unsourced WP:OR":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Road_to_Germany&diff=246633988&oldid=246633680

No original research. Okay, I get that.

However, all but 2 of the current "Cultural References" have [citation neeeded] on them -- they don't have sources either, and probably of the same flavor: stuff an author noticed when watching the episode.

I see above that "Unsourced Cultural References" has been an area of active discussion. But if we tolerate the current set of unsourced cultural references, it seems silly to prevent an additional one from being added. Better the list be complete, even if unsourced.

I'd like to see my "Bill and Ted's" reference back. It belongs there if the others do. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.252.140 (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If we cant be bothered to apply WP:V to this cultural reference section because "there are so many others" where it hasnt been applied yet, well then why should we bother having and applying ANY of our policies, we can just let Wikipedia become one huge blog-a-fan-a-ad-a-POV site and forget about trying to write an encyclopedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Great attitude RedPen. Some of them are sourced. It aired yesterday! Given time, sources will emerge. Perhaps you should take a break from this page. Grsz^Review! 02:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not contributor. So it only aired yesterday, why is there a need for anything other than the basic essentials in the article today? When references are found, then content can be added. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are to many. What should remain are obvious ones that can be seen and ones that are sourced. The Indiana Jones reference can be seen in the show, as the music is playing for example. Grsz^Review! 02:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Declaring that it is an Indiana Jones reference is analysis/interpretation that needs to come from somewhere other than a Wikipedia editor. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• It seems like we're well on the way to listing every single gag from this episode. Ideally, I think this section should look like the corresponding section in Road to Rupert. $0.02 Dp76764 (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it can eventually. But for now with adding, deleting, and sourcing it's easier as a list. I'm working on finding sources for the ones that don't have one yet. Brain Blessed guest-starred as Prince Vultan, I just need a source. Grsz^Review! 15:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Section looks really good currently. [1] Nice work on the sources! Dp76764 (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it looks good. All we needed was time to find sources. Grsz^Review! 19:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Marx brothers mirror actions reference is considered an obscure source, but it has been referred to in hundreds of television shows. If people don't actually know it's from the Marx brothers, they're gonna recognize it from other references to it. I personally recognize it from watching Lucille Ball and Harpo Marx do it together on "I Love Lucy". She happened to be impersonating him at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.215.137 (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

While the characters are being pursued by two submarine objects there's is a reference to Terence_Trent_D'Arby with his song Wishing Well as a sonar signature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wodny (talk • contribs) 00:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

War in Iraq Debate

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

No. The problem is that it's not sourced that the US invaded Iraq for oil, and more importantly it's not sourced that they were referring to Iraq. Your assumptions are your own synthesis, which is an unacceptable source for an encyclopedia. Grsz^Review! 19:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Did I ever say it was for oil? Neo16287 (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, the underlining point is until there is a source that he was referring to Iraq it cannot be added. Grsz^Review! 19:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Precisely. The episode is showing you a '1' and a '1' and assuming that you will conclude '2'. Ie: they are not explicitly stating anything about Iraq; they are merely implying it. I completely agree that the line was about Iraq, but without a clear source, we can't make that statement here. Dp76764 (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose anybody here has Seth's email? >.< Neo16287 (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• LOL ... if only ... Dp76764 (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not denying the fact they were referring to Iraq, with Seth being liberal, I guarantee they were referring to the current war. But adding it is your own OR and that is unacceptable for Wikipedia. Yes it is common knowledge that we invaded Iraq, and they have oil, and they "were building WMD", but it isn't common knowledge that Brian and Stewie was referring to the Iraq War CTJF83Talk 19:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely by now there is a renowned critic or pundit who can confirm the reading so many of us have already come up with? ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz's argument seems pretty weak. I mean, what else could he be referring to? Who *did* say anything about oil? 08:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.81.12 (talk)

Grsz's argument is a rephrasing of wikipedia's primary policies: WP:V / WP:OR. If you think arguments based on our primary policies are weak, then perhaps you should consider whether or not you wish to become a Wikipedia editor. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mean Joe Greene identified as such in the show?

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

He was Mean Joe. Stewie thanks him. Add back the Winds of War trivia! You should be happy there was a twenty year old out there who can hand you that one on a platter. Hardly anyone else my age will get it!Obriensg1 (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to you. But I was not asking if YOU knew it was Mean Joe Greene, I asked if Greene was specifically identified within the show, or whether the identification has come from outside the show - if within the show the video link provides primary sourcing and we are ok; if not, we need a third party source to make the identification.-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was. Several times. Stewie even comments "Thanks, Mean Joe! He's not really mean at all.", after he catches the uranium. --Stinkehund (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

How is this encyclopedic?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

We have sourced several of the "cultural references" to the primary source of the episode itself, giving us such informative material as:

• Rick Moranis and the back-up singers from Little Shop of Horrors explain a situation to Brian.
• On Stewie's SS uniform there is a McCain-Palin button.[4]
• A newspaper shows Mickey Mouse shaking hands with Hilter.[3]
• A German sailor refers to Mort as Art Garfunkel.[3]
• Mean Joe Greene tosses Stewie a vial of uranium.[3]

To which many readers after viewing such content will say: So what? Can anyone provide an explanation of why any of these reproductions of gags from the show are encyclopedic? -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There gags, and the show is famous for them. But why not? Grsz^Review! 03:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repetition of gags from Family Guy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And why isn't it "encyclopedic"? It's about the show, and establishes a thorough explanation if it. Grsz^Review! 03:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Commenting to your points in reverse: Where is the _explanation_ of the show? These are merely reproductions. And Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Then you'll be able to point out where this falls under WP:INFO that you quoted. Grsz^Review! 04:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I know you'll hastily and wrongly point to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but The Simpsons Movie, a featured article, contains and extensive "Cultural references" section. Grsz^Review! 04:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the movie using itself as a guideline...We know how to write CR sections! :) CTJF83Talk 08:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate these arguments. Cultural references are a big part of Family Guy, therefor, it should be included in the articales.--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, but we don't need every reference in the episode to be listed. Dp76764 (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Cultural references are a big part of Family Guy" - You still did not answer the question of how is a listing of the cultural reference gags in the episode encyclopedic? If you wanna go list all the gags, feel free to do so on your fansite, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And we don't have every reference. Just the sourced ones. Grsz^Review! 20:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, even though I would love to have every single refrence, I think that the sourced ones, and the obvious ones ("Thanks Mean Joe!)", SHOULD BE IN A LIST. The cultural references are HUGE part of Fam Guy, and if you take out the cultural reference section, that would be like denying that they exist. And don't say " it's not encyclopedic." The definition of "encyclopedic" is "having a comprehensive scope, especially of information or knowledge (either in general or on a specific topic)," and the debated section fits within that. And if you disagree with me, then you sir, are worse, than Hitler! (JOKE! JOKE! IT'S A REFRENCE TO RED EYE ON FOX NEWS! RELAX!)--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, they ripped it of The Simpsons episode "Homer vs. Patty & Selma" when it is said to Homer by the DMV supervisor. CTJF83Talk 19:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Please read our policies. If you are not interested in building an encylopedia but rather an indiscriminate collection of information or a repitition of the gags used in Family Guy, perhaps your energies are better spent in different place than Wikipedia.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

WHY FRIKKIN NOT? FallenMorgan (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Because WP:NOT is a very beloved policy, with no regard whatsoever for what draws the common folk to Wikipedia in the first place. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I swear to god, I'm so FRIGGIN' close to quiting this site. And what does "with no regard whatsoever for what draws the common folk to Wikipedia in the first place" mean? To me, that says that you don't care about: 1)the people who get on the site, 2)teens that use this for research, and 3)the people that make the donations, that allows this site to happen. Remember: Happy users = Donations =Wikipedia, and Unhappy users = No donations = No wikipedia. So shove that up you piehole!--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Your frustration is shared by many. This site is a joke. Even Seth MacFarlane knows it, which is why he mocked it on American Dad. --U.S.S. ClevelandSteamer (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

[with sarcasm] Opps, did I just say that? --BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, delete all the cultural references, all the allusions posted, because it is not "encyclopedic". What do you have then? The episode title, some information about cast and crew and the synopsis. Sorry folks, then i can use the tv guide and avoid this site. I loved the trivia and cultural references posted here of all episodes (simpsons, family guy, american dad). And i enjoyed reading them. But if some people think, this is not encyclopedic. Then delete them, gosh darn it! And when you do so, i will never ever use wikipedia any more. Fortunately there is tv.com and other fan sites. Au revoir. 77.181.63.189 (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to read an encyclopedia come to Wikipedia. If you want to read a Simpsons/Family Guy/South Park/American Dad/Brady Bunch/Deal or No Deal fansite, go to the appropriate fansite. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless how hard the RedPenofDoom may try, the cultural references are staying. There is a clear consensus for them not just on these page, but through film and television in general. Grsz^Review! 17:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a consensus to include encyclopedic cultural references. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a large difference between what the article is now and a fansite. It's already beencut to the minimum. I'm not sure what else you're trying to accomplish. Grsz^Review! 19:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What I am trying accomplish is to have any "cultural references" section contain encyclopedic content and not merely be a relisting of the gags that were used in the episode. I am fine with "cultural reference" inclusions that are supported by analysis and/or interpretation and/or context setting by reliable sources; but to be included at Wikipedia it should be more than what exists for the examples that I listed above where I asked "why they should be included in an encyclopedia?" and for which no one has yet provided any answer.

For example, the McCain/Palin button on an SS Uniform is an incredible piece of telvision. The show is implying at best that Nazi's would be supporting the republican ticket, or at the most extreme that McCain/Palin are Nazis. And this radical statement appearing on a FOX network show - the most politically conservative channel in the country - is nothing short of astounding. Yet what does our article have: Stewie wears a button. <--That is not encyclopedic.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty angry (and I mean ANGRY!), but I'll try to be as civil as possible.
Look, you Wikipedia nerd, (Opps) you can't change this without a huge fight. I get the feeling that when you posted this section, you thought (sub-consciencsly at least) that you would be greeted as a liberator, and that everyone had that opinion. But most of the people who come on here and read these articles (and the talk pages) about TV shows are huge fans. And they want to read this stuff, including me! That's probably what a lot of people come here for. Not for rescearch, but for finding out about their favroite show!
Look, if you make this illegal, people who want to will do it. Pot's illegal, but people still do it. Drinking under the age is illegal, but, unfortinatly, people still do it. Looking at porn in some states in illegal, but people still do it. Are they all good, no, but people still do them.
If you want to change it, fine. But prepare to go to war.
With all due respect,
BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please follow Wikipedia guidelines about dealing with other editors. Also, [[comments on this page should be limited to what can improve the article. And finally, your repeated assertions that "fans want to read this" is completely irrelevant for whether or not content is included in the article. I guess I will need to keep repeating this until you actually read it: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite.-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Of what I've seen so dar, I'm in complete agreeance with Red Pen of Doom. Wikipedia is for referenced and most of all encylopedic information, and I myself consider the only reliable source for cultural references to be reliable reviews, newspapers or the episode DVD commentary. Having worked on approximately 25 Family Guy good articles and having removed hundreds of trivial additions to my GAs in an attempt to keep them clean, I think if anyone feels so strongly about trivia additions, it should be me, as although I don't show it often, I despise removing trivia; it is tedious and generally irritating. If people want to read trivial information about whether its the two billionth episode to feature a character or what music played for 3 seconds, they should go to a fansite, and not Wikipedia, as it should only be on Wikipedia if it is referenced to a reliable source. While I find trivia removal and cleanup of trivia sections somewhat tedious, I will continue to enforce the reliable sources guideline and keep "my" (don't bring up ownership issues in my wording choice) articles clean from rubbish. Qst (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is doing the article no good and has turned into childish bickering (and poor analogies). Further relevant, productive discussion is welcome in a new section. Grsz^Review! 21:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Disscussion

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

PS- I'm sorry if I hurt anyone with my comment. I ment it as a joke, and, I am sorry.--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The real question is "Cultural references: how do we source them in a manner that supports Wikipedia's mission to be an encyclopedia." -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I personally believe that reference #3 should be removed. Citing a cultural reference to the episode itself is a useless citation. Indeed we have Template:Cite episode, but I think that was designed more if you're citing the writer and/or director of the episode (which would be included in the credits), so I don't think citing a cultural reference to the episode itself is valid. I removed it but was quickly reverted, so I need some input. Cheers, Qst (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYN re: Road to Germany and portrayal of Jews

This content

• In the 2000 episode "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein," Peter sings "Even though they killed my Lord, I need a Jew," and Seth MacFarlane had defended the lyrics on the grounds that Peter is an idiot, ignorant of his own religion. In this 2008 episode, two different Jewish characters allude to the idea that Jews are responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

has been repeatedly added in violation of WP:SYN. There is nothing in the above content that is connected to "Road to Germany". Number 1) the source is a primary source from which we as Wikipedia editors cannot make any interpretations 2) the court case was filed a year before this episode was aired and so cannot be referring to anything within this episode and to claim it does is clear WP:OR. I have done my maximum of 2 removals in 24 hours and so ask that someone else help keep the article clean. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the interpretation that is being made? All this is saying is that a prior episode made a very controversial statement on Jewish deicide. If the reader wants to make the conclusion that this new episode's statements confirm or deny the prior statement on the very same topic, that's his business, but we're not making the conclusion for him nor offering any interpretation. Anton Mravcek (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SYN? It is a violation of wikipedia procedures to take source A that talks about event B and apply source A to event C which is not discussed in source A. We have source A a primary source legal document that does not reference event C this episode of Family Guy. Such interpretations are not allowed. You may make arguement to include that primary source in the article on episodes that it directly references or in the overall Family Guy article, but you can not use it here without a third party published source making the conneciton.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely agree with Red Pen, this is clearly WP:OR. You can't cite something unrelated to this episode with the intent of the reader drawing their own conclusion; that's just indirect original research. Dp76764 (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If the problem really is "primary source legal document A that does not reference event C this episode of Family Guy," then why is the entire paragraph being deleted. It would be like deleting from Othello that Shakespeare had expressed racist views about Moors in an earlier tragedy. Robert Happelberg (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And without a source, it is completely original research and completely not allowed. Find a published reliable source that talks about this episode and its characterization of Jews. It shouldnt be that hard, but if you cant find a source that talks about this specific episode, it cant be in this article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

People bend over backwards trying to satisfy your demands but it's never good enough. What is the real reason that you're fighting this? Are you offended on behalf of the Jews about this? ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please stick to discussing the content of the article, and not the contributors. Dp76764 (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Tell me, what is the "interpretation" or "synthesis" that is being made by mentioning a previous episode that touched on an idea that this episode reinforces twice? ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• From WP:OR "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas". By trying to 'link' the two episodes together (without an external, reliable source already doing so), you are speculating on a 'pattern of behavior'. Now, if you removed the mention of the older episode and kept the information purely to this episode (cited, of course, like the other tidbits in this section), I believe it would not constitute OR anymore. But linking the two episodes together is an attempt to draw a conclusion, and that make it original research. Dp76764 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Let's see. "Weisstein" is a Family Guy episode. "Road to Germany" is a Family Guy episode. Nope, I don't see any link whatsoever either. Carla Bondicteuresse (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• There is no link for this article. This article is about "Road to Germany", not about "Weisstein". Linking it to another article is clearly OR. Dp76764 (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• What about the link between Othello and Titus Andronicus? If it's good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for Family Guy. (Thanks to whoever it was back there for the Shakespeare analogy). Carla Bondicteuresse (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• You'll note that that entire section is marked as unsourced/OR? And regardless, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS then applies. Just because it's in that article doesn't mean it belongs in this one. Dp76764 (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anyone trying every single rule they can think of in order to delete all mention of there being other Moors in Shakespeare besides Othello. The entire arsenal is being focused on this Family Guy episode. It's OR, so citation are added. That makes it SYN, so citations are removed. No matter what anyone does, no matter to what lengths they go to, there is always a rule to just completely shoot it down with no more effort than typing some acronym. I can't wait to see what rule will be invoked when a scholarly journal publishes on the topic. ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• There has been, basically, *1* rule that has been quoted (SYN is a subset of WP:OR). The problem with the citation is that it has nothing to do with THIS episode, which is what this article is about. As soon as there is a citation linking this episode with 'past behavior', then by all means, it should added; nobody is arguing against that. It seems to me that you've run out of arguments for its inclusion and are now resorting to attacking the policy system instead. As I said before, if you mentioned the line in this episode without trying to link it to the other episode, I don't think that would be OR, so why is that not an acceptable inclusion until a source backing the rest of the link becomes available? Dp76764 (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not attacking the policy system; no policy system can protect itself against misuse and perversion. It's not original research to mention that which someone else has created. It's not synthesis to make statements if one doesn't actually synthesize or interpret anything. By the logic that's been applied here, it's original research to say that this is the fourth "Road to" episode. Come on. ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's a totally different logical argument. My point is, this article is about this episode. Mentioning a previous episode in this way begs people to draw conclusions. That is original research. Basically this mention is trying to assert that there is a pattern of behavior (unsourced as yet); I believe that WP policy indicates that we should keep this assertion out of the article until it can be properly sourced. Specifically because this article is about THIS episode, attempting to draw conclusions and links to other episodes in an unsourced manner is the very definition of original research (even if you're not flat out saying it, but leaving all the 'pieces' there for people to conclude it on their own). On a side note, discussing a trend such as this really belongs more in the main FG article (or maybe the Criticisms of FG article). With proper sources, there's no reason not to include this idea in one of those articles (if it isn't there already). Dp76764 (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This episode wasn't created in a vacuum. So you can't cite other shows, fine. But can't even cite prior episodes of the same show? That's crazy. Despite all the talk of manatees, this show's writers are aware of what they've written before. Anton Mravcek (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Of course they are, but linking episodes together to draw a conclusion IS original research. Dp76764 (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This of course is all regardless of the fact that even saying the rabbi is referring to Jesus is WP:OR.

"And so we had him crucified..."

Crucified who? Grsz^Review! 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

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

References

Re:New Disscussion

"Citing a cultural reference to the episode itself is a useless citation."- Qst (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)"

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

It is a citation to a primary source which for purposes of providing encyclopedic content is essentially useless. All that such a reference can do is provide a repeat of a gag from the show- which, as has been discussed numerable times, is generally not encyclopedic content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I think it should be removed. If nobody objects in the next few days, I will remove it, as its a useless citation. Qst (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Trent Darby reference in U-Boat chase

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

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

List or paragraph?

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

The Wikipedia ideal is for smooth-flowing paragraphs. Right now that section is a paragraph but very clunky. If we weren't so bogged down in disputing references that are clearly stated in the dialogue of the show, maybe we could actually work on making that paragraph flow smoothly. ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I probably reverted it from list to paragraph at least a few times. All GAs I, and all other Simpson Proj members have gotten, are in paragraph form, so I just follow that. CTJF83Talk 19:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[Removed Good Faith copy and paste text, as it looked like SoWhy had posted twice, but BrianGriffin-FG was just agreeing.]

Yes yes yes! I could not agree more.--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I did my best in cleaning up the paragraph formatting, to make it more reader friendly. CTJF83Talk 20:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've full-protected the article for two days to prevent further edit warring; please try to come to an agreement here. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

their's no reasoning wit them. anything you can come up with, they have a rule ready to shoot it down with. they won't say waht the real reason of there opposition is, so that you can't argue against it. Slappywag42 (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Quite the contrary, I for one have suggested multiple alternative resolutions; all of them were ignored. But this just illustrates the point: if it's so easy to find a rule against 'anything you come up with', then MAYBE the rules are correct? DP76764 21:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So if it's easy to find a rule against 'anything you [someone not part of your clique] come up with,' then the rule is working? No, the rules are being perverted to ensure that only a small, self-appointed group edits these articles, and they get to selectively interpret and enforce these rules. The rules are being used to shut out anyone who disagrees with your group from editing these articles. Any edit one of your enemies makes is immediately reverted no matter what it is. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are rules for a reason. If you would read the ones that are presented you could learn what you need to do in order to add information to the article. Find reliable sources and avoid original research. It's as simple as that. Grsz^Review! 21:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research to say "This happened in this episode" and "That happened in that episode." By your logic, the following are all also original research. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Original research"

• The title of the previous episode
• The season number
• Which characters appear in the episode
• Any onscreen titles which appear on screen long enough for someone to write down.
• Episodes in which certain recurring characters previously appeared (e.g., for an episode in which Peter fights the Chicken, to say what was the previous episode in which he fought the Chicken)

• Absolutely incorrect. The point that people are so happily ignoring is that this article is about THIS episode and not about all episodes in general (that would be the general article). Attempting to 'link' two episodes together to establish a pattern of behavior (without a reliable source) is clearly original research. If someone could even remotely make an argument as to why it isn't, we might get somewhere. As it is, all we seem to get now is wingnut accusations of conspiracy. DP76764 22:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So it's wrong to put an episode in its context in the larger oeuvre? It would be a lot easier to discredit the accusation of conspiracy if anyone of your faction was putting this to a general article, where it supposedly belongs instead of the specific article to which it applies. All I see your faction doing is reverting any edits by people outside your faction. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside of the faction of people who know the rules and follow them correctly? Yes. Grsz^Review! 22:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To use rules where they don't apply can't count as using them correctly. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• As you may see in one of my comments above, I suggested that adding the gag, but without linking it to the previous episode, might be acceptable. Yet nobody wanted to pursue that avenue? Additionally, why isn't anyone adding this to the main article or the criticisms article, eh? (myself, I won't be attempting to add it there until a decent source for it becomes available). DP76764 23:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No one is adding it either to the main article or the criticisms article because your faction will revert it on sight. Whatever secondary source become available, your faction will find a way to shoot it down. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• A magazine like FHM, Maxim, Blender: Lacks peer review by experts on signs and semiotics. No good.
• DVD commentary: Primary source. No good.
• A book by Phil Farrand: he doesn't have a degree on etiological constructs. No good.
• A newspaper like the New York Times: I'm curious to see how this would be shot that down.

• Let's just clear this up; there is no 'faction'. So you might as well drop those accusations/insinuations. I for one will happily support enforcing inclusion as long as the rules are followed. A NYT source would be excellent; does one exist yet? DP76764 23:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times has probably not confirmed the obvious Weinstein connection yet, but almost certainly they've already confirmed the McCain-Palin button (which, if I recall correctly, the Faction also opposed mentioning).

I can be convinced there exists no Faction if anyone can show me just three edits by non-Faction editors which were reworded instead of just reverted a minutes (or often seconds) later. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're still going on about. The McCain-Palin is there. Please revert your personal attacks. Grsz^Review! 13:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The McCain-Palin button, OK, let's count that one. Can you show me two more edits by an outsider that were reworded rather than just automatically and unthinkingly reverted? It's hard, I know. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you find an edit that was made by an "outsider" that cited a source, as is appropriate? Grsz^Review! 14:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at this mathematically. Does everyone agree that the topic string for Peter's song in the older episode is "Jewish deicide"? If yes, then does everyone agree that the topic string for Mort's priest impersonation is also "Jewish deicide"? Alright, let's perform string comparison: ("Jewish deicide" == "Jewish deicide") returns True. What was the computational overhead of this 'research'? Cuing up two tapes. What is the computational overhead of verifying the statement ""Road to Germany" is the fourth "Road to..." episode"? Cuing up four tapes. One more string comparison: ("Family Guy" == "Family Guy"). All these are simple cases of watching something and writing down what one saw. To come up with a unified field theory, now _that_ would be original research. To argue that any of this is original research is a silly and pedantic argument.

There will be newspaper and book sources soon enough. Already there are blog posts. Things relating to Family Guy are easily verified, because, for some reason I don't understand, it's very important to modern civilization. Expanding the stub about Štefan Znám, that will take original research: the road to Slovakia. PrimeFan (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• There's only 1 small problem with your math there: the assumption that the line in this episode is talking about Jesus. As noted above, the actual line is generic and does not specifically name him. Thus, drawing the conclusion that the priest is talking about Jesus is, technically, original research. And that, unfortunately, shoots down your entire formula. As for "all these are simple cases of watching something and writing down what one saw": that's not the case here. This article is about THIS episode, not about establishing patterns with things that happened in other episodes. (I find the '4th road to' argument to be a straw man, as the episode title is an obvious fact and requires no interpretation.) Juxtaposing events from 2 episodes is an attempt to draw a conclusion (a unified theory, if you will), and without a reliable source, IS original research. DP76764 17:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Full protection has expired, and this section hasn't accomplished much except to be a catch-all for every accusation or argument that comes along. All welcome to start a new, appropriate, on-topic discussion below. Grsz^Review! 15:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reliable sources

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

No matter what source we come up with, you will find a way to say it's unreliable. Or you'll find some other rule. Or you'll create a new rule for the sole purpose of legislating anything that goes against your authority. The only thing that you will not have a problem with are the things you authorize. You've created a can't-win for anyone outside your group. Pointing this out is a violation of WP:CIVIL, so I'll probably get a warning template slammed on my talk page.

There was an episode of Family Guy in which a donkey refuses to believe Kevin Bacon was in Flashdance. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Umm, Cromulent Kwyjibo, Kevin Bacon wasn't in "Flashdance". The scene you're refering to, the donkey said Bacon wasn't in "Footloose"70.132.145.110 (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

When you continue to use blogs and chat forum posts and personal web pages, of course they are going to be removed as unreliable sources. I would suggest that you actually read the guidelines so that you can follow them. If after reading the page you have questions about what the page means, ask at the WP:RS talk page to get clarification. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can read those guidelines until I'm blue in the face. My interpretation is going to be wrong no matter what. I'm just too stubborn to learn that I have no right to edit Wikipedia regardless of whether or not I'm correct or not with the facts. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• From WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", so it doesn't matter who is correct with facts. DP76764 22:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would we put everyone's and any random person's opinion in their blog, in a review of the episode? They are clearly not notable reviewers, and these pages would never end, due to any blogger being allowed to link to their blog. By the way, Cromulent, you pointing out something that we disagree with isn't uncivil, as long as you don't say it in an uncivil matter. CTJF83Talk 01:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's theoretically true. But it's not how it's being practiced. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Road To Germany/About Last Night...

Found an article in the L.A. Times where Trey Parker was inspired to make the episode "About Last Night" from the scene in "Road To Germany" where Stewie finds McCain campaign button on a Nazi's jacket. Basically he called it lame. Should we work this into the article? Here's the link http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/south-park-crea.html 70.132.145.110 (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Balloon scene

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

Unsourced trivia doesn't belong in these articles, thank you. We do not need to list and explain every single gag in every single episode; there are already plenty of these bits of trivia listed in the article. DP76764 (Talk) 20:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, rly? Maybe because it's unamerican? Quite interesting seeing other trivias left on other episodes, which had almost nothing to do with the actual episode yet to be read, as they refer to something american? Come on, I can see a lot of angry people on the discussion page mocked by you stiff necked guys. Get out of your cage.

Norbert79 (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Making personal attacks doesn't negate Wikipedia policies. Please try to remain civil. DP76764 (Talk) 20:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No Musical Number

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

I remember that. I was pissed because I missed about 45 minutes of it, and lovelineshows.com, the fan archive site, closed down a few days before. I've tried to get the audio from the show, but I can't find a free download or torrent, and I'm not a Loveline club member.
Is anyone a Loveline Club Member? Because the show is probably still up. With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Intersting if Seth MacFarlane said that because yes the music is from Winds of War. The episode parodies the miniseries several times. Even though it is in your face obvious in various notes here the admins appear to feel the reference is to obscure. Skywayman (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cultural References and Subjectivity Threshold

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

Not really the same thing, read WP:V...at least the very first sentence. CTJF83Talk 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, I could write that Iraq really had weapons of mass destruction . If you don't care whether content is true or accurate, just that you can reference an article or website that states such, then Wikipedia need to change it name to GIGO. --173.28.14.41 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? You know that reference is grossly out of date. WP:Point CTJF83Talk 19:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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

References

Tags

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090718001718/http://cdn.emmys.tv/awards/2009ptemmys/61stemmys_noms.php to http://cdn.emmys.tv/awards/2009ptemmys/61stemmys_noms.php
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5msfotyxq?url=http://cdn.emmys.tv/awards/2008pte/60thpte_noms.php to http://cdn.emmys.tv/awards/2008pte/60thpte_noms.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081022065654/http://www.tvguide.com/Episode-Recaps/family-guy/Family-Guy-Episode-27362.aspx to http://www.tvguide.com/Episode-Recaps/family-guy/Family-Guy-Episode-27362.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101023083128/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/10/20/sunday-tv-ratings-desperate-housewives-tops-night-but-fox-animation-draws-youth/6506 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/10/20/sunday-tv-ratings-desperate-housewives-tops-night-but-fox-animation-draws-youth/6506

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)