Talk:Meg Griffin/Archive 1

Sentence removed

"In that sense, Meg is similar to Davan MacIntire from Something Positive: both are relatively unremarkable-looking people whom, for no logical reason, many seem to find hideous." I feel like this point is already established, connecting it back to a webcomic (which certainly fewer people read than watch Family Guy) seems unneccessary.68.98.189.245 05:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Heritage

Her Heritage doesn't include English which is one of Lois' heritage. If Lois is from an English heritage why wouldn't Meg? Bryan the Magnificent 20:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well actaully her heritage would be predominantly english since Peter isnt supposed to be her real father.Luciferian56 20:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Voice

Lacey Chabert did the voice for a few of the second season episodes. You can tell when the voice changes because it's just so markedly different. Mike H 08:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

The Untold Story

I removed a section about "revelations" regarding Meg in Family Guy Presents Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story. I feel it's inappropriate to add information from the unreleased DVD; at the very worst, this seems to effectively condone internet piracy, and at the very best, confuses people. -DynSkeet (talk) 21:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that such information can be included, but considering that it is something that happens in a now-changed future it must be treated as such. violet/riga (t) 21:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, I think I'm just going to avoid editing (or even reading) Family Guyarticles until the Stewie movie comes out and I watch it. I've already read two huge spoilers and I don't want to read anymore. Cromulent Kwyjibo 18:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The information should probably be added back in. It has been hinted to in other episodes and just because the information is from a DVD that has not been released does not mean it should not be included. We would still include information from a Japanese DVD that had not been released in the US even if the editor who added it was in the US and had gained the knowledge from a pirated version. - 24.7.186.18 03:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I HAVE A QUESTION!!!!!!!! ANYONE WHO SEES THIS PLEASE RESPOND!!! I'M HAVING A DISPUTE WITH MY ROOMATES ABOUT MEG GRIFFIN. THEY SAY THAT SHE IS NOT PETER GRIFFIN'S DAUGHTER, I DISAGREE. IF YOU READ THE ARTICLE ON MEG GRIFFIN(FAMILY RELATIONS) IT MENTIONS A COMMENT BRIAN MADE REGARDING STAN THOMAS, HER "REAL FATHER", I THINK IT MAY HAVE BEEN ONE OF MANY JOKES THAT ARE DISREGARDED THROUGHTOUT THE SERIES, BUT I WOULD LOVE SOME FEEDBACK IF ANYONE HAS ANY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.100.88 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 March 2006

Here's some feedback: turn your capslock off. Don't bold and italicise entire paragraphs. This is a forum for discussing changes to and disputes with information in the article. It's not a fan message board for settling bets or arguments. If you don't find the info you're looking for, try doing a little research and then post your findings here. 12.22.250.4 18:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture size

The picture for this article is rather large; it takes up the entire page (not including the Wikipedia bar to the left) on 800x600 and makes the page look odd even att 1280x1024. I would think this something of a usability issue, especially since many users probably don't change XP's default resolution. I do believe the image in question to be of fine quality, and advocate keeping it, albeit smaller. I myself don't have Photoshop on hand, so would anyone else care to create a resized version? 12.64.60.207 04:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the thumbnail version that appears in the Family Guy Character box, you don't need an image editor to resize it. Just specify a smaller width in pixels in the line that names the image. The thumbnail is the larger original, just drawn smaller. Reducing the size of the original with an image editor won't necessarily change the size of the thumbnail if a width has been specified for the thumbnail. However the image as is is not unusually large; in fact it's about average. I've gone back in the history to before your posting and it seems to have always been its current size, 180 pixels, which is quite reasonable (and small). It does not take up the entire page at 800x600, nor does it look odd at 1280x1024. I don't understand why you think it does, unless your monitor is set for an extremely low resolution, like 320x240. 12.22.250.4 18:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Meg's weight

190lbs? Surely this is absolute rubbish! (Just checking in case it genuinely comes from one of the newer episodes that haven't been screened in the UK yet...) Libatius 19:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I haven't seen or heard this in any episode, the page earlier said 120 lbs, but it seems like someone changed that. They may be right, I have no idea. Let's just wait and see who says what.

I think that line should be removed as it hasn't been mentioned in any episode or interview that I'm aware of.Stu42 01:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Brittany 00:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was really shocked when I saw the 190 pounds! She's a bit chubby but not obese like Chris and Peter. In addition, there is no reference to this in the show. So far, there's been very few references to her weight, but probably the most obvious one was when they were at the amusement park and the attendant guessed, "A lot." I think 120 is probably a reasonable estimate, but maybe should wait for a possible direct reference.

User:JEMASCOLA 23:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Her weight is now listed as 500 lbs.....Gavyn Sykes 23:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Meg's height

At one point, it was listed as 5'5" and then went down to 5'1" eventually. Like many cartoon characters, Meg's height seems to vary from time to time. Sometimes she looks much shorter than Lois and Chris, while other times she looks closer in height. Any thoughts?

User:JEMASCOLA 23:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just speculation. I've come across at least one editor who played around with all the heights and weights because he thought he could make an educated guess...Libatius 09:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there were no sources cited, I removed the height for now. -SpuriousQ 10:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Peter Meg's biological father?

Section should be removed. Based on pure speculation, and only has jokes for evidence. -- Steel 19:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It can just be cut down to something like "A throwaway gag once suggested that Peter was not Meg's father, etc". 19:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that not even that is necessary. We can't list every single throwaway gag made about Meg, and this one is nothing unique or special to warrant inclusion. I've removed the entire section. -- Steel 20:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not pure speculation when the words actually came out of the character's mouths. Peter said "and Meg's real father's name is-" Brian said "Stan Thompson". This was to show the judge that Brian knows a lot more about the family than anyone. Nothing in the show is serious, you have to take the jokes as a reality, gag or no gag. Coolguy1368 18:15 29 June 2006

Perhaps speculation was the wrong word, but my other comment still applies. We can't list every throwaway gay in the series, and that one was no more special or significant than any other to warrant inclusion. -- Steel 22:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Gag or no gag, it was said. Period. That's my point. It wasn't a flashback. In the fictionalized world and due to circumstantial evidence, Peter abuses Meg, physically and emotionally which can be explained if he has no emotional ties to her. They only bond as much as two complete strangers do. Peter not being her father explains all of that. And Peter said it, in court, under oath.Coolguy1368 18:32 29 June 2006

You're reading far too much into this. It's a cartoon that doesn't need to make perfect sense and doesn't need an explanation. -- Steel 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether Meg is Peter's father or not is a big thing to do with the way they behave and most important, their relationship and I think it can be speculated in the article, not a fact though. Remember, the article that was removed said "some fans have debated" which is seen everwhere in wikipedia as well. Coolguy1368 18:42 29 June 2006

It doesn't matter how widespread it is on Wikipedia, this is not the place for fan debate. -- Steel 22:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The argument that it was a throwaway gag is not good enough to not include it. My argument is valid, it was said. For my argument to be invalid, I would have to be proven otherwise. If there was a commentary saying that Meg is his daughter, fine. But until then, it stands true that Meg is not his daughter. It was said, joke or no joke, it was said.Coolguy1368 20:26 29 June 2006

I don't appreciate you readding that section while discussion is still in progress here, but that's by the by. To take another example, in one episode, Stewie becomes a weird octopus-like creature. That wasn't a flashback, yet in the next episode Stewie is back to normal. My point is that what is said or what happens in one episode doesn't mean that it's true. Like I said earlier, you are reading far to much into this. Family Guy, like The Simpsons and South Park, is a cartoon that doesn't need to make sense and doesn't need an explanation. By all means, include a line like "a throwaway gag once suggested that Peter is not Meg's biological father", but this doesn't warrant an entire section to itself. Why aren't there loads of theories about how Stewie became normal again after the octopus thing? -- Steel 10:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to interupt (sorry, spelling). There are no theories on the octupus thing because it is reveled at the end of the episode that it was all a dream (a poke at Dallas) making it all fictional, That's all I have to say. Continue.--BrianGriffin-FG 18:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "which is understandable" is not a neutral point of view. And technically, just becaue she falls to the ground doesn't mean she's dead. I might be reading too much into this, but the point is that wether Meg is Peter's father or not IS a big deal, especially in the Family Guy universe..Coolguy1368 9:54 30 June 2006

There is only one throwaway joke in favour of this. Is it alright if I request a third opinion on this? -- Steel 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. Coolguy1368 16:34 30 June 2006

Third opinion

I'm afraid there really isn't enough in this section to justify its independent existence. Perhaps put a throw away line, as suggested in the second line of the discussion, in the section preceding it, but one throw-away gag does not justify this amount of text - it also whiffs slightly of original research. --Scott Wilson 13:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny how Scott Wilson agrees 100% with Steel, especially when a third opinion is supposed to "disagree with both disputants." Whatever, I'll let it be. BUT, if and when Stan Thompson is brought up again in future episodes (plot or gag), I will put it back up. And yes, I have saved what I wrote previously.

It doesn't say that the third opinion must disagree with the disputants, it just states that the third opinion can, if necessary, disagree with both other parties. And if Stan Thompson comes up again, it would be more than a throwaway gag and there would be reason to incude a section on it. -- Steel 17:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we all just agree that the fact of the show is that it's a culmination of endless quips and puns and much of the show is supposed to be a work of fiction within itself.

I suppose you could say that I'm against inclusion of this throwaway line as it's completely immaterial. Were it a continuing theme or storyline or a plotpoint constructive of more than this one instance, I'd be for keeping it, but not in that it's literally mentioned only once ni the (as yet) whole 5 series and film history.

--User:lincalinca

If we're going to keep Stan Thompson in the article, we should also edit Peter's to say he's a robot and that he worked as the green guy in Tron, Meg's to say she's dead ("Jungle Love"), Lois' to say she used to be a midget circus performer, etc. (sorry not to name all the episodes, but I forget which throwaway gags are in which episodes). Seriously, it was a throwaway joke, and should have no attention paid to it, like almost all jokes in the show. It's non-canon and it hasn't been referenced again in almost 6 years. Furthermore, Meg is brown-haired and near-sighted, like Peter. In "Meet the Quagmires," Meg is still born to Lois, yet has the double-chin to prove she's biologically the daughter of Quagmire, further cementing the fact that Meg is, in fact, the daughter of Peter and Lois Griffin. Can we please stop editing it back to the inclusion of Stan Thompson, please? --Primus Sheck 10:06 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow us to pick and choose what is or is not considered to be canon material- it is up to the show itself, and outside sources, to do that. There are, undoubtedly, silly things in Family Guy, but being a comedy show, many canonical things within it are "silly", or plain just don't make sense- for example, the entire circumstances of Peter's heritage, being that at one point in time the show claims he was the descendant of African-American slaves owned by Lois' family (with the distinctive Peter appearance), while later on the show claims he was fathered by a drunken Irishman- who ALSO shares the Peter appearance. Furthermore, to use "Meet the Quagmires" as proof is speculation- for all we know in the shows canon, at the time Meg was concieved by Lois and Stan, there could have been... problems... that Peter was unable or unwilling to fix that might not have been present in a Lois+Quagmire marraige. So, we must rely on the show itself as direct canon, and that show itself clearly states that Stan Thompson is Meg's biological father. Since we cannot disenfranchise Peter, I've made only a slight mention of him, while at the same time including Peter as a correctly-termed "Social Father", since he has raised her. I think that should satisfy all of Wikipedia's guidelines, especially since it's sourced. Surreal events are common canonical occurences in the show- Peter has an ongoing feud with a giant sentient chicken, Brian is a talking self-aware dog, and Chris is tormented by a monkey who caught his wife in bed with his boss. I think that Meg's parental lineage is, in all actually, one of the least strange things that happens in this show. 67.94.201.2 12:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So tell me exactly why one user wants to keep a throwaway gag that has no evidence beyond that one instance, with a lot of evidence to the contrary, as a "fact" and the rest of us who know the difference between a gag and canon must allow them to vandalize the article as such? Then to go substantiate one character's apathy toward her using it, ignoring that everyone else who hates her really has no reason to? It ruins the validity of the article. Mattbrown04 (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This Is DeMeir Rouse And No Peter Is Not Megs's Father. In Season 3 Episode 41 "Screwed the Pooch" Brian Is Going Though Some Trouble In His Love Life And He Meets Mr.Pewterschmidt Race Dog Sea Breeze. During The A Race Brian Inturups The Race And Violates Sea Breeze. Mr.Pewterschmidt Is Mad . Later On In The Episode We Found Out That Sea Breeze Is Preaganant . And Then Brain Decides To Take Mr.Pewterschmidt To Court For Custody Of The Puppies After Mr.Pewterschmidt Decides That When The Puppies Are Born Brian Wont Be Able To See Them.

In The Trial Mr.Pewterschmidt's Lawyer Brings Up Details Of Brian's past To Destroy The Chances Of Him Gaining Custody Of The Puppies . During The Trial Peter Is Called To The Stand And He States A Few Things That Brian Knows About The Children(Chris,Stewie,And Meg) And Evidence To My Answer Is Peter Says That Brian Knows That Chris Favorite Ice Cream Is Then Brian Inturrpts Each Of The Three Question Giving The Anwser To All And The Final Question Was Who's Meg Real Father Was And The Anwser Was Stan Thompson. Peter Griffin's Name Is Not Stan Thompson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.21.126 (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Fan Reaction section...

Are there sources for these claims about Meg's character and the way she has been recieved? The use of weasel words seems pretty blatant in that spot; it looks like it could also be suspect to original research... I think the whole section either needs a substantial rewrite or needs to be removed completely. Thoughts? --SingCal 08:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Very true. I am a fan of Meg myself and often find others who share relatively similar opinons to mine about the fact that Meg should get revenge. I see these people mainly on Internet message boards. I have heard from them rumors circulating about Meg getting revenge, and although there has to be a source of it somewhere, I have yet to find who stated that. I definitely don't think that this section should be removed, as it is very vital to Meg's character. Some love her (myself included), while others hate her, so a fan reaction section should be kept to show the controversial view on Meg. Despite that, we should put in some more concrete sources for research of these findings. For instance, one part of the article said that several Family Guy writers also seem tired of the Meg bashing. When I read that, I thought, "Wow, that's great! It's too bad there's no original source for that." Maybe we'll find them eventually. --JEMASCOLA 12:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt internet debates are notable enough to be considered controversy on Wikipedia, it is impossible for everyone to universally agree because every single human being has their own opinion on every subject. However, the common debates these differences in opinion cause (although controversial) are not notable unless sourced. K.H (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Moved. —Centrx→talk • 05:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Megan Griffin → Meg Griffin – The character is almost always referenced in the show and by the show's creators and fans as Meg. So this should be the article's title, per WP:NC(CN). Crumbsucker 03:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - Sound logic. SingCal 06:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Of course. Kafziel 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Else it's Bartholomew Simpson, Forsythe Pendleton Jones, and Pigathius Lee. --SigPig 05:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Romance

When Meg imagines Tom Tucker swimming across a pool, walks up to her and says, "Meg, you know how cute I always thought you were", was a nod to Phoebe Cates famous red bikini pool scene in Fast Times At Ridgemont High, was it not? If I am correct, that could be good to add. Raerah 23:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Overlong

This article is ridiculously long, and needs to be cut. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Family Guy fansite.--C-squared 03:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Also, please read Wikipedia:Article size. These guidelines indicate that articles should be a maximum of 32 KB; the Meg Griffin article currently weighs in at a whopping 42 KB. And I mean, come on, folks. It's an article on Meg Griffin. --C-squared 14:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I overwhelmingly agree. Do we really need a separate section devoted to Meg's relationship with each member of her family? It seems like this epic-length "encyclopedia article" is the thesis of some Meg fanatic who over-analyzes every throw-away gag and takes the show way too seriously. Meg's article is about twice as long as Peter Griffin's, and Peter is the star of the show. 75.46.27.159 07:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I just added the {{Content}} template to the top of the article. I am excising, in their entirety, both the Relationship with other family members and Romantic involvements sections. There is no encyclopedic justification for this level of pedantry; if you must have this information somewhere, please place it on a fansite like the Family Guy Wiki. Also, I plan to severely cut the Personality and Trivia sections for the same reason. --C-squared 13:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Mate just leave it. If people want to give up their free time to put a lot of info in these articles for the benefit of others, just let them. It's an encyclopaedia, as you said and the info shouldn't just be sourced from throw-away gags, but seriously this is the Internet and there's always someone interested in this info so just leave it there for them. It's not as though extra information is hurting you, is it? I grant you the article is/was 10 KB over the guidlines set. Come on though 10KB? In today's world that's not really a lot to get worked up about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spec ops commando (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~. Also, please familiarize yourself with both the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yes, this is the Internet, and no, there is no such thing as a perfect Wikipedia article. But as you implied, the Internet is a big place—why not place all this fancruft on a fansite, instead of hindering Wikipedia from reaching its encyclopedic ideal? We are all operating on good faith here. Right now, beyond just the length alone, this article is an incoherent mess. I'm just trying to make it better. --C-squared 14:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you trim the sections you find overly long rather than deleting them wholesale. The relationships are an important part of the show and the character and some mention of them is appropriate. CovenantD 00:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm with Covenant; just trim the sections that you find have unimportant information, not just delete them completely as this sort of stuff is important to the show and it's fans. BTW I thought I did sign before, I guess I forgot.Spec ops commando 06:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't need an entire section devoted to Meg's relationship with her family members. Folks, not even the other members of the Griffin family have a section like that, especially in that kind of pedantic detail. Please refer to Wikipedia:Featured articles#Literature and Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media for a model of what a fictional character entry should look like. And again, if it's "important to the show and its fans", then put it on a fansite. This is an encyclopedia. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --C-squared 14:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your condesending tone is not appreciated, nor is your assumption that other editors are not familiar with policies and guidelines. CovenantD 18:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. Still, there's no precedence either in featured articles or even other Family Guy articles for these sections. (The other Family Guy character articles need some trimming of their own, but that's neither here nor there.) --C-squared 21:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

C-squared if theres no precedent then why don't we make one. IF everything always atyed the same there would never be any change (duh)Spec ops commando 15:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Because frankly, that kind of information is frivolous, pedantic, and not notable—particularly in the way it was presented here. Also, please refer to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Examples. If that information belongs anywhere, it should be on a fansite, not here. And what was that about condescending tones that ConvenantD mentioned? --C-squared 16:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, how come no one has trimmed the other character pages? Especially Brian's, which is currently the longest. If no one seems to have a problem with those pages, then why should this one be any different? Goopnzaopleopz9 07:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The other Meg Griffin

There really ought to be an article about the veteran New York DJ Meg Griffin, with some kind of disambig at the top of this one. If such an article exists already, I can't find it. 4.237.207.116 15:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does everyone hate meg?

i dont get it! Chris never gets laughed at!!!

Meg is treated very badly in the show because in the first two seasons of the series, her personality wasn't very developed. And because of that, fans saw Meg as the most boring character of the series. The writers, in turn, responded to that, by making all the other characters (with the possible exception of Neil Goldman) tease her for her unpopularity. The characters view her with an exaggerated version of how the fans viewed her, and it seems completely unprovoked when watching the show. I also see your point with Chris; he's much more awkward than Meg. I do feel that Meg is treated very unfairly and she's actually my second favorite character (Brian being the first).

That's bullcrap! I haven't found any source on the internet that explains that, and I've never heard any information about it either. By the way, I have to agree that Chris is more awkword than Meg, and actually, Chris did get yelled at occasionally, but I don't have time to list any episodes in which he did. Tkerekes13 5:48, 18 January 2009

Sounds very plausible. If you could find a source for this information, it would be great to add to the article. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I found the reason why Meg's personality wasn't very developed (in this case, I don't think she needed any character development) and why she's the frequent butt of jokes on the show: Seth Macfarlane admits that it's hard for the writers to get into the head of a teenager. Tkerekes13 4:21, 25 August 2009

Poor Meg! I like her.... 82.52.137.25 14:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be said that there are some Family Guy fans who enjoy what is often called "Meg abuse", since it gives Meg's character a reason to exist and is also one of the major reasons why Family Guy is so hilariously funny, better than ever since its return from cancellation. 209.89.232.42

She could be some sort of allegory for generic teen girl angst (i.e., "Meg Bashing" should actually be interpreted as being part of her point of view of the world). The Holy ettlz 19:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the writers should give Meg a better reason to exist, like make her a really hot daughter. What do you think? Tkerekes13 5:49, 18 January 2009

Meg's age

In "The Cleveland-Loretta Quagmire", Brian said Meg is 17. I know he was drunk when he said it, but Meg didn't correct him, which would that she really is 17. Plus Meg was established as a high school junior in Peter's Got Woods, meaning that her age is either 16 or 17, right?

she might have been freacked out and didnt know what to say sailor cuteness-ready for love 16:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also of note, in the first season, when she had her learner's licence, she was 15 years old. Wasn't there also an episode when she had a birthday? As i recall, Peter and Louis couldn't remember how old she was turning. I believe Meg said she was turning 17. If all that were true, that would mean that she actually aged in the show from 15 to 17 years old. Correct me if i am wrong. Masterhatch (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just FYI, this point is moot now, as the age field has been removed from the infobox. DP76764 18:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just curious more than anything. Not many cartoons actually have their characters age. Masterhatch (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

KILLED?!?!

where did this come from

However During the last episode of the fifth season, Meg was killed in a terrible car crash with her father, Peter Griffin, who was badly injured

did she realy die or is it just vandalisim? 24.176.173.43 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

unless you haven't been watching the show in the time span between our comments, it's vandalism. But she was killed in that episode where chris got married. i think...[[User:SxeFluff--SxeFluff 18:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)]] 13:45, 18 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SxeFluff (talk • contribs)

Meg A Female-To-Male Transsexual?

In one episode in which Stewie is transported into the near future, we learn that Chris looses quite of bit of weight, cuts his hair short, marries and becomes a police officer. More shocking, Meg appears to have gone through a complete female-to male gender reassignment and has changed her/his name to Ron (or is it Rod?). Sporting a moustache, Ron doesn't miss any opportunity to remind his family he is a guy! Sadly, we see a grave stone in the backyard with the name "Brian" on it.Buddmar 14:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Buddmar

There's a ? on the section title but no question in the actual sentences... It's just a comment. So if you're asking 'does she really become a transsexual?' I'd say no. Because the episode was part of the movie first.[[User:SxeFluff--SxeFluff 18:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)]] 13:50, 18 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SxeFluff (talk • contribs)

Re-structure

I belive we need to ajust the section on apperence as it continues on about her unpopularity with the other charecters and other information that should start a new section like social encounters or something along the line of that.

And, Buddmar, your comment about megs sex change, I belive that you are talking about Family Guy Presents Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story which also ends with Stewie going back in time, and after the events that take place there, Meg asks a boy what his name was, which his reply was Ron. Meg then starts talking to herself on how she always liked the name Ron. 203.173.213.149 04:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Marijuana use?

I can recall at least two occasions where she's proved to be a marijuana smoker - in one episode, Peter and Lois's father sell her some weed, and in another, when the family is at the theatre, Brian is bored and asks Meg and Chris "So, have you made any good pot connections at school?", to which Chris replies "What?" and Meg "Yeah".

Vandalized

Several sections in the article seem to have been vandalized. For example, the sentence "Her plain look is often a topic of Fuglyness for the show; though she looks like an average girl, characters on the show act as though she was splendedlu beautiful." along with many other parts, some of which I tried to fix.

¿Really? man, who could find her attractive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.12.156.120 (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Stan Thompson Pt. 2

So, someone left a tag to leave out Bertram, who has appeared in two episodes, but "Stan Thompson" gets one mention and he's tagged as Meg's definitive father? How does that make sense? The show also states that Nate Griffin slept with Peter's ancestor, but we then learn that Peter isn't even biologically related to the Griffins. So, does that mean Nate Griffin's statement gets included as evidence of Peter's heritage as well? King Zeal 16:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The two are not related- if you want to debate the Bertram issue, do so, but it has no bearing on Stan Thompson, who definitely IS considered Meg's father- it was clearly stated as such, and was done directly within the context of the actual show plotline (in court under oath, no less), as opposed to in a cut-away gag. 76.28.138.83 17:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Stan Thompson should be left out of the infobox — this "(Social)" and "(Biological)" business is odius WP:OR, and treating this like real information is pointlessly in-universe, and confusing to people unfamiliar with the show since Stan Thompson never appears in the program and has no apparent effect on the characters or how the show is written.

However, when I cleaned up this article, two different editors revert warred over just Stan Thompson. My preference was the footnoted version installed here.

'''Father:''' [[Peter Griffin]]<ref>The unseen "Stan Thompson" is briefly identified as Meg's biological father in a one-shot gag in "[[Screwed the Pooch]]".</ref>

Unfortunately, this will always be revert warred over by some editors. This has been discussed to death and they will not budge. / edg ☺ ★ 17:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're using a misapplied definition of Original Research here. The show clearly has stated in no uncertain terms that Stan Thompson is Meg's real father. Including that is in no way original research. Now, on the other hand, speculation such as "Peter treats Meg worse than Chris because she isn't his real daughter" crosses into the OR realm. And "one shot gag" is another misapplication- it didn't occur during the famous "cutaway" scenes in which, for example, Peter is portrayed as the green guy in Tron. It occurred during the in-universe, plot-relevant main narrative of the show. This means, in the context of the show, that Brian Griffin, under oath in court, stated that Peter was not Meg's father. I fail to see how, in all honesty, OR comes into play whatsoever in this context. 76.28.138.83 17:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because it isn't a "manatee gag" doesn't mean that it's not a one-shot joke. Also, I agree that it's not Original Research, but it's still in-universe. For all we know, Brian could have been wrong, mistaken, or just not given a damn that he was under oath. We just don't know. All we do know is that Peter Griffin has been portrayed as Meg's father for every episode of the series, and, at one moment in one episode, that was thrown into question. That's all. King Zeal 18:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Speculation at this point doesn't come into it. We DO know that it's established fact that in the show, in a courtroom situation, as an attempt to prove his knowledge, Brian, when asked to relate specific correct details about the family, states, after Peter says "And Meg's real father is?" that the answer is "Stan Thompson". Fact. Thus, it is established fact that Meg's real father is Stan Thompson, and the burden of counterproof must rely on a seperate outside source that says he is not Meg's real father. Peter may be her social dad, but in the context of the show, Stan Thompson is her real father. Why they chose to do that, or to what extent, is speculation, but the established, sourced fact, according to the show itself, is that her father is Stan. I could speculate that Peter has known all along, since he specifically used the term "And Meg's real father is?" 76.28.138.83 19:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The most WP:OR part is going "(Social)" and "(Biological)". This begins an unwritten backstory about one of Meg's birthparents that alters the show's status quo forever, when there could be other explanations, including that it was just a joke and means nothing in the continuity of the show. These aren't real people, and they could go anywhere with it, including nowhere.

Also original research: attempting to reconcile information from the show as if it would obey real world logic. This is also (by definition) in-universe, but the bigger problem is that it is original research. If we were writing a biography of a real person, then this would be significant. / edg ☺ ★ 19:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not even asking to remove it. All I'm asking is to footnote it because it is so incredibly insignificant. That we elevate this bit of fan wank to the infobox makes us look like idiots.

Just had to say that. / edg ☺ ★ 19:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Edgarde. All this "fact" and "counterproof" nonsense only applies if we're talking about real-world context, which we are not. If you want an in-universe argument against this whole debacle, I could bring up the episode in which Peter goes back in time and screws up his marriage to Lois. When he comes back to the future, she's married to Quagmire and all of their kids look exactly like Quagmire--INCLUDING Meg. There you have it. In-universe logic to counter in-universe logic.

But enough of that, because it doesn't matter. We can't make assumptions or speculate. King Zeal 20:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So, what's the word on this matter? Are we done with this, or are there still any counter-arguments? King Zeal 13:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Last I looked, the IP was not convinced. I don't believe this will change. / edg ☺ ★ 14:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So, what should we do? I personally believe that the footnote was a good compromise and support bringing it back. I'm completely against leaving the page as it currently is, however. King Zeal 14:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Trying it again.[1] If this isn't accepted, the next step would be dispute resolution. This issue has been thru Third opinion (see above), which was quickly dismissed by one of the Thompson Pedants (as I'll call 'em), who stated a determination to edit war on this subject. We could RfC, but I don't see how that wouldn't be ignored similarly. So the next step would be mediation.

If the TP's blatantly refused to abide by DR, a case could be made for blocking them. / edg ☺ ★ 15:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

How DARE you! You're not only fighting against Wikipedia's policies on sourcing (It was CLEARLY stated in the show that Meg's REAL FATHER is Stan), you're using your OWN speculation to back it up- "For all we know, blah blah". It is a FACT that the show has stated Meg's REAL FATHER is Stan, and you have NO sourcing to say otherwise, only an ARGUMENT that you don't "believe" they were "serious". The sticking point is when you're actually THREATENING people for disagreeing with you. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Great job- you've managed to stifle debate via intimidation. Be proud of yourselves! You've gotten your way! 76.28.138.83 20:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The "show" doesn't say that Stan Thompson is Meg's father--a character on the show says it, with absolutely no effort made to verify. And shut up with all this "threatening" and "intimidation" garbage. I never did any such thing, at the very least, and I'll let Edgarde speak for himself. The fact of the matter is that you are using just as much speculation with your claim as you say that we are. I ask you: What's wrong with putting a footnote stating that Stan Thompson was mentioned by Brian? How is that any more biased and unsourced that what you're trying to do: Take the unverified word of a fictional character as law? King Zeal 23:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting this compromise. It's clear you feel strongly about this, and I'm very appreciative of the effort you are making here.

Interestingly, the list of episodes currently includes a title "Peter's Daughter". No way to know from just the title, but if Stan Thompson were revived in the series, much of this discussion could be mooted. / edg ☺ ★ 06:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why so many people are getting so worked up about this Stan Thompson thing. Family Guy makes little if any effort to maintain canon or continuity-this was just thrown in for some cheap laughs. The show makes little effort to reconcile some of these conflicts-various gags about Peter's ancestors alternately depict his family as Irish...until Nate Griffin is revealed to be the patriarch of the family, and the Griffins are shown to have African ancestry. So are they Irish, African or both? Then, despite the fact that all of Peter's ancestors are clearly meant to be based off him, and that Peter inherited a number of family traits...it's revealed that he apparently isn't even a Griffin at all, but a McFinnegan. If anything, this suggests that the producers and writers of Family Guy don't care for the most part about these conflicts, since they'll produce anything that seems funny. Stan Thompson is irrelevant, he was a throwaway gag that the writers just added in to show how Brian knew more about the Griffin children than their own father did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.174.66 (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a cut-away gag at all. Because it's simply stated, not as a joke, but as a fact. Also, the family was supposed to get an abortion for Meg, so it makes complete sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.200.68 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2007-12-16 (UTC)

It is not a "fact" because Family Guy characters are not real. People struggling to explain how Brian could have been alive before the Challenge explosion and still be only 7 years old are making the same mistake. If you consider this not to be a joke, perhaps the confusion is a matter of not getting the joke. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The comment made by Brian is subject to interpretation, you could see it as a joke while 64.5.200.68 sees it as a sort of fictional fact. I for one thinks the information is intended both as a comical comment and fact in the Family Guy universe. To me it's as much as a fact as Meg wearing a pink shirt and hat in every episode. The FACT of the matter is both the fictional characters Brian and Peter claim Stan Thompson is her father and the only argument you have to dispute this FACT is your personal beliefs and intimidation techniques. K.H (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember when Peter confirmed the claim. Could you refresh my memory please?

Also, there are no "facts" to be had here. A fact is something that is verifiable and can be proven outside of a single stand-alone claim. Brian's testimony (even under oath) is not verifiable; where's the proof to back it up? If it's a fact, where's the supporting evidence? Even in real life, testimony needs to have solid proof to back it up. For all we know, Brian was lying or just wrong. King Zeal (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Several testimonies from fictional characters in the Family Guy universe have been considered "facts" on Wikipedia? Why should this case be any different? There's hardly been any evidence Meg is indeed Peter's biological daughter and there's far more supporting evidence (even if only Brian's claim is included) that she's not. Like 75.153.174.66 pointed out there is little to no continuity between episodes, however if Nate Griffin is represented on Wikipedia due to word of fictional mouth alone than Meg should be as well. K.H (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nate Griffin is mentioned in two separate episodes as the subject of two separate plotlines. "Stan Thompson" was mentioned in one one-shot gag that has had zero corroboration. It's already mentioned in a footnote. Considering WP:WEIGHT, what else needs to be done? As I've said before, my primary issue with the Stan Thompson problem is that there's absolutely nothing to verify Brian's statement. If a footnote is not an appropriate place for a one-shot mention of an unverified statement, then please enlighten us as to what would be better. King Zeal (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

usually asking if she is 18

Quagmire, however, has displayed an interest in her, usually asking if she is 18, the age of consent in America.

This seems embellished. Has Quagmire made this inquiry more than once? How can it be "usually"? / edg ☺ ☭ 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Other girls

What was the episode where Meg's occasional peers identified Meg as the only one who had ever had a boyfriend? (Meg was then depicted with a corpse.) Would help to have the timing and the exact quote as well.

2 or 3 other items are currently tagged {{episode}}, needing specific episode citations. Ideally these should be done as inline citations, but if that is hard to figure out just add the episodes however you can and someone else will clean it up. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

dangerous behavior

if you ask me that section is very akward and does not belong as a section itself. its contents should be worked in if possible but otherwise it needs to be deleted. wikipedia is for facts not judgements...and its akward. and um yeah its akward. its like an overly righteous person wrote it. and its akward Kas0809 (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Meg & Stan Thompson

I wrote a letter to the creator of family guy to prove whether or not he is or isnt megs father. But if he was, dont you think he would be mentioned at least twice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.200.168 (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if you get a reply, you couldn't use it. Read the policy on reliable sources. Wellspring (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FGKissSeenRoundWorld.jpg

The image Image:FGKissSeenRoundWorld.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit-warring

Folks, when there's a dispute on an article, please follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Which means that there has to be an attempt to work things out through discussion. Don't just battle it out with reverts in an edit war. Thanks, --Elonka 20:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Section

The final part of the article is pretty much hearsay and rumors. Probable as some of them may be, speculation should not be included in Wikipedia. I could possibly see this if there was a source on how it's wide spread rumor throughout the fan community, but even that would be a stretch. I move to delete the sentences about the second and third Star Wars parodies --Romulus (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I would add it's plot cruft. {{Be bold}} / edg ☺ ☭ 14:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Seconded and removed. DP76764 (Talk) 16:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I would have gone ahead and removed it myself, but for fear of angry Family Guy fans. ;)

I do need to start being bolder, though...

--Romulus (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What Murdered Sister?

On 04:02, 17 December 2008, 69.253.240.202 added an entry at the end of the Dangerous Behavior that says "It is also stated in "Let's Go to the Hop" that Meg had murdered her sister." Was that actually stated in that episode? What sister? Maybe it's just a quick gag but did they even give this murdered sister a name? 71.240.155.125 (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• It was just a quick 1-off gag. Not notable. DP76764 (Talk) 23:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)