Talk:Peter Griffin/Archive 3

Parodies
I think that section should be rewritten in paragraphs not lists. What do you guys think? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably. The point of this is not just to take the dots out, but to create a "narrative", i.e. writing that makes a point. It could be a simple as "Peter is often parodied", but since practically everything in the public eye is subject to parody, the mere existence of parodies it not by itself pointing out. Any idea where we can take this as a paragraph? / edg ☺ ☭ 00:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I did what needed to be done. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter born in Mexico
Responding to this revert summary.

Per Manual of Style (writing about fiction), this is not a biography of a real person. Assembling a fictional biography based on events in the show is original research based on plot recap, which is not an appropriate task for an encyclopedia. It would however be a perfectly legitimate task for a fan site; perhaps we know of one.

Several years into the series, the writers decided to do an episode based on "what if Peter were an illegal immigrant?", and for this episode they make a story explaining Peter's fictional birth in that episode. Recapping this at length places undue weight on this episode, which does not rewrite previous episodes (and if it did, would still not have been in influence on how those episodes were written, since the idea would not have then existed). And with one minor exception (next paragraph) does not explain his character in subsequent episodes.

This is not a property of the character; it is a premise used for an episode. The character is consistently Irish-american. Since the "Nate" episode there have been one or two references to Peter being "black", and these have been effectively jokes. Since Padre, there has been one more reference to Peter being born in Mexico, and this was just to support another plot device.

Editors emphasizing the Peter's Mexican ancestry are emphasizing the original fiction over the real-world information by reconciling plot details into a true ancestry. The simple real-world information is this is a cartoon with inconsistent inter-episode continuity and lots of off-the-wall ideas.

WP:WAF specifically warns against creating a fictional character article or section written like a biography. Discerning the details of Peter's true ancestry is an obvious example of this mistake. Peter does not have a true ancestry because he is not a real person. Furthermore there is no (real-world) evidence the writers are deliberately "revealing" something that has been developed with any thought beyond "let's make Peter Tricia Takanawa's brother!".

Family Guy has run for over 100 episodes. We have plenty of material and could easily make an elegant 300kb in-universe biography on this character, had we the writing skills among us to do so. And it would be (to use FG's term, and WP's standard) crap. Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of information.

A fictional biography based on plot recap will never reach good article status on Wikipedia, and this sort of information should be pared down to a minimum. My suggestion would be to keep: What this article really (really really) needs is real-world information, not more plot recap. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * information needed to understand jokes made without explanation (i.e. that Peter can be presumed to make stupid decisions, or that Carter can be presumed to behave sadistically to Peter)
 * character traits made notable in secondary sources not related to the show.
 * You're right. Let's wait until it gets on DVD, and then and ONLY then we are 100% sure, in other words let's wait for the commentary. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter Griffin And Children
I will once again voice my opinion about Meg Griffin being Peter's Daughter. During July and August of '07, There were numerous disputes over The validity of the claim that "Stan Thompson" was Meg's biological daughter. Apparently, the consensus was that the episode that said that was not to be taken seriously. However, I disagree. It was not a sideshow to take up time, so I still think that it should be mentioned as it had been before. Ono (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)




 * Not this again. Summary of my usual position: this is footnoted in the Meg Griffin article. It was a joke. This is not a real person, so perspective-wise it is not terribly important in this work of fiction. If necessary, I could explain this joke to people who don't get it, but I would be repeating myself. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, it was just one line from Brian, how do you know he wasn't wrong? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First off edg, how do you know it was a joke? If I am not mistaken, The "one line from Brian" was during the course of an episode, not a side skit, so that would lead one to assume that it could be taken seriously. Correct? How do you know that it wasn't an actual statement and therefore should be taken in the context of the show? Please do not mistake my simple statement above as anything more than my thoughts on a matter that i felt needed readressing. Oh, and don't worry, I understand the joke, and i certainly wouldn't want you to have to repeat yourself. Ono (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, I apologize for my tone. The subject of Stan Thompson has become very annoying to me. I should have waited longer to post my reply to you.


 * The comment, which occurred 4 seasons ago, has had no demonstrable effect on the show or any of the characters. Whether this is an "actual statement", whatever that means, or isn't doesn't matter. WP:WAF proscribes against Using throwaway comments or jokes as a source of information. It's almost as if they had this discussion in mind.


 * Incidentally, the joke is a riff on how the family is casually neglectful of Meg, and comment on matters like this in her presence without concern that she should be told or that she would find out this way; this joke is delivered dryly so this behavior seems more shocking and cruel, which is the point of the joke. There's no reason to give it more weight than that; the idea that the producers may be planting clues about something that has yet to be revealed in a multi-season plot arc is original research at best.


 * If this article were a biography on Abraham Lincoln, this information would be worth including, because it would be about a real person. If this were someone we knew in real life, a friend of ours or something, it would be very important information. However, these are not real people, and none of these events are real, so perspective-wise it is not terribly important in this work of fiction. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you know that it wasn't an actual statement and therefore should be taken in the context of the show? You should answer your own question. That one line doesn't prove anything, even if this was real, it's just one line. If it means so much to you, you have to prove that Brian's statement is true. I agree with edg, I'm also annoyed by the fact that we have to discuss it again. It has been decided that it shouldn't be included. There is a chance that Brian could have been wrong. You don't know if he was right or not, unless you can prove he was right, it doesn't belong to Wikipedia. Please respect that it isn't allowed here unless proven, and get over it. If you want, you can state it somewhere else on the Internet, but Wikipedia requires reliable source. You have yet to prove that this one line is true. So far you have only stated that it should belong here without any proof. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I will repeat that it was just a simple statement. Obviously, I should have attempted to convey my thoughts in a different manner, because it seems that you have very strong feelings over it. "If it means so much to you, you have to prove that Brian's statement is true. I agree with edg, I'm also annoyed by the fact that we have to discuss it again." My sincerest apologies for have annoyed you. I just wanted to convey my thoughts on the matter, and I never said it "means so much to me". If it is not inappropriate, I don't appreciate the tone of your message. It seems that you are scolding me because of something I posted on a discussion page. I could easily understand your hostility if I had edited the page(s), or something to that nature, but that is not the case. Thank you for clarifying this matter for me.

Ono (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Look if I was being rude, I'm very sorry, I didn't mean to argue. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Role in Family Guy Star Wars Saga
I've been thinking that since the Family Guy Star Wars saga is starting to become pretty much a big deal that we should add a little section talking about Peter's portrayal of Han Solo, and do the same of all the other characters who appear in these episodes. Of course, you would probably find this to be completely unnecessary since the Star Wars episodes are clearly non-canon. It's just a thought; let's not try to start an argument if any of you think it's a stupid idea. Immblueversion (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This would be like adding a section on what Peter did in every episode, and there have been over 100 episodes. The articles for those episodes would be the correct place for this information. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought so; just making sure. Immblueversion (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait for the two other Star Wars spoofs to come out. Right now I don't think there's much to say besides "Peter = Han." Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with this image ?
Answer here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex 8194 (talk • contribs)
 * The image has no sources, and that's a problem. We can't accept unfree images. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the source, just wait a little and then the image will apear somewhere:


 * Being non-free is what is wrong with this image. Since free use images of this character may not exist, and Wikipedia is less permissive of "fair use" images (including promotional images) than is used to be, there may come a time when this article has no illustration of Peter. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't know why Alex is on about this. We already had a perfectly good image Image:Peter Griffin.jpg. Why do we have to replace it? Alex, stop this. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, I understand that --Alex 8194 (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I just thought that looked better than the other one.--Alex 8194 (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not about whether or not we like the image. It's that you have to give the image a source. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I did give it, check properly ? --Alex 8194 (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then how come it was tagged non-free before it got removed? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair use is not the same as free use. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway the current image in the article is ok --Alex 8194 (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. It has a perfect fair-use tag on it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Making of the character.
Is any DVD of Family Guy available where I can get information like that? Because I'd love to use it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

His birthday
So i've seen a few things to indicate he was born in July. one episode he said he was a leo, but then in the The Fat Guy Strangler episode the doctor said, oh born in July, does that make you a cancer? Leo and cancer both are in the month of July. Any ideas? Holdyourhorseis (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can source it properly, I'd say go for it. Bet per WP:DATED don't add his birthyear, because he is a fictional character, and he doesn't age. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

idk but in one episode it states that he is 43 years old--The real rj (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not relevant to this section, this is discussing his birthday, what month he was born. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another good image gone...
It's NOT a good thing, we need the images so people don't have to use Google Images every time they want to see how something looks like. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Such images are only allowed under Wikipedia's fair use policy when they are "for critical commentary". Unless a free use image of Peter is made available (unlikely), we may have to do without. Copyright complaints are a very direct way in which Wikipedia could be financially harmed. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank god it's sourced now. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Brother?
Peter has a brother named Thadeus he is even seen and refrenced by his mother in the series shouldnt he be placed in the info box? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.221.176 (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You should check the Table of Contents, cos Thaddeus is discussed earlier on this page. He is a one-shot gag from the episode "Mother Tucker", and seems to exist outside the continuity of the show. In fact, Thaddeus Griffin currently redirects to the "Mother Tucker" article. If this becomes a regular character, then we add him; seems unlikely. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Very unlikely indeed, unlike Peter's biological father, it isn't confirmed if he's truly his brother. It can be anyone with a mustache. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

But Thaddeus is also mentioned by Thelma Griffin in a later episode.
 * Is that so? Well, you should source that episode then. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I heard him mentioned in a few episodes but it can be hard to recall which ones. He belongs there. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petty773 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there is no end of story, if you're talking about that one episode where his brother is a background character, give a better source. Background character in ONE episode doesn't make him notable. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing Thaddeus from Peter's info box he is peter's brother he is mentioned by Thlma griffin, Peter and Lois —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.221.176 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Source the episodes then. How hard can it be? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We're talking about a one-time gag in a single episode. That is much less than Lois's brother Patrick, who was not only the focus of almost an entire episode ("The Fat Guy Strangler"), but was also given a backstory and an explanation for why Lois didn't know about him. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fart jokes
While this was a good reversion of a trivial detail, it would be worth noting here that Peter is the main contributor to the shows oft-acknowledged flatulence humor. Some well-sourced second party references to the show's love of both deliberate offensiveness in general (I'm told Seth has stated they deliberately try to include offensive material) and fart jokes (explicitly acknowledged at least once within the show, plus there's all the actual farting) in particular should also be added to the Family Guy page. If this seems hard to write well, perhaps rather than making a buncha clumsy insertions, it might be good to compile them on a talk page, and then have someone work on a paragraph. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter's name
Shouldn't we write Peter's full name also outside the template? --Ivan Isaak (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Meg
Should it be mentioned that he tried to rape Meg in "Airport '07"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.37.124 (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't because that's one episode situation that doesn't affect the show in any way. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The complicated non-continuity of Peter's ancestry
Family Guy has had fairly good continuity on several plot points. Peter's ancestry is not one of them. Nate Griffin looks like a black version of Peter Griffin, so why is BlazikenMaster so sure that Nate is an ancestor of Francis and not Peter? And why does Mickey McFinnegan look like an Irish version of Nate Griffin? The show has been far more consistent about Lois coming from a privileged background. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said I was sure or unsure of anything, it has already been discussed whether or not to include African American in the infobox. Just look at the archives. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I never said Nate is an ancestor of Francis, I was mainly reverting something that has already been discussed. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Has there been any other reference to McFinnegan since that episode? And for that matter, is Family Guy coming back on in May or in September? (I'm looking forward to "Road to Germany"). Robert Happelberg (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is indeed a very good question. I have only seen the FG episodes out on DVD, but even if he didn't make any other appearance, it's clear that in that particular episode Peter's Irish father is his true father. I doubt that Nate is related to Peter, and again I never said he is related to Francis so my best answer to this question: so why is BlazikenMaster so sure that Nate is an ancestor of Francis and not Peter? is Because I never said that, if I remember the episode correctly, Peter was mainly reading book or something. I'd find McFinnegan as Peter's father be more clear than Nate. Also don't forget that Nate hasn't made fair amount of appearances either. He was once more in Untitled Family Guy History, but he isn't actually a recurring character either. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's all speculation and your personal beliefs, no one has ever discussed the idea Nate Griffin might be Peter's Mother's grandparent. Until further citations are provided we shouldn't try and draw our own conclusion on what is true and what is not in the Family Guy universe, otherwise Wikipedia completely loses any credibility it once had. K.H (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Peter a sperm donor?
If so please explain how. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He did go to a sperm bank in "Sibling Rivalry," but with the intent of preserving his sperm prior to a vasectomy. He did not intend his sperm to be implanted into a woman other than Lois. (Though Phil Farrand would wonder why Bertram looks nothing like the mother who eventually gave birth to him). Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Francis Griffin.jpg
The image Image:Francis Griffin.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 Media copyright questions. --09:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter and the 4th Grade
In the episode And the Weiner Is, Peter's life flashs before his eyes and we find out that he didn't actually pass the 4th grade until a few hours before the flashback. Should that be noted under mental ability or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.85.132 (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No because it is just a joke. Using throwaway comments or jokes as a source of information is specifically mentioned as something to avoid in Manual of Style (writing about fiction); doing so is "in-universe" because it is giving excessive weigh to something that probably does not matter, but would matter if it happened in the real world. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Rivalry with Earnie
Would the fact that Peter establishes the Earnie's grudge against Peter by traveling back in that constitute an ontological paradox? If it does, I'd like to add that fact to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you talking about? I vaguely remember Peter doing something to make Ernie mad, but can't remember. What episode is it, so I can take a look.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 15:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was Meet the Quagmires, the episode where Peter goes back in time to save his marriage, and ends up accidentally punching Ernie, explaining the grudge he holds against Peter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 07:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, with the expired coupon, is that what you mean? I don't think "back in time" episodes follow the normal order of things on the show  C T J F 8 3 Talk 19:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, no, the expired coupon came in Da Boom. I'm talking about the reason Ernie gave him the coupon in the first place.  Does that fall under the category of ontological paradox.


 * Second, how do you know back in time episodes are not canon? Did Seth MacFarlane say so himself?  Otherwise, you're publishing original research.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's settle this
Look above, at the section titled "Peter and the 4th Grade." The response to that question is, and I quote, "No because it is just a joke. Using throwaway comments or jokes as a source of information is specifically mentioned as something to avoid in Manual of Style (writing about fiction)."

The gag about creationists being stupider than retards is only a throwaway gag in the episode Petarded, and is never even spoken orally, only written on a cardboard sign. Therefore, it doesn't belong here.! If it were a recurring gag, like that of Ernie the Giant Chicken, then it would belong, but it only makes a cameo appearance in one episode, and therefore is not notable enough to be included anywhere but the cultural references section of the Petarded article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be easier to believe that was your intent if you were removing the entire line about Peter's IQ test. But you've just been removing the clause about creationists, as if you felt personally offended as a creationist (I don't know if that's the case, but that's what the edit history makes it look like). Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly right, Wikipedia isn't here to make sure people aren't offended by what is said on here. Dstebbins is currently blocked for 24 hours for vandalism and incivility.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 16:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may play devil's advocate: Why is it so important for this article to repeat the slam against the creationists? The point of that paragraph is to show that Peter is not smart; that point can come across without slamming the creationists.
 * On the other hand, I must admit that the argument that "The gag about creationists ... is only a throwaway gag" doesn't hold water. A true throwaway gag is not motivated by the plot and it can be neatly edited out of the episode without affecting the storyline (that is, it's not part of the fabula or even the syuzhet). Nor was the gag about Peter completing the fourth grade as an adult a throwaway either: it was in a series of flashbacks, but those flashbacks were very clearly motivated by the plot and show a very clear relationship to the plot (in the last flashback he even says he has to take his son hunting).
 * Sorry for being so longwinded without clearly standing on one side of the line on this. ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, people need to not worry about creationists getting slammed. Deal with it!! If I complained every time gays got slammed in Family Guy, South Park or most shows, I'd be complaining non stop. Just take it as a fun joke, and move on!  C T J F 8 3 Talk 22:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, first of all, the reason I didn't delete the entire sentence is because his retardation is a recurring gag. Second, gay jokes are also recurring gags because they appear numerous times throughout the series.  I have no problem with creationists getting slammed as I'm not even one myself (more like creationary-evolutionist), so don't play the "you're just offended" bullshit because it's just that: Bullshit.  Also, the throwaway gag thing does hold water because they could have had the entire episode without it.  The episode would have held just as much merit and made just as much sense without that gag.  Tell me, how is the creationist gag essential to the plot of this or any Family Guy episode? In the episode Screwed the Pooch we find out that Peter isn't Meg's real father and Stan Thompson is. So I have a hunch that Peter treats Meg badly cause she's not his biological daughter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

An I.Q. test confirms that his low intellect places him in a category below mentally retarded, but above Creationists.
 * We could remove the words "but above Creationists" and the line wuold still be grammatically correct _and_ get across the point that Peter is a retard. But on the ohter hand, those three words can help someone verify that the cited episode does indeed say what we say it does. Slappywag42 (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The Griffin ancestors are fakes!!
In the episode Peter's Two Dads we found out that Peter's real father is Mickey McFinnigan, implying that Peter's a McFinnigan. So dispite the episode Untitled Griffin Family History Peter's not related to Nate Griffin,Jabba the Griffin or any other ancestors he mentions. But as for Stewie, in the episode Deep Throats he mentions his cousin Stewie Cruise. This person may actually be related to Stewie but not Peter. Due to the lack of Griffin in his name. Including cousins don't always have the same last names. Like for example I have a cousin named Cory Baxter and my last name is Melvin. In the episode Screwed the Pooch we find out that Peter isn't Meg's real father and Stan Thompson is. Meaning that she could've been adopted, and Peter treats her bad because she's not his biological daughter.(Time4CrymeTime (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)).
 * Of course they are fake! This show uses a lot of one time jokes, for relatives, and many other things. Meg's real dad is Peter, obviously Jabba the Griffin is a parody of Jabba the Hutt, Stewie Cruise is a joke about Tom Cruise, etc, etc, etc. None of them should be added to any page  C T J F 8 3 Talk 21:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Except for Mickey McFinnigan and the Griffins Nate and Francis, Peter's ancestry seems to be just a recurring premise for jokes, which WP:WAF warns against treating like facts. Also, since this is a work of fiction with loose continuity, it is possible a future episode will further confuse or contradict the Nate/Mickey/Francis lineage, perhaps with Brian saying something withering about audience members who object. Since his lineage cannot be objectively verified (like a real person's could be), such speculation is not even wrong, it's unverifiable and irrelevant. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean all this time you thought Peter Griffin's ancestors were real? Reliable   Forever talk 18:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably, but unless we can find a verifiable source that says the reason Peter has so many ancestors in the show is for the use of humor and/or gags we cannot state it in the article. RCNARANJA 23:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight on cutaway gag ancestors
The current Ancestry section has a good first paragraph, but what follows intersperses the three story-important ancestors (Mickey McFinnigan and the Griffins Nate and Francis) with a bunch of cutaway ancestors, confusing the narrative and giving the cutaways undue weight. This should be re-written to emphasize the three important characters, and then explain without excessive detail that the rest are gags which have not been further elaborated. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's done easily enough, and I just did it. I do thank you for getting other people's input instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
 * I don't like the last paragraph, but I won't delete it just because I don't like it. It might benefit from some rewording. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter isn't Meg's biological father.
Peter Griffin: And Meg's real father is.. Brian Griffin: Stan Thompson.

It is clearly stated in that episode, that Peter isn't Meg's real father. That could possibly mean Peter treats Meg badly because she's not his biological daughter. If this is true, then it is possible she was adopted. Just like in an episode in season five we find out that Peter Griffin and Nate Griffin aren't even related, as Peter's real father is Mickey McFinnigan. Although this is a cutaway gag, it could be true. That means she is not related to Stewie or Chris.She didn't hear though, as she had headphones and was listening to music.


 * This has already been beaten to death, several times. See here Talk:Peter_Griffin/Archive_3.  And don't forget to sign your posts =)  DP 76764  22:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The age of Peter and Lois
Anyone know if there age changes during the show. In the episode Let's Go To The Hop, Lois says that Peter is two years older than her. Although in the episode, Meet the Quagmires, they were both 18 in the year 1984.(Or was it another year?)). Lois states that Peter is 43 years old (in the episode where Peter beats up Kyle and Lois scolded her about it)).Although Stewie says Peter is 42 in the episode where Stewie gets to be in the show "Kids Say The Darnest Things".(Cameron Alli (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)).
 * I don't know, though I'd need to clarify this first. You've also mentioned South Park. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 06:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All kind of moot now, as the age field has been removed from the infobox template. DP 76764  (Talk) 06:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)