Talk:Turban Cowboy

Untitled
Added explanation of the deleted scenes as there is an influx of traffic to this article.146.163.110.217 (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2013 (Turban Cowboy)
Paul Joseph Watson of www.infowarscom/family-guy-episode-predicted-boston-marathon-attack Infowars.com] maintained on April 16th, 2013 that it's not a hoax, but failed to mention that the two scenes in question have nothing to do with the other within the overall plot, and just stating that there were two scenes in the same episode.

Xangel0228 (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have closed the request solely on the basis that it is only to be used when accompanied by a specific, "change X to Y" request to change the article. I have no comment on the merits of the above comment. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 April 2013
The recent edit regarding a purported hoax is heavily biased. The original episode which FOX removed from it's website and from Hulu does in fact contain the scenes which others reported as a 'hoax' simply because the scenes were spliced together for brevity. The text immediately after "...denounced" should be reworded to remove the "the" preceding the word "hoax", and should be replaces with the words "it as a", such that the phrase instead reads "...denounced it as a hoax....", rather than "denounced THE hoax". The splicing of the scenes itself does not clearly infer any intention of perpetrating a hoax, and it is never claimed that the episode actually aired in the manner in which the splicing could otherwise suggest. Rather it appears to be done for quick demonstration of the point being made, so that one doesn't have to view the entire episode in order to see the two relevant scenes. FOX and the Family Guy writers appear to be distancing themselves from the controversial content by making statements supporting the idea that it was just a hoax (and thus the subsequent removal of the episode from the online lineup to remove easily accessible evidence to the contrary). For source information, please find any DVR'd version of the original broadcast.

24.8.199.156 (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have closed the request solely on the basis that it is only to be used when accompanied by a specific, "change X to Y" request to change the article. I have no comment on the merits of the above comment. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia user's attempts at suppressing the truth
TVfanatic.com notes this quote regarding the original broadcast episode which mention the Boston Marathon murders: "Humor that offends is one thing, and there were moments like that, such as the casual extreme violence of Peter's cell phone triggering explosions."

Their quotes page also records this as a significant quote from the Turban Cowboy episode: Both of these events are also documented on the Digibytes web site.

As A. David Lewis notes on patheos.com the carnage Family Guy causes to win the Boston Marathon. He observes, "Keeping in mind that Turban Cowboy featured gags about gays, vehicular homicide to win the Boston Marathon, and paraplegic fart jokes..."

Subtitlesbank.com maintains a log of the subtitles that were broadcast in the original episode. It notes the following numbered phrases and timings:

Many screen captures from this episode remain documented around the internet. The actual episode has been removed from several online TV websites including tv.com and hulu.com as of 16th April 2013.

This Wikipedia needs to be unlocked so as not to be apart of the massive cover up that is going on in the world media at the moment and the above information needs to be added to be part of a fair and honest record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.197.149 (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to be unlocked. The simple fact is that the episode depicted a mass killing at the Boston Marathon at 3:33, and twin explosions at 15:16. 146.163.105.85 (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This whole thing is hilarious, fucking conspiracy nuts, man. Nobody is denying the episode aired or that it contained those scenes when it did air but the majority of the population are just not stupid enough to believe that it's somehow connected to the bombing. This article just needs to be protected from any such idiots who think they are connected trying to claim otherwise. Syko Conor (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

hoax?
The SUBJECT/TITLE in the article is definitely wrong, it says "Hoax", while there is no hoax.

A HOAX would have been some people making effort of animating and imitating the voices of the characters, and then trying to fool the world that it was aired when it was not.... This is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.182.156.228 (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it is wrong to blame this on Alex Jones as the first to break this story. I posted the original youtube video of it on my facebook hours before Alex covered it. The original youtube video was not created or uploaded first by Alex Jones. I don't know who it was who originally did it because it got deleted and banned on youtube before I could go back to it and see who had originally posted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.103.113 (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The suppression of Paul Watson's Video is outrageous censorship and should itself be the subject of an article.
The discussion regarding Seth Macfarlane's evidently disgusting episode of Family Guy is already missing the point. Paul Joseph Watson had every right to splice the two scenes together and create a voice over commentary. That is Fair Use, and that is embedded in the Copyright Law in order for the copyright law not to swallow the First Amendment.

Google/ Youtube is a company with massive market power. I personally worked on a Department of Justice's probe into an attempt by Google to effectively merge with Yahoo in 2008 and there was great fear within the DOJ of the combined market power of the two companies despite Yahoo only having 12 percent of the search market. It was obviously Google's great power that the DOJ feared. Proper enforcement of the Sherman anti-trust act would break up Google the way the old Ma Bell was broken up.

Compare Google's power to that of poor old Paul Joseph Watson. The man spliced two clips from an episode of Family Guy and, while clearly pointing out that this might not be evidence of anything, that it was, at the very least, peculiar. That's all he said. He did not say that the episode had predicted the attack except in the sense that it could be a cultural meme inserted by someone with the power to carry out such an attack and cover it up. He made it very clear that any notion of this was highly speculative but he was showing it to the public because it was strange and interesting.

This is exactly the type of commentary that is protected by the First Amendment and by Fair Use.

Now look at the response of our near monopoly Google, our most trusted allegedly balanced source of information Wikipedia and the mainstream media.

Seth MacFarlane sends out a tweet and tells the 'Big Lie'. Watson was abhorrent? No, I beg to differ. Family Guy's 'humor' is generally pretty abhorrent. The show is absolutely disgusting and I don't find it funny at all. It's not edgy like South Park, it's just stupid. Beyond that, this episode of Family Guy clearly makes fun of the idea of people being blown up by terrorists. So Macfarlane has no right to call anyone else's commentary abhorrent. What does he expect, he gets to poke fun of people being blown up, and no one else gets to even comment on it? A responsible media would have provided some balance regarding MacFarlane's statements, but no, the mainstream media took up MacFarlane's war cry and the editors of Wikipedia backed him up. The history of the page shows that the solidarity Wikipedia first showed to MacFarlane was greatly toned down. However, it remains a one sided commentary that misses the real story. The real story is no longer whether Watson perpetrated a hoax -- which he most obviously did not. The real issue now is how could this censorship be permitted. How can Google just take your channel down for posting obviously Fair Use material. Then while you are struggling with Youtube, the mainstream media passes what is, for all practical purpose, a Bill of Attainder against you and then Wikipedia makes an encyclopedia entry only giving MacFarlane's side -- blatantly taking his side at first and then toning it down, but never showing the other side of the story.

Is there some requirement that Paul Joseph Watson must correctly portray every in and out of the Turban Cowboy plot in order to have not committed a hoax? The hoax attack was clearly meant to portray the idea that Watson created the scenes himself -- for example -- plugged in his own voice track, or took scenes so out of context that he was creating an accusation that was completely false. Well you know what, thanks to Fox and MacFarlane taking the show off the internet, I've never been able to see the entire episode and no one else will. So this juggernaut of falsehood takes the whole episode down and then attacks Watson for taking MacFarlane out of context. Out of context? Does he deny that he created a cartoon showing that stupid character Peter -- the head guy of the show -- blowing people up with his cellphone? Did Watson lie about that? Did Watson lie that the cartoon showed Peter winning the Boston marathon by blowing up the other runners? I proffer that if MacFarlane and Fox are so incredibly upset that Watson misconstrued the wonderful high minded plotline of this Family Guy episode, they should absolutely KEEP TURBAN COWBOY ON THE INTERNET so we can all watch the entire episode and decide for ourselves.

But no -- they don't want to do that. That would be too much in the spirit of democracy.

So they take the episode down, yank Watson's video off Youtube, slander Watson and Wikipedia basically goes along with it.

No, the story here is no longer about Watson's video and it's hoaxity or lack thereof. The issue now is much bigger. This was an incredible Orwellian act combining the power of several large corporations and a respected not for profit demonizing a small time journalist with access to only one small to mid-sized media outlet. This should not be allowed to be shoved down some memory hole ala 1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balancetcowboy (talk • contribs) 04:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you 100%.
 * I found a link to a likely copyvio version of the episode in the comments section of this video on YouTube and wasted 20 minutes watching it. The scenes are there – unless the whole episode is a hoax, as some of the headlines seem to suggest.
 * I edited the section, to make some sense of this. The real story here seems to be that the networks had to pull the episode from circulation, as showing it would now be seen as bad taste. I believe the subtitle should be changed from "Conspiracy theory" to something else, maybe "Controversy". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WQeqE943Uo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlDBcZCLJCY

Drsruli (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The "conspiracy theory"subtitle is misleading
The above "The suppression of" talk section and its replies shows that the issue with this article can be diffused be retitling the section in terms of "controversy". There was no [conspiracy] but merely an article posted with a widely intense unexpected reply. Paul Watson's article merely pointed out peculiarity - it was not a theory it was a question - begging a question in light of unforeseen events. The facts are that the episode did raise some suspicions due to its content: carnage at the boston marathon, islamic terrorism, two explosion with screaming crowds, etc. The fact is the episode was "too close to home" after the absolute horror of Boston Marathon 2013, with no disrespect intended for the killed and injured (it did not ridicule them). There was a "merely pointing out" the episode with questions which was returned with a massive reply of unprecedented denial and ridicule by Seth Mcfarlane, Youtube and the mass media. THAT is the controversy that should fairly be reported on, and properly Cited with one or more references in the spirit of fair and proper Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.197.149 (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)