This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Road to Germany article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Road to Germany has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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.
/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)
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)
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)
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.
The opening theme was a remix of the opening credits of the miniseries The Winds of War, which was about WWII.
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)
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/?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)
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)
Section looks really good currently. [1] Nice work on the sources! Dp76764 ( talk) 18:02, 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)
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 citation needed tag from that line. Neo16287 ( talk) 18:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
We have sourced several of the "cultural references" to the primary source of the episode itself, giving us such informative material as:
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)
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)
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)
WHY FRIKKIN NOT? FallenMorgan ( talk) 20:07, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This content
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)
This of course is all regardless of the fact that even saying the rabbi is referring to Jesus is WP:OR.
Crucified who? Grsz Review! 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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 So Why 13:57, 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.]
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)
"Original research"
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
By that logic, I could write that Iraq really had weapons of mass destruction [1]. 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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Road to Germany article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Road to Germany has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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.
/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)
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)
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)
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.
The opening theme was a remix of the opening credits of the miniseries The Winds of War, which was about WWII.
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)
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/?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)
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)
Section looks really good currently. [1] Nice work on the sources! Dp76764 ( talk) 18:02, 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)
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 citation needed tag from that line. Neo16287 ( talk) 18:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
We have sourced several of the "cultural references" to the primary source of the episode itself, giving us such informative material as:
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)
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)
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)
WHY FRIKKIN NOT? FallenMorgan ( talk) 20:07, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This content
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)
This of course is all regardless of the fact that even saying the rabbi is referring to Jesus is WP:OR.
Crucified who? Grsz Review! 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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 So Why 13:57, 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.]
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)
"Original research"
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
By that logic, I could write that Iraq really had weapons of mass destruction [1]. 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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)