Talk:Brian Griffin/Archive 2

In-universe, original research, plot recap, and such

Manual of style (writing about fiction) speaks to much of what is wrong with this article. Lots of episode recap is used to make just a few points, and in some cases original research or synthesis is a problem. I've tagged some parts {{Or}} that should be reconsidered and either removed or rewritten. I also noted a few other points of concern in editors comments.

This article is certainly much-improved over how it looked a year or two ago. One detail I'm not sure about is whether Lois and Brian were actually described as married in "Perfect Castaway"; if so, this wouldn't merit much mention outside the zoophilia section since it is basically depicted in passing as a plot device. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Having see Perfect Castaway recently, I can say for sure that Lois directly states that she's "married to Brian" in the episode. But yeah, it was mostly a device for that episode (though it does contribute to the continued infatuation Brian has for Lois). Dp76764 (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have untagged this. And yes it does fall under "ongoing frustration", good point. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

why keep putting original research notices? if you want a source get the DVDs.--Greenday21 (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

• Does the 'in-universe' tag still belong on this article? And how about other FG character articles? Seems a little inconsistent. Dp76764 (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Brian endorses Obama

The entire article is about a fictional character, and the section called "political beliefs" is about the fictional character. So why keep removing his endorsement of Obama on the basis that he's a fictional character?--Loodog (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Brian being a fictional character may not by itself rule out mention of this endorsement, tho the clip is short and not big news. The Political beliefs section is very verbose and rambling, and (like much of this article) should be re-written so that it makes a point, rather than just recapping anecdotes one after another. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The point would be I suppose that Brian consistently has Democratic beliefs.--Loodog (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've already mentioned, it isn't important, because he is a fictional character, and because his endorsement isn't on the episode, but a random youtube video, and we have no idea who made that video. I have no doubt that MacFarlene is supporting Obama, by his contributions[1], but we can't list every thing about characters outside of the show. CTJF83Talk 17:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ctjf83 is right, it's unimportant. --TheLeftorium 17:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's just as unimportant as anything else in his "bio" about political beliefs. Why single out the Obama endorsement? How is it different from the entire SECTION of the article? And it's obvious who made the clip. If anything, the unprecedented explicit endorsement of a candidate is far more relevant and notable than a set of inferred political beliefs. There's controversy now as to whether the show should gotten involved.--Loodog (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've already explained, everything on the page is in show, not an outside source. CTJF83Talk 18:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder: "in show" is not the standard, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Real-world_perspective. The Peter Griffin article has an appearances outside Family Guy section which includes Peter's appearance in Subway ads. Perhaps Brian Griffin could benefit from some of this real world information. If Brian's political leanings can be said to "mirror" MacFarlane's (as the Political beliefs section does say), messages of this sort presented in character, outside of the show's context and seemingly without any other purpose (the clip is not even funny), better illustrate MacFarlane speaking through this character.

I'm not sure the endorsement clip is notable enough to merit inclusion at all—it's short and makes no nontrivial points ("Republicans suck" being a trivial point), and I'm not seeing evidence of attention from secondary sources—but for FG articles to start excluding "unimportant" trivia here seems inconsistent. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see that distinction as a key part of your argument. Take, for example Stewie's outside appearances. Since they're made and produced by the same people, and done so consistent with and in context to the Family Guy "Universe", the distinction is artificial. The only difference is when it's aired.--Loodog (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as "FG articles to start excluding 'unimportant' trivia here seems inconsistent", I always exclude unimportant trivia, but I'm only one person, and am not spending all day, for weeks cleaning up every FG page. Also, as far as saying it is on Planet FG, so? As far as I can tell, that is a fan site, in no way affiliated with MacFarlene or the show. Also, will this endorsement even matter after Tuesday? I don't think so. CTJF83Talk 18:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) It's not a matter of mattering in any political sense. I severely doubt Brian's (Macfarlane's) endorsement will change a single person's vote. It's a matter of being notable to the show like anything else in this article. As far as trivia, if we're going to start removing it, there's a lot to remove before getting to the Obama endorsement, which is notable in and of itself since it's an unprecedented type of action for the show. The clip, IMO, rises above the importance of Brian's inferred opinions compiled through years of episodes on race, or even politics.--Loodog (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure Brian is still an Athiest?

Because he saw Jesus perform a miracle in front of his eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega31098 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't stated otherwise. And until he does he is still an Atheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.62.242 (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, just because he saw jesus, doesn't mean he isn't atheist. CTJF83Talk 14:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

He could very well regard Jesus as just another supernatural entity, like Death. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well his jaws dropped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega31098 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What I don't get is how Brian suddenly became an atheist in the first place. In the episode "If I'm Dyin', I'm Lyin', he clearly showed a belief in God and the Plagues of Egypt; he even slapped Peter across the face while telling him that God was pissed with him. In my opinion, the atheist part of his character is just a one-episode thing, like a lot of other character traits in Family Guy, like Stewie's masochism in "Peter's Two Dads". Nintendoman01 talk, 7:02, 01 December 2008

• You don't have to be religious to remember the plagues of Egypt stories. Knowing them does not equate to a belief in god. That was an early episode too, iirc; the characters have changed a bit since then. Either way, feel free to add an opposing view, but I hope you are prepared to source it very well. =) DP76764 (Talk) 00:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right. But what about the episode "Boys Do Cry"? Brian goes to church with the other Griffins. Why would an atheist ever go to a church, the very place on the planet where people worship God? I know that's an earlier episode, too, but it's a lot later than "If I'm Dyin', I'm Lyin'" . Nintendoman01 talk, 5:45, 15 December 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.236.98 (talk)

• Again, you don't have to be religious to understand/attend religious things. As an example, I (an athiest) enjoy church services from time to time. I find it an interesting venue to observe and analyze. DP76764 (Talk) 23:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you've beaten me. If all of the evidence I've come up with to show that Brian does believe in God isn't really evidence, then I guess he's been an atheist since the beginning of the show. Either way, if I was an atheist (and thank God I'm not), and saw Jesus Christ himself perform a miracle, I would instantly become a believer. Nintendoman01 talk, 5:26, 16 December 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.236.98 (talk)

• It's not a question of 'beating'; the problem is that all your evidence has been basically original research (ie: you are drawing your own conclusion). Basically what you would need is a direct statement from Brian or one of the show's staff stating explicitly that Brian is a believer of X. We could also be dealing with a scenario where he acknowledges the existence of the God character and yet chooses not to associate himself with any existing organized religion (ie: spiritual but not religious). The problem is there's no evidence for any of that. Maybe someone will ask Seth about it in an interview someday. DP76764 (Talk) 23:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, one day someone will ask Seth MacFarlane so we can settle the question of whether or not Brian is an atheist one and for all. Nintendoman01 talk, 8:00, 16 December 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.236.98 (talk)

Attn. regarding watching shows and then writing about/from them

Take a look at WP:PRIMARY: As has been discussed there,

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles.

In a nutshell,

Primary sources should be sourced for what they explicitly say. But remarks about their significance ... need to be sourced to secondary sources. (source)

I think a lot of pruning of this article can be justified on not having external references.

As for the eventual rebuttal that WP readers are also fans of FG who also write secondary sources, well, then it should be easy enough for those fans to actually start a website and do it themselves so they can add it to Wikipedia. After all, WP isn't a place for original discussion!. If someone replies with, "then we can't write anything", then its best not to write anything... 118.90.58.242 (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

THAT"S IT!!!

I'm getting really pissed off that someone keeps changing Brian's age to seven when he's eight. If you've seen the episode The Man with Two Brians on tv, or anywhere you'll know that I'm right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach Benjamin (talk • contribs) 21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't change everything just because of one episode! CTJF83Talk 22:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ages are not constant in Family Guy, nor do they increment in real time. Perhaps we should leave Age out of the infoboxes for FG characters. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

We should! We had this same problem around a year ago with The Simpsons characters, I Support removing the age entry in the infobox. CTJF83Talk 03:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was looking at the template earlier; looks like a 'dob' field was already removed. How did the Simpsons articles resolve the issue? Are there any 'standards' we can follow? DP76764 03:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The main WP:Doh project members were tired of reverting ages, and they were getting changed all the time. So User:Scorpion0422 finally just removed the age section from the template, and things have never been better! lol. But seriously, they always change depending on the episode, so no reason to list them. While we're at it, I'm not sure Hair color, religion, or heritage are really important to list either. CTJF83Talk 04:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Guess that's how easy it is, eheh. Should probably get more opinions on it then just the 3 off us though? DP76764 04:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, we're a few of the main members..and I know Qst would agree to remove it. But his IRC says he will be away til mid December. Let's just be bold and remove age for sure. You two can weigh in on my other 3 removal suggestions. CTJF83Talk 04:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Bold feels good! [2] DP76764 04:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Religion, Heritage, Hair color for FG character infoboxes

You want to comment on my other 3 suggestions? CTJF83Talk 05:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, religion I think may be somewhat useful (though mainly for the adult characters). The other two could probably be done away with. It seems like the purpose of most of those little trivia bits is mainly for a few gags in a few episodes, so it's not like they have much continual pertinence. The Simpsons templates look very nice, imo; clean and simple, no excessive distractions. DP76764 05:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

haha, that's cause we are the better project!! ;) Yes, the ones I mentioned are not really main points. CTJF83Talk 06:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

My thinking:

Religion

would be significant if we were doing Davey and Goliath, but in FG this field is prone to speculation, slow edit warring and OR. Stewie's religion is frequently changed, Peter may be a Rastafarian in a future episode, and religion is probably insignificant for the non-Griffin characters. I say Remove.

Heritage

significant only for Peter, Lois, and their parents (who probably do not merit freestanding articles), and Peter may be revealed as a Jewish aborigine in a future episode. This should be handled in the article body. Remove.

Hair color

observable and identifying, well-suited for infoboxes. However, there is some debate on exact colors. I don't have an opinion pro or con on this one.

/ edg ☺ ☭ 12:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. IMO the infobox is a reasonably small size so it is ok; the problem is what the infobox is there for---either its to describe the "in-show" attributes, talking about the character, or its to describe "out-of-show" attributes such as first air date, etc, talking about the dog as just another work unit for the animators. Either approach is fine, though I'd like to see a choice being made and have it stuck to. Sorry for diverting the argument :D I think hair color is fine. 118.90.88.214 (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Being bold does feel good! lol, I removed religion and heritage. CTJF83Talk 02:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

original research

most of this article, in common with many other articles about tv shows, is no more than the contributor's opinion, ie original research; this particular article cites 1 or 2 sources but the remainder of the numerous references are to the programme itself: someone has watched a few episodes, formed some views about Brian / Stewie etc, and set them out in tedious detail in this article

eg "It is also apparent that despite the fact Stewie speaks in a perfectly adult voice, Brian is the only member of the Griffin family that acknowledges this fact, and actually has serious conversations with him." that's your opinion boyo, no doubt based on hours of watching this programme but nonetheless your opinion only

enjoy the rest of your day

Stopgettingbondwrong (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Glib mentions of pot

Regarding the change of the marijuana usage. I added "and glib" and was reverted citing POV problems. The pot mentions are just that, glib. I don't see how it's a POV statement. While alcohol and cocaine usage become plot points for entire episodes, marijuana is brought up repeatedly without featuring into the plot, without later commentary or introduction. Brian isn't depicted as a countercultural stoner, which makes the mentions all the more glib.--Loodog (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Adjectives, such as this, need to be carefully chosen to avoid being original research and to avoid being weasel words. Exactly which definition of glib are you intending to use? One does not need to be a countercultural stoner to be a user of marijuana; an unsourced conclusion/inference like that would most likely be WP:OR. DP76764 (Talk) 21:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

glib –adjective

1. readily fluent, often thoughtlessly, superficially, or insincerely so: a glib talker; glib answers.
2. easy or unconstrained, as actions or manners.

I was going with the primary definition, that of def. #1 from m-w.com:

1 a: marked by ease and informality : nonchalant b: showing little forethought or preparation : offhand <glib answers> c: lacking depth and substance : superficial <glib solutions to knotty problems>

Perhaps we'd be more agreeable to the word "casual", which has this meaning as well.--Loodog (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds good =) I may have misinterpreted the intent of your word selection at first glance (and who knows how casual readers would interpret it). Gotta be careful with adjectives, in my book. DP76764 (Talk) 21:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed to "casual" and added that such mentions are usually "ancillary to the main plot line", which is what I really wanted to say.--Loodog (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Looks great! DP76764 (Talk) 22:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Languages

When did Brian Speak Tagalog? 69.209.211.106 (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bestiality

Brian has had some relationships with women. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this be a propaganda of bestiality? Norum (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

IRL this would be bestiality, but it's a cartoon that takes liberties both with reality and with its own internal consistency. "Propaganda of" sounds like speculation. In the show's universe, it seems taken for granted that this is okay, at least until a bestiality joke jokes comes up. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Brian Griffin = Seth McFarlane?

Is Brian supposed to be a cartoon alter ego of Seth McFarlane? I always imagine that when I'm watching. 98.14.146.100 (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is subject to speculation. If someone can find a source saying this is true (or untrue), it would be worth adding to the article. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is, and it's obvious: He has the same liberal views, is the calm cool-headed mediator, smokes pot, has the wit I'm sure Macfarlane wishes he could always have, and has the same voice. But good luck finding any sources for that.--Loodog (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

IIRC McFarlane himself explicitly states on the FG soundtrack (its bonus DVD) that Brian = Seth. I may be mistaken though. Do not put this in the article, and I will not find my soundtrack to verify this---WP:V states information has to be verified, and I will not do the verification. (Someone else can though.) See Talk:Brian Griffin/Archive 3#Attn. regarding watching shows and then writing about/from them. Just watching FG (or any primary source) and writing about the primary source is original research, and the call the cull this article has gone unheeded, indeed blatantly ignored. 118.90.28.56 (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Amorality?

Just because Brian denounces Christianity does not make him amoral... I think this needs to be moved to a different section. 72.45.254.78 (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Think what needs to be moved? There is no occurrence of the word 'amoral' in the article or talk page. DP76764 (Talk) 18:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Brian does not acknowledge the existence of god

"Despite Brian's atheist beliefs, he has acknowledged god's existence, such as in the episode If I'm Dyin', I'm Lyin', when Peter demands an explanation for the strange things going on in their house, Brian answers "God is Pissed"."

Removed this. Brian is an atheist and acknowledging the existence of god completely contradicts the definition of atheism. "God is pissed," coming from Brian, is not meant to be taken literally. 98.14.144.71 (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I know that Brian is an athiest now even after I Dream Of Jesus, after asking my question previously, because of Not All Dogs Go To Heaven.

Just for reference, that statement was intended to be taken entirely literally. The show overall has changed dramatically in tone over the years. Much as Lisa Simpson became brainy later in the series, Brian's character was turned into an atheist over time. It's not really of terribly important significance to the article, though, because that statement was basically within the context of what was going on, rather than an indication of Brian's personality. (that is, the theme was the family being literally subjected to biblical plagues, so his statements reflected it. But he never expressed any spirituality beyond that)

(oh, and in case I was ambiguous, it's just the plague reference that isn't very significant. His more recent, though irritating clumsy and grossly intolerant, character development has been ongoing and is pertinent to the character) 209.90.134.165 (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've got an idea. Could we at least put in that he did show a belief in God in the early episodes? Nintendoman01 talk, 9:22, 25 March 2009

That would probably be WP:OR DP76764 (Talk) 04:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

.....and unnecessary. Also, just cause he says, "god is pissed", that does not mean he believes in god.CTJF83Talk 06:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it kinda does. Since in the context of the events he's not just using a figure of speech. But anyway, his atheism only really emerges in Season 7 episodes 1 and 11; in any other episode it's either not an issue or he tacitly acknowledges God or Jesus (for example in Season 7 episode 2).-92.228.161.190 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm an atheist and I've said "God is pissed", "God hates you", or "I'm going to hell". I'd keep typing now but the evil monkey who lives in my closet is watching me and he's pissed.--Loodog (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I agree with Loodog, and have done the same things.....but the monkey in my closet is rather nice. CTJF83Talk 21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Racism section

Does the part about OJ really belong there?--Steven X (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed it, it didn't make sense, you don't have to be racist to be mad at the OJ verdict. CTJF83Talk 03:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

References

To me it appears as though most of the references listed are either original research or just quoting other wikipedia pages about Family Guy which boils down to OR again since those pages are OR or simple plot synopsis as well. -92.228.161.190 (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Pot use and sources

This section has been removed and I've reinstated it: Casual mentions of Brian's marijuana usage are also recurrent in the show, though are usually fleeting and ancillary to the main plot line. Despite being apparently ignorant of the herb in Road to Europe in Amsterdam, Brian has referred to buying, being in possession of, or smoking marijuana in a number of episodes. In 420, Brian successfully lobbies for the drug's legalization after being arrested for possession.

Like nearly all the article, this is based on nothing more than a simple recitation of episode plots. I've included a list of the episodes mentioned, but this is the same amount of source support as the section on racism, political beliefs, or relationships.--Loodog (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

it is analysis and commentary based on primary sources. it needs third party sourcing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Then, let's remove the entire section, which is similarly sourced, and half the article along with it, but at least do it consistently.--Loodog (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Voice

those some one have in formation about why Sth mcfarlane took the job to play Brian prter and stewie. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, cause he created the characters and the show? Also, his name is Seth MacFarlane. There's an 'a' in the 'Mac' and an 'e' in 'Seth'. DP76764 (Talk) 23:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am saying to see if there is any story behind it. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Beagle?

On tonight's FG, it seemed to say that Brian is a white Labrador when they warp into the real world. 76.225.184.84 (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Changing.

I hope no one minds if I make a few changes. There's just a few things I see right now that I wanna change. Also, I have a question, is it really MacFarlane's normal voice? I've heard both of them (Brian & Seth) and Brian's sounds a bit off. I believe I actually read something somewhere once (I can't remember where) where he stated that he even does the voice a little off from his normal. But anyway, I'll just be making a few changes, hope no one minds. --HELLØ ŦHERE 18:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Writing

This may not sound polite, but the writing in this article need help. Can anyone, for instance, explain to me what this sentence means:

Brian's design came from the dog Steve from Larry shorts, but was designed as a white Labrador Retriever, but as well he stayed Bipedal, and anthropomorphic (although in early episodes he is often depicted sitting on all fours), the design of Brian was also made a more of a human form than Steve from Larry shorts.

I understand every word, but the meaning escapes me. The article needs copy-editing. I'll take a stab at the example, and propose the following:

Brian was designed after the dog character "Steve" from the Larry shorts. And while he remained anthropomorphic, and bipedal (appearing in some early episodes sitting on all fours), Brian was drawn as a white Labrador Retriever with a somewhat more human form than his antecedent, Steve.

or

Brian was designed after the dog character "Steve" from the Larry shorts. While Brian was drawn as a white Labrador Retriever – Steve was a [PASTE BREED HERE] – with a somewhat more human form, he remained anthropomorphic, and bipedal (only appearing in some early episodes sitting on all fours).

Good luck,

--miltonBradley 11:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to help us fix it then? CTJF83 chat 17:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Couple of things

In the "Relationships with Peter" section, it says "He gets into a huge fight (a brawl, really) with Peter until they are broken up by Nathan Lane (whom Peter married while drunk)". Where it, in parentheses, "a brawl, really" this seems to me something that would be said in a conversation, not on an encyclopedia.

A lot of things in here are majorly redundant, such as his relationship with Meg. It says "Brian has had a kiss with Meg Griffin in the episode "Barely Legal". This resulted in Meg becoming very clingy towards him. When he tried to break it off, Meg became obsessed with him to the point that she baked her hair into an apple pie that she made for him, built a shrine in her room to him, and even abducted him and tied him up so they could have "good, old-fashioned, all-American fun" together."

and In "Barely Legal", he makes out with Meg at a dance after he gets drunk. The kiss affects Meg, causing her to become deeply infatuated with him. Even after he tells Meg that he doesn't want to be attached to her, she continues to harass him. The infatuated Meg kidnaps Brian and brings him to a hotel where she attempts to seduce him. However, Peter, Lois, Cleveland, Quagmire, and Joe appear and rescue Brian before she can.

This just seems to me like saying the same thing in two different sections.

In my opinion, the picture of the life sized costume of Brian is inappropriate for that section. It has no place with his background; if we really want that picture in there, maybe we should make a section on "criticism" or "reception"? A picture of him being taken away from his farm in Texas would be better.

In the "Relationships with Stewie" section, it mentions that "[Stewie] suggests that Brian forget Jillian by simply having sex with the next person he sees (Stewie then brings himself nose-to-nose with Brian and turns on the light)". I have not seen this in that episode. Was this in a DVD edition, or was it just edited out in the episode I saw?

Faster than the Speed of Love

Could someone rewrite the part on Faster than the Speed of Love to make it clear that, although the resemblance to the Iron Eagle movies is mentioned in the first episode in which details of the novel's plot are revealed in Movin' Out, Brian seemed to be unaware of the resemblance and unfamiliar with the Iron Eagle films until Lois told him in the same episode? I can't figure out how to state that information in a concise manner. Alternately, more details on the novel could be covered lower down in the article. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Puff piece

This was obviously written by someone who shares Brian's beliefs to the letter. How come there's nothing on here about Brian's constant shows of hypocricy, intolerance, self-righteousness and shallowness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyknightmare (talk • contribs) 20:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Find a source and add it. CTJF83 chat 21:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Brian really an atheist?

In the recently aired episode, "April in Quahog", Brian can be clearly observed praying some time after the news report leads the public to believe that a black hole is going to swallow the earth. Also, at the end of the episode, Brian leaves the house saying he made a deal with someone that now that the earth is spared he would go volunteer at the soup kitchen. Based on the context of the situation and Stewie's remark in the background that the 'someone' Brian made a deal with was God, this calls Brian's atheism into question and suggests that he has developed some closeted religious beliefs (though other evidence from previous episodes might lead one to suspect that they have been there all along). There are only two other explanations for this series of events that I can think of: One would be that one of the underlying ideas behind the episode is something to the tune of 'there are no atheists in foxholes', though this is unlikely because Brian can be seen following through with his promise which a person who had temporarily reverted to religion because of fear wouldn't do, let alone that any kind of conservative message is very unlike McFarlane. The other would be that McFarlane is somehow poking fun at peoples' work righteous attitude towards religion, however this is also unlikely because in order to understand the joke, an in depth understanding of what Christianity actually teaches would be required which most people (including McFarlane) likely do not posses. Forceofdarkness (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Forceofdarkness

Well, until there are sources discussing this, speculation isn't going to do much good. In terms of "people who make promises under duress don't usually follow through with them": possible, unless Brian actually has some moral fiber and values his word (such traits do not solely belong to the religious). However, until a reliable source discusses this, we have no grounds to change it in the article. DP76764 (Talk) 18:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur with DP, plus Brian told Stewie he wasn't praying, and who knows who his promise was to. CTJF83 chat 18:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

A true atheist doesn't have moral fiber as atheism doesn't provide any sort of moral guidelines to adhere to. A true atheist will never do anything unless it benefits them somehow or it feels good. The technical term for that is hedonism. Try and deny it all you want, Brian was praying and the context of the situation makes that so clear that anyone who actually watched the episode would have to be either blind and deaf or just plain dense to not understand what happened. If doing the right thing involves sacrifice that has no personal benefit, an atheist will take the easy way out every single time but this time Brian didn't. There is no way around this except to correct the gross inaccuracy of this article concerning Brian's religious beliefs or at least acknowledge that there is evidence to suggest otherwise which there clearly is.

~Forceofdarkness

Well, that is your opinion on that scene (and I am sure that there are many who would strongly disagree with your definitions), and you're entitled to it. Sure, the visuals of the episode were highly suggestive (the writers of the show like to do this sort of thing, if you're not familiar with the series), but who is to say exactly what was going on? Perhaps Brian was praying to Buddha? Until something definitive elaborates on the scene, drawing the conclusions as you are is original research and doesn't belong in the article. DP76764 (Talk) 23:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he was praying to Joe Pesci CTJF83 chat 17:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who he was praying to. It is quite clear that he is praying. The fundamentalist atheists on this site are all so open minded their brains have fallen out. They think they've found something in popular culture that they can identify with and refuse to acknowledge any other point of view besides their own. However, this doesn't surprise me as atheists are the only people who take pride in holding beliefs that will only help them get their asses kicked and will never benefit them in any way.

~Forceofdarkness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.155.230 (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil in your discourse and to comment on the content of the article, not the contributors. Additionally, soapboxing about your perceived realities of Wikipedia doesn't belong on the talk page of an article. Now, in terms of this bit of information, I'd also like to point out that this is still currently a 1-episode event and may not end up being 'canon' for the character. If the show pursues this aspect of Brian, then yes, it should be mentioned it in the article. But if this is just a 1-episode joke (which the show is highly prone to doing), then it doesn't belong. Still waiting for you to find a source discussing this rather than your own opinions. DP76764 (Talk) 00:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

@Dp76764 I don't need rules and regulations of Wikipedia parroted back to me. I can read them for myself. I tried to come on here and kindly present my idea before publishing it, but it appears that diplomacy, as usual, has failed. I'm not here to vandalize anything and I'm not going to remove the atheism parts or anything else from the article, but I will include the fact that he was seen praying in this episode because it is relevant to the subject whether you like it or not. Please get yourself a life and try to remember that you don't own Wikipedia and that if you remove my submission or alter it in any nonconstructive way you will regret it. Fucker.

~Forceofdarkness

You know the rules of Wikipedia, yet are being actively agressive, offensive and rude both to people and an entire religious belief (or lack thereof). I'm probably just feeding a troll, but hey. -DepRac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.221.219 (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Explain to me how me praying to Joe Pesci means I somehow believe in god? Brian could have been praying to anyone or anything, read WP:OR CTJF83 chat 16:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have semi-protected this article for 24 hours due to repeated insertion of Brian Griffin's supposed birthday, in which the best the users can come up with are WikiAnswers and Yahoo! Answers – neither of which are anywhere close to reliable as they are both user-generated content from other people on the Internet. I have no problem with it being included, but there needs to be something more reliable than that. –MuZemike 22:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to include this information. With edit summaries like this, I'd say block this user as either tendentious or disruptive, and move on.

There was considerable discussion of whether to include Brian's age here. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur CTJF83 chat 00:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Due to continued edit warring from presumably the same person (via another IP), I have semi-protected the article for 2 weeks. –MuZemike 19:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Unwittingly"

Someone please fix this really stupid sentence. "Quagmire has since given Brian a severe beating after Brian (unwittingly) had sex with Quagmire's transgendered father Ida (née Dan), and told Brian that no one cares about his opinion."

He did not "unwittingly" have sex with Quagmire's transgendered father. I'm not sure it's possible for a male to "unwittingly" have sex. You ever have sex and not know it? He had sex with Ida without knowing it was Quagmire's transgendered father. PatrickLMT (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to "unknowingly", sound good? CTJF83 22:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Name

Ive said this before but someone delete it. Brian's name is H. Brian Griffin. Stewie read his name as "H. Brian Griffin" in the episode Brian Griffin's House of Payne. Some one changed it go H Brian Griffen and then someone changed it to Herold Brian Griffin. STOP MAKING IT JUST BE BRIAN GRIFFIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.233.99 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So far, the 'H' is a 1-shot joke and is probably not 'canon' to the character. So, for now, it doesn't belong in this article. DP76764 (Talk) 03:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not going to just delete it anyhow because it disagrees with you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyknightmare (talk • contribs) 23:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well sourced material will not be deleted. Just avoid original research and you're good. DP76764 (Talk) 23:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

go talk to the guy named him Herold he probably knows more info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.233.99 (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Family Guy wikia page http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/Brian_Griffin states "The DVD commentary for "Brian Griffin's House of Payne" explains that the "H" in "H. Brian Griffin" does not stand for anything and was a way to express Brian as a pretentious douche." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.237.215 (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

breed

When has it been stated that he's a labrador retriever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.60.234 (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

He's actually said himself that he's a "RetrieverMixEasapekeBayBradoodle" In Season 7, Episode 14, "We Love You, Conrad"

Dab for Brian C. Griffin

I added back {{for|the American businessman|Brian C. Griffin}}. clearly this is helpful if you don't know Brian C. Griffin's middle initial. Frietjes (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable. As far as User:Reduolf13's reasoning, look at John Kennedy (disambiguation) for example. CTF83! 00:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, leave it there. But John F. Kennedy (the more famous page) has the middle initial, so people could miss it out. Whereas here (Brian Griffin), there is no initial. If people are genuinely searching specifically for Brian C. Griffin (very few I'd imagine) then they'd remember the C, or correct themselves when they arrive at Brian Griffin's page.

Anyway, you really should only have re-directs for identical names. The middle initial (C) of Brian C. Griffin, removes the identical problem. If there are more than one pages with identical titles, then you have a disambiguation page. Reduolf13.

Death

So, his death is absolutely canon, right? I believe this can absolutely confirm the death of his character. --Matt723star (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if it can be confirmed. According to the Wikipedia season 12 page, there are two upcoming episodes listing plots about Brian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear300 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

So the e-online article at http://www.eonline.com/news/484172/family-guy-s-shocking-death-boss-reveals-why-they-decided-to-kill-off-spoiler is a hoax then? Of course there is nothing stopping them from changing their mind and bringing Brian back to life, or using him in flashbacks, or as a ghost. But until they do bring him back to life he is officially dead.

There are no inline citations for any of this section of the article, nor the sentence at the beginning. Taylor2646 (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone going to lock the article with "he'll likely return" as the end of the introductory paragraph? Lame: right now we know nothing about the future episodes, it's just as possible the released info were feints to throw the fanbase off. 163.150.50.173 (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps he'll just be back during flashbacks. From all the articles I've read and even just by watching the episode alone it seems all too possible that this is a serious thing and Brian will no longer be a significant role to the show. --Matt723star (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Matt723star here, as of I have just reverted a edit by Grapesoda22 for adding a last appearance notice on the article's infobox, because by some of the episodes I have seen that had the main characters dead or been in bloody fighting incidents in which could lead to death, there is no possible way that it could be Brian's last appearance. Blurred Lines 19:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I have a feeling that this is it for him, maybe put his last appearance as "Life of Brian", and if he comes back at all, list below the last episode for him to appear in as a flashback like "Episode Name" (flashback). And of course, if it all is just a publicity stunt, we can always remove it, but for now it seems pretty final. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipodmypod300 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I say we give this a couple more episodes before we declare this as the final appearance of Brain. user:Bear300 —Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Can we remove that he's been confirmed back? Seth Macfarlane said it was a last minute decision, so the future episodes can be scraped or redone with Vinny.24.188.197.22 (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

We have to reflect what sources say and they say "Brian", so that statement should remain until facts/sourcing changes. DP76764 (Talk) 22:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is from before the episode aired (and possibly before they decided to kill Brian) and can be outdated. We should remove it as to not have possible false info and wait a few weeks until he either returns or doesn't.24.188.197.22 (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

At the end of this YouTube video from Fox it shows another episode was set to air on the 24th, before the "Life of Brian" epsiode was made, explaining unseen clips with Brian. www.youtube.com/vqjT1_r8oeU?t=4m53s 24.188.197.22 (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, the link you described, I went on it, and the video didn't seem to exist. Blurred Lines 23:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Youtube was being stupid, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqjT1_r8oeU, if it doesn't work, search "Family Guy Season 12 trailer and go to 4:50. It says "Into Harmony's Way" was supposed to air on the 24th.24.188.197.22 (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

To be frank, Wikipedia is looking a little bit ridiculous over this. The dog is dead. Any talk to the contrary is speculation. It's fine to speculate, but Wikipedia articles shouldn't be based on speculation, it undermines its credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.175.222 (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Past tense now?

Some paragraphs refer to Brian in the past tense. Should this be spread to all of them, unless/until he ever returns to the show? Tátótát (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Brian is a work of fiction, and as per WP:TENSE - "Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the present tense, not the past tense." Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we need to change him to past tense. When a human being dies, we change to past tense immediately, and sometimes revert someone doing that because no one believes it at first in sudden cases (see Michael Jackson for instance). We can still watch music videos, listen to music, etc. However, he's still dead. The comment references that Brian "still exists". This is the same thing. We (though not me because I don't) can watch old episodes of Family Guy. But Brian is no longer a character on the show. He's dead. He won't be reappearing unless there is some kind of weird time travel later in the season, and Brian then kills Vinnie. Therefore, "was" is necessary. CycloneGU (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Cyclone, but WP:TENSE is clear, and we as editors cannot arbitrarily choose which fictional characters follow this rule. One of the examples given is "Darth Vader is a fictional character from Star Wars. He's dead too. But he's still listed in present tense. Kjscotte34 (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's the thing. "Brian Griffin is a fictional character from the animated television series Family Guy". Changing this to "was" makes no sense - he is still a fictional character, and he is still from Family Guy. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Should be past tense. Here are examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maude_Flanders#Maude_Flanders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recurring_The_Simpsons_characters#.22Bleeding_Gums.22_Murphy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.96.229 (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm only talking about the lead. The "Brian Griffin was" edits truly make me go nuts. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The comment spacing above looks odd, so I'll continue down here.

After some thought, I've come to agree with the use of "is" in the header. Saying "Brian Griffin was a fictional dog" or anything else stating him as a fictional character would be effectively be suggesting that he's now a real dog, or something like that. However, it could be implied even in the lead that he WAS the Griffin's dog as, with the introduction of Vinnie, Brian is no longer the Griffin's dog. That and the fact that he's - er - dead. CycloneGU (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The 2 examples by the IP are poor. Neither say they were a character on the show. They say "was the wife" and "was a jazz musician", so it's a poor comparison. Is, is proper. CTF83! 20:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed a couple of small errors in the section detailing the Brian/Quagmire relationship, specifically Quagmire's skewering of Brian. As is : In the episode "Jerome Is the New Black", Brian learns that, despite their apparent friendship seen in episodes up to that point, Quagmire actually hates him. Brian tries to befriend Quagmire and asks why he hates him so much. Quagmire responds: "You are the worst person I know. You constantly hit on your best friend's wife, the man pays for your food and rescued you from certain death and this is how you repay him? And to add insult to injury, you defecate all over his yard. And you're such a sponge. You pay for nothing, you always say 'Oh, I'll get you later', but later never comes. And what really bothers me, is you pretend you're this deep guy who loves women for their souls, when all you do is date bimbos. Yeah, I date women for their bodies, but at least I'm honest about it. I don't buy them a copy of Catcher in the Rye and then lecture them with some seventh-grade interruption of how Holden Caulfield is some profound intellectual. He wasn't! He was a spoiled brat! And that's why you like him so much, he's you! God, you're pretentious! And you delude yourself by thinking you're some great writer even though you're terrible. You know, I should had known Cheryl Tiegs didn't write me that note. She would have known there's no 'a' in the word 'definite'. And I think what I hate most about you is your textbook liberal agenda, how we should 'legalize pot, man', how big business is crushing the underclass, how homelessness is the biggest tragedy in America. Well, what have you done to help? I work down at the soup kitchen, Brian. Never seen you down there! You wanna help? Grab a ladle! And by the way, driving a Prius doesn't make you Jesus Christ — oh, wait, you don't believe in Jesus Christ or any religion for that matter, because 'religion is for idiots!' Well, who the hell are you to talk down to anyone!? You failed college twice, which isn't nearly as bad as your failure as a father! How's that son of yours you never see? But you know what? I could forgive all of that — all of it — if you weren't such a bore! That's the worst of it, Brian. You're just a big, sad, alcoholic bore".[29]

  I'm pretty sure Quagmire said "seventh grade INTERPRETATION", not "interruption". And "should have known" for "should had known". Small errors, easy fixes, for someone confirmed to edit locked pages. I'm a little new to this & probably botching it, but I am manxbilly & my source is my memory of the episode.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.219.97 (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC) 

Brian's Announcement Hoax

In the article, The "message from Brian" part is inaccurate. The news reports state "A Special Announcement from Brian". And the owner of the hoax was Swenzy. Which have received large amount of notability for the hoax and for the company itself. Someone add Swenzy and the proper title of the countdown site. For proof of sourcesa and information please go to Swenzy's wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.162.190.150 (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)