Talk:Stewie Griffin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 24, 2009Peer reviewReviewed

Inspirations[edit]

I wonder if the inspiration for the animation aspect of Stewie's character is worth a adding to the Inspriations heading of this article. Clearly, there is a resemblance to the Lemonheads candy man and it may be the source of inspriation for Stewie's appearance. Is anyone aware of any record of any questions about how the inspiration fr Stewie's appearance? Perhaps in an interview with SM?

http://www.ferrarapan.com/html/lemonhead.html.

70.88.170.178 (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No...~ZytheTalk to me! 21:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be that he is inspired by Terrence Änd Philip? He has a highly correct way to speak English, and don't forget his strangely original head. Just like Cartman, he is a bully pronounces school as if saying "Skyüüül".--85.164.223.118 (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need a reliable source or it is WP:OR CTJF83 chat 19:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voice[edit]

This section is rather redundant, has terrible spelling, and doesn't even make sense! It's like some one just copied and pasted it part of it from the Inspiration section and added personal opinion. 99.246.21.170 (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up and trimming out most of the junk. DP76764 (Talk) 16:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voice[edit]

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)[reply]

What? He created them. They wouldn't exist if he didn't do them. --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean as if there is a story behind it, casting or something.--Pedro J. the rookie 00:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Role in family guy section[edit]

Is this section really necessary? It's really poorly written with basic grammatical mistakes and all the content within it is covered under character —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.224.147 (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agree and removed. CTJF83Talk 23:25, 13 September 2009 (U

== comment about the usual case...? Quite plainly people visit the wikipedia page with this type of question in mind - completely redacting any mention of a (mildly) controversial topic makes the wikipedia experience worse for everyone. Ronald ugh@treasurelondon.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.24.236 (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lovely sentiment, but it belies a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be; specifically, it is not a collection of every single piece of information in existence. For these aspects of fine detail about the show, fan-forums are a more appropriate venue; specifically I would recommend the FG Wikia. DP76764 (Talk) 22:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page CTJF83 chat 23:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't in any way, shape, or form. The fact that it is a common question means it's notable, and notable facts are included. The only reason we haven't included it is the lack of reliable sources. Don't use policy to beat down on people pointing out flaws in Wiki. — trlkly 13:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bertram Griffin[edit]

I excised a sentence from the opening that I could not make sense of (here's the diff.

"In addition to siblings Chris and Meg, Stewie has a half-brother Bertram who is unknown to the other Griffins." (given ref) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/04/AR2006020400220_pf.html

also refs the episode Emission Impossible.

My problem was that the Washington post link was dead, the link to Bertram only goes to a list of family guy characters (where Bertram is NOT mentioned) and the Emission Impossible only makes reference to a single sperm which is not a half-brother by any definition I'm aware of. Feel free to clarify and reinsert the sentence however. Manning (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good edit on your part. We try not to have very minor characters listed, as it leads to a lot of trouble with IPs CTJF83Talk 17:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from Emission Impossible, Bertram appears in two additional episodes: Sibling Rivalry and The Big Bang Theory. He has definitely become a recognizable recurring character that has his own paraphernalia (separately as well as with Stewie) and was also included in the video game. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BRD'd. He's a minor, 3-gag, bit character and doesn't belong in the infobox. Merchandise existing doesn't necessarily equate to notability in the series. DP76764 (Talk) 04:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with DP, very minor, infobox mention gives him WP:UNDUE weight. CTJF83 11:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then what does, DP76764? Besides, the old consensus was before the character developed from being a one time sperm to an actual baby and a recurring character, and if I'm not mistaken, consensus can change. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it can, but 2 additional appearances (for a grand total of 3) don't encourage me to change my opinion that this character is too trivial for the infobox. Perhaps a mention in the body of the article, at most. Regardless, the "relation" to the family is merely genetic. DP76764 (Talk) 21:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what is a family relation if not genetic? Bertram is Peter's son, he appears several times and his fights with Stewie are always the central episode theme. He has an action figure and a keychain, and he is also included in the videogame. Finally, we should focus on his relationship with Stewie (since the article is about Stewie) rather than the family (a discussion which would be relevant had we been editing the Griffin family article). Please tell me (because I honestly don't see it) how this still does not merit a short mention in the infobox. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's more to 'family' than mere genetics. Putting cruft like this in the infobox is just going to encourage people to add more cruft: Stewie's 'wife', Meg's real dad, Peter Griffin Jr, Quagmire's plethora of children, etc. I would suggest keeping mention of him to the body of the article. Yes, he's been the subject of a couple of episodes, but none of them have had a lasting or meaningful impact on the characters or series. Please keep in mind that these articles should be written from a 'real world' perspective, and not an 'in-universe' one. DP76764 (Talk) 20:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with DP, I also see Hear's side. If Bertram isn't listed appearing in 3 episodes, why do we have Mickey McFinnigan as Peter's real dad who appeared in half of one episode? He is no more notable/important than Bertram.
I also don't think many people would argue for the inclusion of Peter Jr. or those other examples, as none of those were more than a few second joke. I think I could be swayed to include Bertram, or remove Francis Mickey. CTJF83 11:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To DP – I already raised two valid real world points: paraphernalia for sale and inclusion in another media (video game). You, on the other hand, are trying to find in-universe impact on characters.
To CTJF – there is no need to go as far as removing Francis. After all, he was the known father figure for over 4 seasons, made a direct impact on some of Peter's character traits (and on the rest of the family as well), and even appeared in several flashbacks after his death, thus confirming character popularity. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oops I meant remove Mickey not Francis CTJF83 21:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"a meaningful impact on characters or the series" is hardly an 'in-universe' mindset. Getting back to the point, it seems like the relatives and family sections are a bit of a mess in several of these articles. So what do we do? Add more detail or trim stuff out? It would be nice to establish a standard (if there isn't already one in an MOS or something). DP76764 (Talk) 22:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Less is better in my opinion. The infobox should provide a quick glance at only the most important info. CTJF83 23:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bertram is a recurring sibling, and Mickey is Peter's biological father that is further mentioned in several other episodes. Both should be included, and it is not terribly cluttering the infoboxes. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just being mentioned isn't notable. CTJF83 10:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We've digressed quite a bit, can we agree that the Bertram consensus is now in favor of inclusion? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? How'd you come to that conclusion? Being that DP and I oppose it, and you're the only one in favor. CTJF83 02:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I would not say that consensus has changed on this yet. We can open it up for additional comments if everyone would like? DP76764 (Talk) 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a post first at WT:FG so people more familiar with the show can weigh in, and if that doesn't work then we can try WP:RFC CTJF83 03:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really, CTJF? I vaguely recall you saying you could be swayed to include Bertram... Why the tiring noticeboard chase? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
still takes more then 2 people for a consensus CTJF83 17:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus is a reflection of the pros and cons of a discussion between two or more people, and we seem to have come to the agreement that there is much more weight to Bertram than the last time a consensus was reached, therefore he meets the criteria for infobox inclusion. There is no real limitation on the number of editors required to form a consensus. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:CONSENSUS "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.". I also don't think WP:DEMOCRACY says what you're suggesting it says; it merely says that voting is not the primary arbiter on determining consensus. DP76764 (Talk) 00:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected to halt edit war[edit]

The article has been fully protected in order to halt the current edit war. You now have two weeks to discuss the dispute and determine consensus. Thank you, — Kralizec! (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category Discussion 2[edit]

Some users think Stewie should have the category, Category:Fictional LGBT characters, I do not. I think we should wait until the character actually comes out in the show. There is a previous consensus to not list it. Other thoughts? CTJF83Talk 03:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was at a stand-still; you make it sound like everyone decided not to have the category.
And that was before creator Seth MacFarlane's latest comments. --DrBat (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem with waiting until he comes out on the show? CTJF83Talk 06:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dumbledore never officially came out in the Harry Potter books, though Rowling said he was gay. Do you want to remove his category too? DrBat (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because waiting until he comes out in the show is a pointless expectation. In real life, yes, we wait until someone comes out even when it's painfully obvious because of libel laws. With a fictional character who we know is gay both from the creator's explicit say-so and Stewie's behaviour in the show, this does not apply. There is also the possibility he may never come out in the show, after all, that's part of the humour. That's not to say that all closeted gay men or gay characters who don't make a very special announcement are therefore also not gay. What we have is a character who is objectively and undeniably an LGBT character but for whom there is resistance to include in the category.~ZytheTalk to me! 10:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Latest comments from Macfarlane are nothing he hasn't said before: "Ultimately, Stewie will be gay or a very unhappy repressed heterosexual." That puts Stewie still in sexuality limbo and so we can't categorize him as LGBT. Yet.--Louiedog (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe "coming out" in-show is a necessary threshold. From the Advocate inteview (now annoyingly offline), and even the later quote Loodog chooses (also quoted in The Advocate), I think there is now sufficient real-world support for this categorization, which is otherwise obvious from Stewie's normal depiction in the show. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Advocate article can be found here. --DrBat (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DrBat. I'd fix this in the article, but (I've just learned) it is protected. Uncool, edit warring. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide a source for Macfarlane explicitly outing him, as opposed to just saying, "we don't know if he's gay yet", then I'd agree.--Louiedog (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which we don't have. We have "We all feel that Stewie is almost certainly gay" and "Stewie will be gay or a very unhappy repressed heterosexual." Neither says Stewie is gay now. I'd be more inclined to agree with using the category if we threw a Q on the end for Queer/Questioning. CTJF83Talk 16:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only argument I can see for including him is Seth's latest comments, which at the least supports that Stewie is if not gay, then the 'B' in LGBT. I don't think he needs to come out in the show. I think this is a gray area, but I would be comfortable landing on the "include" side. -->David Shankbone 18:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the third time, his remarks are nothing new. We've had the exact same discussion with Macfarlane having said virtually the same thing before. He simply is not gay. Yet. Give it a couple seasons and they'll probably start giving him boyfriends and so forth.--Louiedog (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      One time was enough. I don't care that it's "nothing new", and there is no "yet". I'm coming from the perspective that if Stewie is gay in next week's episode, that doesn't make him gay in previous episodes. The writers cannot alter already-existing episodes to change him from "not-gay" to "gay".
      However, MacFarlane's comment in Playboy says Stewie is for all intents a closeted gay male; this is consistent with his previous comments saying the writers usually treat the character as if he is gay, that MacFarlane is 90% certain Stewie is gay, and that two storylines were considered outing Stewie. And all of this real-world information is consistent with Stewie's behavior on the show for years now. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • First item: a moment of deprecation for the fact that we actually care enough to argue this much over it/entertain ourselves with inane arguments on wikipedia talk pages.
      • Now, let me contradict myself by proceeding to care too much: The quote is, Ultimately Stewie will either be gay or be a very unhappy repressed heterosexual. So let's take this in enumerated points:
      • 1. If you grant that Stewie being gay next episode means he's not gay now, then he's not. And he won't be until there's an episode of him having a moment and saying to himself, "I realize what it means now - I prefer to have sex with men!"
      • 2. We have the 10% chance that you've completely misidentified him and misjudged the writers' future choice. They've written episodes in a very suggestive way but they haven't told us yet where it's going because they honestly don't know themselves.
      • --Louiedog (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Categories should be supported by content and ideally sourced. Add content about what the character and show creator/producer states - According to MacFarlane Stewie is gay but they purposely are vague with sexuality issues. Make it NPOV and source the Playboy interview if you can, then including the category makes perfect sense. -- Banjeboi 21:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a real person guys. It's a fictional character.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stewie might consider such an assertion a BLP violation ;-) -->David Shankbone 22:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then Stewie could sue MacFarlane who is making the statements. -- Banjeboi 01:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As written, this article quotes all the relevant material from the Playboy interview. That interview is online, saving us a trip to the softcore pornography shop. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Q:“Is Stewie coming out of the closet?”
MacFARLANE: "Not yet. We had an episode that went all the way to the script phase in which Stewie does come out. [ ... ] But we decided it’s better to keep it vague, which makes more sense because he’s a one-year-old. Ultimately Stewie will either be gay or be a very unhappy repressed heterosexual. It also explains why he’s so hell-bent on killing Lois and taking over the world. He has a lot of aggression, which comes from confusion and uncertainty about his orientation."
IMHO, it's fairly obvious and has been confirmed; it would also make sense to add that tension about his sexuality lends to his aggressiveness. I also suggest that that category itself be tweaked to express that characters whose LGBT status is used as plot devices may also be included even if they are considered closeted or questioning; this may resolve this dilemma but still serve our readers who are looking for characters considered LGBT. -- Banjeboi 01:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was reading something recently in a newspaper (I don't recall which one, but I think it was Red Eye) in which there was an article called "Stewie, out." Apparently Seth MacFarlane admitted that Stewie is strictly homosexual, at least from this point on. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is everyones rush to include the category now, instead of waiting for him to come out in the show? CTJF83Talk 00:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't need to "come out" in-show—as I stated above, it would make little difference if he did. And this discussion has been on hold for over a year, hardly a rush. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

o It could be good to wait for him to come out but as it is seen the show may have no intenction of makeing him come out as MacFarlane said they where planing to make him come out in season three but did not happen because they get good jokes and gags from both sides, so i say we wait to see what happens in this season and then diceide. --Pedro J. the rookie 12:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the character is consistently portrayed as gay and written as gay but never formally comes out in the history of the show, would that make the character not gay? The "wait please" counter-argument is silly.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (per Request): Seth MacFarlane is the creator and voice of Stewie if anyone can be considered an expert on all things Stewie Griffin then he is certainly number one on the list. It is biologically impossible for Stewie to be lesbian, thus ruling out "L". "G" and "B" are the strongest contenders and "T" is currently provably false. Going on Seths comments it is unlikely the "B" is the correct answer and that "G" is in fact correct. As Stewie is a fictional character BLP considerations are not needed, so labelling a character gay cannot be considered "contentious", thus only WP:Consensus is needed. Additionally as Stewie is fictional this throws the spanner of RetCon in the works. It is entirely possible, as of episodes broadcast up-to-and-including October 2009, that Stewie is not gay. It is possible that in later episodes Stewie will be revealed to be (and more importantly has always been) gay. It is also possible that Stewie will later change into being gay, or even transsexual, or even Martian, or anything the creator wants their character to be. It is also possible that the "storyline" of Stewie being gay may be dropped at a later date and so never be considered canon. As no reliable source states that Stewie is gay or was gay or will be gay it cannot be considered canon and thus cannot be considered to be "true". I believe that the current section to be sufficient until new information is available. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion thread has been about categorization.
Canon and Retroactive continuity presume an in-universe perspective. Also, the possibility that Stewie is "changing into" gay in the show suggests an unstated (and WP:OR) plot arc that is inconsistent with the real world information we are getting from interviews that Stewie is sexually ambiguous, with several episode ideas (none made) where Stewie would have come out. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments[edit]

I assume this is in reference to the above? You should add the reason for the RFC on the RFC page, as well as putting this where it belongs. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried adding reasoning on the RFC page, but the bot reverted it. Did I not do it the right place? CTJF83Talk 19:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add the category. The Wikipedia use of "LGBT" has, in practice, never just been restricted to just lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transsexuals, and instead has the more fluid "non-hetero" definition. Stewie is definitely non-heterosexual. Sceptre (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I'm not mistaking the subject under contention here. Considering all past episodes of Family Guy, the Stewie Griffin character is undoubtedly of ambiguous character, as in various episodes he has displayed homosexual attractions, and in others he has made pointed heterosexual comments. He has also cross-dressed. Seems like "B" is on the list at all, although it does seem strange to be discussing the possible sexuality of a character that never engages in sexual activity, and is unlikely to be ever seen to do so 'in-universe'. Centrepull (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Brian Griffan[edit]

Im adding a couple of paragraphs about his relationship with brian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.195.133 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really should have added references. It's all Original Research right now, and you're likely to see your work flooded with [citation needed]s or even see it removed. Maybe not though, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S - Sign your posts with ~~~~, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all that cause it is unsourced and OR. CTJF83 chat 01:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fiction jewish character???[edit]

where is it indicated? why is this tag there?--Jrm2007 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was the episode where his mother discovered she was Jewish, so that might be it. DP76764 (Talk) 17:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay: then Lois, Chris and Meg are also jewish characters.--Jrm2007 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it as one episode doesn't make him Jewish, especially because he is baptized in The Father, the Son, and the Holy Fonz. CTJF83 chat 17:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A link to a torrent site to download the movie, classy[edit]

How on earth could this have gone unnoticed for a whole year‽ The changes were made on the 00:02, 22 August 2009 by Pedro thy master. I'm removing the the torrent site and a completely irrelevant user review website. It is horirbly written as it is so I'll probably come back and try to fix it some other time when it is not 0322 Monday morning.


PinothyJ (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)…[reply]

Ambiguous sexuality[edit]

If Stewie's sexuality is "ambiguous," the why is this article listed in LGBT catagories? Even if the writing staff arbitrarily considers him gay, and even if there was an (unaired) episode revealing his 'coming out,' it hasn't been officiated...therefore, these references should be removed. - The Real One Returns (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC) According to Word of God, on TV Tropes, McFlarene has confirmed that he was gay.I hope this helped a little bit.--Austin Robinson 01:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)User:Robinsonbecky[reply]

Hardly reliable. CTJF83 12:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TVTropes isn't "reliable", but Seth MacFarlane in a major American magazine certainly is.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Austin Robinson 23:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)User:Robinsonbecky

'English' accent?[edit]

Where does it say the intention is to give Stewie specifically an English accent? It might sound English to American ears, but in the UK it sounds more New England. Niles Crane's progeny, perhaps?--80.1.181.1 (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like Mid-Atlantic English to me. But i don't think it should be changed without some sort of citation (not that the English part should stay either) TrevorLSciAct (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's meant to be an English accdent. Seth MacFarlane has stated, many times, that Stewie's voice and some of his personality is based on Rex Harrison. With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in Road to Germany, Stewie says, "I have a British accent", when giving reasons why he should be allowed to join the WWII-era RAF. Admittedly that's pretty vague, as it could mean a Scottish, or Welsh accent, but I think it's pretty apparent (especially given the Rex Harrison reference) that English received pronounciation is what they're going for. Arthur Holland (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that, given the Seth Macfarlane reference, it's clearly supposed to be English (Americans use 'British' and 'English' interchangeably.) As 80.1.181.1 says, it doesn't sound like any sort of English accent to English ears, rather an exaggerated and affected New England accent such as that used by Loyd Grossman. --Ef80 (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty classic Mid-Atlantic accent. It would be nice to have a source for that claim though. Calling it "English" in the article is just wrong. It sounds a lot like received/BBC/Queen's English to American ears but it's not. The Rex Harrison reference above drives home the Mid-Atlantic claim but then it also appears that Seth MacFarlane might not be familiar with the term "Mid-Atlantic". Anyway, right now the article says "peculiar English" accent -- I'm going to change it to "affected English" accent which hopefully gets a little closer to the truth without straying too far into being original research (unsourced claim). SQGibbon (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe this is still ongoing. Yes, Seth MacFarlane intended it to be a British accent, that much we know. Stating anything other than his intention is WP:OR. Stating what accent it IS is WP:OR, just state what it was intended to be.Muleattack (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Murderer[edit]

Isn't Stewie technically a mass murderer?--Austin Robinson 03:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)User:Robinsonbecky

Eh, most of his "murders" are only jokes within the episode, and have nothing to do with the plot. CTJF83 12:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that matters. In one episode he tells Brian he's killed seven babies. Also in the movie it is heavily implied that he murdered a man for talking on his cell phone in an elevator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.18.247 (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it's all trivial murders. No murder has been the focus of an episode. CTJF83 18:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, that may be the first time "trivial" and "murders" have been put together.Vyselink (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I fail to see how it matters whether or not it was central to the plot. The question isn't how notable are his murders, only is he a murderer. It is obvious that he is, so I fail to see the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.18.247 (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

Apparently he died in the episode Total Recall. I don't know how canon this is, but if it's completely canon it should be obviously mentioned. --Matt723star (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

$5 says it's a 1-off joke and he's back next week. DP76764 (Talk) 20:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is in next week's episode. —SPESH531Other 21:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Stewie Griffin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stewie Griffin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Stewie Griffin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stewie Griffin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix Stewie's page! I don't know how I did it, but I butchered it! But can I also be have nationality on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WelcometoMonsterHighMy2Point-o (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stewie Griffin. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stewie Griffin. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stewie_Griffin&oldid=1195140275"