Talk:V-chip

V-Chip?

What does the "V" stand for? the Great Canadian Ben 01:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• According to this, it stands for "violence."
• According to this, it stands for "verboten," the German word for "forbidden."

Take your pick. Then again, you could always mention both in the article. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 09:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

How is it that Wikipedia can have over 1 million articles, but I run into the same 3 people everywhere I go? --tjstrf 06:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There are some extremly active wikipedian's who are everywhere. Bawolff 06:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Paraodies and Spoofs

Does this even need to be a part of the article? I have removed it unless someone here can give me a valid reason. :: Colin Keigher 04:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Good lord

this article needs to be elevated to wikipedias standards.

Cleansed the page from vanadlism

I removed "howdy boy" Picer (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Some of the content needs more references. And the tone, in some places, seems to suggest a bias. Done a little bit of editing, but too tired to do more at the moment... Dhollm (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree that some of the article is of a negative tone, if something is universally unpopular, it would almost be a disservice to wipe from the article anything negative. Take for example Hitler. If we worked on the article, I'm sure we could word it in a way that although factual, the article could make Hitler sound like an OK guy, however, he is the poster child of evil and writing an article with a completely neutral standpoint on Hitler would be ridiculous. In the same way, if the V Chip is criticized by many and unused by more, I would say that to *some* extent, a negative tone isn't out of place. Dr Legitimate (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For one, "universally unpopular" is a vast overstatement. Unpopular, maybe, but it does have its proponents. But even in the section that lists the proponents' arguments, there were little jabs that really should have been in the criticisms section. I've cleaned up most of that that i could find; if someone wants to re-add it, keeping the proponents and opponents to their own sections would at least make things look a bit less like an attack.

For two: Let the facts speak for themselves. (Love how it specifically mentions Hitler...) "Negative" facts are fine; negative opinions and comments, particularly ones without sources, by definition aren't neutral.

And three: Godwin's law?  :) 69.243.211.57 (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

V Chip reminds me of 1984, when Winston and Julia are at their secret spot, and suddenly the TV talks to them and it's the Thought Police (if I recall that scene correctly, been years since I read that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.9.4 (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like a picky book snob, but in case you were wondering it was actually a telescreen hidden behind a painting that the Thought Police were using in that scene. 173.15.69.62 (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

My observations

This is obviously original research and not able to be used in the article.

I have hoped to find proof of these observations, even before ever discovering Wikipedia.

Certain fonts indicate a lack of interest in really providing useful information. If I see these fonts, I know not to trust the rating. A plain vanilla rating of TV-PG with one font tells me to look for worse content than the rating would suggest. With this same font, TV-PG with a V really means TV-14 with a V. And what were the people thinking when they gave The Boondock Saints a TV-PG with an L? There was no bad language left! But it was violent!

ABC puts TV-PG on everything, even perfectly innocent shows which deserve a TV-G. I've even seen them put TV-14 on content that would rate a TV-PG but might need content indicators.

The number of content indicators seems to relate to how bad the total amount of content is. I've seen shows without a warning for, say, language. The language might have been bad enough to warrant an L. But there was not enough of the "worst" content, which might have been violence or dialogue, to justify this. So only the D for dialogue or the V for violence was included.

On the other hand, there might not be enough bad language to justify including an L. Nevertheless, it is there because there is SO MUCH violence, or dialogue, or whatever, that it needs to be made clear THIS PROGRAM IS BAD. In the old days, that might have been done with a TV-14. Now you can have TV_PG for the most vile content, as long as you have lots of letters.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

On Friday Night Lights they used one of George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words three times. And it was the word's original meaning each time, worse than an alternative use that made the word somehow "acceptable" on TV. And there was no L in the V-chip rating. Shameful. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No guys D stands for drugs.Bidoofboxer (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Inventor of the V-Chip

Shamefully, Tim Collings jumped in at the right time and claimed to be the inventor of the V-Chip. This was simple fraud that brought him a lot of instant fame. The real history goes back as far as the Linkabit Corporation in 1982 with the development of the VideoCipher I satellite scrambler box that included a built-in "adult material blocker". Millions of these boxes were sold. The patent history is very obvious and I have summarized it here:

Pat: 4,398,216 Field , et al. (August 9, 1983) Multiple signal transmission method and system, particularly for television

Pat: 4,554,584 Elam , et al. (November 19, 1985) Video and audio blanking system

Pat: 4520404 Von Kohorn (May 28, 1985) System, apparatus and method for recording and editing broadcast transmissions

Pat: 4685131 Horne (August 4, 1987) Program blocking method for use in direct broadcast satellite system

Pat: 4,888,796 Olivo, Jr. (December 19, 1989) Program material screening device

Pat: 4930158 Vogel (May 29, 1990) Selective video playing system

Pat: 4930160 Vogel (May 29, 1990) Automatic censorship of video programs

The only significant development since the early concept was a patent (US5,195,135) to allow blurring of selected portions of the screen and/or audio. This produced a much less objectionable output than the full-block only option with the V-Chip.

--SurfManDoug (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the V-chip and recommend it

When I lived in the USA in the late 90s I stumbled upon the V-chip on my new Sony TV - I knew what it was but wasn't sure if they had been implemented at the time. I think it is a great feature, & wish it was in UK TVs too. I configured ours and just left it on. With small children in the house, it is nice to have the *option* to tone down most of the content. Advertisements were a problem in the US, where violent gang rape scenes for evening shows were -rather cynically I thought - advertised regularly during episodes of the charmingly innocent "Little House on the Prairie". Ads seem to be more closely scrutinized in the UK, although some get screened before they are caught. Ads should be rated and block-able too, IMO.

Violence, sex, bad language, etc. on various media (TV, movies, DVDs, internet, computer games, books, magazines, billboard, etc.) has become pervasive - often used as "cheap seasoning" to sell shoddy product. IMO the V-chip supports "freedom of speech" and further enhances individual freedoms by giving ordinary citizens the freedom to listen or not listen too :) (not to mention reducing one source of media senseless violence being visited on our children and society). The V-chip doesn't block everything, it just cuts out some of the worst excesses - if you want it to.

Possible downside: once you give viewer the ability to block violent/etc. programs and ads, it gives broadcasters an argument nto loosen restrictions further. Which would be counter productive, given the number of feckless parents around [I refer you to the Murder of James Bulger for an example of the possible dire consequences].

If you think this is unimportant or has no effect, look into these: Ted Bundy, Columbine High School massacre & Brown's Chicken massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.5.146 (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)