Talk:Parents Television and Media Council

Criticism

Dear Friends:

I heard something on this discussuin page relating to creating a "Criticism" section of how the PTC tried to remove "Nip/Tuck" from TV. As much as I think that "Nip/Tuck" should be removed, I suggest starting a whole page for the "Criticism" article. But, I don't think anyone here in this discussion page should flame the Parents Television Council. Those flamers can be such jerks:(. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SonicRacer-MEC (talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

• Including criticisms in the article is fine; see Wikipedia:Criticism for specifics on what's appropriate. —tregoweth (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't mind the criticism, but the article specifically mentions one advertiser then says 30 more advertisers stopped running ads on the show because of the actions of the PTC. I see no sources where the number 30 or specific advertisers can be verified.66.227.132.25 21:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong, all criticism is in the criticism section and cites many sources. The overall tone of the article is not biased.

just a note: I asked PTC about them trying to remove Nip/Tuck, and they said they wern't trying them gave me kinda like a automated reply. Ovbiously a lie when they said they wern't trying to remove Nip/Tuck.

• I didn't make this up, I saw something on this discussion page (But it was deleted) suggesting a criticism article on how they tried (and still are trying) to remove Nip/Tuck from television, but I don't think they mean to ban it, per se.

I was thinking of adding some examples of biased statements the PTC has made in the past in the "Criticism" section.

Also, I know this doesn't have anything to do with the article, but I know we are all tired of all the vandalism this article gets, especially myself because I have, dare I say, mixed feelings about the PTC, and I fear of getting teased about it or something.SonicRacer-MEC 19:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up on Criticism section

Somebody needs to remove the bias, and I have not the time (though I agree with the bias, it's still bias). Unbiased articles probably shouldn't use the word "biased" :). Geez, the more I type the word "bias" the less it sounds like a word. What time is it? God I need sleep... --bladebot 11:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I couldn't tell the difference between the "biased" and "unbiased" statements. 71.253.98.4 14:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Splitting criticism into new article

Over the summer, I have noticed that the "criticism" section of this article is getting really fat. In February, the "Criticism of the Parents Television Council" article was merged because that article was "too thin"...but I feel that now that it's so fat it deserves its own article, similar to other "criticism of X" articles like Criticism of Family Guy, Criticism of George W. Bush, Criticism of religion, etc. Agree? --Andrewlp1991 18:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And now, the moment you all have been waiting for...Criticism of the Parents Television Council is now alive! --Andrewlp1991 18:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Now let's crack open the champagne. Sean90 14:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

On an unrelated note but related to champagne: Brent Bozell responded to FCC $55,000 fines to WWDC radio station for airing an interview on Elliot in the Morning mocking Catholicism: "I can only imagine that champagne corks were popping at Infinity and Clear Channel. They know that the FCC is a toothless lion when it comes to the enforcement of commonsense decency standards." [1]--Andrewlp1991 20:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why has it been removed? --ChuckCoke (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)ChuckCoke

Removing sentence

My dear friends:

I was thinking of having a vote on removing the sentence at the top: "...and protecting children from the harmful and negative content on television." Maybe this should be removed because not everyone thinks that they are harmful and/or negative for children, but I agree some of them are. Vote: Remove or not to remove?

SonicRacer-MEC 16:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We could put "harmful and negative" in quotes, emphasizing that they are trying to remove what they deem "harmful and negative". Just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.120.13.232 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 April 2007.

• Well, maybe not "remove", but moving it to a later time slot or something. And that's a better idea to put it in quotes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.253.98.4 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 6 April 2007.

Isn't there anything we can do?

I mean, the people in this PTC have gotten a lot done by working together, can't the sane part of the world band together and stop them? Is it that we don't have as much time on our hands or something? We should give it a shot at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 25 May 2007

• Yes, but this is for page discussions on how to make the article better, and not for talking about controversial issues. 71.116.41.201 19:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Geez, I mean, when will these immature kids grow up and stop making destructive edits to this and other articles. I just saw vandalism where somebody changed the "Parents" in the name to "Pussies". These vandals seem pretty immature to me. Sean90 04:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously, I had to revert a vandal edit too! Let's hope it doesn't run to the point where we need semi-protection. While looking at such edits are funny, they're unfunny within context of Wikipedia. That's why you use Uncyclopedia or our sandbox! Andrewlp1991 06:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And today I just noticed another case of vandalism, with some moron calling Brent Bozell a "conservative bastard". So three instances of vandalism in a week...hope it doesn't amount to something...pretty much same thing happened to Brent Bozell article as well. Andrewlp1991 01:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, you wouldn't find that funny if you were conservative. Sean90 23:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But then, you would not find anything funny if you were a conservative - humourless, joyless puritans that they are.77.103.8.23 00:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the page was vandalized yet again last weekend - but only the third time this month. Therefore, at this moment semi-protection is still not warranted. --Andrewlp1991 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That I did see. How many Bad faith edits does a page need to be protected or semi-protected? Sean90 20:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm looking up WP:PROD now, and semi-protection would occur only if this page were vandalized, let's say daily or several times per day. However, I just noticed two more instances of vandalism: from July 19 and July 20. However, if vandalism continues or increases within the next week or so, then this page will have to be protected. Sigh :( And I thought everyone was supposed to edit Wikipedia as if they were all contributing, not vandalizing. For more info, see WP:PROT and WP:ROUGH. --Andrewlp1991 04:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Oh great, two instances of vandalism already within this month! --Andrewlp1991 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I want to get my hands on the moron who wrote this: [2], but not really get a hand on him, but to have a talk with him. Sean90 23:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That user was an IP: 68.32.133.239, having been blocked for May 13, 2007. That user had been punished for vandalizing the articles on Rush Limbaugh and the American Republican Party too. --Andrewlp1991 02:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh great. More vandalism: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean90 (talk • contribs) 03:28, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

M'kay, but as of now vandalism doesn't appear to be a big deal for this article in particular, unlike other articles on "controversial conservatives" like George W. Bush or Ann Coulter. Besides, as for this article, I really think warning/blocking users is the best option because semi-protection should be the last resort when it comes to vandalism. I believe that anyone in good faith should be allowed to edit this article. Therefore, if vandalism speeds up beyond instant repair, then I'll submit to WP:RFPP. --Andrewlp1991 03:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that the vandalism is immature. Personally, I strongly disagree with the PTC, but let's only add objective stuff. LightningOffense 14:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Another incidence of vandalism today, reverted. I would be in favour of protecting this page to prevent smearing and bad faith edits, though I want it on the record that if you object to your 9-year-old watching The Shield...why is your kid watching TV at 10pm anyway? Editus Reloaded 18:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My edits to the page

Per WP:NPOV, I looked over this page and thought that this page put too much emphasis on the criticisms against PTC, so I added additional info about the PTC leadership and publications (Best/Worst shows, Seal of Approval, etc) to neutralize this article. --71.135.167.171 02:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Campaigns" section -> "History" section

Hello folks: I have a suggestion for some better organization of this article. I think there should be a new "History" section with all the PTC's campaigns, major changes in leadership, etc., rather than a simple "Campaigns" section, as it doesn't quite explain enough. Here's how I'd organize it: HISTORY: "1995-1999: The early years"; "2000-2002"; "2003-2005"; "Recent years" (that'd be 2006 to present & the Family and Consumer Choice Act of 2007 among other things, as well as Brent Bozell's handing down the presidency to Tim Winter) Anyone agree? --Andrewlp1991 04:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What?

Why was my last edit reverted? I thought the "most attractive" description about Katherine Kluhn was just vandalism. Sean90 00:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

PTV ratings of TV series

I found: http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2005/main.asp

In it the group rates TV series. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Front Group

I thought for sure that I had read that this organization was a front group for the so-called "Religious Right", and that most of their donations/active members are actually not average concerned Americans, but lobbyists and political activists. Coolgamer (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Judging by some of the attitudes expressed by the PTC you could well be right, but let's source that before we stick it into the article. Editus Reloaded (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Seth MacFarlane's criticisms

Should Seth MacFarlane's criticisms be quoted in whole, in part or not at all? In "The Advocate" he said about the PTC criticisms of him:

"Oh, yeah. That’s like getting hate mail from Hitler. They’re literally terrible human beings. I’ve read their newsletter, I’ve visited their website, and they’re just rotten to the core. For an organization that prides itself on Christian values—I mean, I’m an atheist, so what do I know?—they spend their entire day hating people. They can all suck my dick as far as I’m concerned."

I think the comments have some bearing on the article due to the relationship the PTC established with MacFarlane (with their criticisms) but what I'm unsure. Thank you.

not neutral

I'm no fan of the PTC or anything, but the activism section is written extremely POV, it is written in a clear anti-PTC style. It should be cleaned up. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. The PTC is stupid as shit, but this is a goddamned encyclopedia. Come on, people. 24.188.131.67 (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Parents Television Council/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead needs to be longer. Three or four paragraphs, all about the same length as the current first paragraph, would be appropriate.
   • There shouldn't be external links in the prose, they should either be turned into references or moved to the external links section. There is one in the Columns and Reports section, one in the Cable choice section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • First, the reference links need some serious work. See this for a list of deadlinked or moved websites. The deadlinks are the most important to fix.
   • I've added a few fact tags to places that need references.
   • Please remove the extra bolding that appears in two of the PTC references.
   • All web references needs to have publishers and access dates at the very least; authors should be included if available. Links should be made through the titles, rather than being left as bare links/numbers.
   • I am somewhat concerned at the prevalence of web references, used for an organization that has been around for 14 years and has been mentioned or profiled in hundreds of books - see here. Why are these books not used?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • I have quite a few concerns about this article's references, and there are also a few issues with basic MOS compliance. I am putting this article on hold for now, in order for these problems to be addressed. I have not completed a full review of the prose, NPOV and completeness of this article, due to the issues outlined above. I will complete the rest of the review when I see work progressing on the referencing and MOS compliance of this article. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You have some good points right there, so boldly do as you please. I can help as well. I've searched for the PTC on google books before and I know that there are plenty of printed coverage in addition to web coverage. Do you differentiate newspapers/magazines from the general Internet though? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Deadlinks:  Done --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew! First, newspapers/magazines tend to be better than general web content, and books tend to be even better still. Second, I probably won't be doing too much bold editing on this article, since I'm the GA reviewer. If I make too many large changes to the article, it makes it easy for me to lose the ability to see the small things that the article needs to make it to GA status. I'm quite willing to do copyediting and minor MOS work, but I'm going to leave most of the large stuff to you. Reviews are generally on hold for a week, but if you feel that you need slightly longer than that I can extend the hold. If you feel that it's going to take you a lot longer than that to make the changes, it may be best to withdraw the nomination and renominate the article when the changes are finished. Dana boomer (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to have to fail this GAN, due to a lack of response by the editors. Although the deadlinks have been fixed, none of the other work has been completed. Once this has been completed, and a thorough prose review has been done, I look forward to seeing the article at GAN again. Good luck! Dana boomer (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Critism page should be longer

 The Critism page of the PTC is way to small. 

---

---

---

---