Talk:Parents Television and Media Council

Please do not change 'smear campaign 'and do not delete the fact Jacksons breast had the nipple clearly covered by silver tape

The actions taken by PTC in regards to WWF, are a CLEAR example of what is known as a smear campaign (ie false allegations, slander etc in order to further a agenda) I am no fan of WWF, but the actions taken by PTC are a perfect example of a smear campaign. Also Jacksons breast "(covered clearly by a star shaped piece of tape) was in fact shown for 9/16/th's of a second, as any video of the event will prove.

Axfield (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Does "smear campaign" and such language follow NPOV? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_campaign Actions taken by PTC are CLEARLY within range of this defination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axfield (talk • contribs) 23:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Opinionish not sure I agree that it's so clear - while Smear Campaign doesn't make it explicit, it seems to me there has to be some level of malice, or disingeniousness at least - and I'm not sure that test is passed. The current text 'the PTC launched a campaign against ...' with the pertinent info following seems to suffice to my mind. (ie. If they truly believed what they said, it wouldn't be a smear campaign per se - and perhaps it's the Smear Campaign article that need modifying. Doesn't mean I don't thing PTC POV is, erm, somewhat indefensible, FWIW.--Jaymax (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Axfield is at it again! I desperately need a solid third opinion, given that Jaymax has used "opinionish" meaning he's not so sure. But seriously, given that we already present the facts from both sides, PTC and WWF/E, there's no need to pepper "smear campaign" and other such POV language all over. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Smear campaign is, according to its definition, exactly what PTC waged. Note the agreement Bozell and PTC reached out of court, where in addition to paying out £3.5 million, they were obligated to print a retraction to the public and WWE, to be published on the PTC website for 6 months. For some reason you have reverted that information, which can be completely referenced. The fact they made spurious claims, printed and sent out intentionally misleading info etc., were clearly an attempt to defame WWE. This is the VERY definition of a smear campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axfield (talk • contribs) 14:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to the WP:RS which cover the finding of (or admission of) an INTENTION to mislead - that intent is I think the main thing that you need to support your case. What's the best reference supporting the allegation of a smear campaign to review? --Jaymax (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been through all the sources currently in the most relevant article paragraph. Ignoring that it'd be much better to link to a judgment than a press release quoting a judge, I can't see anything in the words that suggests that PTC felt they were being untruthful, or acting out of malice rather than THEIR CONCEPT of the true situation. Rather, one source towards the end (covering payment and apology) strongly suggests that PTC's opinion of WWE had changed over the years(?) and they admitted they had been 'wrong' and that what they said had been 'false'; but that is not the same as that they 'lied' - and going through the current included references, I can't see a basis for an allegation of a smear campaign. Rather, the current tone of the article is too strong in it's use of terms like "lied" etc. - Again, for clarity - any bias I might have had here would def not be pro-PTV - just going on the facts as per the CURRENTLY INCLUDED references. --Jaymax (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And find a source that includes the full settlement statement PTC Statement I think this clarifies somewhat. --Jaymax (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit protected request

{{editprotected}} Hi. I came across this page and the above argument in passing. I see that the page has been protected due to the argument, but think that it has been protected in m:The Wrong Version (isn't it always). This is not a comment on the correctness or otherwise of one side of the debate or the other, and I don't want to get into the argument myself. Rather, I'm only commenting because the article has been protected in a form that includes disputed statements as if they were fact. I therefore think that the article contains potentially libelous statements about PTC, in particular the suggestions that PTC intentionally misled people, fabricated stories, and sought to defame WWE.

Consequently, I am requesting an edit to remove the disputed material. Specifically, I am suggesting that the article be reverted to this version.

I repeat, I am not saying that removing this material is the right thing to do in the long run. I merely believe that removing it until it has been properly discussed would be prudent and that consensus must be reached and water-tight sourcing obtained before such statements are included in the article. GDallimore (Talk) 15:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the version you suggested is better. I make no judgement on the removed paragraph however, and if consensus supports its inclusion, then please replace the edit request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

WWE and Janet Jackson

I believe this page is being protected by conservative editors who dont like the ugly facts about PTC being shown. Even the fact that Janet Jackson had a very large nipple shield was reverted, changed once again to 'breast was briefly exposed'. After timing it on two seperate web available videos, it is proven it was in fact 9/16th of a second. And it was a smear campaign they ran against WWE, by making slanderous and libelous statements and mailing pamphlets (with no evidence/proof whatsoever) and attempting to boycott advertisers for their agenda. This is the very definition of smear campaign (see the $3.5 million agreed to pay by PTC, it surely would have been higher if judgement had been made)Axfield (talk)

To include such in this encyclopedia you need to produce sources. What I find odd here is the stuff that IS in the sources, even if you take it directly from the PTC letter of apology, is quite damning on it's own - without any need to exaggerate or debate the semantics of what a 'smear campaign' might involve. The $3.5M according to all sources I've seen was due to the PTC admitting they were wrong in their judgment and consequent actions - not in any way that they believed at the time they were doing anything other than disseminating the truth as they (wrongly) understood it to be. Which was (IMHO) extraordinary incompetence - let the sourced facts about PTC, as per RS, speak for themselves. Stop exaggerating - or if you don't feel you ARE exaggerating, try editing in a way that NO-ONE could possibly call exaggerating. Let the documented facts speak for themselves. That way, if there was a 'smear campaign' - or 'lies' - others will come to that conclusion themselves without ever having to use those words.

I'm backing out of this one now. In summary, while the more I read about PTC (I'm not US - never heard of them till I stumbled here from NPOV noticeboard), the less I like - my impression is that Axfield has an opinion which may or may not be 'true', but is certainly not supported by any of the cited sources, and as such has no place being documented here. There is quotable, sourced stuff out there, relating to WWE, which is reliable and somewhat damning, which is not currently and should be fully included. Even if the current version, there are blatant allegations (eg: 'lied' and, relating to nature of judges findings) which are unsupported by the cited sources, and must be fixed. --Jaymax (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite saying I wasn't going to get involved, I've now taken a closer look at this matter and find myself in full agreement with Jaymax. In particular, I fully agree that the article still contains statements which it should not. Based on the research Jaymax has done in finding a full copy of the original public apology, I've done some rewriting. My proposal is that the final two sentences of the Parents_Television_Council#WWE section be replaced with the following.

As part of the settlement agreement, the PTC paid WWE $3.5 million USD and Bozell issued a public apology. The apology stated that it was wrong to blame WWE or any of its programs for the deaths of children. It was also said that the original statements had been based on what was later found to be false information and that this information may have been designed by people close to the Lionel Tate case to pin the blame for the death of Tiffany Eunick on WWE.

Given the discussion above, I am hopeful that this will be acceptable to the majority of editors who appear to want to report the facts without unecessary lurid embellishment or commentary.

This removes the "lied" language mentioned by Jaymax and also a reference to "the attempted defamation" which is nowhere found in the source. It does not address Jaymax's other concern about the findings of the judge mentioned earlier in the same paragraph, but I am unable to access the source for that statement so cannot help with that. Jaymax, if you could rewrite that bit of the article, that would be great.

If people could show their support for this rewrite, I'll add it in when the protection expires at 21:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

Seems reasonable to me - I assume that this event was fairly significant for both parties, and could deserve a bit more weight/length. So perhaps between the campaign intro para and the suit/settlement para, there could be a para on the allegation of deaths, and a para on the allegation of advertisers, demonstrating the inaccuracies in both cases that led to the suit and settlement. --Jaymax (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no comment on the Janet Jackson debacle. GDallimore (Talk) 09:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In glossing over the fact that PTC deliberated lied in order to get advertisers to pull out of ads on WWE, you do a disservice to people who want to know the facts. Whether or not the information that PTC was using was fabricated by them or the team for Tate is irrevelant, PTC, by not checking their facts and using the false claims to further their own agenda, absolutely engaged in a smear campaign, and were guilty of libel and slander. The fact that they got their 'information' from sources that were wrong does not excuse them. Axfield (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I will ask this once and once only: please tell me (i) which source says that PTC deliberately lied (ii)which source says that PTC engaged in a smear campaign and (iii) which source says they are guilty of libel and slander. Thank you. GDallimore (Talk) 12:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is quite evident from the facts, by diseminating false information, both orally and physically (Libel and slander) , that promoted their own agenda, PTC engaged in a smear campaign. By their own admission the 'facts' they presented were completely false. By presenting these unverified 'facts', which served their own purpose, the PTC engaged in a smear campaign. It couldnt be more clear.Axfield (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is, there are no references. Thank you for clearing that up. GDallimore (Talk) 14:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much to the other editors who stepped in to intervene in this issue. I say that GDallimore is right to state the sourced facts from the PTC's apology letter. Any allegation that PTC deliberately lied must be from a reliable source; but all that Axfield is doing is pushing his own biased interpretation of PTC's campaign. We don't exist to discredit the PTC. We exist to express the facts about the PTC, no matter how positive or negative they may be. So let's stick to this: Use the structure of "PTC campaigned for advertisers to boycott UPN's WWF SmackDown" (this is NPOV) and later when we move on to the lawsuit part we can state that PTC admitted wrongdoing and such. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How about 'PTC campaigned for an advertisement boycott against WWE, by using the fabricated information that 30 to 40 advertisers had already pulled their ads'...clearly the info was fabricated, in the apology Bozell does not state where PTC got it's info...Axfield (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with that proposal. It is unclear because it is trying to express a complicated sequence of events in a single sentence. To cover this adequately it would be necessary to say what PTC did then say why they retracted it. I note, again, that you are saying "clearly X is the case", without providing a reliable source for it. Please note that adding original research or unverified claims to an article is not permitted and such additions may be reverted without warning. GDallimore (Talk) 16:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Back by request: I have not seen the evidence that they fabricated evidence - the working links in the article re advertisers don't actually make false statements (although, it could be argued that you have to read the smallprint to not get the wrong impression - and if there is a RS that says that, it could be included). The link (re judges comments) which presumably is the primary source for this appears broken. Axfield, if you think the word 'fabricated' is correct, then you need a very good source that says exactly exactly that. My reading is that they had '30-40' advertisers agreeing to not advertise, but did not exactly make it clear that several of those had never advertised (and had no plans to advertise) during WWE in any event. Remember, just because something seems an obvious conclusion, given the sources, does not mean that conclusion has any place in this encyclopedia - unless (ideally) the conclusion is explicitly reported in some secondary source. --Jaymax (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Parents' Point of View

Since the purpose of this page is to suggest improvements, we want to suggest the following. We understand that the use of the word "perceived" is to convey that the standards of what's appropriate or inappropriate for TV content are based on PTC's judgement. Even so, the standards that they use are fully backed up by research by the following organizations: The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Psychological Association, The University of Michigan Medical School (google these organizations along with the words "effect of TV on children" to see the links to these studies). All have stated too much violence and sexual activity on TV has a negative affect on children. PTC has defended its standards by quoting the results of these and other studies from independent organizations. We would suggest that the findings of these studies, or at least the links to these studies in the References section, be included in the content of the 'Parents Television Council' Wikipedia page.

On a more personal note: Having read the comments posted above, we wonder if any of these folks have school age children. We have 3 (all under the age of 10) and no we don't want them exposed to TV content containing graphic profanity, sexual content or violence. That's not censorship, it's called protection of our children. Even if we were to pull the plug on our TV, our children's friends would probably still have their TVs on when our children visit. Therefore we have a vested interest in what's being transmitted on the public airwaves. BTW, we are not puritans and yes we do have a sense of humor. RealParents (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Parents Television Council/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

After failing the first time, I'm trying again based on the advice of the initial evaluator. This time, I've added some books as sources, dealt with the citation format and dead links issues, and updated/expanded the content. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments: Recent stability and images look fine, except Steve Allen needs a caption to explain who he is. No free pictures of Bozell, I take it? Overall, appears to be a reasonable read. I'll be looking through it with a sharper pen later. Do make sure the lead summarizes the contents of the article, and neither leaves important things out nor is the sole source of anything. References look like they could stand to have more info added in some cases, but that's just my first impression. Again, more detail forthcoming later. Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no free images of Bozell anywhere. And I'll fix the lead. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, before I get into any of the nitty-gritty stuff, I think the article needs to be reorganized:

• Foundation and Leadership sections should probably be merged and placed as the first section after the lead.
• Overall, I think the article would flow better if the publications sections was moved to the end.

As far as initial review:

• References use inconsistent date formatting. Pick one format for date, and one format for accessdate--they don't have to be the same format, but every reference should use the same format(s) for those two dates.
• Each online reference should have an accessdate.
• Some of the references are circular links (#8 "Parents Television Council 2006", for example) and need to be fixed.
• The see also section seems to editorialize in a few places. How much of that is necessary?

Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)  Done Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Eh, watch WP:OVERLINK. Do website, parenting, traffic light, and violence really need to be linked? Also, go over the article with a fine toothed comb and WP:AVOID. Scare quotes around controversy in Advertising section need to go. How do the last 3 external links meet WP:EL?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Go over the text again, and make sure that when a conclusion is drawn, the associated reference is clearly understood (e.g., attached to that sentence)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Foundation and leadership sections need to be combined--they're the same topic, and separating them breaks up the logical flow of the article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Balanced enough

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   fine.

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):

   More images would be helpful.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Continued ON HOLD. There's a lot of work to be done here--I'll review it again 8/31 and see how it's progressed. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done - but could you point out where there might be problems with original research? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• There's still a lot of WP:OVERLINK: homosexuality, fuck, website, violence, swimsuit, and restaurant still jump out at me.
  • Hardee's is wikilinked twice in the advertising section.
• Here's a few sentences which make uncited assertions which could be construed as OR. The subsequent citations probably cover most of these, but each significant and separate fact should have a citation, even if that citation is repeated in the next sentence.
  • "In October 2003, the FCC decided not to fine NBC because Bono's obscenity was ruled as fleeting and not describing sexual or excretory functions, the FCC's standard for fining a network for indecency."
  • "The infamous halftime show paved way for the PTC to launch five more FCC complaint drives... " Did it? The citation at the end of that sentence is to the objectionable content mentioned in the next clause.
  • "On January 25, 2008, the FCC proposed an estimated $1.4 million fine against the ABC network for nudity in an episode of the police drama NYPD Blue aired on February 25, 2003. The episode in question, "Nude Awakening", aired at 9:00 P.M. in the Central and Mountain Time Zones in the United States, thus violating FCC indecency regulation that subjects networks to fines from complaints from indecent programs aired between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. in the day; however, the episode aired at 10 P.M. in the Pacific and Eastern zones." That whole, multiple-sentence assertion of fact is uncited, and the citation to the next sentence doesn't support the detailed assertions made in this section, such as the timezones in which the episode was shown.
• That's just for starters, really. Please use those as examples and go through the article to eliminate similar uncited sentences--preferably by finding sources that back up your assertions. I don't believe any of these are outright false, but they do need good citations all around. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Passing per improvements. There's still a long way to go for this to get to FA--Standardize the references the rest of the way, for starters. Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Unilateral Removal of Criticsm Section

I'm much more of a Wikipedia lurker than editor, but the criticism section for this article has been reverted several times and I feel compelled to do something about it. In one case, editor DaJT89 removed the cited criticism section citing WP:CRIS, which is a personal essay and not Wikipedia policy, and WP:STRUCTURE, a subset of WP:NPOV, which states "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The PTC has certainly seen its fair share of criticsm from reliable sources. If you feel that the criticism section is unfairly biased or inadequately sourced, please raise your concerns here or add additional and appropriate citations. Please DO NOT unilaterally remove the criticism section again without further discussion; criticism sections are a standard feature of Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illisium (talk • contribs) 18:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read the article, you'll notice that there's criticism of the PTC sprinkled throughout. Although criticism sections may be a "standard feature" it is NOT a "good feature" because it pushes and highlights POV, something that is not neutral. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Many people that are not members of the PTC view the group as promoting censorship, it is important that that the PTC article to not look like it is a written as a press release by the PTC or people will suspect that unfavorable comments are being removed as a form of censorship.

The question is not so much whether unfavorable views should be included as a whole but as to how to incorporate them without getting into a flame war.

There are some inconsistencies in how to handle unfavorable views of controversial subjects. The same page cited as a guide discourages separate articles but then lists Criticism Of Family Guy as an example to follow. Other articles recommend splitting long articles and include a short summary on the main one with a link to the split article. Even in the discussions here it was pointed out that the unfavorable views were substantial enough to merit a separate article. At one point there was more than one unfavorable article about the PTC due to difficulty in finding them due to the way it had been edited.

This paragraph pertains to the Parents Television Council controversies page because vandalism is preventing the talk page from being edited: I attempted to rewrite the article with a neutral POV using information from the talk page, new material and using previous version of the article from before it was vandalized. Much of the more objectionable material was removed in the rewrite including vulgarity and comparisons to Hitler. Some of the original reference links were difficult to locate due to trying to find them in the history and are incomplete link addresses. Any fine tuning or finding the full address of any of the missing links would be appreciated.22yearswothanks (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment: What is the best way to display criticism of PTC in this article?

There's a couple of users here who believe that there should be a criticism section and separate controversy article (this is right before I changed it to a redirect) about the PTC, but I disagree because I feel it violates WP:NPOV and is discouraged in WP:CRITICISM and WP:CRIS. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel that redirects should be to a page that includes the information being looked for in the other article. There has been a history of complete removal of unfavorable views from both the original article and the separate article. The unfavorable view section was split from the main article due to its length some time ago. Due to the belief by some that the group in question is associated with removal of objectionable content in the media, the contrarian viewpoint should also be included. The last version of The Parents Television Council controversies before the newer versions was slanted with a considerable amount of POV words and phrases. At present the The Parents Television Council article appears to be slanted as too laudatory in nature. The question is how and where to include both sides.22yearswothanks (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I think that the views of those opposing the organization are significant. WookMuff (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, "The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." So no matter what any other policy says, npov means all significant opinions are needed WookMuff (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with WookMuff. All criticism should be worked into the article. By the way, you need to have a look at the "Origins" section because it is not all about origins and it is out of chronological order. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that criticisms should be worked into the article and should be fairly presented. This group has garnered a great deal of criticism that's been reported widely by reliable third-party sources. It would be non-neutral to ignore the criticism or to wave it off as non-notable, and it would also be non-neutral to have the criticism take over the article or, worse, to create a whole separate article for criticism. The latter would be especially troubling as the reader looking for both sides of the issue might not even notice the criticism article - in other words, segregating the criticism could be seen as a method of hiding it, so that casual readers don't see it and might come away with the impression that the organization is non-controversial, which would not reflect what reliable third-party sources are reporting. --NellieBly (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Censoring also works on Wikipedia

This page does not contain a single criticism about this organization. It seems that everybody thinks, they're great! --84.178.92.185 (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article rather than lazily look for a section titled "criticism"? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Because shouldn't be organized for easy reading right? Typical Teatard behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.118.138 (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The PTC almost certainly does not have 1,000,000 members

The membership size needs to be independently confirmed, and until it is a note should be made that it's unverified and probably wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.149.77 (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

An IP added a POV tag to the article about an hour but did not explain why they added it. I am going to remove it, if someone disagrees they should explain here what the problem with the article is. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 09:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Censorship advocacy group?

I reverted a reviewer's edit claiming that the PTC is a "censorship advocacy group". That was in the lead sentence. For now we should just describe PTC as an advocacy group and explain what it supports later in the lede section. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see this, but in retrospect isn't censorship exactly what they are advocating? I read through their web site and history and it seems they primarily attempt to restrict media based on a set of arbitrary moral/religious rules they unilaterally determine. There is no transparency into their decision making process and it seems pretty autocratic. Just because they don't care to cast themselves that way in their marketing material doesn't mean it's not true. If that's not advocating censorship - well, I am perplexed. Thoughts? Lexlex (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Further looking through their material, they claim to be non-sectarian and not a censorship group, however the complaints they launch universally reflect a Christian/Catholic sensitivity (e.g. toward curse words and taking the lord's name in vain, etc.).

They claim what they are doing is merely to protect children, using "universal acceptance" of the belief that gratuitous violence, graphic sex and profanity have a lasting, negative effect on children as their rationale. I am not aware of any studies which are universally accepted, much less this claim - but even if it were the case, I fail to see how a study would back that a fleeting curse word or advertisement for a sexually themed program could fall into the above category - and that seems to be their main focus. I also am confused as to why they lump sexually themed programs, violently themed programs, and profanity together - and treat them as one. Any scientific study most certainly would not. Their behavior and logic seem fleeting at best, it very much seems to be based on dogma. Lexlex (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that in my opinion censorship is what they are advocating. The problem is that our opinions make no difference on what should go into the article. We need to base the article on what reliable sources call them. If we can find any reliable sources that call them a censorship advocacy group then we can add that to the article. At this point there are no sources that I have seen that do that so we should call them an advocacy group and also discuss there objectives and let the readers decide for themselves what the group advocates for. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a dispute that the PTC advocates censorship. Believe me, it may not seem so but it is. Looking into a lot of ranting on the net, I learned that not the majority of Americans agree with the attempts of media restrictions of the PTC. Strange thing is that even my teachers in high school said yes when I asked in a survey of teacher's opinions, so to speak, about whether media content needs to be restricted. Back to the censorship dispute, I was in a discussion/debate with one of my friends who seemed to think that there is a difference between "censorship" and "advocating censorship." Maybe he's just taking things too literally because everyone except for the PTC themselves knows that they advocate censorship. In short: The PTC acts as a blind censorship advocacy organization that attempts to restrict what I can watch, which in my opinion is constitutionally immoral. --Sean Michael (Seaners 2010) (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Now the lead really does not make sense as "an American advocacy group". The Council most certainly does not advocate for America or American ideals, and I feel that this should be changed or removed all together. I understand that the meaning is different, but with the removal of "censorship" the lead takes on a potentially disingenuous meaning which is not appropriate for children or those who have difficulty with subtlety. Lexlex (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

POV

I have added a POV tag to this article. As I said in my edit summary, I find the first paragraph alone to be so laughably biased as to make me dread combing through the rest of the article in detail. Among other things, do we have any sources to back up the fact that it is a particularly Catholic group or that it judges programs based on a particular religious doctrine? I will be working in the near future to rewrite some of the article to address these POV problems, but I would appreciate input from others as well.

I note that a previous inclusion of the POV tag was removed because it was placed by an anonymous contributor who did not visit the Talk page and state their reasons. Since I have attempted to begin a discussion on this matter, I would appreciate it if the POV tag were not removed from the article until either (a) the POV issues are resolved or (b) a clear consensus is reached that the tag is inappropriate and that the article does not violate NPOV. Ithizar (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure either. You can easily determine the founder is an outspoken Catholic, but members of the organization are not noted as such. They do not claim to be Catholic in any of their publicity material and actually state they are non-sectarian. The only thing that flies in the face of this are their actions - they react to curse words and claimed indecent advertisements which seem to be selected from a decidedly dogmatic Christian bent rather than on any science or logic. Perhaps re-word the thing to say they "claim to be..." etc.? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, do we call it a duck even if it claims to be a swan? Lexlex (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed some of the POV from the lede that is not supported by any reliable sources in the article. The only place in the article that it calls the a religious advocacy group was in the lede and the infobox and both were unsourced. So I just reduced it to advocacy group. We should not be calling them anything that is not supported by reliable sources. If reliable sources calls them a swan, we don't call them a duck even though they walk and talk like a duck. That is syntheses of the information that we have found. If the information only comes from the PTC themselves then it is appropriate to add claims to or calls themselves. ~~ GB fan ~~ 05:12, 16 October 2010

Article seems biased

It seems to me that the very beginning of the article shows a very pro-PTC standpoint. It calls the group an advocacy group that educates parents about tv programming and there is mention of contacting advertisers. Well it certainly seems that the biggest advocacy that these people do is to file FCC complaints about everything and anything, propose boycotting advertisers and release press statements. It seems that very little of what they do is educational. They are an extreme anti free speech group that seems to want to restrict choice not just allow for an educated one.Tombotronic (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm having an issue with this too. The group is not a milquetoast child/parent advocacy group, it's a sectarian organization which claims it isn't. To wit: rather than telling members to simply not watch certain programming, it has decided instead to try and change the programming for everybody using organized letter writing campaigns to the FCC from "outraged" parents and regular press releases about what it finds acceptable. Their acceptability guidelines dovetail with Catholic/Christian sensitivity.

While it is certainly within their right to believe what they like, I would like to see the disparity of what they claim to be and what they are more highlighted in this article. It's really a matter of someone doing a little digging to find a cited article. PTC is getting more and more notoriety as a result of their campaigns, but their supposedly secular rationale is quickly losing its veracity in the eyes of anyone watching. Lexlex (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Pointless vandalism

Whilst I can't say I don't sympathise, this needs to be corrected.

"Through publications on its website including reviews, research reports, and online newsletters, the Council is supposed to inform parents of television programs or other entertainment products it considers beneficial or harmful to the development of children based on what it claims to be a non-secular viewpoint, but in reality are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites who have no sense of humor and should go screw themselves." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.42.125 (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

removed by another user, thanks, CTJF83 chat 06:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

it's called a sense of humour. get one. why take everything on here seriously? it's no like wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia or anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.244.60 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. --Rogington (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section AGAIN

There was a previous RfC about this issue in 2009. Now it seems that some editors want a separate "controversy" section all over again. See WP:CRITICISM for my rationale of why I prefer discussing controversy throughout the article pertaining to which aspect of PTC is being criticized. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ya, that's an essay, which I 100% ignore...WP:Neutral is a policy, however. CTJF83 chat 01:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Within the NPOV policy is WP:STRUCTURE:

“ Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. ”

Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

POV issues

See Wikipedia:NPOVN#Repeat_problem_editor_injecting_POV_in_article. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps next time, before making a noticeboard post, you should attempt to work out the issues by discussing them here on the talk page, particularly as you are growing close to violating WP:3RR and the editor you are disagreeing with has repeatedly noted his desire to discuss the issues with you here in his edit comments. Autumnalmonk (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hate group?

The article describes the subject as a "hate group", and apparently this change was made after deliberation in some "forum". Would someone please clarify? Has this label been applied by a reliable source? 74.136.234.62 (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)