Talk:Parents Television and Media Council/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Criticism

What happened? I don't see a "criticism" article. Where is it? I don't see a criticism section either? I don't really see any controversy part at all. Thats weird, because Im sure it exists. Id like to see it, so where is it? Is the major criticism that instead of working to make tv easier for parents to control, they are simply working to remove valuable programs that should be made available to both adults(who can not be expected to watch programs appropriate for children) or to those parents who disagree with their value system? Obviously frightening sponsors is not an attempt to tell parents what programs are good and which ones are not. Its an attempt to control what is allowed to be shown to everyone of every age and belief. I suppose that the Criticism section was not allowed, so the whole thing got canned. it should have been put back here. I hope someone with knowledge and more of an opinion then I have will reintroduce it.

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)

Someone keeps changing the information about the Superbowl 'controversy' FACT-Jackson breast was shown for 9/16th of a second, as video footage proves. FACT-The nipple was covered by a silver, star shaped pieced of tape (again see video) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axfield (talk • contribs) 12:36, 22 May 2009 (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

A NPOV can include non inflammatory viewpoints from more than one side of a topic. Elimination of other POVs can be viewed as favoring one side over the other and therefore no longer has a NPOV. There have been attempts by both those pro and against to cut off discussion of legitimate issues. Note that the inflammatory last sentence of Seth McFarland's comments about the PTC as mentioned from the talk page was not included in the rewrite. The page for The Parents Television Council has been the subject of numerous cases of vandalism. The page Criticism of the Parents Television Council was created on 13 August 2007 and was vandalized between late December 2007 and July 2008 to redirect to The Parents Television Council which no longer included any mention of criticism of The Parents Television Council. 22yearswothanks (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point Wikipedia has moved beyond the silly "criticism article" stage. Read Wikipedia:Criticism for the reasons why forking out POV is (1) the lazy way to write an encyclopedia, and (2) not neutral at all and serves only to grant more credibility to certain POV. It's better to read the whole article rather than "expose" POV's. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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?

    • I just read the activism section, and its clear they are not looking to "inform parents" of objectionable programs. They simply want to take all progrms that do not share their viewpoint off the air and make them unavailable to everyone adult and child alike. It almost seems like propoganda. They encourage the CSI shows, which are very violent, but have a very conservative viewpoint on law enforcement. Im not very familiar, so I won't change anything, but someone needs to describe what they do better. They are looking to make sponsors remove their sponsorship to those programs. they aren't trying to move them to a later time slot. They are looking to get rid of them.

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"[1] 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poolsouimet (talk • contribs) 17:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Parents Television Council. 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 18:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Parents Television Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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 10:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Parents Television Council. 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) 19:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Parents Television Council. 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) 23:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

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.[2] 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.[3]

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)

References

  1. ^ Brandon, Voss (February 26, 2008). "Big Gay Following Seth MacFarlane". The Advocate: Michael Phelps. pp. 22–23. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |format= requires |url= (help)
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Issues Apology was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Parents Television Council’s Wrestling Moves Were Fake, Brian Carnell – July 9, 2002

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)

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 (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:

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

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)

Seems like this was the change to hate group, made a week or so ago. From what I can tell, this article has always had it as 'advocacy group'. Seems to me this is just vandalism that never got removed, and now it's on Reddit. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"thank the PTC in helping her"

I've no idea what Rihanna actually said in her tweet, but this should surely read "thank the PTC for helping her". You don't say "thank you in my birthday present"!89.212.50.177 (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Parents Television Council. 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) 21:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parents_Television_and_Media_Council/Archive_1&oldid=1190132948"