Talk:National Viewers' and Listeners' Association

Older

To what extent does the organisation advocate outright censorship of the media? This ought to be added to the article. As the heirs to the Whitehouse throne I would hazard a guess that they'd be very keen on banning things that weren't to their taste.

...bunch of miserable Nanny-State-like saddos they are. I'd hate to see them get any more power than just their usual moanings. Lady BlahDeBlah 19:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think a lot of people would agree that Mary Whitehouse was a bit of a twat, but saying so in the article unfortunately isn't NPOV. --Scott Wilson 22:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I know, I know...what a shame. Lady BlahDeBlah 18:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not the only person getting annoyed at John Beyer himself editing this page and his own article. Is it possible to ban individual users from editing specific pages? I've even gone so far as to mention this episode in the John Beyer article, as I think it's relevant for someone who campaigns for guidelines to be met, yet breaks them himself on this site! Andrew nixon 13:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've listed User:John Beyer for a WP:3RR violation for now, but I don't think we can mention it in his article. For one thing, it's sailing perilously close to original research, and we have no evidence that User:John Beyer is the John Beyer - it could easily be an imposter trying to bring him into disrepute. I have, however, sent an e-mail to him c/o mediawatch-uk asking for confirmation - we should soon find out. I'll remove the paragraph on the John Beyer page until we know more. --Scott Wilson 14:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone else also keep an eye on the John Beyer page, in case I'm sailing close to a WP:3RR violation myself? Andrew nixon 15:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a brief but illuminating conversation with Mr Beyer. First of all, User:John Beyer is indeed the director of mediawatch-uk. He alleges that someone else is adding untruthful statements to this article and John Beyer, so he keeps removing them. He threatened to blank the article if we did not prevent others from adding this information in. I encouraged him to bring some evidence to the talk page and pointed out WP:AB, however he was adamant that it was not his job to do this. --Scott Wilson 15:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how removing a critical link is removing false information! Surely Beyer understands that his position is one that is bound to bring some criticism (I should know, I contribute to the site in question) and that people who have their critics are bound to have critical links on their wikipedia articles! And removing the paragraph detailing how he edits his own page is hardly removing untrue information. He admits doing it! Andrew nixon 15:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Beyer's fondness for the Black and White Minstrel show. Even though he did admit to this on the Channel 4 documentary, it does not seem a relevant detail in such a short bio, and probably violates the NPOV rule. We'll continue to make fun of him about it on mediawatchwatch.org.uk, however.--Monitor2 08:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've just had another phone conversation with John Beyer, this time initiated by him. Firstly, he apologised for being so heated on Friday - he has since 'calmed down a bit' in his own words. I also attempted to give some reasons why his edits may have been rejected by the community. We mainly discussed the age old problem of accessibility versus vandalism prevention. He's in favour of some sort of uneditable page so that good edits can be protected from vandalism, although there is an element of parochialism in his stance: he's against the MediaWatchWatch link being in the article, as it isn't mediawatch-uk. I've tried to explain WP:NPOV and encouraged him to participate in talk pages, and give reasoning behind changes he'd like to see - this was, I feel, one of the reasons that so many people were reverting his edits - as well as taking a look at some of the other articles on how Wikipedia works. Hopefully we'll see no more revert wars from him, and possibly even some constructive input. --Scott Wilson 15:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Something-or-other

I found this on the mediawatch-uk homepage:

Wikipedia: This free online encyclopaedia is undeniably a magnificent, wide-ranging and valuable resource. However, its detractors argue with justification, that some parts of it have become a "pranksters' target" and "the online equivalent of throwing eggs" open to vandalism and sabotage (Sunday Times 12/2/2006). Wikipedia itself recognises this as a problem that undermines its credibility. For these reasons we cannot guarantee that the entries for mediawatch-uk, its director John Beyer and its founder, the late Mary Whitehouse CBE, are reliable and objective sources of information. These entries have been written and published without prior consultation or approval.

Make of it what you will. EvilRedEye 16:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A phrase containing the words "pot" and "kettle" springs to mind. Andrew nixon 16:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

He must hate it that there's something out there that he can't censor... (presumably he's annoyed at getting banned for 3RR). Mdwh 21:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

mediawatch-uk to Mediawatch-UK

I have capitalised the organisation's name throughout the article in tune with MOS:TM which states, "Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names", "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"" and, most importantly,

Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized:

• avoid: thirtysomething is a television show that may have been sponsored by adidas, but not by craigslist, because the show was over before craigslist existed.
• instead, use: Thirtysomething is a television show that may have been sponsored by Adidas, but not by Craigslist, because the show was over before Craigslist existed.

Now, whether it should be Mediawatch-uk or Mediawatch-UK is a matter for debate.FrFintonStack (talk) 23:17, 25 February

I am not sure this is the appropriate topic to post to, I am kinda new to editing Wikipedia and trying to keep my edits small and to ask first unless it is an obvious typo etc.: I am not sure I agree with the capitalization policy how does one do NationideAnglia Building society (as was) and similar things that were thus spelled when CamelCase was i vogiue chiefly in the 80s and 90s? It is hard to know how to be honest both typographically and historically.

My particular concern is "conservative". This should not, obviously, become "Conservative". I checked the discussion in case mediawatch describes itself as a conservative organisation. I can't see anything to say that it does. I think the word simply should be cut. Personally I would describe it thus but I think it is not NPOV.

[[User::SimonTrew|SiTrew]] xxii-Jan-mmix 22:32 GMT

Hi Simon. MOS:TM "Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable:* OxyContin or Oxycontin—editor's choice". With the example you raise, I'd say definitely use CamelCase as 'Anglia' is a proper noun even outside of its trademarked use. Hope you continue to edit Wikipedia, and enjoy your stay. As for Conservative/conservative, the tendency is to capitalise when one is pertaining to the Conservative Party or an aspect of its policy or ideology; for general use, lower case. BestFrFintonStack (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Academic Studies?

Hqave there been any academic studies of Mediawatch UK since Mary Whitehouse passed away? It occurs to me they could be useful reference or bibliographic material? Calibanu (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)User Calibanu

How large is Mediawatch?

It is important to put pressure and lobby groups into perspective. I can't find any mention of the size of the membership on the Mediawatch web site which leads me to suspect that it is rather small. I did email and ask but got no reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.148.180 (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to see some data about membership, both currently and in its earlier NVLA incarnation. There used to be a widespread perception that, despite Mary Whitehouse's insinuations, the NVLA had very few members and was merely a way of amplifying her own views: that may well be untrue and unfair, but without reliable numbers it can be neither confirmed nor refuted. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As of 2007, Mediawatch UK had around 5000 members, and even at it's height its predecessor, Mary Whitehouse's NVLA had around 150,000 members. Whilst 150,000 members seems significant it is actually something in the region of 0.3% of the adult UK population, which is one reason why it was always such a ridiculous concept that such a small number should be able to force their so called virtue onto everyone else. With 5000 members (around 0.01% of the UK adult population), Mediawatch UK is even more of a joke. "The Moral Minority" rolling in the glory of their own so called morality, and rubbing everyone else's noses in it. Repugnant. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/apr/09/mondaymediasection6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.166.96 (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

merge - John Beyer

As this person John Beyer does not appear to be notable enough for his own article I suggest merging any content worthwhile to this article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this proposal, was actualy planning on initiating a deletion discussion when I saw the merge tag. J04n(talk page) 13:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirected. I can't see anything worthy of meging that is not already here. If anyone can please move it over - here is the content prior to redirect. Off2riorob (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Censorship?

The section on Wikipedia on their website is quite revealing. Basically they are saying that they wish they could censor Wikipedia like they try to censor the rest of the media. 212.159.92.22 (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mediawatch-UK. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209154550/http://www.mediawatchuk.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=238&Itemid=100 to http://www.mediawatchuk.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=238&Itemid=100

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Article ignores the history

The article as it now stands ignores much of the organisation's history, and its historical bigotry. It's pretty much a puff-piece at the moment. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with DuncanHill , this is a complete white(house)wash of what was, at least at one time, a very homophobic organisation. Also, their website appears to be defunct. The links are giving 404 errors (not found) for content, and the main URL lands on a generic holding page that makes not mention of them. Adagio67 (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

National Viewers' and Listeners' Association is dead

It looks like the NVLA no longer exists. A charitable trust is now using the working title of "Mediawatch UK" but appears to be a charity working in Scotland in connection with the education of children. I have gleaned this information from the fact that previous "mediawatch" websites no longer work, so the only info available is from the UK's Charity Commission website - hence I've added an external link to the CC's relevant pages for mediawatch. It doesn't appear to be an active campaign group - and much of the wiki page seems now totally irrelevant. Please review and amend the page accordingly, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.0.205 (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

If a 'death date' could be put on Mediawatch-UK, it would be appreciated. It looks confusing with references to it in the past tense and (in paragraph at end of summary lead) the phrase 'before it closed'.Cloptonson (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 21 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Mediawatch-UK → National Viewers' and Listeners' Association – The NVLA are much more well-known and noteworthy under this name than the Mediawatch-UK rebranding, especially as we're talking in historical terms now the group no longer exists. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.