Talk:Mary Whitehouse/Archive 2

Leftwing Bias

I'm not happy about this bit near the start of the article after her biography:

"QC Geoffrey Robertson (the barrister for Gay News in the case) described Whitehouse's homophobia in The Times in 2008, saying "Her fear of homosexuals was visceral"..[7] He describes the beliefs she reveals in her book, Whatever Happened to Sex? as "nonsense", ..."

What it means is Robertson ALLEGES she's homophobic. This is known not to be true as homophobia, if it exists at all, would be a very rare medical condition. What the poor chap means is she didn't have the same view on homosexual activity that he does and that is therefore not allowed. i.e. it disobeys the leftwing establishment.

The article should say: "described Whitehouse as "homophobic"". Saying Robertson "described Whitehouse's homophobia" is equal to saying both that she WAS homophobic, i.e. ARTICLE gives a view - and that 'homophobia' is recognised as a real thing. (Rather than just a sloppy term misused by some people, except in the clinical sense I mentioned above.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.249.5 (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've given poeople a chance to comment I'm removing the POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.88.182 (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FROM Support Base bit of article: "Her support came from conservatives, many Christians and those who held the view that television directly influenced anti-social behaviour." This is very POV. It looks like it's written by an American or other person who doesn't know anything about Britain except modern leftwing fashions. I was there at the time and her support was from all walks of life. It's possible more Labour voters supported her views. Her views were the standard views of her day in Britain. The minority was those extremist reacionaries that opposed her. In 1965 she obtained 5 million signatures on her "Clean up TV" petition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.88.182 (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it's now a wek and no one feels that this change needs comment on - I'm making an appropriate change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.249.5 (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this. The term used is not political 'Conservative', but 'conservative' with a small 'c', so having Labour supporters would be irrelevant. People who are conservative come from all walks of life, as do people who are radical. I will restore the original term, clarifying this as 'social conservative'. Mish (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE "Private Prosecutions" section: the sentence below in the 2nd paragraph is unnecessary and is totally biased. Her views were merely different from the standard leftwing views, which can be described as "extraordinarily prejudiced. "If she was alive it would be libelous. It should be removed.

"The Scotsman, in 2008, while asking whether society might have benefited from Whitehouse's campaign, also points to this case when it said "Whitehouse’s views on homosexuality were extraordinarily prejudiced"[16]"212.219.249.5 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the source states. She is not alive. I doubt this would be libellous, as much the same thing was said while she was alive. Mish (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article should be speedily deleted as the whole article is ultra-leftwing biased. Its whole pitch, approach, propaganda purpose - you name it - is clearly based on that of a young leftwing hater of Whitehouse. It's as POV as one could get. It's not an encyclopedic article desaigned to inform people about Whitehouse and giving an unbiased picture.

It was written in the early days of the wikipedia when it was run by a clique of leftwingers. But now that a wider public are contributing to the wikipedia it's harder to get such a situation. It should be deleted and can be replaced with a normal viewed article. 212.219.249.5 (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a WP:RS for these assertions, or is this your POV? The main reason for deleting a biography is because the individual is not noteworthy enough to warrant one here. I cannot see that would apply in this case. Whitehouse was an important figure in the UK over a couple of decades, often in the media. If there are specific problems deal with them here in a way that improves the article and thereby the encyclopedia; deleting the article will not improve the encyclopedia. Please refrain from introducing politics and personal attacks into these discussions. Mish (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To mish: I obviously will not deal with you further. If u attack me further against the rules I will obviously have to begin some sort of complaints procedure. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing this out WP:NPA is not an attack. Mish (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppositional section

Re sentence near end of "Opposition" section: "controversial children's comic Oink!. " This should be changed to "the comic Oink!" or "the controversial comic Oink!" as the comic was/is not a children's comic. Even the wikipedia article on the junk Oink! makes it clear it wasn't a children's comic. 212.219.249.5 (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it's been a week with no comment I've changed the sentence I refer to above. I think this removes POV because it's highly posible that more than 50% of adults would not accept that Oink! was a children's comic. (Even the Toonhound site which is 100% pro the comic considers it was "for young adults"). 212.219.249.5 (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - never heard of it. Mish (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stagnant citation tags

I went through and eliminated the text relating to stale citation tags, and added some more tags for places where sources look thin on the ground. Mish (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

In edits made over the last four days my intention was to tidy the article, remove duplication and create a less fragmented chronology. The "support base" and "opposition" sections appeared to contain material which bore little related to the headings, so I incorporated their content into the other sections. I cut some of the Dr Who serials she objected to, partly because almost all the citations were to a fan site, but also because itemising them will mean little or nothing to the majority of readers who will not be fans of the original series. The quote about strangulation seemed a good summation of her attitude, and a worthwhile substitution if Dr Who was to avoid being given undue weight among the examples of programmes she found offensive

There are still problems with the article. Most importantly, Mrs Whitehouse's case is still not properly summarised. I could make more use of the Tracey and Morrison book to relate her rather evangelical Christian outlook, but the rather quotable additions I have made in this area frankly make her look ridiculous, even though they encapsulate her argument. I intend adding a passage about her concerns "for the children" via her response to The Little Red Schoolbook and her approach to sex education. Philip Cross (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swizzlewick (1)

I found the placement of this series in the article problematic owing to its obscurity, so I modified it and added the paragraph to the Swizzlewick entry. A reference to a 1964 programme in the '"Clean Up TV" campaigns' section after the 1990 libel case (chronology) or hyperthetically at the beginning of the section on the clash with Hugh Greene (undue prominence) are surely problematic. An editor though, reinserted the passage. A compromise is a passing reference in the '"Mary Whitehouse" on television' section and wikilink where it now introduces the medium's response to Mrs Whitehouse. Philip Cross (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehouse and homophobia

I’m generally unimpressed with arguments from etymology that ignore how languages develop over time. There is far more nuance in English to the term “phobia” than can be gained just from looking at the Greek/Latin. For example, “hydrophobia” as the old symptom synonym for rabies described an aversion to drinking water, not a fear of water otherwise.

Just like “misanthrope” is far more accurately understood as “judgemental/distrustful of people” rather than “hater of people”, homophobe is far more accurately understood as “aversion to homosexuality” rather than “afraid of homosexuality”. Disgusted by homosexuality sounds like the exact description of a homophobe to me. Paul Austin (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we see it differently and I see something differently to Philip Cross below is just proof that there are different POV's possible on these issues. To my generation (in my experience anyway) 'homophobic' is bad english and just a modern slang term used by young people, and loaded with error/judgemental overtones. Is it a case of 'languages develop' or maybe just 'fashion followed by some'? When I see the term I see strong bias and I don't believe the term is accepted as you say. (Except by the British media.) Better to say she was opposed to homosexuality, if she was. Ansotu (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed you, and Philip Cross, have removed quote marks from the article. I'm not sure this is right. The terms are often put in quotes and are not accepted terms/eras like say the Renaissance. Ansotu (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page

Created an archive for this formerly lengthy talk page. The 'Archive 1' page at 26k is still a little long but 2009 appears to be the only natural break in our discusion of the article.

I have also made some rearrangement on this current page so that new text is placed under old chronologically and created a new section (retrospectively) of moved text. As it is possibly slightly dubious ethically it needed to be pointed out. Philip Cross (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"support from all walks of life"

The claim by her supporters (that they continuly try to insert into the article) that she had support from "all walks of life" is ridiculous - she was certainly heavily opposed by progressives and liberals. Paul Austin (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's ridiculous. 'All walks of life' isn't meant to cover only people's political leanings. It means many other things. Different ages, backgrounds, class ... Also the pepole putting that in may not be supporters of Whitehouse. They make just think it's a fact - as I feel it is. If you take out the leftwingers from society you may still be left with a large majority. For much of Whitehouse's time, the subject of the article, this would be very much the case. Ansotu (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd reference?

The Pink Floyd song Pigs (Three Different Ones) refers to Whitehouse. This might be noteworthy (at least more than some of the points mentioned in the article at the moment)? I haven't added yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.13.235.82 (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Pigs (Three Different Ones)" article mentions this fact. There are probably thousands of passing references to Whitehouse in the creative work of the last forty or more years, some of these have made it into the articles which link here (see the navigational panels). 'Trivia' sections are not recommended as part of WP policy and it is difficult to see how the Pink Floyd reference could be included within the body of the article. Philip Cross (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lyrics are:

Hey you, Whitehouse, ha ha charade you are.

You house proud town mouse, ha ha charade you are.

You're trying to keep our feelings off the street,

you're nearly a real treat, all tight lips and cold feet,

and do you feel abused?

Difficult to see this as noteworthy in any way. Philip Cross (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to bring this issue up, and see it has been discussed. I do think it's noteworthy. Your point about "thousands of passing references to Whitehouse" is certainly valid. However, "Hey you Whitehouse" hardly seems to be a "passing reference". Joefromrandb (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that the lyric continues: "Mary you're nearly a treat but you're really a cry". Waters was fairly forceful with his point. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehouse (band)

Shouldn't the Power Electronics band, who their name from hers, be mentioned here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.222.75 (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The connection will be discovered by users via the 'What links here' tab in the toolbox. Philip Cross (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up the Mary Whitehouse page - or Removing POV

"Geoffrey Robertson, QC (the barrister for Gay News in the case) described Whitehouse as "homophobic" in The Times in 2008, saying: "Her fear of homosexuals was visceral".[16]" - If the editor knew Mary Whitehouse he should give some evidence for his statement. You cannot libel the dead but I'm sure Mary Whitehouse would have said she was not 'homophobic'.

"By this time Whitehouse, a pornographic magazine, had been launched by publisher David Sullivan." - The editor should add evidence that this was based on MW - i.e. an extraordinarily prejudiced attack on her - and state this in the article. Ansotu (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your substitution "claims of offensive programming" is grammatically unsatisfactory while the previous "offensive viewing?" (not "offensive viewing") still leaves the question open and preserves neutrality. I have added citations connecting her surname to the magazine. Discovering the year of its foundation was the reason for moving the reference to it. Philip Cross (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know if you did the original sentence about that 'Whitehouse' magazine. I didn't mean any criticism, I'm happy with less citations as they get in the way. As the article claims Mary Whitehouse was "extraordinarily prejudiced" when her views were mainstream for her day, I just felt, for balance, it should be pointed out in the article what an extraordinarily prejudiced witchhunt it was to name such a magazine after her. I can't think of any similar vilification of anyone else.

"offensive viewing" is more neutral than "offensive viewing?" as the question mark could mean that the writer is questioning MW's claims that the viewing under discussion was offensive. But "offensive viewing" can just mean that this issue is covered in the section. Ansotu (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it's been over a week and no one has disagreed I've changed 'Offensive viewing?' to 'Offensive viewing'. This is also in-line with other headings. For example we have 'Permissiveness', not 'Permissiveness?'. Ansotu (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Permissiveness', for example, doesn't require a question mark because it is a commonly accepted term referring to permanent changes in the period Mrs Whitehouse had her highest profile. The exception, 'offensive viewing' (or 'programming') is a contentious term as the content of the section suggests, hence the need for a question mark. I prefer 'viewing' because it is a term appropriate to the era, while 'programming' is anachronistic. Philip Cross (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We're talking about a minor point here of course. But I don't agree. The key issue is what they call here 'POV'. And saying "offensive viewing?" to me is giving a clear POV. It's doubting that her complaints were valid, i.e. it's POV. "offensive viewing" is a fairish compromise because it can be used (in a standard way) to mean: 're the issue of offensive viewing'. To me using the question mark reflects most of the article (a pretty strong anti-MW's politics stance) and is worth 'de-POVing' by removing the question mark. Ansotu (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that 'permissive society' is in inverted commas in the article. And I've just noticed that you are talking about 'viewing' as opposed to 'programming'. To me either word will do, but it wasn't me that changed 'viewing' to 'programming' as it now is, if I remember rightly. Ansotu (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good reason it's anti-MW - she was a dreadfull reactionary, even in her own time. She caused a lot of harm to minorities and people that weren't conservative Christian. Paul Austin (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dimbleby and Belsen

It is not clear from the Allison Pearson article citing Jeremy Isaacs whether "the letter he got from Whitehouse after he repeated Richard Dimbleby's great report from Belsen" is a reference to a re-broadcast of Richard Dimbleby's original dispatch of 19 April 1945 as part of the film broadcast on 12 April 1965 of Dimbleby's return to Belsen, or a possible repeat of this film after Dimbleby died in December 1965. This confusion does not affect the verifiability of the passage in the article, but my mangled edit summaries probably require an explanation. Philip Cross (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]