# Talk:Parents Television and Media Council

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

I didn't see this, but in retrospect isn't censorship exactly what they are advocating? I read through their web site and history and it seems they primarily attempt to restrict media based on a set of arbitrary moral/religious rules they unilaterally determine. There is no transparency into their decision making process and it seems pretty autocratic. Just because they don't care to cast themselves that way in their marketing material doesn't mean it's not true. If that's not advocating censorship - well, I am perplexed. Thoughts? Lexlex (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Further looking through their material, they claim to be non-sectarian and not a censorship group, however the complaints they launch universally reflect a Christian/Catholic sensitivity (e.g. toward curse words and taking the lord's name in vain, etc.).
They claim what they are doing is merely to protect children, using "universal acceptance" of the belief that gratuitous violence, graphic sex and profanity have a lasting, negative effect on children as their rationale. I am not aware of any studies which are universally accepted, much less this claim - but even if it were the case, I fail to see how a study would back that a fleeting curse word or advertisement for a sexually themed program could fall into the above category - and that seems to be their main focus. I also am confused as to why they lump sexually themed programs, violently themed programs, and profanity together - and treat them as one. Any scientific study most certainly would not. Their behavior and logic seem fleeting at best, it very much seems to be based on dogma. Lexlex (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that in my opinion censorship is what they are advocating.  The problem is that our opinions make no difference on what should go into the article.  We need to base the article on what reliable sources call them.  If we can find any reliable sources that call them a censorship advocacy group then we can add that to the article.  At this point there are no sources that I have seen that do that so we should call them an advocacy group and also discuss there objectives and let the readers decide for themselves what the group advocates for.  ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It is a dispute that the PTC advocates censorship. Believe me, it may not seem so but it is. Looking into a lot of ranting on the net, I learned that not the majority of Americans agree with the attempts of media restrictions of the PTC. Strange thing is that even my teachers in high school said yes when I asked in a survey of teacher's opinions, so to speak, about whether media content needs to be restricted. Back to the censorship dispute, I was in a discussion/debate with one of my friends who seemed to think that there is a difference between "censorship" and "advocating censorship." Maybe he's just taking things too literally because everyone except for the PTC themselves knows that they advocate censorship. In short: The PTC acts as a blind censorship advocacy organization that attempts to restrict what I can watch, which in my opinion is constitutionally immoral. --Sean Michael (Seaners 2010) (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Now the lead really does not make sense as "an American advocacy group". The Council most certainly does not advocate for America or American ideals, and I feel that this should be changed or removed all together. I understand that the meaning is different, but with the removal of "censorship" the lead takes on a potentially disingenuous meaning which is not appropriate for children or those who have difficulty with subtlety. Lexlex (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
They are NOT a censorship group. Get a brain!2605:A601:7018:DC00:8D3E:E16F:F636:22A5 (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

I'm having an issue with this too. The group is not a milquetoast child/parent advocacy group, it's a sectarian organization which claims it isn't. To wit: rather than telling members to simply not watch certain programming, it has decided instead to try and change the programming for everybody using organized letter writing campaigns to the FCC from "outraged" parents and regular press releases about what it finds acceptable. Their acceptability guidelines dovetail with Catholic/Christian sensitivity.
While it is certainly within their right to believe what they like, I would like to see the disparity of what they claim to be and what they are more highlighted in this article. It's really a matter of someone doing a little digging to find a cited article. PTC is getting more and more notoriety as a result of their campaigns, but their supposedly secular rationale is quickly losing its veracity in the eyes of anyone watching.  Lexlex (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Now it's very anti-PTC. I think someone should fix it so it's neither pro or anti. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

As an editor, you are free to edit anything and call out what is biased and/or call for clarification or references. Welcome aboard! Lexlex (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


### Right Box Summary / Fact Sheet Inherent Bias
A word like focus in the "fact sheet" will make it a fact. The fact in my opinion should be alleged focus; but I want to make sure that my focus does not appear here. So I am going to change it in Stated Focus. Which does not include any value and nicely makes up for the fact that Focus is currently followed by a quote. So it should be Stated Focus followed by a quote.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankk20168 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC) 

A number of anonymous users and now a named user have attempted to change the lead to remove the term "censorship" and/or make the PTC into an "entertainment" advocacy group or something similar. The word "Censorship" is defined as: 

Because the PTC openly, plainly and regularly campaigns a government agency to change or block content based on what they consider objectionable, "advocating for censorship" is a clear and plain-spoken way of describing their mission.  These recent changes seem like an attempt to WP:Sanitize, however if you can show the PTC is somehow mis-characterised by that lead, I would welcome any input. Thanks much! Lexlex (傻) (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It's absolutely pov: consider an alternative lede description such as "media decency advocacy group". As such there should be a citation that your characterization, "Censorship advocacy group", is how the group is typically regarded. As other have pointed out, no one really cares if it looks to YOU like nothing more than a censorship group.
Also, I'm removing the unsourced characterization of their research as "unscientific". It looks rather typical of social science research and the research cites standard journals, but someone can prove me wrong with a citation that what they do is "unscientific" (whatever that means).
I'm also eliminating some of the scare quotes eg in 'what the council considers "harmful" '. It already is ascribed to the PTC so quotes are superfluous and npov, unless it's actually a direct quote, in which case it should be sourced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.169.20 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 

"Decency" is a subjective term which characterizes things as decent or not based on an arbitrary standard. To "advocate for decency" is a call for removing that which does not meet the arbitrary decency standard—plainly known as censoring. We can cite a dictionary definition if you like, but it's prima facie - it is what it is. To attempt to describe the group's mission as anything other than censorship (e.g. decency, media advocacy, watchdog, etc.) would most certainly be an intentional mischaracterization of their activity. See: WP:Sanitize.
PTC uses an internal rationale to justify their actions but they do not cite any neutral published studies. They may claim to have used a typical social science method, but because it isn't a published study, and therefore not subject to scrutiny, it is still just a claim. There is no way to verify it, making it "not backed by any published studies." You seem to be asking us to assume the PTC is correct in their claim and to prove you wrong with a citation, but that's not how logic works, one can't prove a negative (e.g. can you prove there isn't a silent invisible elephant in your room?). The onus is on the PTC to justify their actions in a way that stands up to scientific scrutiny. As of this writing they have not. The quote marks are just that, the council does characterize things as harmful to children, but I agree it could look like scare quotes. I will dig around and pull a cited quote. Lexlex (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
First, although what is decent may be subject to interpretation, it is not POV to say that PTC advocates for it's definition of decency. But I think this still misses the point, which is that the lede, particularly the lede sentence, should encapsulate the subject in a balanced way (due weight). What jumps out to you about PTC may be that their goal is to suppress speech, but my brief exposure to them is that they spend most of their time trying to apply ratings, move certain broadcasts from primetime, etc. Of course my exposure may be misleading just as yours could be, but that's why a source is needed that their mission is fundamentally "censorship advocacy". (And a source will be transparent: I suspect once you find someone describing them as "censorship advocacy", that someone will have a certain POV everyone can see. But that's better than wikipedia lending its imprimatur to the description, or suggesting that it's obvious on its face.)
Again consider how due weight bears on POV. You could characterize groups like the anti-defamation league, the truth campaign against tobacco ads, or anti-bullying groups as "censorship advocacy" groups to the extent that they discourage various forms of speech/print. But it would be unacceptable to put that characterization in the lede, particularly lede sentence. I would propose something analogous to the GLAAD wikipedia article: "GLAAD is a U.S. non-governmental media monitoring organisation founded by LGBT people in the media." How does that seem to you?
Second, as to their research, it sounds like you just want to say that their studies aren't peer-reviewed. Your other criticism (the onus on them is to justify in a scientific way, etc) is general talk, appropriate perhaps for forum or social science conference but not here. BTW, if you do note that the reports aren't peer-reviewed (if in fact that's the case--I don't know) then I would advise you also note the extent to which they are cited in the popular press. Eg pew research reports may not be peer reviewed but major newspapers rely on them.Snarfblaat (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
In the above paragraph you have asked to: a) change the definition to fit what the council believes, rather than objective rationality; and, b) Claimed your personal experience with the group gives you a special understanding of their motivation. That they advocate for censorship is very clearly supported by numerous articles over many years—it may not sound nice to use that word, but it's true. There is no reason to state this another way—which seems like an intentional attempt to muddy the lead paragraph. Further, claiming you have had dealings with the group suggests you may be working for or with them? If this is the case, please understand that editing articles about subjects with which you are personally connected is strongly discouraged as it's too easy to run afoul of WP:PRIMARY. The absence of any peer-reviewed studies to justify the council's actions means they have no justification for their actions, they are doing what they do because they want to. More or less people believing in what they do does not change this simple fact. Lexlex (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
What on earth are you babbling about. Where did I mention a personal connection? What definition do you think I changed (I didn't even define any words...)? In any event someone going on and on about "objective rationality" needs to drop the ad hominems.
Listen, the point of wikipedia ledes is not to present the results of peer reviewed studies. And you haven't even cited any peer reviewed studies. It certainly is not the case that in the absence of peer reviewed studies, any lead is acceptable. I have instructed you to cite a characterization of PTC as primarily a 'censorship advocacy group' so any viewer can see whether the source is worth crediting. You still have not done so. Instead you have done independent research to edit in your conclusion that PTC's arguments have no "objectively rational" basis, which is already a violation of wikipedia guidelines, and further you have made this conclusion the centerpiece of the article--the intro lede. The point of the lede is to objectively encapsulate the topic. I have suggested a lede that is completely analogous to another media watchdog group, GLAAD, yet you have given no basis for reverting (and please don't say some nonsense like "but GLAAD supports policies that are "objectively rational" and PTC doesn't").Snarfblaat (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps addressing only the lead will make this easier. If you feel the words "censorship advocacy" are not correct, please explain how that is the case. It's just two words: the definitions of each almost perfectly and succinctly encapsulate the actions of the council to date—much of which is referenced in this article. If I missed something, please show me. if you wish me to add more references, please indicate what is not supported. You seem to be asking only for a nicer way of saying this for no reason other than you don't like it, and that fails WP:Sanitize. Please also note that I am not the one reverting your edits. Lexlex (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, note that the council's own website describes their actions in a very similar way: "...agitate to eliminate TV programs..." (Aren't you violating First Amendment freedoms by censoring TV shows?) how is "agitate to eliminate" any different than "advocate to censor"? Lexlex (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
They are not censoring nor advocating for censorship, all of you are simply going by what the mainstream media says about them (nobody trusts the MSM anymore), so stop saying that's a fact cause it's not, that's opinion from the media and the fact you all are overprotective of this article is a clear violation of WP:OWN. So there! 2605:A601:7013:400:F877:B2FA:F10E:DC2A (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not going to be enough to remove the content. An actual discussion will have to be held regarding this issue, not just... that. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Writing "they are not censoring..." doesn't change facts. PTC's actions are well documented and easily supported—and their website plainly declares their mission. There's not really an argument here. Lexlex (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we should keep "censorship advocacy group" in the lead, because that wouldn't be neutral coverage. We should just keep it as "television advocacy group" instead. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:Sanitize. Lexlex (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, look, I'm pretty sure those words don't belong in the lead because the article's supposed to have a neutral stance on the topic. Because "censorship group" is something I'm sure only those who are anti-PTC call the organization, and currently this article has taken a side when it's not supposed to, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. If anything I'm pretty sure the article should say something non-biased like "television advocacy group", like me and 68.65.169.20 have suggested. And before you ask, no, what I'm suggesting has nothing to do with opposing WP:Sanitize, I'm only trying to make sure the article doesn't take a side, which you're clearly fighting for. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
All the points you've raised, as well as your suggested changes have been addressed pretty thoroughly above. If you're not happy about it, that's OK. But if you feel something is factually not correct, please outline how or why, or involve some others to help. I'm sure the editors here would be happy to work with you, but so far you're not bringing anything new, other than you don't personally feel it's correct—which unfortunately cannot be used as a source.Lexlex (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Lexlex: seriously, can you please take your dislike of the group out of this discussion? Your position  seems to be motivated by your dislike of religiously-motivated censorship. You seem to be advocating the use of the word 'censorship' because of its negative connotation, which is a violation of  WP:WTW.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mr. Guye: It's a simple question: Are the actions of this group censorship or not? Per above, it very plainly is. If you can show how it isn't, please do so. From my edit history it should be pretty clear my concerns are the use of weasel words and sanitized language to justify censorship, not this particular group or its religious affiliation. Lexlex (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Coming in with no agenda or prior knowledge of this article, I am perplexed. This organization is literally a pro-censorship organization. The intro sentence "Throughout its existence, the Parents Television Council has been accused of promoting censorship" makes no sense. They literally advocate for censorship. They call on the government to ban broadcasts and communications of which they do not approve. That is the complete definition of censorship. This would apply to any plain text reading of the group's own materials or any press coverage of them. The fact that the term "censorship" carries a negative connotation is not an issue for an encyclopedia. This isn't a case similar to the Church of Scientology being pejoratively labeled a cult. The PTC proudly stands for the government enforcing bans of speech. What am I missing about the flood of dialogue above? Jbbdude (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

You are missing nothing, they really do believe that!! it is astonishing, isn't it?  -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 04:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This article may have some significant neutrality concerns. The lead seems biased against its subject, the section "Advisory Board" appears biased towards the subject, and the article generally uses a lot of what appears to be unexplained jargon.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

It would be helpful to other editors to highlight which statements or words you feel have undue weight using inline citations. For instructions, please see this page. Also, proposed changes are more than welcome and as I can see an open question to you above, answering it might help to illustrate your intent and get the conversation going. Lexlex (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)