Talk:National Viewers' and Listeners' Association

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Older

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Something-or-other

message: 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.
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)
thread_title: mediawatch-uk to Mediawatch-UK

message: 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)
thread_title: Academic Studies?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: How large is Mediawatch?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  merge - John Beyer 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Censorship? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article ignores the history 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  National Viewers' and Listeners' Association is dead 

message: :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)
replies: text: Mediawatch-UK →  – 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 October 2022