Talk:Mediawatch-uk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)