Talk:Mary Whitehouse/Archive 3

Socially conservative activist groups

I doubt that "socially conservative activist groups like the Student Christian Movement and Moral Re-Armament" is a neutral description of two evangelical Christian movements. Comments? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

They're both groups with conservative views on social issues. Seems perfectly neutral to me. Though it may be best to change the description anyway, to reflect that these are christian-specific groups rather than focusing on the conservatism involved. Pascal (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point. To omit the fact that they are Christian groups is to ignore their essential nature. They may be socially conservative (although I want to see reliable sources for that before using it as a defining description) and they may indeed be activist as Christians; but that is not the same thing as being "socially conservative activist". A more neutral description might be "evangelical Christian groups such as the Student Christian Movement and Moral Re-Armament with a socially conservative slant". Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, on investigation, the pages for each of the groups doesn't seem to suggest social conservatism except as a function of their evangelical christianity. Perhaps go with "evangelical Christian groups such as the Student Christian Movement and Moral Re-Armament" on its own?Pascal (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Suits me. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It really can't be stressed enough that Moral Re-Armament was Deist rather than Christian in any meaningful sense, and that their social conservatism was intrinsic. Social conservatism is not, in any case an inevitable consequence of evangelical Christianity. It's important Wikipedia doesn't do the work of such pressure groups in disseminating the implicit assumptions that give them unearned political weight. --Chips Critic (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Then there would be reliable sources to support your position -- I note that Wikipedia currently states that MRA was "an international Christian moral and spiritual movement", which does not seem to agree with you. I agree that social conservatism is not a corollary of evangelical Christianity, which is precisely why I felt it was undue here. Do you have a suggestion for the wording of this sentence? Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You worked backwards from the fact that you didn't think 'socially conservative activist groups' was a neutral description, when it was. My suggestion for the wording would be the one you've eliminated. For the moment, the rest of the article is clear enough about the nature of Whitehouse's beliefs and mission that I can live with giving that sentence up for lost. I hope the fudging won't spread. The issue of Moral Re-Armament's (probably self-) characterisation is a whole other candle for a whole other cake. --Chips Critic (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There are two things wrong with this phrase. Firstly, the phrase is inherently misleading: a group may be socially conservative, and it may be activist, but that is not the same as saying that it is a "socially conservativwe activist group". For example, a friend of mine is white, and she is an activist, but to call her a "white activist" would be seriously misleading and indeed positively offensive. To use this phrase at all you need to show that the social conservatism is an intrinsic part of the activism. Secondly, the phrase gives undue weight to one aspect of the group at the expense of another, namely their being evangelical Christian. I am in no doubt that the groups would use that as their primary description, and furthermore that they would be objectively correct -- that is, their position on social issues derives from their Christian standpoint, not the other way round. Oh, and by the way, you have no privileged insight into my mental processes, your analysis of my thinking adds little to this discussion, and it happens to be wrong. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

From my experience, conservativism and Christianity are practically orthogonal to each other. Sure the people who adhere to both use one to justify the other, but doing a little digging, they are just arguing from feelings that something is wrong before the concepts of conservativism or Christianity enter the picture and "scardy-cat" is possibly more accurate than either conservative or Christian. Hackwrench (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are you bothering to go on about this after you've already had your own way? You yourself said that you didn't think the description was neutral, no analysis on my part was needed. You aren't going to convince me that misinformation is better than information. Everything they ever said or did demonstrates that social conservatism was intrinsic to Moral Re-Armament's programme; to bracket them with the Student Christian Movement is misleading. Even the Wikipedia article on Moral Re-Armament, apart from that initial reference, makes clear reference to its being a 'network of people of all faiths' and quotes a Muslim king wishing to import the concept. If you want to misrepresent them, you should try deleting those references too; I'm sure the editors of that page will be happy to give you the argument you seem to want. --Chips Critic (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Mary Whitehouse and bigotry

If MW had tried her activities today, ethnic and other minorities would have had her charged and convicted under anti-villification and anti-discrimination laws and that is a good thing. Her religious views have no place in a secular society, either. Paul Austin (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines where you will see that "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject". Do you have any views on how this article might be improved? Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

He's not using it as a platform, simply expressing a view. Please review Mr. Austin's long history of contributions to Wikipedia before you embarrass yourself. --Chips Critic (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how the comment might contribute to improving this article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Because it might make mendacious, partisan editors who want to turn the article into a whitewash understand that they aren't going to get away with it. --Chips Critic (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, and this is why the ideologically-motivated distortion of this article will be opposed. --Chips Critic (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You speak of "mendacious, partisan editors" and "ideologically-motivated distortion" as if these were established facts. Is there evidence for these assertions, or are these comments on MW just preparation for a purely hypothetical struggle? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Homophobia

Was the notion of "homophobia" even invented when Mary Whitehouse was active? How could she possibly be accused of something that hadn't even been invented at the time? Isn't that like accusing Churchill of climate change denial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.18.12 (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The charge of homophobia cited in the article, which was made by Geoffrey Robertson in 2005, is clearly identified as retrospective. Your query is thus beside the point. Philip Cross (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The use of homophobia to describe the behavior is new; the behavior itself is not. Hackwrench (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Over-elaboration?

Have removed additions made recently about Swizzlewick (1964) and The Goodies because the Whitehouse connection is covered in the linked articles. The David Turner series from nearly half a century ago is now rather obscure, and even a passing mention might seem too much, but one editor quickly reverted my cut a year or two ago. I managed to find a use for the reference which I thought was a satisfactory compromise. Perhaps not?

Some of the Doctor Who material seemed a particularly cheap insult from a trivial source, so I removed it, but the newly added quotes from Hinchcliffe and Sladen are worthwhile. The citation needs cleaning up though.

As I have pointed out before, this article contains insufficient defence of Whitehouse's positions; unfortunately little is online from those who agreed with her. I have checked Google Books in the past. This article possibly contains too many rather negative and abusive (cited) comments about Whitehouse, bearing in mind NPOV, but there appears to be none which could be trimmed. An exception is the clumsy inclusion of the Pink Floyd lyrics; the song is included under 'See also', likely to be of interest only to the pop group's fans, doubtless a minority of readers of this article about Mary Whitehiouse. If there is a significant literature about the connection of "Pigs (Three Different Ones)" with Whitehouse, it would meet notability, and could be worked into the article, but nothing has been cited on this subject. Philip Cross (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Swizzlewick (2)

An editor (User:Anthony Appleyard) has restored a cut passage on Swizzlewick, but has never explained why it belongs in this article. As the forgotten 1964 series has its own page in the Wikipedia database, and is linked to here, I have removed this material again. Philip Cross (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC).

"...a perception of blasphemous content"

Whilst I think we can all agree that such things as blasphemy are the realm of belief and perception in this context '...a perception...' might also imply that she was alone in her perception of blasphemous content. The case, in the end, was settled by the House of Lords, as well as all lower courts. The content was legally blasphemous. Whether you believe something can intrinsically, morally etc. be blasphemous is secondary to its legality. As such I think perception, without qualification, is in appropriate.

Alternative: 'legally blasphemous content' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivcm (talk • contribs) 10:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your point, but the fact that the litigation depended on law which had not been used in court since 1922 suggest this was scarcely widespread or mainstream opinion by 1977. The article currently reads: "She initiated a successful private prosecutions against Gay News on the grounds of blasphemous libel, the first such case for more than fifty years..." In the modern context the prosecution of Gay News seems perverse, so I would argue that the parenthesis is necessary, particularly as it is now clear in the summary that she won the case. It was not previously. I have also modified the reference to The Romans in Britain, partly because it gives the passage a symmetry, but also because it looks odd to give the outcome of one private prosecution mentioned, but not the other. Philip Cross (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I, in turn, agree with your point and edit. It is clearer all round, is there a citation for the 50yrs or is it in one of the obits etc? Actually I'm unclear as to whether it was the first private prosecution or the first prosecution for blasphemy in 50yrs. Is there a way to clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivcm (talk • contribs) 07:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Pink Floyd

Mary Whatehouse is mentioned in the Pink Floyd song Pigs. Is this important? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Not especially, but the song "Pigs (Three Different Ones)" is linked to in the 'See also' section at the foot of the article which should suffice. Philip Cross (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It may merit a one-sentence mention in the article, but to put it in "See also" seems pointless. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well no. If I did own this article, I would not bother with the Pink Floyd reference at all, and would keep deleting it. As I don't, including the song in the 'See also' section' is a tolerable compromise. Quite apart from where 'Pigs' could be logically placed in the text, is the potentiality that a "one sentence mention" would grow, and material from the song's article copied and pasted here by Pink Floyd fans. It has happened before, in the case of the mentions of Swizzlewick and The Goodies, so I don't think I am being unduly cynical. It's basically a means of preventing potential clashes with other editors. Philip Cross (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO says that the "See also" section is for "links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic" - we should only link it if we can imagine a future, expanded version of the article writing about it in prose. If we can't say anything about the song beyond the fact that it namechecked Whitehouse (and clicking through, the song's article says nothing more than that), I can't see that it's serving any useful purpose to the reader to give them a wikilink. --McGeddon (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@Phillip: Sorry if I sounded a bit dickish; I just remember this article having many mentions of "Mrs Whitehouse", and WP:MOS is clearly against that. Anyway, are we in agreement about removing the link to the song? Joefromrandb (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No, for the reasons I specified earlier.There are comments from Roger Waters around explaining the Whitehouse reference which should probably be in the "Pigs" article - but not here. McGeddon, the Seealso section isn't solely intended to be used in the way you suggest. The MOS passage begins: "Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. ... The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." Obviously, the Pink Floyd song is "tangentially related", so WP policy sustains the case to be made for including it. Joe, I confess I was slightly too insistent on using "Mrs" because it is a sneaky means of placating those who think the article is biased against Whitehouse, which it is, unavoidably at present, for reasons I have mentioned before on this talk page. "Mrs" softens "Whitehouse" you see. Philip Cross (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Whitehouse and Jimmy Savile

Whitehouse and the NVLA bestowed an award on Jimmy Savile and Whitehouse personally praised him. Whitehouse believed that child abuse, including parental incest, was imaginary on the part of the child, so, even if she were still alive, she wouldn't have believed the allegations against Savile. Paul Austin (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I added a mention of the award to Savile for his "wholesome family entertainment" a while ago. Your comments concerning her opinion of child abuse claims are interesting. Do you have a reliable source for them? Philip Cross (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll dig out the article I read it in. It's not surprising really given that she was born in 1910 and was a strong social conservative. It's been mentioned in reputable sources such as documentaries that until about the 1970s or 1980s, Western society didn't take the concept of child abuse seriously, either believing the child was making it up (in the case of sexual abuse) or believing it was a private concern (this was the case for many incidents of physical abuse). Paul Austin (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who (1)

I felt that the passage regarding this series had grown too much as a result of recent edits, so I have reduced it on the grounds of undue weight. As this article is principally for users interested in Mary Whitehouse rather than Doctor Who, only one or two examples of the serials she objected to should be detailed here.

As Whitehouse had a significant public profile in the 1970s she cannot be ignored, but most of her responses belong in the reception sections of the articles about the individual serials where appropriate. This does not mean she was correct in her positions, in my view she was invariably wrong headed. Additionally the history of the production team's change in policy following Philip Hinchcliffe's departure does not need mentioning as Curran's direct intervention rather suggests that there would be a change in what was considered admissible in the series. Philip Cross (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd disagree on the last point regarding the change in production style and the intervention of Curran. It is widely documented that Whitehouse's complaints had a significant effect on changing the tone of what was at the time a hugely successful series in the ratings, and the fact that Curran personally apologized to Whitehouse and orders came from on-high to change a successful formula is indicative that Whitehouse's criticisms had a major effect. Rodericksilly (talk) 08:27 2 February 2014 (UTC)

These points are already made in the article. As it stands, we have:

"The BBC ordered the series' next producer, Graham Williams, to lighten the tone and reduce the violence and horror following Whitehouse's complaints. Senior television executives commented that at this time her views were not disregarded lightly [references removed]."

Surely no more needs to added. The way Doctor Who was affected belongs elsewhere as this article is about Whitehouse rather than the television series. The passage about Doctor Who is already longer than any other television programme she made comments about. Philip Cross (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree no more needs to be added now. However, it is worth noting on Whitehouse's page that her effect was significant. As regards other series, there is nothing stopping editors from adding further information on Whitehouse's effect on other series if it is deemed she had a significant impact as she did on Doctor Who. Rodericksilly (talk) 08:57 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Whitehouse's homophobia

I contend that it is perfectly admissible to use the term "homophobic" to describe Whitehouse in the summary. It might well be retronymic usage, but editors are not obliged to observe the vocabulary of the era of a article's subject. The claim Whitehouse was homophobic (phobia = fear, as in "her fear of homosexuals was visceral" - Geoffrey Robertson) is made in the article, and it is therefore quite correct to include the point in the summary according to usual practices on Wikipedia. The article formerly asserted that "her critics have accused her of being ... homophobic", but this is not the same of saying she was homophobic, which is self-evident, but that claim would still be original research for an editor to make without citing sources. Philip Cross (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the lead adequately summarizes that Whitehouse was a social conservative, opposed to social liberalism and the permissive society. She was not specifically homophobic any more than most public figures of her generation. Let's not forget that adult male homosexuality was illegal in the UK until Whitehouse was 57 years old, therefore "homophobia" was a very commonly held view among people of her generation, it was in fact a traditional norm and does not mark out Whitehouse as unusual in holding those opinions at that time.Rodericksilly (talk) 08:08 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You are without a doubt a right wing conservative who thinks that bigotry can be excused by the ridiculous "product of their time" statement. Homophobia was no less bigoted in Whitehouse's time then it is now and no amount of Right Wing views can change that. Paul Austin (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't know me and have no idea what my views on homosexuality, who I vote for etc. I think Wikipedia editors should refrain from making assumptions and throwing insults at fellow members. All I will say is that I don't need to take any lectures on political correctness from an Australian, considering my country is ahead of yours on the issue of gay rights and Australia's treatment of the indigenous aboriginals, as illustrated by John Pilger in his documentary, should be a source of national shame and reflection for all Australians.Rodericksilly (talk) 21:14 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Even the Girl Guides here in OZ have ditched their traditional pledge to the Christian God and the British Royal Throne. Whitehouse was an anachronism by the end of the 1970s and it's only her advanced age in the 1980s and 90s that prevented a successful prosecution of her by the minority groups she attacked with her hate filled bile.Paul Austin (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That is irrelevant Paul Austin. The Girl Guides are wrong about omitting God as He is not an anachronism. You are nothing but an opportunist Paul Austin.58.109.94.172 (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, anyway, it's good to see you are able to remain reasonably impartial and to see both sides of the story on Whitehouse. I'm not too sure how the Girl Guides and the Royal Family have got much to do with it - speaking as an atheist and republican myself. Whitehouse was an anachronism by the end of the '70s - possibly true, but perhaps most people are by the time they get to their late 60s. I don't think she could have been prosecuted for having an opinion, however misguided that opinion might have been. It seems to me that you are merely in favour of replacing one form of intolerance with another - you don't seem to be especially tolerant that people can have different opinions from your own. Whitehouse was the same age as my grandparents and I suspect they held a great many of the same views and attitudes as her. However, they were neither right-wing nor Conservatives in their time, they were actually die-hard socialists, but they grew up in the same society, with the same commonly held social attitudes, many of which would be considered offensive and unacceptable today. Not in those days though. As you're a Doctor Who fan, I could point you to that rather good documentary on the "Terror of the Autons" DVD, which went over the numerous changes in social attitudes that had developed over a mere 40 years, with Barry Letts quoted "Of course there were differences in racism, sexism etc. It would be very surprising if there weren't over 40 years." New series producer Phil Collinson, though, did have the good grace to say it would be unfair to judge those programmes according to today's attitudes and he wouldn't want to. Maybe you could take a leaf from their book, or are they right-wing conservative bigots too? And if they are, I'm happy to be in their camp rather than yours, frankly, because their approach seems to be eminently more mature and pragmatic.Rodericksilly (talk) 02:40 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed "LGBT causes" which is a modern term incompatible with the era when Mary Whitehouse was most active on issues relating to homosexuality, the 1970s and early 1980s. "Gay rights campaigners" - obviously "gay" was in use in the modern sense by this time - and my other modification (plural of feminist) appear to be the best solution. Philip Cross (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Intro

The intro is far too long. 90.198.224.197 (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Sometimes an intro needs to be long in order to *very briefly* summarize the subject at hand simply due to the sheer number of noteworthy things that they did in their lifetime. 109.175.255.65 (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Frank Obolobolopoulos

Doctor Who (2)

The passage referring to The Genesis of the Daleks is the source of regular changes. I have removed it in the past because it is too similar to the "strangulation" comments, and thus seemed unnecessary. Since another editor restored it, I tried it as an introduction to the section, but concede that this did not work.

The Doctor Who section is not intended to be an itemised list of the serials Whitehouse objected to. That issue mostly belongs in the articles on the serials themselves, or a separate article for those who are interested in Doctor Who first and Whitehouse second. The solution is to use her comments about Genesis as an introduction to Hinchcliffe's response to Whitehouse's criticisms. That option seems to wok fine, although it seems another user disagrees.

The reference to Skaro seemed redundant. It is of no significance for readers of this article and will be known to followers of Who. So what's the point. Although on checking, I find Elisabeth Sladen's comments were directly linked to Whitehouse, they are too mundane to quote, especially at the end of a section. Philip Cross (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)