Jump to content

Talk:Mary Whitehouse: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)
 
(47 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{OnThisDay|date1=2017-11-23|oldid1=811695093|date2=2021-11-23|oldid2=1056608125|date3=2022-11-23|oldid3=1123369482}}
{{WPBiography
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|blp=no|listas=Whitehouse, Mary|
|living=no
{{WikiProject Biography}}
|class=C
{{WikiProject Television}}
|listas=Whitehouse, Mary
⚫
{{WikiProject Pornography|importance=low}}
}}
{{WikiProject Television|class=C}}
{{WikiProject Cheshire|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Pornography|class=C|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Cheshire|class=C|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Warwickshire|importance=}}
⚫
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|class=C|importance=Low}}
}}
}}
<div style="width: 100%">
<div style="width: 100%">
Line 16: Line 15:
<br clear="all">
<br clear="all">


==When did teaching career end?==
== Socially conservative activist groups ==
The page mentions her last teaching post only dating its start (Madeley Modern School, Shropshire) in 1960 but description of her teaching career seems to stop in that paragraph without giving and indication when it ended. I was born the year before she took up her post and I recall in Shropshire newspapers how she carried on teaching while for a time still holding down the job.[[User:Cloptonson|Cloptonson]] ([[User talk:Cloptonson|talk]]) 20:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

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? [[User:Cusop Dingle|Cusop Dingle]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Pascal yuiop|Pascal]] ([[User talk:Pascal yuiop|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 [[WP:RS|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". [[User:Cusop Dingle|Cusop Dingle]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:Pascal yuiop|Pascal]] ([[User talk:Pascal yuiop|talk]]) 20:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Suits me. [[User:Cusop Dingle|Cusop Dingle]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Chips Critic|Chips Critic]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Cusop Dingle|Cusop Dingle]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Chips Critic|Chips Critic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Cusop Dingle|Cusop Dingle]] ([[User talk:Cusop Dingle|talk]]) 07:26, 12 December 2011 (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. --[[User:Chips Critic|Chips Critic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Paul Benjamin Austin|Paul Austin]] ([[User talk:Paul Benjamin 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? [[User:Cusop Dingle|Cusop Dingle]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Chips Critic|Chips Critic]] ([[User talk:Chips Critic|talk]]) 17:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
:::Please explain how the comment might contribute to improving ''this article''. [[User:Cusop Dingle|Cusop Dingle]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Chips Critic|Chips Critic]] ([[User talk:Chips Critic|talk]]) 20:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::Hmm. [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|Wikipedia is not a battleground]]. [[User:Cusop Dingle|Cusop Dingle]] ([[User talk:Cusop Dingle|talk]]) 20:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::: Absolutely, and this is why the ideologically-motivated distortion of this article will be opposed. --[[User:Chips Critic|Chips Critic]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Cusop Dingle|Cusop Dingle]] ([[User talk:Cusop Dingle|talk]]) 20:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

== Homophobia ==


:I found the answer to my own question 5 years later! It was, according to a feature on her life in the Shropshire Star, Christmas 1964 when she left Madeley Modern School. I have added further information to this article cited to the newspaper feature.[[User:Cloptonson|Cloptonson]] ([[User talk:Cloptonson|talk]]) 10:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
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? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.97.18.12|88.97.18.12]] ([[User talk:88.97.18.12|talk]]) 22:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== External links modified ==
: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. [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross|talk]]) 22:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
==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?


I have just modified one external link on [[Mary Whitehouse]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/812588237|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
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.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101012071642/http://www.petford.net/kaleidoscope/a-family-at-war.html to http://www.petford.net/kaleidoscope/a-family-at-war.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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. [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross|talk]]) 15:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
==''Swizzlewick'' (2)==
An editor ([[User:Anthony Appleyard]]) has restored a cut passage on ''Swizlewick'', 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. [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross|talk]]) 13:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC).


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 18:27, 28 November 2017 (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.


== External links modified ==
Alternative: 'legally blasphemous content' <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Olivcm|Olivcm]] ([[User talk:Olivcm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Olivcm|contribs]]) 10:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
: 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. [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross|talk]]) 11:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on [[Mary Whitehouse]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/814540062|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:: 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? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Olivcm|Olivcm]] ([[User talk:Olivcm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Olivcm|contribs]]) 07:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815015701/http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6064488/in-defence-of-mary-whitehouse.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6064488/in-defence-of-mary-whitehouse.thtml


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
⚫
== Pink Floyd ==


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Mary Whatehouse is mentioned in the Pink Floyd song Pigs. Is this important? ~'''''[[User:Editorofthewiki|<font color="#F900">EDDY</font>]]'' <sup>([[User talk:Editorofthewiki|<font color="Green">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|<font color="Green">contribs</font>]])</sup>'''</span>~ 20:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 12:03, 9 December 2017 (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. [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross|talk]]) 20:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


⚫
== Pink Floyd reference ==
:: I disagree. It ''may'' merit a one-sentence mention in the article, but to put it in "See also" seems pointless. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 12:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


Whitehouse is clearly named in the third verse of the [[Pink Floyd]] song "[[Pigs (Three Different Ones)]]" on the 1977 album "[[Animals (Pink Floyd album)|Animals]]". [[User:Flanker235|Flanker235]] ([[User talk:Flanker235|talk]]) 07:49, 31 December 2017 (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. [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross|talk]]) 13:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


: It was removed in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=811775121&oldid=811663186&title=Mary_Whitehouse this edit] last month, so it is not universally desired. A recurrent issue (see the archive talk pages), I have restored it. Doubtless it will be removed again on policy grounds, and I will make the points that it is a compromise with those who insist on a mention and suggest there is no clear place where it could be included in the main article and probably no [[WP:IRS|reliable source]] to imply [[WP:N|notability]]. Sorry if I sound jaundiced on this subject. [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross|talk]]) 10:22, 31 December 2017 (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. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 14:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
:: Good grief. Really? Well, thanks for trying. Wikipedia's references to the song itself make it pretty clear what it's about but I guess I'm not telling you anything you don't know already. Thanks. [[User:Flanker235|Flanker235]] ([[User talk:Flanker235|talk]]) 11:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


== Suffered a lot, she did ==
:: 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. [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross|talk]]) 14:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


I read her autobiography which softened my attitude towards her. Her views certainly made her unpopular with some people, for which she and her family suffered all sorts of unpleasant attacks, including things like dog poo through her letterbox. [[User:Paul Benjamin Austin|Paul Benjamin Austin]] ([[User talk:Paul Benjamin Austin|talk]]) 11:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
== Whitehouse and Jimmy Savile ==


== A daughter? ==
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. [[User:Paul Benjamin Austin|Paul Austin]] ([[User talk:Paul Benjamin Austin|talk]]) 15:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


{{cite book |first=W. F. |last=Deedes |authorlink=W. F. Deedes |title=Dear Bill: A Memoir |publisher=Pan Books |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-330-35410-3}} mentions on page 230 that Whitehouse had a daughter, noting that she asked Deedes for assistance/advice in suppressing publication of a news story relating to the breakdown of that daughter's marriage. None of the many obituaries and subsequent interviews with her sons etc seem to mention this daughter but the Deedes book was originally published in 1997 and the revised version I cite from 2006 still gives the story, which would be odd if Deedes had got it so wrong.
: 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? [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Paul Benjamin Austin|Paul Austin]] ([[User talk:Paul Benjamin Austin|talk]]) 07:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


The only possible mention I can see of another child, other than the five mentioned in the article at present, is the somewhat cryptic and throwaway reference to a foster child [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bunHURgi7FcC&pg=PA647 here]. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 17:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
==''Doctor Who''==
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 [[WP:UNDUE|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.


:What is the book this 'cryptic reference' is in, is it British? I question how well informed the writer was on her life, it states Madeley Modern School was in Wolverhampton, whereas it was actually in Shropshire in a town that has become part of the Telford conurbation (and not that of Birmingham-Wolverhampton). As to WF Deedes, did he state the time the marriage breakdown happened? I note that his memoir was published in 1997 when he was 85, might he have been in error?[[User:Cloptonson|Cloptonson]] ([[User talk:Cloptonson|talk]]) 10:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
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. [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross|talk]]) 00:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
== "Mary Whitehouse/Archive 3" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect [[:Mary Whitehouse/Archive 3]] and has thus listed it [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|for discussion]]. This discussion will occur at {{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30#Mary Whitehouse/Archive 3}} until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> Regards, [[User:Sonic678|<span style="font-family:Magneto; font-size:95%; color:#0F45D2">SONIC</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sonic678|<span style="font-family:Vladimir Script; color:#D4AF37">678</span>]]</sup> 06:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
== "Mary Whitehouse/Archive 2" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect [[:Mary Whitehouse/Archive 2]] and has thus listed it [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|for discussion]]. This discussion will occur at {{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30#Mary Whitehouse/Archive 2}} until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> Regards, [[User:Sonic678|<span style="font-family:Magneto; font-size:95%; color:#0F45D2">SONIC</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sonic678|<span style="font-family:Vladimir Script; color:#D4AF37">678</span>]]</sup> 06:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:01, 27 February 2024


When did teaching career end?

[edit]

The page mentions her last teaching post only dating its start (Madeley Modern School, Shropshire) in 1960 but description of her teaching career seems to stop in that paragraph without giving and indication when it ended. I was born the year before she took up her post and I recall in Shropshire newspapers how she carried on teaching while for a time still holding down the job.Cloptonson (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found the answer to my own question 5 years later! It was, according to a feature on her life in the Shropshire Star, Christmas 1964 when she left Madeley Modern School. I have added further information to this article cited to the newspaper feature.Cloptonson (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Whitehouse. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Whitehouse. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd reference

[edit]

Whitehouse is clearly named in the third verse of the Pink Floyd song "Pigs (Three Different Ones)" on the 1977 album "Animals". Flanker235 (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed in this edit last month, so it is not universally desired. A recurrent issue (see the archive talk pages), I have restored it. Doubtless it will be removed again on policy grounds, and I will make the points that it is a compromise with those who insist on a mention and suggest there is no clear place where it could be included in the main article and probably no reliable source to imply notability. Sorry if I sound jaundiced on this subject. Philip Cross (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. Really? Well, thanks for trying. Wikipedia's references to the song itself make it pretty clear what it's about but I guess I'm not telling you anything you don't know already. Thanks. Flanker235 (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suffered a lot, she did

[edit]

I read her autobiography which softened my attitude towards her. Her views certainly made her unpopular with some people, for which she and her family suffered all sorts of unpleasant attacks, including things like dog poo through her letterbox. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A daughter?

[edit]

Deedes, W. F. (2006). Dear Bill: A Memoir. Pan Books. ISBN 978-0-330-35410-3. mentions on page 230 that Whitehouse had a daughter, noting that she asked Deedes for assistance/advice in suppressing publication of a news story relating to the breakdown of that daughter's marriage. None of the many obituaries and subsequent interviews with her sons etc seem to mention this daughter but the Deedes book was originally published in 1997 and the revised version I cite from 2006 still gives the story, which would be odd if Deedes had got it so wrong.

The only possible mention I can see of another child, other than the five mentioned in the article at present, is the somewhat cryptic and throwaway reference to a foster child here. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the book this 'cryptic reference' is in, is it British? I question how well informed the writer was on her life, it states Madeley Modern School was in Wolverhampton, whereas it was actually in Shropshire in a town that has become part of the Telford conurbation (and not that of Birmingham-Wolverhampton). As to WF Deedes, did he state the time the marriage breakdown happened? I note that his memoir was published in 1997 when he was 85, might he have been in error?Cloptonson (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Mary Whitehouse/Archive 3" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mary Whitehouse/Archive 3 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Mary Whitehouse/Archive 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 06:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Mary Whitehouse/Archive 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mary Whitehouse/Archive 2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Mary Whitehouse/Archive 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 06:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Whitehouse&oldid=1210550326"