Talk:Political correctness

---

Untitled

Please Post All Comments at the End of this Page!

Please Note: This article is not about language evolution in general, nor mere euphemism.

Former Featured Article Nominee

(FormerFA)
A version of this article was once nominated (June 2004) to be a featured article.
See:

• Original nomination page: June 28 2004 version of this article.
• Why is was removed: Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Political correctness/archive2
• Archived discussion: Talk:Political correctness/Featured article removal candidates results

Criticism section

Generally speaking, as WP:CRITICISM says, putting all the critical views in one section is not an encyclopedic way to address the subject; critical views should be placed in the appropriate parts of the article instead. Beyond that, I disagree with moving part of the timeline (which is clearly relevant specifically to that part of the timeline) to a separate criticism section, since it implies that the views of the critics described there are not as valid or relevant to the use of the term in the 1990's as the other things we quote there. Our role in writing an encyclopedia article is to represent all views according to the WP:DUE weight in reliable sources; a history section that omits liberal criticism of the term (by moving it to a separate section) violates WP:NPOV by omitting a major aspect of the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It's modern usage, doesn't belong there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

They're well-sourced commentators expressing one mainstream view on the modern usage; moving them out of the section and putting them elsewhere is a WP:NPOV violation, since it means we're effectively silencing a major viewpoint on the subject and denying it WP:DUE weight. --Aquillion (talk) 08:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I put the two modern comments in the modern usage section. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

And in addition the section is heavily WP:UNDUE because literally every single bit but the beginning article bit is liberals criticizing the term and its users and then some scare quotes from conservatives added in the mix. You're also opposing the only neutral view on the matter at the end. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

We cite numerous conservatives in the modern usage section, and describe the key players and their views in the main section. I'm not suggesting we remove those (indeed, you are the one who keep objecting to including D'Souza's views, despite him being one of the most notable conservative voices on the controversy.) I'm objecting to the inclusion of multiple bland, essentially meaningless quotes that add very little to the debate. A quote from someone involved in the controversy expressing their views is excellent, especially when those views are widely-sourced as significant and representative or when they come from a major scholar in the field summarizing a key point of view; an extensive quote from someone saying "there is a controversy" without expressing an opinion is generally unimportant and is worth a paraphrase at best, not the large block-quotes you're suggesting we devote to them. --Aquillion (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, only scare quotes from them. You don't quote ten different modern conservatives on their views on the history and their view of the left's view on the term like you do with liberals. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If you have conservative views on the term's history you don't think are covered there, you can add them! But the only reason there are so many cites in the liberal section is because you initially objected and put a "citation needed" tag on it when it said that many liberal commentators objected that way; so I added cites. Only a few of the most prominent are actually quoted. The quotes you're adding now, though, don't add anything of any dimension to the history. --Aquillion (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Even when I try to add a neutral view you revert it because you are edit war controlling the article with Pincrete. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

And whenever I try to make something more encyclopedic and thus paraphrase the source, you attack me for WP:OR even though I pretty much simply write the same as the source but with different words. Because of this I've had to mostly resort to quotes. Then when you swoop in and paraphrase and remove all the gist from the quote to basically make it talk about nothing at all it's perfectly okay and you go and pull up some mention on some policy article where it's advised to paraphrase. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, see WP:BRD. You've made very dramatic changes to the article in a very short time; and while there's a lot of debate above, many of your most sweeping changes (eg. inserting huge paragraphs and quotes into the history section and pushing the summary further and further down) had very little discussion beforehand. Reverting or revising them and then discussing is entirely normal. And please also assume good faith. I accept that you believe your changes are making the article more neutral, but I don't think that that's the end result at all -- people can have different views on a topic, different views on the sources and what they say, and so on, without it being the result of some sinister attempt to push an agenda. I simply feel that your changes are effectively removing or downplaying much of the coverage from reliable sources about the term and its history. --Aquillion (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't, you have? I've basically added quotes and mentions of people and things and that's all and you're trying to change the history section entirely by changing all the section titles. You've also changed the lead again and again to your liking. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

And it seems like whenever you feel your numerous scare quotes from conservatives and criticism from liberals aren't getting enough spotlight you try to edit the article in a major way to focus on the scare quotes and criticisms. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Doubling the size of a section (and adding a totally-new 1980's section) is a pretty large change! I don't think everything is bad, but we need to discuss how to divide the sections up and how to arrange the new content you added; and some of your additions (the new block quotes) just don't strike me as an improvement, for the reasons I've described above. --Aquillion (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

1990s is 4712 characters long without Loury or media bit in the beginning. The media bit is 1148 characters long. With Loury added 1659 characters long. What I added is 35% more. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you added two block-quotes, which take up significant space! Regardless, the gist of it is that you substantially expanded the section (and effectively replaced its summary) with little discussion, so it's normal for there to be some back-and-forth and discussion over that. --Aquillion (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, it's empty space. Secondly, there was a block quote strongly from your now-apparent viewpoint at the end before. You didn't think it was too much then? And thirdly, I only added the Loury block quote only recently. Before it there was a block quote at the beginning and at the end. The Loury quote looks very much out of place if you don't place it in a block quote because it's so neutral that it doesn't belong with all the demonizing that happens just before. Fourthly, you didn't seem to want to discuss, but only cut and maim. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That quote serves to illustrate a prominent viewpoint; my issue is that the quotes you're adding don't seem to contribute anything to the article. --Aquillion (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent revert-war issues!

Since the recent revert war was over a bunch of small changes, I thought I'd make a section for each of them so we can discuss them. I'm not sure what the objection to some of the changes is; others I can guess, but there wasn't really any real reason given for them.

• In the history section, Mr. Magoo changed "The previously obscure term became common currency in the lexicon..." to 'liberal' with no explanation, and has repeatedly reverted any edit that changed it back; this isn't what the source there says, so it has to be changed back.
• Mr. Magoo added "Roger Kimball, in Tenured Radicals, endorsed view that PC is best described as", which is both grammatically-incorrect and awkwardly-worded. I changed this to "Roger Kimball, for instance, in Tenured Radicals, described...", but it was reverted with no explanation. This one, I think, is straightforward; it's an obvious improvement, so I'm confused that it's been reverted repeatedly.
• Mr. Magoo inserted a new paragraph to the 1990's section, which mostly duplicates the information on Bernstein from the 1980's section and bumped the summary of the 1990's section down a paragraph. This one is perhaps more tricky, because while most of Bernstein's articles were in the 1980's, one was from the 1990's. I propose merging the 1990's and 1980's section and putting the summary at the top of the merged section, since there isn't really any major distinction between the two decades in the sources.
• This edit, in particular (which sparked the most recent revert war) made most of these reverts listed above with the edit summary "Changing timeline to be more accurate"; as far as I can tell, it was a copy-paste revert of the entire section, with no real explanation beyond the timeline. Please be more careful with those reverts; you removed all the improvements above!

There are probably some more minor aspects that I forgot, but those are the changes that seem to be contested which stick out to me right now. Anyway, let's discuss which parts of that revert were intentional, which were incidental, what the reasons behind them are, and which version is preferable! And again, please be careful with the blanket reverts -- I get that that you want the word 'liberal' used more frequently in the article, you've said that many times (even if I think your particular addition there is unsupportable), and I'm not surprised that you prefer to keep the paragraph you added at the top of the section, but the improvement to the wording on the Kimball quote was as far as I can tell entirely uncontroversial, and you've reverted it multiple times while blanket-reverting the entire section. --Aquillion (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Aquillion's, comments. I would, and have recommended this as a good point from which to start discussions. I agree that I cannot see the point of many of the added quotes, though am prepared to look again. On a more general note, it is quite pointless us attempting to proceed while PAs, bad faith accusations etc. and the right to re-write according to whim appear to be the norm from Mr Magoo. Personal note, I was involved in a very serious car accident on Saturday. My car is a complete right-off due to hitting a rock-face, I am unhurt (thankyou air-bags + seat belts), but may excuse myself from discussions for a while. Pincrete (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Firstly, I have constantly asked for any sort of full sentences from the mysterious source which states that it was previously obscure. You keep avoiding this question and me entirely whenever I ask for it. Pincrete says he doesn't have access to the source. It seems like you don't have either.
• Secondly, I've pointed out numerous times that in the sources it's stated that Kimball "endorses" the view, again: "endorses." You can't misquote a source just because it doesn't look pretty enough to you. But still you keep changing it.
• The Bernstein bit doesn't duplicate but his name and the year 1990. He wrote two different articles which popularized it in both 1988 and 1990 of which the latter did the most of the job. And the mention of the 1990 to the 1980s bit was not added by me but you two. Judging from the sources, he most likely came up with the modern use of the word so he should have his own whole section in this article. The paragraph was also added before the 1980s section existed.
• Like pointed below, iń your 1990s edit you changed the section's structure and the section subtitles entirely, only to have it focus on conservatives more. You wrote above in another section that you felt my 35% addition to the 1990s seemed like doubling the section to you. That obviously means you feel like something other needs to be spotlighted more. Since you edited conservatives to the beginning of your wished section: 688345283, it seems like that is what you want 95% of the 1990s section to be about. The 1990s section already repeats the almost exact same sentence of conservatives picking the term up multiple times. It has no voices from conservative editors, which is apparent. It has scare quotes from right-wingers, cherry-picked by left-wing editors. That isn't WP:NPOV. What do you think a neutral editor would think of this? Support this? Oh no — oppose it. If you asked D'Souza himself to edit the section, he wouldn't feature any of those bits. He'd word it very neutrally and mostly focus on victim playing like he did in his book. I've mentioned earlier multiple times how D'Souza mostly focuses on "victim's revolution" in his book. You don't want that to be his focus even though it is. You're painting a straw man of him. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Firstly, simple question, does the source support that the term was previously 'liberal'? Because multiple sources (including your own claims about the NYT), clearly and explicitly state that the term was 'obscure' (ie not widespread) prior to that debate. The NYT articles clearly state that the term was being used in the late '80s by conservatives + traditionalists within academia to criticise 'radical' policies from at least the late 80's. If you cannot say that the source supports 'liberal', you have knowingly inserted content purely of your own creation, for reasons best known to yourself.

'Endorsed view' is what you keep inserting, which is completely ungrammatical and fairly uninformative unless it is said WHOSE view was being endorsed (endorsed means 'back up' or 'second').

Half of the 'Bernstein' para above is pure OR, (and nonsense). Bernstein was REPORTING use of the term, he didn't 'come up with it', define it or anything of the sort (if he did he's an inventor of news).

Re: If you asked D'Souza himself to edit the section, he wouldn't feature any of those bits. He'd word it very neutrally and mostly focus on victim playing like he did in his book. I've mentioned earlier multiple times how D'Souza mostly focuses on "victim's revolution" in his book. You don't want that to be his focus even though it is.. If you really wanted to prove your complete inability to even attempt to be impartial, you could hardly have done better. DO THE SOURCES FOCUS ON 'VICTIMIZATION', with regard to 'PC'? Pincrete (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Endorse. View. Endorsed view. I don't understand what's ungrammatical about this. You could add "the" inbetween. And there was a person whose view it was, so he can be added. And I didn't claim Bern came up with the term but likely the modern use for it. He is sourced to have used it in 1988 as well, way before the 1990 article. And the prime Dinesh source, the 1991 bestseller, didn't even use the term PC, so I don't understand where you're going with that. You're just undermining yourself. Oh and I just noticed your first bit which is to the left slightly: We don't know but the other sources do state that it used to be a liberal term. The entire first half of the history section is about that. I thought the change was of more interest and even a benefit to your view but I guess you can't see the wood from the trees. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong again, the history section states that it was briefly an obscure (mainly ironic) 'new left' term (inc. some radical feminists). Unless you think that liberal is synonomous with new left, (which even in US usage is a pretty far out claim), you are simply factually wrong. Many sources do comment on the irony that a historically 'far left' (Communist + Maoist) term became briefly a 'new left' term before being appropriated by conservative critics, which would be a supportable claim, and is already in the article, (I think). Your claim ('liberal') isn't supportable. As far as one can tell, you knew that perfectly well when you inserted it and are 'clutching at straws' with this retrospective justification

If Bernstein didn't come up with the term, but simply 'reported on its use', then he 'popularised it', 'spread its use' or 'made it more widely understood', or any of the other variants that you have hitherto rejected.

If Kimball is simply endorsing someone else's view, we need to know whose, even briefly, otherwise the word 'endorse' simply 'floats in mid-air'. Pincrete (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It was an only-left term nearly as long as it's been the modern shared term. And if you read further than the first sentence it talks of others than just the New Left. Specifically feminists of the 1980s. And Bernstein seemingly didn't simply report on the term in 1988 like he did in 1990. And the person is Frederick Crews.--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I specifically mentioned 'radical feminists' already. So in your opinion 'liberal' is a fair synonym of 'new left' and 'radical feminists & progressives' is it? Actually there is a 1986 NYT use of 'PC', not by either man, that's why I favour focusing on the series. Anyway, from the late 70s to mid 80s is as long as 1990-ish to 2015 is it? Pincrete (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the feminists it also adds progressives. The definition of modern American liberalism is progressive stances. And was the 1986 article not by Bernstein as well? And I don't think it was said to have featured the term, but only being about the matter. And two decades is the almost same as two decades plus five years. Where did you get late 70s when it gives the year as exactly 1970? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

So the simple answer to the simple question does the source support that the term was previously 'liberal'?, is NO. Neither do other sources on the page. Neither are you interested in knowing that a higher level of proof would be required for such a claim in 'our voice', than the innocuous 'obscure' (ie not widely known or used).Pincrete (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

But we just went through that they do. Progressives, feminists and the (new?) left. If you don't think that categorizes liberals then you're just acting WP:POINTY like you mentioned earlier. And neither of you has access to the source so it's an unusable source like the one the admin mentioned earlier. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the text has been there for a longish time, the onus is on you persuade that the source is invalid. Not on any editor to prove to you that it IS valid, (I don't have access to it, others may, but they are not obliged to supply it to you because you so order it). The reasons for this have been explained to you at length, but WP:IDHT applies. You don't understand WP:Pointy, but yes I was making the point, that you made (one of many) edits, without even considering whether the source(s) actually supported the claim, whether the change made sense in the text, or whether there was any support for the changes, just as you appear to have added tags, making claims which you have no idea whether they were true or not. You could of course, just 'own up' and apologise, then we could all get on with discussing the subject. Pincrete (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There was no clear source/citation for the statement before. The inaccessible source, the Media one was only recently moved there. The statement seems completely made up now that we can't find these words in any of the sources. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Re no clear source The previously obscure term became common currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities of the U.S.[4][43].

43 refers to 5 books (and has been there for months, but doesn't give page no.s), so that's 6 sources. How can that not be sourced? But what in that statement do you dispute the truth of? I can't verify those PARTICULAR sources, but find the statement unremarkable. The 'big debate' around 'PC' in the US wasn't about 'progressive methods' and curriculum? The people making the challenges weren't (educational/social) conservatives? What is being disputed?

Re New left, suffice it to say that 'new left' are about as typical of 'liberals' as the John Birch Society or the KKK are of all conservatives, and it's fairly clumsy to claim they are the same thing. Even within the new left, use of the term was marginal and mainly ironic criticism (Hughes documents about 10 written, literal uses of the term in the late '70s' early 80's, mainly radical feminists) But you want things both ways, the term was in common use among liberals (you claim), but no one had heard about it outside academia until NYT. Pincrete (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

But the ones we're familiar with don't have anything specific and absolute like the sentence. And it names sources very vaguely, for some were quite profilic and published multiple per year. This is a very, very vague citation. And on what page does Hughes document that? I can't find anything like that. Does he give ten as examples? That's not the same thing. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

What is not specific about the claims? Yes Hughes is citing these just as examples (mainly to make the point about who/how the term was being used, notably radical feminists). I will have very little time today, but will try to find 'Hughes' when poss. Pincrete (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

What is 'absolute' about the sentence? The previously obscure term became common currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities of the U.S.[4][43]. Does it say these were the only people using the term? Which part of the sentence is 'absolute', overstated or false in your judgement? Was this not a noteble use of the term, to criticise changes in higher education during the 90's?Pincrete (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Haven't you had more time since then? The absolute bit was talking about the lead as well. And it happens when you leave out the other definition and uses. The term isn't stated to be against changes like the sentence posits, but the opposite: a definition for the philosophy of education change. The movement against would be "anti-PC" or something of that sort. Subsequently it has been applied to changes in other parts of the larger society as well, defining political correctness as the philosophy of protection from offense. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, you need to provide sources on that. I know you feel that the history of the term is different from what eg. Wilson, Jeffrey, Schultz and so on say it is, or that there's an additional "side" we're not covering, but you haven't produced any academics or historians discussing it. Without that, we have to go with what they say; and what they say is that modern usage is the result of a determined push by several conservative think-tanks, talking heads, and authors through the 1980's and 1990's, which took a previously-obscure term and turned it into a talking point in the culture wars. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, you go with the straw man. I don't majorly "disagree" because they do not state it's primarily pejorative, and they aren't writing in current times. Schultz states that what didn't use to be in any way related to conservatism has been "recently" (writing in 1993) picked up by conservatives. Similarly the other two state it used to be different but was picked up by the conservatives. These are history books — even a modern dictionary is a more viable source than these when it comes to current times. If you want to summarize the 1990s, it would be that previously obscure and liberal term was picked up by conservatives. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

All of those sources state that the primary modern usage of the term is as an attack against liberals by conservatives, which makes it pejorative; some of them use the word 'pejorative' and some use other terms, but all of them are reasonably paraphrased to 'pejorative'. All of them agree that the term was "obscure", but I don't agree that they referring to as 'liberal'; since we're in agreement on the first part but not the second, we can at least go back to "...previously obscure term..." as part of the status quo. And some of them are more recent, but again, you keep talking about another, non-pejorative definition; and you haven't really been able to dig up any histories or academic discussions of that usage. There's talk of ironic usage, of self-depreciating usage, and there is a lot of discussion about the culture war as its primary usage, but there's little support for your reading. --Aquillion (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

None of them state primary. Again, Schultz says the term's being used in a different way by conservatives, in 1993. In that time it was more news than definition. And if you don't think the term wasn't originally used by leftists like claimed by all of our sources, you need to provide sources stating so. There are also numerous sources defining the term non-pejoratively, if you bothered not to remove them when I add them. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The centre of the revert war!

Since Aquillion had with such good faith made an entire section just to attack me personally, allow me to retort.

Aquillion has (refer to the larger lump of text below for more sources):

• Edit warred in a tag-team with Pincrete for 5 months for the lead to state it's only a pejorative when the article did not state that as the only use before their appearance: 663263923
• Edit warred in a tag-team with Pincrete to change from "ordinarily pejorative" to "primarily pejorative": 687795863
• Edit warred in a now-reverted edit to change the history section entirely to focus on his favorite theme of conservatives, even though the conservative use began in as late as 1991: 688345283
• Removed mentions of the term from quotes to lessen the view that it's used non-pejoratively: 688081028
• Removed sources that state it's not mainly used pejoratively: 685752707
• Changed source quotes to his own words that lessen the role of sourced popularizers, to shine more light on his conservative popularizers: 688068321
• Constantly accuse editors of grammar mistakes yet constantly break sentences himself for absolutely no reason: 688346276 ("one author used the term in 1995 "conservative correctness", arguing,") and 685330688 ("writing in 2001, wrote")
• Add any mention of conservative and the right where he can: 688065671 yet remove any mentions of left-affiliation: 684879822

Also, of Aquillion's and Pincrete's close relationship: The two have met before May 2015: 653573744 yet they also happened to start regularly editing this article on dates May 20 2015 and May 24 2015 respectively. The last time Aquillion had edited the article before that was in 2007. He made I believe exactly 50 edits to the article between May 2015 and September 30 2015. I now notice that during this time he managed to even edit war with people other than me, who first appeared on September 30. Pincrete made 65 edits to the article in the same time period.

On October 29, the last edit on the talk page was by me at 5:09 and the last edit on the article itself happened at 6:16 by me as well. On 12:09 Pincrete writes a message on talk, and then at 12:18 Aquillion lets loose his massive edit which isn't a revert. Aquillion's edit must have taken more than 10 minutes to make. Also note that he didn't only edit the lead like he claimed. Aquillion had last edited on October 27, Pincrete on October 28. There both just happened to go check up on the article at the exact same time? I'm assuming the other didn't simply message the other that Mr. Magoo has edited again, leading to both appearing? Also note that a minute after his massive edit Aquillion writes on the talk page: 688064521 — "Anyway, what do you think of my edits to it? I think that this captures the parts you're talking about while addressing my main concerns. The core issue is still that the page lacks any real sources or discussion of any non-pejorative modern usage." He removed 9 of my sources, 2708 characters worth. He kept all of his 8+ sources. The only sources of mine he kept were the ones he thought were the most fitting to his view. Obviously it was a blatant act of an edit war and not some "capturing" of anything I talked about. He also then comments that the page lacks sources of non-pejorative usage, after he removed 9 of them. Some time later as I revert his edit, he writes: "please don't make sweeping reverts to absolutely everything! If you have a specific objection, raise it on talk and fix that part." Just before he had made a massive removal of 9 sources and a minute after that appeared on talk page to ask what I think about his edits.

Later he reverts it back after I reverted his edit: 688084549. At this point he must feel uncomfortable, since even though the earlier one wasn't a full revert, it could be seen as one. One has to watch out for WP:3RR, since it leads to a ban with a high likelihood. After his revert, I didn't revert the focus of the argument at the time — as in the lead — anymore, but I changed the 1990s section back since that change I couldn't accept. It stood like that for a while, until Pincrete then made a massive revert and changed everything back to the version Aquillion had edited. His change was a minute after one of my edits and exact to the earlier Aquillion version of the article, which means Pincrete had went to view the entire page's source at the time of Aquillion's edit, saving it to a text file and then had simply copypasted that over the current version of the article. Note that he hadn't saved the article at the time of his own edit: 681108321 but at Aquillion's which had made a bizarre year change that all the sources except one with a typo clearly were against, as even NYT's own page for the article in question stated 1990: 688108321 and 688109654.

Pincrete also never ever removes any part of any edit of Aquillion's. I believe a single time he had changed one word of Aquillion's to a synonym.

The two are acting as a revert tag-team to avoid WP:3RR. They attack any lone editors who disagree with the current state of the article.

Here is a collection of talk sections made by different editors who have disagreed with the two:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#Regarding_Modern_Usage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#Pejorative.3F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#How_did_this_article_devolve.3F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#Extremely_biased.2Fone-sided

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#Congratulations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness#Not_pejorative_in_my_part_of_the_world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness#.22politically_correct.22_used_sincerely_with_its_literal_meaning

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, time to come back to planet earth I think! Pincrete (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Weren't you supposed to have stopped participating for now because of your car accident, like you wrote? I guess you just wanted sympathy points, then. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you should look up the word 'may'. Pincrete (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Discusion of content

Let's go over these one by one, then!

• The lead, and whether its modern usage is primarily pejorative. We've discussed exhaustively above, but the vast majority of sources that cover its history agree that its modern usage is pejorative; nobody has come up with any usable sources discussing significant non-pejorative usage. I removed dictionaries, yes; as I stated above (and as we discussed at the time!), dictionaries are not generally good sources for things that require significant secondary analysis like this. Even beyond that, some of the dictionaries that people have found list the US usage of the term as pejorative.
• Significant conservative usage goes back to Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, as you've pointed out repeatedly yourself. Most of the sources discussing the term's history mention that book as core to the conservative push for the term (eg. discussing the conservative think-tanks that bankrolled both his book and, later, d'Souza's.) This isn't "my theme", it's what most sources on the term's modern history say, even the ones you're relying on yourself -- the term's usage, at least in the US, is mostly a product of liberal / conservative culture wars. Bernstein was likewise weighing in on that culture war in the context of higher education; there's still nothing in the modern history section that implies any significant usage outside it. Even the quotes which you've added (while I find them a bit redundant) just underline that the word is a flashpoint in the culture wars. Again (and I think this is the core of the dispute), you've repeatedly argued that you don't feel that the term is primarily pejorative, that its modern usage wasn't popularized by conservatives, and so on; but (despite the huge amount people have written about it) you haven't found even a single decent source that presents an alternative history to that. You've pointed out a bunch of bits in the history that we've overlooked, but all of them are still unequivocally described in the sources as parts of the core conservative project to start a culture war over education and, later, the media as a whole by using the term to encompass what they viewed as liberal bias.
• Regarding the other quotes, my feeling is that the scattered usages you've inserted essentially amount to WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. You can't use quotes to try and imply that the term has significant non-pejorative usage; you need a secondary source discussing it. Using primary sources to lead the reader to a conclusion that isn't in those sources is WP:SYNTH, so it's worth rewording them to avoid that.
• Likewise, the fact that the term is particularly used by right-wing sources to criticize what they see as bias in the media is well-documented. We can cover their accusations (and we do), but there's no real dispute in the sources about who uses the term and why, so it's appropriate to say so.
• Grammar mistakes are there to be fixed! Just fix them.

Beyond that, I don't know what to say to the rest, so I won't reply beyond pointing you towards WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND. My section above wasn't meant to attack you (even if I did express frustration with some of the way sweeping reverts have caught stuff I'd think was uncontentious things); I'm mostly just highlighting the bits of the stuff I'm in dispute with you over that I disagree with, and why. --Aquillion (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Firstly, you have no sources stating it's primarily. There are many sources which state it has gained such a connotation in addition to what it used to be, but none claim primarily. Two obviously ultraliberal sources dedicate very short sentences to it stating it's a pejorative — they are WP:FRINGE and WP:BIASED. You removed 9 sources of which none were dictionaries. The dictionary would be tenth.
• But Allan Bloom wasn't a "conservative" as we know the term. He held academically traditional views as to what should be taught in schools. He was against educational change. Using words like conservative is ambiguous, breaking WP:DISAMBIG.
• You call academic sources defining the term as something akin to a philosophy and not as a simple pejorative "scattered usages?" Mind you the literally dozen sources I gave you were from the first two pages of the academic search engine I used.
• The term's use by people other than "conservatives" is well-documented as well. Finally, not as a source but as an anecdote so don't bust your balls: on Monday I saw/heard Colbert use it non-pejoratively on his new talkshow. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Since no one has ever questioned that the term is also used by non-conservatives and since the article has never said or implied that it wasn't, what's your point? There may be a 1000 trained parrots somewhere that use the term incessantly, that does not alter the fact that the term was notably used in the '90s by educational and social conservatives, in relation to 'the education debate'. If any other group of users have been studied as to their usage, that also could go in the article (Maoists in the 1930s is documented but not in the article). Even your own NYT articles use the term 'conservative critics', using the term as far back as 1991, that is the context in which the term is used in NYT. It simply isn't logically consistent to argue that the term was almost unknown before NYT, but its use before then is somehow 'equal' (and continues to be so used today). The article charts fairly clearly the pre-1990-ish usages (could be expanded if we weren't going round in circles with the same arguments).

The article is about a term, not a phenomenon, partly because the phenomenon is indefinable EXCEPT in terms of the ways that it has been used - recently mainly for the purposes of criticism. Apart from 'far-lefters' using the term 1930-1990-ish and their friends using the term ironically (which is in the article), there are no sources documenting extensive use of the term OTHER than critically. Even some of the dictionaries state 'derogatory'.

There are many ways that the article could be more complete, including making it clearer what the critics mean when they use the term, including making it clear what Bloom's ideas were that caused it to be involved in the use of the term, however at present we are going round and round in circles. The

On a final note, Hutton is currently, Principal of Hertford College, Oxford, so what? His role in this page is simply 'British journalist', which he also is. If there is something offensive, inaccurate, biased, irrelevant or unsourced about describing Bloom's book as a 'conservative critique', suggest a better (widely sourced) one. Bloom himself is not characterised at all at present, neither is there necessarily any need to do so SO LONG AS the contents of the arguments in his book are accurately, briefly described as they impact on 'PC'. Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Instead of bothering to point out your innumerous straw men (pretty much all of what you argue against aren't part of my stance — for example I've stated earlier that the article's about the term and now you try to argue it back for some bizarre reason), I'll just point some things out. The phrase's use by people other than conservatives as non-pejoratively is well-documented like pointed out by your sources. The NYT article states the term is used by conservatives and liberals both. The term's modern use was almost unknown before NYT, not the term. You had one dictionary separate British and American usage and in the American usage it was stated derogatory — in the British it wasn't. In that case we should write to the lead that the term isn't used pejoratively in Britain, but as a description for the philosophy. And Hutton wasn't a principal when that quote was added and he also certainly wasn't in 2001 when he gave that statement. In addition, I looked back and originally Hutton and Toynbee were prefaced with labeling of "left-wing commentators," which has been since then removed. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The 'bizarre reason' for me pointing out that the article is about the term, is that several times you say the article should be about the 'philosophy', I presume you are using the word in its everyday use, mode/manner/attitude of thought. Where are the sources describing it thus? Eons ago I suggested that it would be good to have more of what d'S etc. , and those discussing their ideas meant by 'PC'. That is I presume what you mean by 'philosophy', the 'mindset' that they characterise as 'PC'. Having such additions would be good, but they would necessarily be characterised as THEIR opinions, you seem to want to characterise those opinions as objective fact, by even suggesting it should be about the 'philosophy', a 'philosophy' which has only ever been defined by its critics?

The numerous WP policy objections to reliance on dictionaries has been pointed out already many times, however the utter absurdity of deducing from an absence of 'derogatory', that the term is NOT so in UK, and asking to have that included in the lead is breathtaking. I think a strong sourced case might well be made (not reliant on dictionaries), that the term is ESPECIALLY derogatory in the US. However the article body needs to fully endorse that point before any change could be made in the lead.

Your also miss the point about Hutton's status is. Hutton was a noted academic economist when he wrote the quote, he has been many other things as well, none of this is stated in his description here because it is irrelevant to his views on 'PC', he was writing as a political journalist, no more. Pincrete (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times says that it is used as a "sarcastic jibe", which supports the argument that its modern use is pejorative (and which is covered already in the article.) Beyond that, though, we need better sources than editorials; we have numerous academics and historians, published in peer-reviewed journals and reputable publishers, going into extensive detail on the term's history. If you feel that they're wrong, you need to provide actual competing descriptions of the term's history with comparable weight. WP:RS gives the most weight to high-quality secondary sources (to the views of historians, academics, and so on), which on this topic are essentially unanimous as far as the term's history goes. --Aquillion (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It states it has become a sarcastic jibe as in it has attained such a second definition. No one disagrees with this. The issue still stands that the other definition as a simple philosophy of avoiding offence isn't even mentioned in our lead. And I just stated that the extensive histories repeat the exact same that it has two uses. If you feel that's wrong, you need to provide sources stating so. And not the two ultraliberal WP:FRINGE and WP:BIASED ones. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, which sources do you feel are WP:FRINGE and WP:BIASED, and why? We both agree that I've provided sources supporting it; if you feel those sources aren't good enough, then you have to say why in more detail -- you can't just say "they're obviously fringe and biased!" and leave it at that. What makes you feel their views are fringe? What makes you feel they're biased? --Aquillion (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Some week ago I noticed there were no sources even containing the word "pejorative" and you went to find sources for this use and you found some very questionable ones. These are your strongest link with pejorative use and they are obviously WP:BIASED; as much of what they write is contrary to most of our sources. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Contrary how? Questionable how? I don't feel that they contradict our sources; they seem entirely mainstream to me, and typical of what most sources on the subject have said. --Aquillion (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The other stated the term isn't perceived pejorative enough and he stated that he wants it seen solely so. If that isn't WP:BIASED then nothing is. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, if you feel sources are biased, and other editors do not agree WP:RSN is the place to go. There experienced editors will evaluate whether the source is RS and whether the text is a fair representation of the source(s). Pincrete (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Bloom is described as a conservative in all of the sources that discuss his role in the term's history; and the fact that he was part of a conservative push regarding the term is highlighted almost everywhere. For example, Schulz details how his book was founded by the conservative John M. Olin Foundation; likewise, Sparrow says that "this notion of political correctness gained currency through the writings and activities of a number of high-profile conservative and neo-conservative authors in the United States such as Allan Bloom, Dinesh D'Souza, Roger Kimball and Nat Hentoff, sometimes with the benefit of funding from conservative Christian think-tanks." Jeffrey Williams -- a source you added, if I recall correctly -- likewise describes Bloom as a neoconservative and highlights the fact that his book was funded by a conservative think tank. Most of the other sources say similar things; and none of the sources you've added or pointed to actually describe any significant competing history. I get that you feel that you've heard the term used in other ways based on your personal experiences (although, again, Colbert is a comedian, so I suspect whatever use you heard was ironic), but you simply haven't managed to really come up with sources that support your views; you can't just declare every source I provide to be 'obviously ultraliberal' and then provide nothing yourself. These sources are all credible, well-respected historians and scholars published in reputable journals; you might not like or agree with what they say, but there is no reason to doubt that the histories they describe are accurate, and as academics writing about the term in particular, they're among some of the best sources we have. What's your basis for describing them 'obviously ultraliberal' and WP:FRINGE? --Aquillion (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, academic conservativism means academic traditionalism as in against educational change. Like I wrote above: Using words like conservative is ambiguous, breaking WP:DISAMBIG. And just because Bloom received funding from a "conservative" doesn't automatically make him one. And this is besides the point anyways, because his book began the debate not the term. If Bloom was conservative then that concerns the debate not the term. If you want to create an article for the debate, then go ahead. And like typical of you, you state I claim "everything" ultraliberal even though I only stated two sources were plainly ultraliberal and biased. If they were to be balanced then you'd have to introduce ultraconservative and biased sources as well which is ridiculous. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

He's described as a neoconservative in particular in most of those sources, which is a type of ideological view; and they specifically mention that his book was funded by a conservative think-tank -- that is, an organization whose goals are to advance ideologically conservative causes. Bloom's involvement in this topic is as a neoconservative author funded by a conservative think-tank, as highlighted by most of the sources that discuss his role in the term's history in any depth; therefore, we have to go into detail on that in the article -- omitting it would violate WP:NPOV by leaving out something that most sources highlight as a key aspect of the history. Likewise, if you feel that some of the sources in the article are "ultraliberal and biased", you have to support that statement; as far as I can tell, we have multiple mainstream, reputable sources describing the term's modern usage as primarily pejorative, and multiple mainstream academic sources describing how Bloom, d'Souza, and other such authors pushed the term into the mainstream, funded by conservative think-tanks; no sources really seem to contest or disagree with that. There are some sources that elaborate on it, adding additional points to the history, but you have yet to produce a single source that contradicts it directly. (In fact, reading in more detail, only one of the three sources on Bernstein goes into any depth on political correctness itself; and that's Dorothy E. Smith, who describes him as a neoconservative and describes his article as initiating the "deployment of neo-conservative PC" -- that's something we ought to cover in the article, too, since it fits in with what the rest of the sources say.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

He is described neoconservative in none of them. Where did you come up with that? And just because the funding from a social conservative coincided with an educational traditionalist doesn't — again — make them the same. Again: Using words like conservative is ambiguous, breaking WP:DISAMBIG. You have yourself removed many mentions of left-affiliations. Now any vague connotations of conservatism must be applied? Bizarre how that goes. And again there are none stating primarily pejorative. There are two ultraliberal WP:FRINGE and WP:BIASED ones which dedicate short sentences to the term defining it was pejorative and that's it. That's contrary to most sources which note the many uses of the term. If we are to add notes of conservativism then Toynbee and Hutton must be noted to be notable leftists as well. Hutton describes himself as left-wing. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I specified which sources describe him as neoconservative above; I even quoted one at length; these are sources discussing his role in this topic specifically, which means that we have to go by what they say and highlight it the way they do. And, again: Why do you feel those sources are "ultraliberal WP:FRINGE and WP:BIASED?" We don't need sources saying pejorative specifically (we can paraphrase and summarize; the entire article focuses on pejorative usage), but I provided two because you asked, and you have yet to identify any real problems with them. We currently cover Toynbee and Hutton as examples of liberal commentators on the subject, but we've explained this to death -- the key issue is how the sources that discuss someone's role on the topic touch on them. Bloom and d'Souza are constantly discussed in light of their political views and their funding from right-wing think-tanks; Bernstein is discussed as popularizing the neoconservative usage of the term. --Aquillion (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You named three, yes, but they don't describe him as neoconservative. Again, where did you come up with that? And I didn't describe these three as ultraliberal. You were the one to claim I stated all sources to be, but I pointed two which weren't these. The article currently doesn't label Toynbee or Hutton. I've tried to add labels to them but you've edit warred them out. You want to add what you deny from others. You're trying to add multiple conservative labels, one even where something even slightly linked to a conservative would be unsourcedly "neoconservative." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, This now sub-sectioned text was moved by me to the prev. content discussion. The reason for doing so is that this text is concerned with issues in the text, whereas the section heading and initial content of this section, is solely personal accusations. Such accusations have no place on the talk page and should be taken to WP:ANI or WP:SPI if you believe they have substance. Failure to do so on your part indicates that you know your allegations have no substance, but nonetheless believe that you have a right, to repeat them, this is trolling. I invite you to delete the latest batch, and we can continue the content discussion. However there is no point in continuing ANY discussions whilst PAs continue. WP:AGF and WP:NPA are not 'optional extras', they are absolute and unconditional requirements of any editor contributing to WP. There are no circumstances and no editors who are entitled to exemption. Pincrete (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The section above by Aquillion accusing me of all sorts of things and mostly spreading disinformation and distortion about my actions is solely personal accusations as well. I only created this section in response like I wrote. And your move doesn't function in the slightest because he talks about points in this section, which when moved makes no sense. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker I see no PAs as you claim in Aqu's post, it appears to be a civil attempt to establish what the content differences of opinion are, I don't know whether everything he says is true, if any parts are wrong, you might have spent your time more constructively pointing them out in a civil coherent fashion.

It is clear from your reply that you do regard yourself as the exception to the AGF rule and do regard yourself as entitled to make very serious allegations about other editors repeatedly on talk as part of a battleground mentality and strategy. So be it. Pincrete (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

He does it more covertly than I did but nevertheless the section focuses on me and he states things I never did, which is clearly affront. He declares I inserted a paragraph which was a duplicate of the 1980s: untrue for it was added before 1980s existed. He declares that I sparked the edit war even though it was his non-stable changing of the timeline to non-chronological that did. He accuses of "blanket reverting" when he pretty much "blanket edits" the entire article. I mean he removed two sections from the history. He himself truly offers no explanation for why the history section needs to be changed to be like that. He constantly repeats that I offer no explanations but I have repeatedly again and again and again explained why Kimball can't be misquoted when the person whose view he specifically endorses is Frederick Crews. And good faith needs to happen on both sides. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I was just highlighting the differences and the areas we seem to disagree over, asking you to explain the areas where you're reverting me while trying to provide my reasoning for the areas where I'm reverting you. We need to try and focus more on the specific bits of text we disagree over, on what sources we can find to support them and how we can rewrite it into something we both find acceptable. One thing (since you've mentioned it a lot of times!) You've said I removed non-dictionary sources; I'm still not sure which ones you meant! Could you specify them so we can figure out what happened? The only sources I recall intentionally removing were the dictionaries, though some other ones may have gotten lost in the shuffle. (I mean, the lead is overcited, so we could pare it down a bit -- but we can talk about which sources to remove after we've reached an agreement on how to summarize things, at least.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You wrote I have done this and that — which I haven't like you describe — and without explanations — even though I've always explained. Instead of talking about the points you focused on me. I've constantly explained everything but you ignore all of my explanations. You're not interested in even the slightest of my suggestions. Not even the most miniscule. Where as I've bent numerous times. You're even trying to forcefully remove the mention of Bernstein entirely, maybe barely mentioning him in 1980s — even though he's probably the single most important person in this article. You don't like the fact that he's a reporter and not some hardcore neonazi conservative biblethumper. And on October 29 you removed 9 sources from the lead. All of them mine; none of them yours even though you had almost as many overcitations in the lead to prove a point. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I've made it clear that I do think Bernstein has a place in the history, but ultimately, the attention paid to his articles is just one event; we have to cover and summarize the overarching history. Just about every academic source that goes into depth on that history describes the term's modern usage as tracing back to a series of books published by conservative think-tanks; just about every academic source focuses on modern debate over the word as as culture war pushed by these organizations as a way of addressing what they felt were liberal biases in the media and academia. It's silly to suggest that the spike in usage following his articles on the controversy is more important than the entire rest of the history and its usage of the term. And, again, please assume good faith. --Aquillion (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Like stated, the article's about the term. He's the single most important person when it comes to the modern usage. And just about every source we have trace the source back to leftists and then media and then conservatives. You'd have to provide sources stating it wasn't originally used by leftists if you don't think so. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that the sources, taken collectively, indicate that he's the single most important; some don't mention him at all, and most of the ones that do just describe him as "influential" at best -- as the person who kickstarted the neo-conservative usage of the term. (I do think that we need to go into more detail on that aspect, of course, since it's in the sources and not covered at the moment -- if I read Dorthy E. Smith's description of his place in the history correctly, he was one of the people who introduced it into the neo-conservative vernacular and, as one of their standard-bearers, solidified their usage of the term as a line of attack in the culture wars.) And I don't disagree that much of the early usage was by liberals, but I feel that calling it a "previously liberal term" implies things that aren't really implied by the sources. Scattered ironic usage by liberals doesn't make a term a "liberal term"; I feel that by saying that it is, you're committing WP:SYNTH and WP:OR based on that early usage. --Aquillion (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Then you must provide sources proving otherwise because we have multiple mainstream, reputable sources describing so. And if the term was previously mainly used by liberals then how was it not previously liberal? That is completely illogical. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The sources describe him as influential, not as the single most important person in the history; there's a key distinction. Likewise, there's a difference between a term being used, ironically, by liberals and it being a "liberal term"; the latter has implications for its meaning that the former does not, so I feel that if we want to call it a "liberal term", we should find sources stating it as such specifically rather than just synthesizing it out of your reading of the history. --Aquillion (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No. Two state that it began from his article. Some state only influential. And even then these are sources that specifically researched the term's history. One of your sources with the pejorative label is an opinion piece which wants the term to be known as solely pejorative even though he states it's not. It doesn't bother to research the term's history a bit. Using the lack of mention of Bernstein in sources like this isn't a source at all. If you have sources stating Bernstein wasn't notable or someone else specifically was over him, then provide them. And again, the term was previously used mainly by liberals so what in the world is wrong in stating that the term was previously mainly liberal? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Aqu used the word 'liberal' ill-advisedly. Sources clearly state that the term had fairly marginal use among Communists, Maoists, 70's feminists, new left, and a few other 'radicals'. To describe that group as 'far left', 'radical left' or some other term would probably be justified, accurate and source-able, but to extrapolate from that that the term had general 'liberal' use is pure synth and a distortion of what the sources say. I would have no objection to 'the previously obscure far-left term etc.'. But I don't think you would want that since you seem to want to by-pass the numerous requests from you for sources that point to a widespread, liberal, not critical use of the term. Pincrete (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Then we have in the quote simply the left and you left out 80's feminists. Then if you look at many sources not included in this section but still talking about the history — like Marilyn Friedman and Jan Narveson, they simply state the left. The 1970s section could be edited to include their definition as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Definition of political correctness

Is political correctness a concept of not offending — especially the marginalized — in a community or is it primarily pejorative? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Primarily pejorative. Most of these sources you've provided are to dictionaries, which aren't really useful for analyzing the detailed cultural implications of a word; none of the other sources you provided support the idea that there's significant non-pejorative usage. My reading is that Loury is unequivocally using it as a pejorative (his title is 'Self-Censorship in Public Discourse'); likewise, Morris is discussing the reasons why he thinks people behave that way in a manner that is clearly using the term as a pejorative. Neither of them goes into any depth on its history as a term, just on their feelings about the phenomenon they feel it describes. Meanwhile, article has, at the moment, nine sources that go into depth on how its primary usage in modern culture is as a slur, pejorative, political attack, or similar terms; and nothing in the article really provides any significant non-pejorative history or usage, which means we have to reflect that primarily pejorative usage in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing out these supposed "nine." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, neither Loury nor Morris do anything like what you described. It seems that if someone defines it as censorship then to you it counts as pejorative?

They're the first nine sources in the article! Maybe one or two of them are for other parts of that sentence, but my reading is that almost all of them support the interpretation that the term is primarily pejorative in its current usage. Anyway, the purpose of an WP:RFC isn't for us to repeat the same arguments we've had over and over again, it's to get a general sense of where everyone stands and to attract outside opinions so we can try and determine consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you actually bothered reading them? Most of them describe it as the concept of not offending. Some are very questionable, for the second is from Helbert Kohl who's described as left-wing by the press and again. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, that's simply not relevant; you can't include or exclude authors based on their politics, only based on their reputation -- whether they are a respectable historian or not. Do you feel that Geoffrey Hughes is similarly unusable? He says that "There is little doubt that the formulas "political correctness", "politically correct", and "PC" are now basically pejorative and ironic in their use." Likewise, the history covered by Schultz, Wilson, and so on makes it clear that the term assumed a pejorative meaning after it was picked up by conservatives in the 1980's. None of the sources you're pointing to contradict this; none of them talk about any significant non-pejorative usage. --Aquillion (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It is when they are WP:FRINGE and WP:BIASED and have a reputation for being such. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You removed Nguyen's paper, noting that it's a term paper (yet it's still cited many times), stating that you talked about this on talk page. But I checked and nowhere did you talk about it? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned on talk, this is a student's term paper; it doesn't pass WP:RS. Where there does it say Aquillion mentioned it on talk? Pincrete (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to say someone else did? Because no one did? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Doug W did.Pincrete (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

That was later of another source... Pay some attention please. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I assumed that there was only one student paper among your sources. Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Nguyen isn't below, but was in the article. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

And now below, Aquillion claims that the word censorship is also (seemingly primarily) a pejorative. Am I asleep or what? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Concept of not offending I'll let the sources speak for themselves:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/319554 This has been cited 504 times.

PDF

"This paper follows Loury (1994) in developing a reputational explanation for political correctness. Loury summarizes his argument in the following syllogism (p. 437):"

http://rss.sagepub.com/content/6/4/428.short 93 times citated.

PDF

(a) within a give community the people who are most faithful to communal values are by-and-large also those who want most to remain in good standing with their fellows and;

(b) the practice is well established in this community that those speaking in ways that offend community values are excluded from good standing. Then,

(c) when a speaker is observed to express himself offensively the odds that the speaker is not in fact faithful to communal values, as estimated by a listener otherwise uninformed about his views, are increased.

They are defining something akin to a game theory. Stephen Morris is in fact a game theorist. How else would you describe this kind of social behavior but political correctness? What other term comes to mind?

Take into notice how similar kind of definition has steeped into regular use:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20correct

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/political-correctness

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/politically+correct

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/politically-correct

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/politically%20correct

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/politically-correct

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/politically%20correct

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/287100.html

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/politically_correct

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness

The term is primarily the concept of not offending. The "pejorative" use is secondary. The pejorative use does not belong in the lead sentence. This is how Pincrete once suggested we write the lead as:

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language, actions, or policies which claim to be intended to not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society, and to ensure those people are adequately represented and reflected in all walks of life. The term is primarily used as a pejorative by those who see these policies as excessive, or ironically to suggest such excess.

It used to stand like that but it was edited out and the primarily pejorative stuck into the first sentence. Here is another source which has opinions for and against. Remember to focus on the neutrality of any source you come across. The aforementioned Glenn Loury states the following:

To address the subject of "political correctness," when power and authority within the academic community is being contested by parties on either side of that issue, is to invite scrutiny of one's arguments by would-be "friends" and "enemies." Combatants from the left and the right will try to assess whether a writer is "for them" or "against them."

I've looked at some of the sources used to support pejorative use, and firstly Herbert Kohl is noted for advocating progressive education — as in the thing from which the debate about political correctness in higher education began from. He was likely there opposing Bloom before the term was ever used in this context. And the sourced bit appears in a journal about literature for children. He is both incredibly biased in the matter and the source doesn't seem to pass RS. His paper has been cited 4 times and two times in 2014 by the same Russian, probably having found it here. Even a dictionary is a much more credible source. Cannie Stark is listed as specializing in psychology of women and sexism in research. She has absolutely no relation to either linguistics or historiography. Her paper's cited 11 times. Debra L. Schultz is a women's studies expert who among other women's studies matters has taught women's history, cited 25 times. As this matter is of the fields linguistics and historiography: that taught course is her only credibility in the matter. She also doesn't go nearly as far as the other two. Why are these people being treated as more credible than a dozen dictionaries and two very cited papers by notable academics?

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Moving my other sources here to clean up the length:

nb edit conflict.Pincrete (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment I object very strongly to my name being used and facts mis-represented above. I posted the above suggestion as a 'discussion point' on talk. It was inserted in the lead by Mr Magoo, against my clearly stated wishes, it never 'stood' as he claims. One of the principal objections levelled against my suggestion was that it did not represent the body of the article as that currently stands. We cannot write a lead and then write the article to fit. Even my suggestion does not support the question raised by this RfC, since it puts pejorative second in ORDER only, not what this RfC is promoting namely 'of secondary importance'.

The question this RfC should be asking, is, since the 'derogatory/dismissive' use of the term since circa 1980-90 is very well established in all sources, what is the proper WP:weight to be given to that in the lead? I would support a construction that put 'derogatory' or 'pejorative' into the second sentence (ie what it is followed by how it is mainly used). However, this RfC is asking a fundamentally dishonest question, since it is asking, not only to ignore the body of the article, but to accept an extensive non-derogatory recent, common, use of the term that no sources endorse, (except some dictionaries, blogs, anecdotes and WP:OR).

The article (and lead), does not ever imply that the term was or is SOLELY pejorative, it charts historical use (mainly as a very obscure term among the far left), it charts the term's ironical use, before recording the principal modern use, which is to criticise policies, language and actions, which are most commonly seen as the product of an excessively agenda-ed liberal/left orthodoxy with the criticism mainly coming from social or political conservatives (ie it is used as a derogatory term).Pincrete (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

We have multiple examples of non-pejorative use in the article. I have gathered even more. And the way you wrote it gives it secondary importance. And I beg you pardon but you didn't word out a wish for it not to be inserted, I thought it was ready to go. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

We have almost NO modern examples of the term's use in the article, either derogatory or otherwise, and who is evaluating whether the use is +,- or =, because individual editors assessing how ALL the primary sources since 1991 are using the term, would involve an endless, fruitless argument which would make hanging-chads look like a picnic. Pincrete (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I posted below: "The Stephen Morris paper above has been cited 504 times. Glenn Loury 93 times. But of the pejorative sources: Herbert Kohl's paper has been cited 4 times. Cannie Stark 11 times. Again, why are we using these fringe sources as primary sources?" --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Cited by whom? And in what contexts? And what is the relevance of 'cite hits'.?Pincrete (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Academics from at least half a hundred different universities from the looks of it. Economists, political scientists, jurists; you name it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Fluff, in the absence of knowing how and in what context these people have been authoratively cited, you might as well be telling us how often these sources have been used as toilet paper. In the absence of straight answers to 3 simple questions, I and most other editors will conclude that you are wall-papering this page, with no other purpose than persuading yourself of your own 'rightness'. Mr Magoo's own private blog. Pincrete (talk) 22:10, 13 November n2015 (UTC)

I gave you two straight answers. I didn't even bother answering the relevance of cite hits. On the other hand you're simply ignoring sources now; and trumpeting one cited by three people, published in a poetry journal. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Fluff, the Zinoviev letter is probably cited in a million histories, that's because it's a notable fake. YOU think the cites make the sources RS and the contents important, so we should just take your word for it, even if you have no idea whether the cites are even connected with 'PC'. I don't know what you mean by poetry journal, nor which source you are questioning, it looks an awful lot like mud-slinging.Pincrete (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Again with the bizarre straw men. You point out a notorious forgery as the same thing as a credible study cited as credible by 504 academics? And Kohl's bit is from the children's poetry journal like I've mentioned many times. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I am pointing out that not knowing in what context cited, and therefore whether the cites have merit or relevance, means that Errrrrrrrrrr, we have no idea whether the cites have merit or relevance. This is just counting 'hits' and expecting us to be impressed.

The Kohl, 'poetry journal' quote is not comparable, there are many sources endorsing the use of the term among CP members in the US around WWII, are you questioning that the term WAS used in that way? If you are, that is a valid reason to question the source, otherwise it's a WP:other crap exists justification. I presume the Kohl quote was chosen to be more 'personal' than other sources covering the CP members' use. The quality of a source needed is proportional to how 'disputable' the claim is, I personally don't find this anecdote very disputable. Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I already answered that: "Academics from at least half a hundred different universities from the looks of it. Economists, political scientists, jurists; you name it." And Kohl is used as a source for the lead. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Fluff. We have to take your word for it that the use is relevant to the subject and has merit - based on you having no idea what the use actually was - but the user's title looked impressive!

What about the use of Kohl do you actually dispute? What content from him do you consider not accurate? The lead does not anyway need to be sourced (that's up to each article), however it must be an accurate, brief reflection of the article's content. The lead has become a mess partly because of 'loose cites' (ie not attached to the claims), so I would not necessarily object to removing the 'Kohl' ref from the lead.Pincrete (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If you remove Kohl then what it the primary source for pejorative? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The other 7? the October 1990 NYT? errrr what have I forgotten, the new book provided by Fyddlestyx? What else? A 1995 UK book called 'The war of the words'ummm what else? … … Besides, if you read my posts below, I'm actually in favour of a more nuanced account, such as 'it came into prominence as etc.'. What I'm NOT in favour of is attempts to pretend that it's primary usage was neutral, was the name of a 'philosophy', was not derogatory, nor to extrapolate from primary sources other uses. Pincrete (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If you check the 7, they mostly go with the general dictionary-like description, although I can't access the Stark one. You might have forgotten but a few were added by me as counterarguments. And Freire like I've written describes two definitions and both in equal proportion but wishes the pejorative to be more of the norm, which is counterargumentative to the point. I don't any longer think we should take pejorative out but like I've written it should be changed to something lesser than primarily, because for one it used to say ordinarily. I also noticed you added generally to the second sentence, even though in pejorative usage the implication is clearly primary. How about swapping primarily and generally from the two sentences? This is what I meant by primarily being too strict, as generally is almost exactly the same but a bit less strict. In this case I could drop the RfC. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If there's no disagreement here then I'll swap them. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Multiple meanings: The term obviously, and sourceably, has multiple meanings and implications, and we should cover all of them. In general usage it is primarily a centrist to rightist critique of leftist language activism and "thought policing", a usage shared even by some classic liberals, and leftists of more individualist ideologies. In some (mostly current) academic usage, it has varying descriptive meanings; all of them arguably have at least some pejorative edge due to the pejorative usage in general parlance, but this is not necessarily intentional. In some (mostly older) academic sources, that originally established the term, it had/has a non-pejorative, activistic meaning. The lead should pretty much say all of what I just did, in more encyclopedic prose, and the bulk of the article should address all of this usage, probably in chronological order, starting with introduction of the term, it's cooption for derisive purposes, and its attempted re-neutralizing definitional approaches in disciplines like American political science.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Both But for real dictionary purposes, pejorative. For instance, "Native Americans" is a politically correct term because if we referred to them as "Indians" we could be referring to Indians from India. The term has been taken by various critical groups, of being one of "not offending" however. If this RfC is for how we define political correctness, it is primarily pejorative, but if it's how we mostly write about it in the article then it's "non-offensive," because that's how most people think of it today. LesVegas (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Primarily pejorative but over-simplified question The term came to prominence circa 1990 as a pejorative term for certain policies and attitudes which were seen as excessive Stalinist, illiberal, humourless etc.. The criticism came predominantly from social, educational and political conservatives. The criticised largely were, or were seen as, part of a 'liberal/radical orthodoxy'. This is extensively studied and sourced, as is earlier ironic use and also very marginal 'far-left' use dating back to before WWII. This is what the article and sources record. That the term may have 'morphed' post 2000 into many private and public uses is not largely studied, therefore not citable. A compromise that allows for our awareness of that 'morphing' - but nonetheless unequivocally reports that the most frequent public use post 1990, (until the term largely 'burnt out') was dismissive, derogatory, pejorative - such a compromise is possible, however this RfC is misconceived in my opinion, and even fails the basic WP test that the lead should reflect the article. I am unconditionally opposed to the present proposed change, but flexible as to how to present the 'bigger picture'. Pincrete (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Comment 1 Here are some others who have disagreed with the pejorative definition, in reverse chronological order: first, second, third, fourth and fifth. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Do any of these 'others' provide sources for their opinions? The fact that a lot of fly-by editors object is proof that this is a 'hot-button' topic, nothing else.Pincrete (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to find a source that would for some bizarre reason declare that it's specifically not a pejorative. One of the few that specifically does that is the Phrases article, which used to be a source but was removed. It's much easier to find instances of people simply defining it non-pejoratively. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: 'It's hard to find a source that would … declare that it's specifically not a pejorative'. Yes, it's also hard to find sources that specifically says 'the earth isn't flat', we have to go with what sources DO say, not extrapolate our own conclusions, particularily conclusions WP:SYNTHed from an absence of evidence. 'It's much easier to find instances of people simply defining it non-pejoratively' is NEVER an option, for reasons that should be self evident, an endless dispute of us counting ALL the uses, disagreeing as to whether they are mildly critical, ironic, or downright dismissive would be absurd even as a proposal, even if it were not pure OR. The arguments you are mustering MIGHT validly support a 'time qualifier', eg during the 1990's the term became a pejorative term primarily used by X to criticise Y. However you are attempting to change the whole focus of the article based on the premise (which no one doubts, inc. the article), that the term is not ALWAYS pejorative. Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

That is such an obvious straw man. You know it's also easy to find sources stating that George W. Bush is a reptilian in disguise, but almost no sources proving that wrong? You can draw straw men like this easily and it means nothing. Again, the sources define it mainly non-pejoratively as intention not to offend like you did before in your two sentence format, then adding after that it's used pejoratively. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

So we work with the sources that say Bush was a president, I doubt if any RS would say otherwise, and we ignore 'reptilian'. My definition did not say 'intention not to offend', read it. It said ' policies which claim to be intended … is primarily used as a pejorative by those who see these policies as excessive. Nothing about my proposed definition, nor our existing one, suggests that the policies themselves are 'PC', since no source supports policymakers themselves ever using the term, (were the term neutral, they would presumably be happy to use it). The term is used almost exclusively by those who find the policies 'excessive'. We can argue till we are blue in the face whether that is 'pejorative', 'derogatory', 'dismissive' or whatever. It certainly isn't neutral, and this whole RfC is predicated on the notion that we should ignore the most frequently documented use of the term, and the body of the article, because the term MIGHT sometimes be used in other ways, ways which unfortunately haven't yet been the subject of study. Pincrete (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

How does him being president automatically make him non-reptilian? And this was a joke comparison off the top of my head, how about a study of how something realistic and controversial like gun control. And your definition does say "intended to not offend." For some reason when you quote yourself again you cut out the rest after intended and replace it with an ellipsis. Isn't that just plain distortion? And what do you mean by policymakers not using the term? We have them constantly using the term, Bush notably being one of the first of any. And even if it is used by those find them excessive, they still use it mainly to describe an ideology rather than use it as a simple pejorative. And the most frequently documented use of the term is the simplest definition, as in "The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people — who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion said 'claim etc', I would have thought it obvious that 'policymakers' referred to those policymakers making policies that others criticise as being 'PC'. The term is used to describe an ideology which is described, characterised, and whose very existence, is supported only by those who criticise it. As I've said previously, some of the phenomena described as 'PC', may be real, some may be terrible ideas or excessive in implementation, however the notion that they arise from a single commonly shared ideology is a belief held only by critics, who appear to imagine a 'Stepford Wife' under every stone. More importantly, the notion that PC is an ideology/philosophy is not borne out by RS studying the use of the term, indeed it is hardly borne out that anyone other than critics has ever used the term. Why? Because they recognise it's largely pejorative. Pincrete (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"whose very existence, is supported only by those who criticise it" Well, that is very easily proven wrong. The numerous cases I've provided of people describing it either neutrally or even posivitively easily do the job on that. The view that it's used to describe a movement or an ideology is supported by nigh all of our sources, save for the two obviously biased ones. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The 'cases' I have looked at are mostly people using the term and are primary sources. Only you seem to imagine that the Psych Prof etc. are using the term neutrally, though your/my assessment of that would be OR regardless. Hughes is among the more neutral definers, but even he is clear the term is derogatory. But let's ignore the evidence of numerous academic studies, because a few sources fail to say the term is critical. Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You keep picking one source out of 24 to disprove them all. And even then he again describes it as an ideology and doesn't use it as a pejorative. And even Hughes lists it with multiple different definitions from various trustworthy sources, even if he puts it that the term is pejorative and ironic in his opinion. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Your/my assessments as to whether someone is using the term, critically are subjective and are OR. What is difficult to understand about that idea? However Hughes uses the term, he is explicit that it is mostly derogatory (a quote provided by Aqu prev.).

I haven't looked at 24 sources, nor have/will any other editor probably, when the first 5 or 6 one looks at are either not RS, are OR, are student papers or dictionaries which collectively fail to prove anything, one doesn't feel like bothering. Pincrete (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not because you haven't provided an example of him using it pejoratively and I've pointed numerous times that he keeps defining it as ideology. And the only one that was RS was a student paper which was the fourth one, and which I no longer count among the 24 (it's the 25th). For some reason that was picked out, and used as reasoning to disregard the rest. The four pejorative sources are just as RS as the 24 gathered below. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment 2 Here are some more sources which define it non-pejoratively:

Check Your Language! Political Correctness, Censorship, and Performativity in Education Cited by 7.

“Speech codes” I take to refer to rules about what words can and cannot be used to characterize individuals and groups, especially women and members of minority groups. “Political correctness” I take to mean a set of guidelines about what words are and are not considered socially acceptable to use in reference to individuals and groups, especially women and members of minority groups. A speech code, then, can be considered political correctness codified in rules, presumably with sanctions.

A Study of the Use of Politically Correct Language on the Campus of A U. S. Midwestern University

Political correctness (PC) is an influential movement that started in the 1980s. Originally, its purpose was to make a change in undergraduate curricula at Stanford University, to institute campus speech codes aiming to control hate speech at the University of Michigan and the University of Wisconsin, and to emphasize the role of minorities in history and culture (Calhoun, 2001). The movement eventually became a widely accepted acknowledgement that people should avoid words, expressions, and behavior that may hurt any minorities. It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became an unwritten law in society.

The major theme of PC is to tolerate a diversity of cultures, races, genders, ideologies, religions, and alternate lifestyles (homosexuality or cohabitation). This was gradually expanded to include the whole agenda of liberalism, such as environmentalism, animal rights, and quest of rights. Political correctness implies the presence of a sufficient power to enforce compliance with whatever is politically correct. The ultimate objective is to make any person or any behavior contrary to PC forbidden by law so that people who transgress will be punished by the government (Calhoun, 2001).

Language and Conflict: Selected Issues

preview

A central issue in this book - the connection between words and reality - takes us to many different contexts of social interaction. One of them is the socio-political domain, where the question arises of what language we should use to acknowledge minorities, avoid hurting other people, and avoid discriminating against the weak and vulnerable. Reality here is real human beings, and words are the medium we use to address or talk about them. This use of language is often discussed under the heading of 'political correctness', the kind of behaviour viewed as correct or advisable to discourage chauvinism and discrimination and to promote equality, justice and fairness in human relations.

Political correctness has been defined in many different ways. Some of the proposed definitions and reports on how the term has been used include the following: [...] None of the definitions or perspectives should be seen as correct in some absolute sense. Whichever perspective on political correctness we adopt, however, it will quickly become clear we are dealing with language and conflict. How do the two relate to each other in this case? We may want to pose the question: is political correctness a function of conflict-ridden language, a language-ridden conflict, or perhaps both? An answer to that question is not hard to find: the PC movement appears to be about both. It is quite clear that central to the discussions and reaction to the PC movement are various social conflicts. They can be traded to inequality and intolerance of, for example, racial, ethnic and religious distinctions. Since language is ubiquitous, these social conflicts usually manifest through language. So language plays a major role in how these conflicts arise, develop and possibly get exacerbated or averted. PC is mainly about what we should not say (what topics should not be touched at all), which opinions are acceptable, or what we should put on the reading lists for school and university students. PC is also, however, about how we should speak to promote social justice, what sort of language forms should or should not be used to avoid hurting anyone.

Talking sense about political correctness Cited by 9.

In the United States, political correctness is used to refer to a whole series of progressive initiatives concerning changes to the literary canon taught at universities, the teaching of postmodern and critical literary theory and cultural studies, affirmative action for racial and ethnic minorities as well as women, sexual assault and harassment and regulations regarding campus 'hate speech'.2 In Australia, political correctness has some currency in the conservative attack on multiculturalism and on attempts to rectify the injustices perpetrated in the past and continuing in the present against Aboriginal Australians. Contemporary usage of the term suggests that its application has widened to refer to progressive politics as a whole. Despite such wider uses, however, its primary meaning in the Australian context is to refer to the criticism and regulation of speech. The coherence and implications of this sense of political correctness is central to this discussion.

The Ideology of Political Correctness and Its Effect on Brand Strategy Cited by 10.

Political economy and political correctness Cited by 28.

I also found this, which seems to describe it as a sort of a philosophy, but which I have struggle reading because I can only read glimpses of:

Political correctness Cited by 8.

...politics (it represents, rather, a new scholasticism), and the translation of a dense and complex philosophy of meaning into simple...

Political Correctness Doctrine: Redefining Speech on College Campuses, The Cited by 6.

Just what does it mean to be politically correct? The political correctness doctrine has been the center of controversy in the academic arena. To define political correctness (hereinafter referred to as PC) is an arduous task, particularly because it has various meanings to different individuals. Proponents of the PC movement assert that in an academic setting, students who are members of the dominant society - white, male and conservative - should be sensitized to race and gender issues. Achieving cultural diversity in the student population and in the faculty should be a university's primary objective. Thus, the classroom and campus environment should be sanitized and free from speech, attitudes, ideas and conduct that are racist, sexist and homophobic. The basic objective of the PC movement are (1) the demand for greater diversity among students and faculty members; and (2) the need for speech codes to thwart racist, sexist and homophobic language, ideas and attitudes that offend sensitive students. Opponents of the PC movement dismiss it as an attack by liberals on traditionally protected speech and expressive conduct. Foes of the PC movement label it "thought control" and consider it threat to the traditional academic curriculum which focuses on Western civilization and the achievements of whites in our society. Many in this camp believe that the PC movement stifles creative ideas because the movement wants everyone to agree and think alike.

The Rhetoric of" Political Correctness" in the US Media Cited by 3.

In this article, we will use the term PC in its current public denotation, accepted by supporters and opponents alike--a symbol for programs, initiatives, and attitudes designed to improve the public representation of and interaction with certain social groups, in particular minorities and women. But we do not subscribe to any of the derogatory or self-critical connotations attached to the term by either side of the debate. Many of the issues we will discuss are also labeled "multiculturalism," but we do not consider the term synonymous with PC. Multiculturalism is a part of the PC debate, but not its entirety.

Political correctness, euphemism, and language change: The case of ‘people first’ Cited by 10.

White Noise: The Attack on Political Correctness and the Struggle for the Western Canon Cited by 16.

In medium, but not in message, there is a middle ground of respectable investigative journalism. Richard Bernstein is representative, in his pieces in the New York Times (Bernstein, 1990), and then a book, Dictatorship of Virtue (Bernstein, 1994).

But if the advocates of the Western Canon don’t like some strains in late 20th century intellectual life and educational thought, if they are nostalgic for the thought and schools of thought of times past, this does not give them an automatic right to impose their own exclusionary version of political correctness.

Meanwhile, in other places within the cultural establishment, political correctness has simply become common sense, and for the most pragmatic of reasons.

I'll be adding more. Note that the article itself contains a handful but I won't be adding them here. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to place this here (I meant it to be the first) because its block quote messes up the rest of the comment for some reason:

Political Correctness Beliefs, Threatened Identities, and Social Attitudes Cited by 16.

PDF

political correctness – ‘the avoidance of forms of expression or action that exclude, marginalize or insult certain racial, cultural, or other groups’ (Oxford dictionary p. 774,)

– ‘used by neo-conservatives to invalidate the left and present the left as “witch hunters” to cover up their own hegemonic family values’ (anonymous student, Study 1)

– ‘don’t say or write (or think I suppose) anything that could be considered offensive by any definable group except white males’ (anonymous faculty member, Study 2)

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's a study which even got to the university's paper: New Study Examines Political Correctness at American Colleges

Ascriptive Justice: The Prevalence, Distribution, and Consequences of Political Correctness in the Academy--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Going over the above, some of these only mention the term in passing or provide a cursory definition, without really going into detail on the term (eg. the psychology studies.) Of the ones that do go into depth on it, they mostly seem to support the idea that it's pejorative in nature; Ruitenberg describes the way the term has changed in meaning and notes that "...my interest was raised especially by the mention of speech codes and political correctness as examples of indoctrination", specifically citing Herbert Kohl's analysis (which covers its change to a pejorative). Sparrow explicitly states that "The rhetoric of political correctness is a right-wing discourse used to silence dissenting political viewpoints." Likewise, The Rhetoric of Political Correctness" in the US Media explicitly states that the normal definition of the term is derogatory or self-critical; they say that they do not subscribe to that normal definition (as in, they are not using it), but they acknowledge it explicitly. Cope and Kalantzis present the term as a pejorative used by opponents of multiculturalism, saying that "It’s hard to believe that multiculturalism really spells the end of the American Way of Life and Western civilisation as we know it. It’s hard to see how such a diverse range of voices speaking against the alleged menace of Political Correctness (PC), could ever form a united front. Nor is it clear how PC itself, elevated to the status of a movement by giving it an acronym, could ever be a united enemy." Most of your sources, in other words, support both the idea that it's pejorative and the basic history that its modern usage was primarily driven by conservative attacks on multiculturalism and similar opposing viewpoints. Seriously, most of the sources you have here broadly support my preferred version, and my summary of the history. --Aquillion (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

They obviously do not in any way support pejorative. Your Ruitenberg bit doesn't state anything like that. Your vague link is that she quotes some other bit by Kohl who defines it pejorative somewhere else, not in the quoted bit. That's it? Sparrow bit is about rhetoric. The US media source does not state that it's typically derogatory or self-ironical, the opposite. They describe those as the fringe uses. Do you have anything to say about the actual, long statements about its definition? It seems like you're picking a few weak ones from the pack and targeting a small portion of their entirety to attack. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Here, have some more: Political correctness as an academic discipline Cited by 3.

HTML

For the last two years I have taught an 8-months senior undergraduate course on Political Correctness in the Psychology Department at King’s College of the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario: PSY 383E: Psychology and Ideology - the Study of Political Correctness.

Political correctness and Bequemlichkeitstrieb Cited by 2.

The Challenge of Political Correctness in the Translation of Sensitive Texts

The concept of “political correctness”, initially used by the American legal system in the late 1700s, has slowly turned into a global linguistic effort meant to promote more tolerant human relationships. The concept was quickly adopted by many cultures...

Diverse Orthodoxy: Political Correctness in America's Universities, The

The only court that has attempted to define political correctness referred to the definition in Random House Webster's College Dictionary which defines the term as [m]arked by a progressive orthodoxy on issues involving race, gender, sexual affinity or ecology.

The Federal Courts and Educational Policy: Paternalism, Political Correctness and Student Expression.

Lori Davis, of Southern Illinois University-Carbondale's Women's Studies Programs, defines Political Correctness in a way that seems to support diversity and "respect for the lives and values in a complex, pluralistic world." The focus, she says, is "respect for others through...words and actions." The term Political Correctness has implications for both more expression and less. Advocates of diversity and multiculturalism call for increased awareness and sensitivity and a broadening of education and experience. When efforts to ma-elate respect, fairness and civility lead to sanctions against speech that does not conform to these prescriptions, civil libertarians argue that expression is chilled. Most often discussed within the college setting, PC exists in the public schools as well, as the definition above suggests.

The Epistemology of Political Correctness

On university and college campuses today there is a movement popularly known as "political correctness." Although difficult to define precisely, I think it is fair to say that political correctness refers to a web of interconnected, though not mutually dependent, ideological beliefs that have challenged the traditional nature of the university as well as traditional curriculum, standards of excellence, and views about justice, truth, and the objectivity of knowlege; while simultaneously accentuating our cultural, gender, class, and racial differences in the name of campus diversity.

Towards an Ethical Approach to Perspective-taking and the Teaching of Multicultural Texts: Getting Beyond Persuasion, Politeness and Political Correctness

Researchers in the field of communication have created many methods of defining and studying “political correctness.” This section of the literature review will specify four definitions provided in previous research studies that are particularly relevant. This section will also provide information on previous methodologies for studying political correctness. According Bailey and Burgoon (1992), political correctness is an area that, until recently, had yet to have a consensual definition among communications researchers. Bailey and Burgoon (1992) stated that political correctness is a way of exhibiting competent communication. Andrews (1996) wrote that political correctness is the practice of using sensitive language in the public and social contexts, especially in naming, in order to prevent offensive language. According to Feldstein (1997), political correctness was originally brought upon by the suppression of women and minorities, and political correctness now serves to correct offensive language so that the United States can function as a more holistic society. Ayim (1998) explicitly stated that the realm of political correctness encompasses areas including: “policies governing fair language practices, affirmative action in hiring practices, legislation dealing with sexual and racial harassment, and greater inclusion of women and people of Colour in the curriculum” (p. 446).

Encyclopedia of Ethics

“politically correct” has come to be used to characterize curriculum revisions, campus speech codes, harassment policies, affirmative action in college admissions and hiring, the use of new descriptors for minorities (e.g., African American, Native American, learning disabled), new NORMS for interacting with women and racial or cultural minorities (e.g., avoiding genteel “ladies first” policies), and generally, to any change in language, policy, social behavior, and cultural representation that is aimed at avoiding or correcting a narrowly Eurocentric world view and the long-standing subordination of some social groups. Originating in debates over the content of higher education, the terms “politically correct” or “PC” are now routinely used outside of the academy.

That's not funny: Instrument validation of the concern for political correctness scale

Here's a study whose basis is Loury's theory as well.

Political correctness: Contributing to social distress?

In their stimulus article, "Political correctness and multiculturalism: Who supports PC?," Kelly and Rubal-Lopez (1996) address many dimensions of political correctness (PC) including attempts at definition. They start with a general definition of PC as "movements aimed at addressing legitimate concerns about tolerance and equality." They then discuss politicized distortions of the original definition by the far left and far right, and eventually conclude with a definition influenced by Fish (1994) that suggest that PC is the "process of making judgments from the vantage point of a particular ideology," ... something everyone does whether they know it or not.

I'm having issues with some sources because "Wiley Online Library" is down for maintenance. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment Surely the answer to the original question is that it depends on your personal POV. On the whole I think it is primarily pejorative. It is sometimes used by those on the right as a simple way to dismiss any sort of left-wing or centre-left ideology or theory on the basis that attaching the letters "PC" immediately labels the subject as something worthy of contempt by those of a similar view. It is also used by those who seek justification for their own prejudices by claiming that those who disagree with them are simply "politically correct".

On the other hand, it can be used in a more positive fashion as short-hand for something that is outdated and uncomfortable to watch or read. For example "that cartoon was a bit un-PC", i.e. a recognition that views expressed are considered wrong by the observer. In this context I think it is often easier to attach the "PC" label than to be more blunt and call it "racist" or "sexist" or whatever (or alternatively saying "un-PC" may just be quicker if the subject is racist and sexist and homophobic and.....) Frinton100 (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• A very good analysis. Thanks. As for the sources above, the first oneI checked, "A Study of the Use of Politically Correct Language on the Campus of A U. S. Midwestern University" is a student paper. Useless on its own, we don't know of Calhoun is being represented correctly or the context. When the first source I check fails WP:RS it doesn't encourage me to look further. Doug Weller (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Frinton100, I basically agree with your analysis, your use example is one of the few offered that is neither clearly critical, nor clearly ironic, though there is still a hint of self-mocking irony in the use. Of course the problem with each of our anecdotal encounters with the term is that they are inherently un-sourcable. Ironic usage is extensively documented, even from the first days that the term entered the 'free world' (it was previously used in USSR and among Chinese communists with a literal meaning, ie, the 'official line'). It is impossible to characterise the permutations of use without going into OR, (despite knowing that the term has 'morphed' into such multiple shorthand uses), since they are simply not documented. I repeat a previous argument, that our only option is to give appropriate weight to the various 'public forum' uses that are documented and to not imply that these are the sole uses. Pincrete (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

No offense to Frinton, but how is it "very good analysis" when it doesn't source its claims, as meanwhile anything even close to OR I ever put out is attacked savagely as WP:OR? This talk page has ten accusations of WP:OR before this, probably a similar amount of just OR without the WP. And because my fourth source (why fourth?) was a student paper and I didn't notice that: all of my sources are thus discounted... I mean I added 19 quotes. 19. And around 25 links. I'll add more when Wiley Library comes back on. The article also doesn't even mention the other use. How about at least mentioning it can be used pejoratively and non-pejoratively? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Re;Frinton100's remarks, there is a difference between articulting a viewpoint on talk, and entering text in the article. Frinton100 I take to be recording his personal experience of the term, his is a comment, not a ivote, which one would expect to be based on policy and on an evaluation of the sources and arguments. He is also saying something that no one disputes, namely that the term is not ALWAYS pejorative, especially in private discourse.

Re:How about at least mentioning it can be used pejoratively and non-pejoratively?, primarily/most commonly/ordinarily MEANS 'not always', it was originally inserted by me months ago. However we cannot single out 'non-pej' use since that use is not extensively explored in the article (nor in sources?). 'Non-pej' use would need to be in the article and there would then be a case for reflecting that in the lead. Apart from historical (pre1990-ish) and ironic use, where in the article is there any evidence of extensive no-critical use? Pincrete (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The numerous OR accusations before have happened towards articulations on the talk page. And he didn't state "not always" but primarily. And primarily wasn't inserted months ago but two weeks ago. It used to be ordinarily but then Aquillion (not you as you used it in the second sentence) changed it to the stronger primarily. And non-pejorative IS extensively explored in the article and the sources if you bothered to read the article further than the lead — in addition to those I've added 25 (minus one student paper to 24) here. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

'Ordinarily' was months ago, inserted by me, it was recently changed to 'primarily', as used in a source you provided (I believe). Accusations about OR on talk (by me), are specifically in relation to text that you claimed SHOULD BE in the article, Frinton100 does not even begin to suggest his personal experience should be in the article. I did not say that he used either 'always' or 'primarily', I pointed out that - whichever he used - the clear inference of either (or similar variants) is 'not always'. 'Most people like bananas', clearly infers that some do not!

I've looked at 5 or 6 of your sources, we cannot proceed on the basis of your/my/anyone's personal evaluation of whether the primary source is USING the term pejoratively, but, for what it's worth, the psychology professor clearly blames 'PC' for forcing an inadequate student on him, how is that not derogatory? Some souces say: we do not subscribe to any of the derogatory or self-critical connotations attached to the term by either side of the debate., how do you NOT subscribe to derogatory connotations that don't exist? Similarly, In Australia, political correctness has some currency in the conservative attack on multiculturalism.

You have successfully persuaded me of something which is almost self-evident, namely that the term is not ALWAYS derogatory. Friendly piece of advice, NO editors coming to this RfC are going to wade through 25 sources, especially if the first two or three are 'crap', students studies, opinion pieces, OR based on primary sources, dictionaries, the personal opinions of 'drop in' editors on talk, or that clearly contradict the central claim of your RfC, that the derogatory use should not be given substantial coverage in the article and lead. We can have a legitimate discussion about what weight should be given to 'pejorative', but wall-papering the talk page with 1000 block quotes, isn't going to persuade anyone of anything, except your wish to WP:bludgeon your own PoV. Pincrete (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Which source? I don't think you have shown any like that. And I didn't accuse anyone. That must have been your guilt talking. And I never "claimed my personal opinion" should be in the article; I claimed that personal opinions shouldn't. Because as it stands it's very poorly sourced that it's primarily. We have a couple dubious sources which claim it is only and not primarily which is contrary to what all editors have claimed as they have all said it's not only, right? And you keep talking about primary sources but there are no "primary sources." It seems like you're using Helbert Kohl as your primary source. Why isn't Glenn Loury your primary source? Because he has an opinion you disagree with? You just proved his other quote right. By psychology professor you must mean the one who taught a class on Political Correctness. He defined PC as an ideology. He doesn't use it as a pejorative. Are liberalism and conservatism pejoratives as well? By some sources you mean the one which seemed to find such usage fringe. Wikipedia policy is that it doesn't subscribe to fringe theories. They go with the same logic. They stick with the more neutral definition as certain kind of neutrally-described behavior and ideology.

And you haven't convinced me in the slightest that it's primarily pejorarative when it's witnessed by my own eyes and ears being used on the TV non-pejoratively all the time (like on Late Show with Colbert last Monday). In an imaginary scenario of instructing a foreign student which things aren't okay I'd say what things aren't politically correct. And the editors should care to wade through sources. And the first two especially aren't crap. The Morris model is based on the Loury definition of political correctness. I used the Morris link before the Loury quote as an argumentative tool to point out the notability of the Loury paper. Loury defined the concept excellently. He's very notable, cited, trustworthy. He should be the primary source. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, this is from a source YOU supplied (further up the page) :- »PC« is primarily a negative term for the ideals and actions of others. Designating an attempt to fight social discrimination by changing everyday speech and behaviour, and to enforce such change through public pressure on individuals as well as legal or other institutional sanctions to regulate group conduct, it implies that these measures are petty, rigid, humourless, intolerant, even totalitarian in impulse. Politically correct is then a judgment disguised as description; deflecting attention from the substance or value of the reforms in question, it expresses a dismissive attitude to those who advocate change. The latter in turn may reclaim the phrase as an ironic self-description.

Nobody said you accused anyone, I was pointing out the difference between OR-ish observations on talk and using such OR to justify insertion of text in the article.

I cannot see how you can think blaming 'PC' for forcing an inadequate student on the Prof. is not derogatory, but regardless, it's irrelevant since it would be pure OR of a primary source for us to deduce that it was/was not, (since when anyhow do psychology professors teach philosophy?). The advice was friendly, no editors are going to wade through 25 sources. WP operates on goodwill, what I often do when going to a RfC is randomly pick 4 or 5 sources, if they patently don't adequately support the assertion of the RfC, if the assertion is vague, muddled or otherwise unclear, I leave a note and leave. Pincrete (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

23 days ago and Doug decreed that source unusable because it was so messy. Because of that we don't have the additional text about Bush in the article. In addition, the source states that the usage is changing and provides examples of non-pejorative use. And you did plainly write "by me" when accusing me of accusing. And again, I don't see any "blaming" but he does criticize the ideology. He goes to lengths to describing what kind of ideology it is and what are the tenets. When he criticizes it like this, it's obviously not being used as a simple pejorative. And editors don't have to wade through sources because I provided the key bits in short quotes... And RfCs shouldn't assert anything but ask a question. And your logic works for me because if I randomly picked 5 sources (the only ones I found in my search to disagree with me were the ones already in the article) then they'd prove your assertion wrong. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

'by me' when signed by Pincrete, refers to Pincrete! I was acknowledging that I have accused YOU of OR in terms of text that you think SHOULD BE in the article. The reason 'Bush' is not more fully covered is not lack of sources, but because nobody else thought it important beyond a mention in history. As far as I can see, Doug W did not veto the source, merely the particular piece of text in the source, I don't know if it is RS. We are not going to agree about the Psych Prof but that is immaterial since it is clearly OR of a primary source to characterise it AT ALL. Pincrete (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That exactly was the point. And he specifically stated that it was confusing and obscure. Of the importance he only specified not leadworthy. Nothing like you present it as. And it's hilarious how you accuse me of OR for having characterized the source AFTER you just did it — and I used the source's own constantly-repeated word: "ideology." It's also hilarious how you demand to see non-pejorative uses and state that there are none in the article but when I add them you add "Relevant?" tags. That's just... How can one have good faith after getting harassed like that. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the point with a determination which is bordering on the perverse. Regardless of whether you, I, Jimmy Wales think a particular primary source is using the term in a +,-, or = manner, that is our subjective assessment, it proves nothing except your/my/JW's opinion. At other points you extol 'phrases.org' as RS, the man who writes the definitions, and started the site, has a degree in computer science, he does not even have experience in any word-related discipline. The site is a harmless place to go to find a general explanation of a phrase, but hardly RS for WP. Doug said the text used was muddled, in your use and in the source, that is not a general observation about the source itself, simply that/those paragraphs. Pincrete (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

How am I missing the point when I just wrote you missed the point: that by writing "by me" you specified you when I had specified no one? You feel no obligation to apologize for a false accusation and instead you brush it aside because now — after you noticed you made a mistake — it's no longer the point? And I said nothing about the Phrases website's RS factor but nevertheless the articles there are well-sourced.

While no reference work is able to claim its content is 100% definitive, every effort has been made to include here only information that is verifiable as correct. The content is researched to published reference book standards. The sources used in the research are twofold, either primary sources or trusted references. The primary sources include newspaper cuttings, books, films, photographic archives etc. The trusted reference sources are those that themselves derive from primary sources and have sufficient reputation to be considered reliable. These include, The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, The Historical Dictionary of American Slang, First Edition, The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 5th Edition, Partridge's A Dictionary of Slang, 8th Edition. In addition to these are numerous reference works and databases which, although not in themselves definitive, provide a rich source of stimulation; for example, Cotgrave's A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues, Hotten's Slang Dictionary and many others.

And his field is computational linguistics, as in processing of natural language by computers. And you're really stretching it with the muddleness of the Bush source there. The source is muddled at many parts but apparently at some parts where you prefer: it's not muddled. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Phrases.org is not RS, at its best it would achieve dictionary status, but it doesn't have the kind of oversight required for that even. I apologise to myself for any offence to me, for having pointed out to you that exploratory OR in discussion is sometimes inevitable on talk, but quite different from OR used to justify insertion into the article. I have no idea whether the 'Bush' source is muddled throughout nor whether it RS, nor whether it has anything useful. I was simply pointing out that Doug W objected to that particular text, and your use of it not the source itself. Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, I haven't claimed so. And since you mentioned "dictionary status," I went to look and found that Wikipedia does accept dictionaries as even primary sources. In that case we could use the large number of dictionary definitions I presented earlier. And you still don't get the accusation bit: again, you accused me of accusing you, even though I didn't specify anything further than "accusations have been made." And he didn't specify anything but "original text." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

A primary source to a historian etc. is GOLD, they are the raw product of his/her trade. Primary sources on WP are to be treated with extreme caution, especially if the use of them involves even the smallest amount of subjective interpretation by editors. A dictionary is not the 'last word' on the use of a term, which is fundamentally what this article is about, if it were WP could 'shut up shop' and simply redirect to Websters etc. Pincrete (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, Herbert Kohl isn't a historian. In fact he was likely there to drive forward political correctness in education as he's a proponent of progressive alternative education. He must have been one of the ones to target Bloom before the term was even used in this context. It's obviously in his interest to pretend there was never any push by any movement to change education. Mind you his bit was published in a journal about literature for children. Debra Schultz similarly isn't a historian but works in women's studies. Her only link to study of history is that she taught women's history, in women's studies — and is only one of many women's studies matters she taught. Cannie Stark specializes in psychology of women and sexism in research. Judging by these merits, even any dictionary is a better source. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

My wording was 'historian etc.', ie anyone making an academic study of past use. I was not commenting on Kohl or Schultz, but on your remarks above about primary sources. A dictionary definition is not going to override a study of the use of a term. A dictionarydefinition provides minimal info for the purposes of understanding, even then, some dictionaries describe the term as 'derogatory'. We are going round in circles here, no one doubts that the term is not ALWAYS derogatory, however the most studied (most used?) use of the term IS derogatory. You are asking us to ignore that obvious fact. Pincrete (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because it's a study doesn't mean it's a viable source, like with the student papers. In that case a dictionary would override. And there was one dictionary which described it so and only in American usage. The most studied use of the term is the simple definition which say 95% of dictionaries adhere to. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Primarily Pejorative Mr Magoo's bludgeoning of this discussion (and this talk page more generally) and his everything-but-the-kitchen sink style "sourcing" of his arguments notwithstanding, the most reliable sources on this subject are crystal clear: that the terms "PC," "politically correct," and "political correctness" are most often used in a pejorative sense. For those who doubt, just read the forward and introduction to this recent collection of academic, peer-reviewed articles on the subject. As they demonstrate, there is a broad, widespread consensus about this among scholars and other authoritative writers - the random, found-via-google links that Magoo has thrown up (and often misrepresented) above does absolutely nothing to rebut this basic truth. That so much time and effort has been spent arguing about this (Mr. Magoo has made just under one thousand edits to this talk page since his first edit here on September 30) frankly boggles my mind. What a waste of time and energy for all concerned... Fyddlestix (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, according to which sources? There are three-four questionable and obviously biased sources from such esteemed journals as "The Lion and the Unicorn." The one you provided now is non-academic and doesn't pass RS, like you always point out of my sources. I've used search engines for academic sources. Most of my edits before were also tiny one letter edits because I hadn't gotten the hang of it yet. I also noticed you removed my text and closed some off and put your vote here to the bottom even though this is the comments section. You could have shortened a lot of other stuff as well but you decided on my quotes instead. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Huh? The book is published by Routledge and written by a well-known academic. It is 100% RS. Also, no text was removed: I merely hatted your over-use of barely-relevant block quotations from a large number of low-quality sources, per WP:REFACTOR. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You did remove text and hatted very relevant quotations and not the overburdening walls of unrelated arguings. And I apologize for mistaking it for non-academic, but I read about the author and he's prominently on the left, and he states the following to be "ironic" usage:

Politically Correct is an idea that emerges from the well meaning attempt in social movements to bring the unsatisfactory present into line with the utopian future . . . Politically correct behaviour, including invisible language and ideas as well as observable action, is that which adheres to a movement’s morality and hastens its goals . . . the ideology of political correctness emerges in all sorts of movements, applying to behaviour, social institutions, and systems of thought and value. (Dimen 1984, quoted in Richer and Weir 1995: 57)

I don't see an ounce of irony in that. I think it's plainly describing it as an ideology. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you removed a message of mine where I wrote I'll be adding from the online library, I'll do that now. I had almost forgotten about it before you removed the message for some reason.

Here is David Morrice in the journal Politics:

In this paper I offer consideration of what I take to be some of the errors of political correctness. My critique is likely to provoke in some the response that I attack a straw man (or should that be person of straw?). Political correctness, I have heard it said, is a figment of the imagination of its opponents; an invention of the right, in their attempt to ridicule and attack liberalism and the left, which has been nurtured by the media. Others, who do not simply deny the reality of the phenomenon of political correctness, argue that it is misunderstood by its critics. [...] I believe political correctness is real and non-ironic, although often preposterous. It exists as the language, values, attitudes, policies and practices of a movement which is perhaps most evident in North America, and particularly in higher education, although it can be identified elsewhere.

I need to reboot though because I'm having a hard time clicking on hyperlinks for some reason. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I found some more stuff but I'll put them in the green folder. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

More sources

Rethinking political correctness Cited 60 times: These types of events occur daily in politically correct (PC) cultures, where unspoken canons of propriety govern behavior in cross-cultural interactions—that is, interactions among people of different races, genders, religions, and other potentially charged social identity groups. We embrace the commitment to equity that underlies political correctness, and we applaud the shifts in norms wrought by that commitment. We are troubled, however, by the barriers that political correctness can pose to developing constructive, engaged relationships at work. In cultures regulated by political correctness, people feel judged and fear being blamed. They worry about how others view them as representatives of their social identity groups. They feel inhibited and afraid to address even the most banal issues directly. People draw private conclusions; untested, their conclusions become immutable. Resentments build, relationships fray, and performance suffers. Elizabeth Frazer calls it a proper political phenomenon in Politics: It is important that discussions of 'political correctness' within the discipline of political studies should not just replicate the crude conceptions of both 'politics' and 'correctness' that characterise the disputes that are gathered under that name. As a properly political phenomenon, 'political correctness' calls for careful and critical discussion by political scientists. Arye L. Hillman in Public Choice: Political correctness is a complex topic, if only because those who hold that something is politically correct are not inclined to be open to critical evaluation of the merits of their political correctness. Such unwillingness to entertain open discourse is a characteristic of all social systems with supreme values Molefi Asante in link Issue Journal of Communication Journal of Communication Volume 42, Issue 2 Political correctness has come to mean expressing views that pass for the common wisdom of the liberal democractic pluralistic society. For example, it is politically correct to be for fairness and equality, but not politically correct to... Here the following matters are talked about: In “The Psychology of Political Correctness in Higher Education,” University of Nevada–Reno professor William O’Donohue and Chapman University professor Richard Redding explore the psychological goals and assumptions underlying diversity programs and political correctness. In the third section, “Different Disciplines, Same Problem,” leading scholars explore how political correctness affects scholarship and teaching across core liberal arts and social science disciplines. In the final section, “Needed Reforms,” practitioners describe the history of political correctness in universities and outline possible ways to reform academia. `She' and `He': Politically Correct Pronouns Cited by 23 other papers and uses the term clearly positively. Color Blindness and Interracial Interaction Playing the Political Correctness Game Again posivitely, cited by 134. The perils of political correctness: Men's and women's responses to old-fashioned and modern sexist views Used positively here as well, don't be fooled by the name. Cited by 109. To Be PC or Not to Be? A Social Psychological Inquiry into Political Correctness Positive, 22 citations. Posivitely and defines it, Cultural Sensitivity and Political Correctness: The Linguistic Problem of Naming. Cited by 24. This essay addresses some of the linguistic concepts that underlie the political and highly sensitive issue of what is referred to by English speakers today as "cultural sensitivity" (CS) or "political correctness" (PC). The current issue of "correct speech," particularly in the real of naming, focuses on how language and, in particular, naming should be used publicly and in other socially determined contexts.

Comment 4 The Stephen Morris paper above has been cited 504 times. Glenn Loury 93 times. But of the pejorative sources: Herbert Kohl's paper has been cited 4 times. Cannie Stark 11 times. Again, why are we using these fringe sources as primary sources? Oh, and two of those Herbert citations came from the same Russian who cited it in 2014, probably having found it here on Wikipedia. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Morris is unequivocally using the term pejoratively, though, as I said above. To answer your question above -- you asked whether I felt that defining it as censorship meant they were using it pejoratively? The answer is, obviously, yes; "censorship" is itself generally a pejorative term, so someone who uses the term to say "my political opponents are advocating censorship" is using it pejoratively. There is (practically) almost nobody who identifies unironically as "politically correct"; there is no significant self-identified "political correctness movement" or anything of that nature. (If there were, it would have been easy for you to produce high-quality sources documenting its history in non-pejorative terms.) Academically, it is, for the most part, a term used by scholars on the right to lump their political opponents together and accuse them of various nefarious things. Depending on who you ask, this lumping is either an accurate identification of a problem in modern liberal thought, or a cynical attempt to silence their opponents by providing an easy way to dismiss advocacy of liberal viewpoints; but academically, there is no real dispute that the term is a pejorative. The few useful sources you've dug up are essentially people saying "this insult is accurate" (a perspective that we can and do cover when we go over the various core accusations of political correctness further down); they're not saying "this isn't an insult." I mean, it's a widely-used term that has been re-purposed multiple times and spread in a lot of strange ways, but the bulk of these sources still seem to support the idea that it is a pejorative. --Aquillion (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

But he's plainly not? Point out any such part? And censorship isn't pejorative? It's a concept? You could barely think of it sometimes being casually used as a pejorative, but even then only incredibly rarely like that and mostly used as the concept of censorship. I've also now provided what 8-9 sources which use the term political correctness positively. The movement isn't self-identified because that is against their interest. Their view is that for example history's been always like what they change the curriculum to and not simply switched from another version by the movement. And it is almost never used by academics as a simply pejorative but as a descriptor for the ideology, as proved by all the sources we have and none which prove otherwise. There is concensus on what the term is academically and that is what the dictionaries posit it as, not primarily pejorative. Your version of my "few" sources describing it as an insult is the most plain straw man of all time. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, to anyone living in an established, liberal (in the original UK meaning) democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of belief are sacred rights and are enshrined in many constitutions. Censorship, directly violates those rights, how could the term censorship NOT be very critical when applied to political or social discussion? It is doubly so when it is framed in emotive, 'Orwellian' language. One of your sources claimed that the ultimate aim of 'PC' is to make certain speech or attitudes(?) illegal', Give us your poor, your huddled masses ... aching to be censored' , doesn't quite have the same appeal does it? I think we are inhabiting different linguistic planets if you do not see that 'censorship' is seen as a threat (outside a few areas such as pornography perhaps), to their most fundamental rights by most people and in invoking that fear, the user of the term is using the term pejoratively.

An ideology requires adherents, they are usually the ones to discuss and define its core beliefs, critics then weigh in to point out the failings of the ideology. Stage one and two is missing here, because 'the ideology' is defined only by those who criticise it, or are at best semi-neutral to it. The very first NYT, Newsweek etc articles characterise the term as being used by conservative (non-political meaning) educators, to describe policies etc that they were angrily opposed to. Those articles do not record their more radical opponents using the term of themselves or their policies, it entered the public consciousness as a dismissive term.

Why would we think that 30 word dictionary definitions should take precedence over 300 page studies? Why would we think that the absence of the word 'derogatory' in some sources proves anything, except what is obvious to anyone, namely that the term is not ALWAYS derogatory (nor is the word 'nigger', but so what?)? That obvious fact does not disprove that the term came to prominence as a derogatory term, used by critics, to characterise what they saw as left/liberal orthodoxy among their opponents.

I echo Fyddlestix's comment 'What a waste of time and energy for all concerned.... There are significant improvements that could be made to the article in order that it give a more complete and rounded account, but this is simply wasting everyone's time and goodwill for no purpose apart from arguing-for-arguing's-sake and WP:bludgeon.Pincrete (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

In the same way "free speech" is a compliment. It's not. It's a concept, in our case the concept of censoring. And which source was that? Sounds most like the Bush quote in the article. And like there is no actual group managing political correctness, there is also no actual group managing all of antiracism. It's more of a stance than a movement. The first articles do not state it is being used by conservatives. They state it's being used by both sides in academic debates. The dictionary definitions come from very reputable academic dictionaries, vetted by many academics and based on academic sources. The Kohl paper was in a journal about poetry for children and was cited 4 times and two times by the same Russian in 2014. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

But if the argument leads to a significant improvement like you mention, isn't it worth it? Hardly a waste of time, since the purpose here is to improve Wikipedia articles. That one word, "primarily," carries a lot of weight. With the evidence in front of us since this argument began, there is no doubt that "political correctness" is used both pejoratively and neutrally (complimentary less so). Determining the frequency of each looks to be an unattainable feat. Therefore, I believe it should be edited to read "... is a term often used as a pejorative..."Kerdooskis (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Kerdooskis, I don't think anyone connected with this article doubts that the term CAN be used in multiple ways. A recent right-ish US newspaper article was analyzing Trump's strategy and appeal to a section of the US electorate, finally concluding that his lack of 'PC', might be appealing to some, but wasn't a good idea in a president, that international diplomacy requires diplomacy! My assessment of that use is that it is a centrist-Republican using the term PC as a synonym for courtesy, tact and judgement on the international and domestic stage. Some other examples people have given on this RfC are also recognisable to me, some only exist in private discourse, or in humour, the term is also extensively used ironically. The trouble with all these uses is that we are dependent on our own judgements (ie we are engaged in OR) as to what extent the term is being used critically, ironically, or like the 'Trump' article, subverting the usual use of the term to make a point (that a measure of 'PC' might be a good thing).

I am the person responsible for the ordinarily/primarily qualifier, the article previously said simply 'pejorative'. The balance of sources studying the use of the term (as opposed to simply using it) fairly unequivocally state that the term came into prominence/general use as a 'dismissive' term in the late '80's, early 90's. The neutral use is less recorded and positive use is not really recorded/studied at all, nor of course is private usage. I don't think that down-grading 'primarily' is any answer, nor do I believe that always/usually/often/sometimes is the underlying agenda of this RfC. The answer IMO is to state unequivocally the context and manner of use in which the term came to prominence (to criticise/characterise a range of changes in higher education, later in society in US, mainly local Govt. and 'social organisations' in UK), but to largely 'leave open' other or later uses, which we CANNOT record, since to do so would involve OR of primary sources. Later use, to the extent it is studied can be recorded, but I don't believe it is.

The underlying agenda (in my assessment) of this RfC, is to change the article from 'PC' is the term used to criticise/characterise certain policies, to 'PC' is the motivating ideology behind those policies. To make that change would be to hand over the article to the critics of 'PC', who largely coined the term and gave it popular currency, precisely as a critical term to imply a collective 'mindset'. My comment about 'improvement' was because I think a fuller, more detailed, more nuanced account of how the term was used, WOULD improve, but this change would not have that effect IMO. Pincrete (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The only reason you added ordinarily was because someone else had edited "sometimes" in first. Pejorative was also added in May by Aquillion 4 days before you started editing the article.

If you want to talk about agenda, then look at Aquillion's edit history. He constantly removes — from similar articles — sourced paragraphs that hurt his whatever left-wing agenda. I also apologize for accusing you for I went through your edits and yours seem mostly neutral and fixing. You make a ton of tiny edits. His on the other hand are usually the likes of removing 1000 characters.

And Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. It posits both views in controversial issues (where there isn't an overwhelming majority). You don't get to choose whose views aren't to be included here. And even so, a person who coins the pejorative use wouldn't honor the term with anything other than pejorative connotation. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There are 'weight' issues that could be addressed, but this is simply going round and round in ever more absurd circles. Pincrete (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Just change "primarily" to "often" and move on.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Closing this RfC

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, as the proposer, you cannot close this RfC yourself except by withdrawing it. I see no evidence above for general agreement for this edit. Nor do I see any evidence of 'a deal', as stated here. I myself suggested ANOTHER compromise, but no one seems to have taken that suggestion up. Pincrete (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion was that you were in favour of a more nuanced account. For two days you kept editing and this talk page as well so I took it you didn't care anymore. Mind you what is wrong with the swap again? People were suggesting a slight compromise rather than a trench war and this is it. It's a synonym, from the second sentence, with a less absolute view. The second sentence is more apt this way as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Which part of "as the proposer, you cannot close this RfC yourself except by withdrawing it", was not clear? The edit you inserted was not proposed/discussed by anyone. The only thing you achieve by these 'games', is ensuring that no one thinks you can be taken seriously about anything. Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, your suggestion was that you were in favour of a more nuanced account. For two days you kept editing after my proposal and this talk page below as well so I took it you didn't care anymore. And I did withdraw but I guess I'll have to open it again. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Which part of "as the proposer, you cannot close this RfC yourself except by withdrawing it", was not clear? There was no discussion even of the edit you made, unilaterally deciding that you are entitled to assess the concensus of the RfC (ignoring numerous objectors) only alienates those - like myself - who were prepared to consider a more nuanced definition. Pincrete (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Again with your straw men. No, I didn't do that. Likewise you seem to be entitled to have control over the article even when you ignore replies made to you on the talk page - while you're being active and not in any way away. When someone finally edits you come complaining to the talk page that there was no discussion. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your edit reason,('as discussed') linked to the RfC closure, stated that 'a deal' had been done. This is clearly untrue, there is no discussion anywhere above of 'a deal', and a deal between you and ??? (who exactly?), would anyway need the agreement of others. You haven't got the answer you wanted from the RfC, so you unilaterally made a deal with yourself, which completely ignores both the RfC and the opinions of other editors. I do have other things to do apart from answering the 1000+ edits you have made on this talk page in the past weeks. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

There was discussion and the assumption was that there was a deal because you had wanted a more nuanced view and I had proposed one. I didn't know why you weren't replying to that proposal but I then asked that if there's no disagreement I'll edit it in and waited a day and then edited it. And I didn't get a completely reversal of pejorative but I did get people saying that primarily could be changed to a less absolute synonym, which is what I did. And the past few weeks I've done about what 200 edits here and even of those most are minor typo edits. And again, you reply to every single of my posts. Each of my posts here get a reply from you. Every single one. So why blame only me? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit war removal of Camille Paglia and James Atlas sources for no apparent reason

Two removals happened on sources which have been there for 25 days now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=690664003&oldid=690578000

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=690683079&oldid=690680409

They do not state it began the debate about the term Atlas doesn't state it began the debate about the term because the term wasn't used at the time of these reviews the review. But they state it began the academic debate about liberal education. Then this sentence is followed up by later quotes and sources which clarify that it began the debate about political correctness. The two critics Paglia and Atlas are very notable, and their view that it began the debate is hefty. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

See this discussion, specifically the last post: - I've removed the 'relevant' tag, I don't who did the fixing, but the text now addresses PC. HOWEVER, I'm not so sure that text and refs align, specifically the refs attached to Paglia + Atlas, I don't know what they are supporting, other than that they wrote criticisms. I'm also not sure what the refs attached to the book title support, it's publication? I can't access all of the refs, but I hope that 16 + 29 support that Paglia and Atlas SPECIFICALLY, have pointed to Allan Bloom's 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind[16][28][29] as the likely beginning of the modern debate about political correctness in higher education.[16][29]. Otherwise some copy -editing is called for.

1)Where the refs were located, implied that they were supporting their names only … more importantly the Paglia source says the book started the 'culture war', Atlas says many things about Bloom + the book, but none of them approximate to pointing to 'the likely beginning of the modern debate about political correctness in higher education.' Paglia's article is 2005-ish, Atlas's might be good source for describing the content of Bloom's book, but neither of them use the term 'PC', or a synonym ANYWHERE. The text is left unaltered for now, though it would appear that neither critic said what the sentence claims in these cites.

Your claim above is strange, do sources [16] [29] SPECIFICALLY state that Paglia and Atlas BOTH pointed to the book as the likely beginning of the modern debate about political correctness in higher education.[16][29]. Otherwise some copy -editing is called for.

Even if the sources DO support that specific claim, there is neither need or reason to give refs on their names that only support that they said loosely connected things about the book, otherwise we might as well cite every critic who ever said anything, even unconnected to PC.Pincrete (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought at the time you were having issues with your computer because the hyperlinks are plainly there and have been so for long. Why can't you click on them? And they both define him as the beginning of the debate. And where did you get 2005 from? It's from 1997. And I now notice Paglia specifically points out PC. It's easy to miss, but it's there. Atlas also goes for many pages and I think you only got stuck on the first. And you do need to give sources for their views. I don't understand the motive of not having sources. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are you mentioning hyperlinks? Do you mean the linked wiki-page? The purpose of 'cited sources' is to support the text that precedes them, in this instance it is only their names. If these sources WERE supporting the whole sentence, they should be at the end. I can find no mention of anything which needs citing in the two refs. They are about the book, but not about 'PC'. 'Beginning of debate/culture war' is a tenuous connection to 'the likely beginning of the modern debate about political correctness in higher education'. Drastic rewriting is needed if they did not say an accurate paraphrase of that sentence. We cannot claim they said things which they did not. Regardless of that issue, the refs are currently supporting nothing where they were placed.Pincrete (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the hyperlinks to the URLs. Wikipedia hyperlinks don't lead to just articles. And if you want them moved at the end then go ahead, but they looked better next to the names. And I again have to mention that the label Political Correctness was applied to the debate only a few years later soon after, but the debate was about it from the get-go. The debate was about what we now call Political Correctness in higher education. The other sources directly draw the connection to Political Correctness.

Also notice that you removed a main part of the sentence. The sentence is absolutely broken now because of your forced edit. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll add "what we now call." That should take care of all of your issues. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought about adding other kinds of specifications like "what was soon called" to specify it didn't take long to get the moniker. But this doesn't look as good. I'll think about other alternatives to specify the name was picked up right after. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed from "what we now call" to "what was soon named" to specify that it was named right after. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This edit, doesn't address my concerns at all, it advertises what I previously suspected, that Paglia and Atlas didn't say what the sentence claims. Both of them are fairly literate, culturally aware people, writing when the term was already known, if they had wanted to say the book was the beginning of 'PC' etc., they would have said it. This is pure wp:synth. Does ANYONE actually say the book was 'the likely beginning of the modern debate about political correctness in higher education.'? Or do they simply say the book sparked a controversy, (which we know), but of what kind exactly and how connected to the use of the term. ?

But they do now say what the sentence now claims. And Atlas wasn't writing when the term was known. Paglia uses the term. And the sentence does not say this was the beginning of PC but that this was the beginning of the modern debate about what was soon after named "political correctness." And if you read further than the first few words like I've pointed out, you'll find sources and quotes stating that it was exactly, precisely the beginning of the political correctness debate. The ones that don't have those in a single sentence state he began the debate and then add that he attacked political correctness in another sentence, essentially coalescing into beginning the debate about political correctness. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

nb edit conflict, response to above

This is pure synth, we cannot say 'they didn't actually say it, but this is what they meant really, and would have said if they had known the term'. Let us be clear, no one doubts that Bloom's book featured prominently in both the education debate and was one of the books at the centre of the use of the term PC in the'90s. I doubt that anyone has said it was the beginning, merely being the first printed proves nothing, though I acknowledge it may be 'the preliminary skirmish' in the related matter of the public education debate and has been described by Paglia, (20 years later) as 'the opening shot' in the 'culture war'. We cannot morph all these things together to make it say what we want it to say. I am not talking about removal (except perhaps, Paglia), but that the text accurately records what the used sources say was Bloom's role in relation to 'PC', and, even more fundamentally, that the text does not imply that Atlas said something, which he patently did not say. Splattering the text with refs which may be vaguely related, which are placed where it is unclear what they are supporting, but which do not actually support the main claims of the sentence is simply 'muddying the waters', such that it becomes impossible to work out WHAT is being supported. Pincrete (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

But again, Paglia does use the term of the two... And, so instead of stating "the modern debate about what was soon named "political correctness"" we should state "the debate which morphed into the debate about political correctness"? The paraphrasal is the best it can be without turning into unreadable jargon. And Paglia, 20 years later? Did you not see me clarify it was 1997 and not 2005? Where do you keep getting the 2005 from? Literally all of our sources which talk about the debate mention Bloom as the first. Claiming otherwise would be WP:FRINGE to the extreme. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Even both Kimball and D'Souza write that they owe heavily to the book. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have also through my searches seen bits of the Media Coverage source and it clearly has sections about both Allan Bloom and Roger Kimball in addition to Dinesh. I've requested full quotes from the source or even access, since picking only Dinesh from it is very dubious. The full "captured the press's imagination" sentence might even be about the three and not just Dinesh. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

re: 'The full "captured the press's imagination" sentence might even be about the three and not just Dinesh.' , yes, and it might be about the moon being made of cream cheese. If the claim applies to all three, the text is easily amended to fit that fact (was amongst those described?). Pincrete (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems to contain the words "moon", "made of" and "cream cheese". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I discovered a new technique where I specify the year date in Google searches, which lets me find little-viewed but powerful articles: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1990/dec/06/the-storm-over-the-university/

A few years ago the literature of educational crises was changed by a previously little-known professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago in a book implausibly entitled The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students. To me, the amazing thing about Allan Bloom’s book was not just its prodigious commercial success—more than half a year at the top of The New York Times’s best-seller list—but the depth of the hostility and even hatred that it inspired among a large number of professors.

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a page about Bloom, a page about the book, all that is needed on this page is a brief account of how the book impacted on use of the term 'PC'. Pincrete (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The beginning of the modern debate about a phenomenon which was named political correctness by Bernstein soon after. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Paglia=1997, 10 years after the book. That doesn't alter the fact that neither she nor Atlas said what your text claims they said, you cannot add 'morph' to remedy that, they simply didn't say these things. This is all so unnecessary, since the importance of the book is widely sourced, but its importance is not as represented in your text. Bernstein didn't 'name' 'PC', he reported its use as 'a sarcastic jibe used by those, conservatives and classical liberals alike, to describe what they see as a growing intolerance', and thus took the term out to a wider public. Pincrete (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly how do they not say what the sentence claims? Since you only talked about the sentence before the current version, can you pinpoint what's wrong with the current one? For currently it says they specify Bloom as the beginning of the debate. Atlas states that 10 months later the debate Bloom began has continued ever as furious. This is the same Bloom debate Bernstein names as about PC very near the time Atlas writes this article, in 1988, beginning its modern use. Paglia writes Bloom began the culture wars, against PC professors. This is the debate about political correctness. Both Kimball and D'Souza pinpoint Bloom. All of sources do. And I didn't write Bernstein named PC but the debate as about PC. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Except Paglia doesn't say 'Bloom began the culture wars, against PC professors', the second half of the sentence is written by Mr Magoo. No amount of inventive going-round-in-circles, pointless argumentation will alter the fact that Atlas did not say what your text claims he said. Perhaps Atlas said things which are relevant and usable, but he DID NOT say THIS, Mr Magoo did, and edit warred it back into the article, (even returning the refs to the wrong place to support their names and the name of the book?). I suggest you go to WP:RSN if you feel that the sources support your text, I've done with discussing it, to me this is unadulterated, self-evident synth. Pincrete (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

She does:

On university campuses, the arrogant, mundane, anti-art, PC forces of French theorists and hard-line feminists have finally lost their prestige, even if they still hold lavishly compensated, tenured positions.

And again, what didn't Atlas specifically say? I've kept asking you this but you won't give me an answer.

This is how it goes:

Atlas states that 10 months later the debate Bloom began has continued ever as furious. This is the same Bloom debate Bernstein names as about PC very near the time Atlas writes this article, in 1988, beginning its modern use. Paglia writes Bloom began the culture wars, against PC professors. This is the debate about political correctness. Both Kimball and D'Souza pinpoint Bloom. All of the sources do. (blockquotes removed by Pincrete)

There's a clear timeline. The term was used of the debate around the time of the Atlas article. And I have to again point out that you edited the sentence to an absolutely broken state, where it read "Critics, including Camille Paglia and James Atlas, as the likely beginning..." You accidentally cut out the entire midpart. Pushing a bad edit like that back is severely breaking the rules. You call it edit warring to undo that? And even then I satisfied your request with the addition of the clarification. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

A vast area of text seperates 'first shot of culture war' (no 'against PC professors' anywhere) from the Paglia quote above, your text is pure synth of what Paglia ACTUALLY says, which does not credit Bloom for the changes she notes above, ('Thanks partly to President Clinton's initiatives, educational reform has moved to center stage in the United States' is what precedes that quote). Take it to RSN and find out, you have zero case for this text.

Your second italic quote is Mr. Magoo, (I assume), which I take it is an admission that Atlas DOESN'T say what your text claims he said, but you are determined to insert it anyway, even though it is completely unnecessary to establishing Bloom's role and is both OR and synth in equal measure. There is an immense difference between neutral paraphrase, and OR. Pincrete (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Vast being two short sentences, first of which that Clinton sentence. And she doesn't credit the change itself to Bloom but I never claimed this, she credits the beginning of the debate which then lead to Clinton acting against PC theorists. And this must be the fourth time I'm asking you to state what exactly doesn't Atlas say? You keep avoiding any specifics. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

i.e. if we are happy to make about six logical jumps, we get to the answer that he & she may THINK it, even though they didn't come anywhere near actually saying it. Exactly what I said about twenty posts ago (and 3 weeks ago). Why anyway is it so important? There's plenty of sources for what people DID write about Bloom. … … ps Atlas doesn't say ANYTHING about PC in the source given, so he can hardly say the book started the debate about PC, another 6 logical jumps gets us to, he would have said it, if he'd known the term, and if he'd been a NYT reader and if, if, if. Why not simply use what he does say, briefly, about the book, as you can't connect it to a term Atlas didn't use. Pincrete (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

There's only one logical jump and two short sentences apart. And finally you reveal what exactly you disagree with and it is about Atlas not writing the words political correctness. But we already established that the term came to be used of the debate only the same year by Bernstein, probably even only months later. That is why I added "what was soon named." The clarification is there for that. It solved the problem. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I wrote but I'll add here: I separated the political correctness mention from the rest of the sentence with em dashes, signifying a parenthetical statement. Are you happy now? Mind you the rest of the sources used the term and I'm only doing this because Atlas didn't. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

One logical jump (even if it were true, which it isn't), is one logical jump too many. They did not say what your text claims they said, simple as that. It is also so unnecessary since the things they REALLY DID SAY, are probably usable, except possibly Paglia. Pincrete (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you know what thing about logicals jumps is? That they are logical and follow. If they weren't logical they would be illogical. You yourself have written it's thus a logical jump that the sentence that follows in the same paragraph talks about the same thing. Why in the worlds would it not? Are you saying it starts talking about some completely other issue? Completely unrelated? I don't even know why I'm trying to prove something so utterly obvious and simple to you. And again I added the em dashes to make it a parenthesis. That means I'm not claiming Atlas said that. Do you understand? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll paste it here so anyone can read it directly from here:

I would like to thank you and all the other, superbly well-informed Salon readers for your very interesting questions, most of which I have not had time or space to answer. An ad hoc policy of quick replies may be in order.

Future historians will certainly consider Allan Bloom's surprise mega-bestseller as the first shot in the culture wars that still rage, with oscillating intensity and visibility. Thanks partly to President Clinton's initiatives, educational reform has moved to center stage in the United States. After the long, slow decline of public schools, there are new calls for "standards" and an impatience with the touchy-feely liberal formulas that have left so many underprivileged students behind. On university campuses, the arrogant, mundane, anti-art, PC forces of French theorists and hard-line feminists have finally lost their prestige, even if they still hold lavishly compensated, tenured positions. (For more on this, see my article on gender studies in the July 25 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education.)

When my first book, "Sexual Personae," was released and reviewed in Europe and Britain, my dissertation advisor and mentor, Harold Bloom, was frequently confused with Allan Bloom, and I must admit I was aggravated to be falsely called a disciple of the latter. Nevertheless, I respect Allan Bloom for taking a courageous stand against the entrenched forces of his day, and I am confident that in the long run he will be vindicated and his critics swallowed in obscurity. I agree with both Blooms about the need to defend the canon of great artists and writers, but I differ with them most profoundly on the issue of popular culture, which as a child of television and rock music, I immediately embraced and continue to glorify. Pop is my pagan religion, and I do not agree that it destroys cultivated response to high art.

You keep claiming that she does not state Bloom began it. She clearly states it was the first shot. She follows by describing in what and what followed. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither Paglia nor Atlas said what you say they say FULL STOP (not even a reasonable paraphrase). We are not here for a demonstration of Mr Magoo's (or my) powers of logical deduction, even so they are flawed. Paglia says Bloom started the culture war, Bloom's book was the first popular work to criticise trends in US higher education, the term 'PC' acquired general currency a few years later in the US principally/initially to characterise the thinking behind those educational trends. Bloom's book was one of the books at the centre of the ensuing educational debate, during which 'PC' was extensively used as a critical term.

All this is true. HOWEVER, historian X said that 'Mussolini started the Fascist Party', the rise of Fascism led to the invasion of Poland, the outbreak of WWII and Pearl Harbour ...... therefore 'historian X said that Mussolini invaded Poland, started WWII and attacked Pearl Harbour'! Paglia is a fairly articulate person, if she had wanted to say 'started PC', she would have said it. Atlas's claim is even more tenuous, since you are 'putting words into his mouth', which (according to you), he only did not use because he did not yet know them.

The 'culture war' is not a synonym for 'PC', the 'educational debate', extensively used the term 'PC', but is not a synonym for 'PC'. NOBODY SAID THESE THINGS except Mr Magoo. Pincrete (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me quote you again:

Paglia says Bloom started the culture war, Bloom's book was the first popular work to criticise trends in US higher education, the term 'PC' acquired general currency a few years later in the US principally/initially to characterise the thinking behind those educational trends. Bloom's book was one of the books at the centre of the ensuing educational debate, during which 'PC' was extensively used as a critical term.

That doesn't translate to the sentence "Bloom likely to have begun the debate about higher education" in your opinion? It seems to translate to something stronger than that. And you've complained about not directly quoting the source but you do exactly what you complain about here? Paglia wrote in 1997, remember? She uses the term and by her time it was common? And why do you again go for some weird straw men, in this case with Mussolini and invasion of Poland and Pearl Harbour. Calm down. Oh, and note again: The article does not infer them stating political correctness. Political correctness is in a parenthesis. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Paglia does not use the term in relation to Bloom FULL STOP. I think 'Bloom began (or at least broadened to involve the public) the debate about higher education', is probably sourceable, (though whether Atlas says that - before the debate caught fire - I'm not sure). How do you get from there to 'James Atlas,... pointed to Allan Bloom's 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind ... as the likely beginning of the modern debate — about what was soon named "political correctness" — in higher education. How can he point to something that hasn't yet happened? And what right do you have to 'put words into his mouth'.?

It is all SO unnecessary, because the importance of Bloom is easily establishable, the content of his book is establishable, the citing of his book by those later using the term is establishable. I can only assume that you (for some reason), are determined to put Bloom 'in pole position' and are happy to distort quotes to achieve this. Pincrete (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Before the debate caught fire? But he states Bloom started it? And again, you don't include the parenthesis with the polical correctness. It's a parenthesis. And from my point of view it's a very simple case and I have no idea why you are so determined about it. I've asked if we should just directly quote Atlas, but that doesn't seem to be okay. You want Atlas completely out as a source. Removal of sources I obviously can't accept. And what in the worlds has Atlas got to do with any position? Paglia also does use the term in relation to Bloom. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Mr. Magoo's post on ANI

1) you shouldn't post long quotes (like the Paglia above), even on talk, it's copyvio. … … 2) as you have posted it, it is clear that Paglia says that Bloom's book was 'the first shot in the culture wars', nowhere does she mention Bloom in relation to PC AT ALL, point to me to the sentence where she does … … 3) Atlas DOES say Bloom's book (10 months after publication), has been a highly controversial, surprise best seller, he does say Bloom blames liberalism for the parlous state of US education (among other causes from Nietzsche to Mick Jagger via cultural relativism the notion that all societies, all cultures, all values are equal. They're not … Equality is a democratic prejudice, and 60's student protests which Bloom, again and again, likens to the Nazis' invasion of German universities in the 1930's.. HOWEVER, nowhere does Atlas say Bloom's book is the start of ANYTHING hardly surprising, no one in 1914 said 'this must be the beginning of the 1914-18 war then'. Therefore, the claim that Paglia and Atlas pointed to Allan Bloom's 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind as the likely beginning of the modern debate — about what was soon named "political correctness" — in higher education, is pure fabrication, neither of them have pointed to any such thing.

Was the book influential? Certainly, and sources support that. Was it the first of the 'educational best sellers'? Certainly, ditto, did the book feature prominently in later debates about PC-ness? Ditto, ditto. Tons of sources say these things, a few might even tell us about some of the ideas in the book, but none of them support the existing text. Pincrete (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I wrote: It's short enough for anyone to read through in an instant. And she goes on to the describe the culture wars and the relation to PC. It follows with: "...educational reform has moved to center stage in the United States. After the long, slow decline of public schools, there are new calls for "standards" and an impatience with the touchy-feely liberal formulas that have left so many underprivileged students behind. On university campuses, the arrogant, mundane, anti-art, PC forces of French theorists and hard-line feminists have finally lost their prestige, even if they still hold lavishly compensated, tenured positions." She only thanks Clinton partly. She says it was the first and then educational reform was moved to center and PC forces lost their prestige. Clear line. And Atlas stated the book provoked the debate. It's that simple. There's no continuation of any other debate. It's not more of some debate. And I have found a book by Atlas where he describes more clearly that it was Bloom who began it.

Here is the book of Atlas: Book Wars : What It Takes to Be Educated in America

Here is what a review LA Times 1990 where it's said what is contained within:

Don't believe James Atlas when he professes neutrality: These wars are chronicled from the unmistakable perspective of Allan Bloom, the man who started them with "The Closing of the American Mind," an assault on '60s liberals who stormed the Ivory Tower in the '70s and '80s, concocting "socially relevant" courses that are said to distract students from the classics and other traditionally "civilizing" humanities curricula. Atlas mentions Bloom again and again. His 87-page hardcover pamphlet is little more than Bloom simplified.

This absolutely destroys any opposition. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh and note: I think I'll go find some other statement from Paglia where she defines it clearly again as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

There is NO connection made by Paglia between Bloom and PC in that quote … … … There is NOTHING that supports the statement attributed to Atlas in the new source. Atlas is a big fan of Bloom, Yes, Bloom criticised '60's liberals', Yes, Bloom criticised 'socially relevant' courses, Yes, Bloom felt these courses distracted students from the 'traditional curricula', Yes. Bloom felt that any deviation from 'traditional curricula', was tantamount to barbarism (No, but could be found elsewhere, perhaps). Where is the bit where Atlas says Bloom started ANYTHING AT ALL. … … ps the idea is to write-up what the majority of reliable sources say, not write what you want and then look for enough sources to justify the text. Pincrete (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I wrote: Only it says he began the book wars and assault on whom by the way? Both of the critics state Bloom began the wars. Would you mind stating which wars the two are talking about? Really, what are these wars? And I've been able to look at glimpses of the book and I believe like written it starts off with Bloom being the one to start the wars, the Book Wars that is which is the title of the book. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh and I might be really busy today so I might not be able to participate as much. I'll try to check here but I won't be able to talk as much. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The wars referred to in the new source are the 'book wars', the title of the book. The source does not say Atlas claimed anything at all, it says These wars are chronicled from the unmistakable perspective of Allan Bloom, the man who started them with "The Closing of the American Mind, . The wars referred to are 'the book wars' and the opinion about Bloom starting them is the reviewer's not Atlas's. I could try to guess what Atlas means by 'the book wars', very possibly it was the series of books, mainly criticising, but sometimes defending changes in higher education (though in 1990?). What the new source confirms is something no one doubts, the impact of Bloom's book, that it was one of the first of a series of books which fuelled an angry debate within US around which the term 'PC' achieved widespread currency (better sources already exist to confirm this). It does not say ANYTHING about Atlas saying that the book started anything. That is extrapolation. If I asked Atlas if he thinks that the book started etc. … would he say 'yes'? Very possibly, but he didn't say it, nor anything that is a paraphrase of it and as a clear fan of Bloom, would he be the most reliable witness?

Paglia simply doesn't say anything about Bloom and 'PC', (without extensive extrapolation). Besides, why is it important? Paglia's remarks are already on the book's own page. Were we to include her and Atlas's praise, why would we not balance it with someone else's very negative portrayal of the book? Answer, because this page is not about the book, and why not use that space saying what was in the book that connects it to the term 'PC' (according to the balance of RS).

Neither Paglia nor Atlas have said what we claim they say. But why is this particular phrasing so important? We all accept Bloom's importance, but we are little closer to establishing in what way, based on what the best RS actually say. I would edit in something myself, but your last response was to revert back in invalid refs.

It is synth, as soon as we extrapolate anything, regardless of how logical the extrapolation might seem (synth is not just using synonyms, no one is going to argue about start/begin/initiate etc.). In this instance, the extrapolations are fairly sizable, culture war = education debate = 'PC', therefore Paglia meant 'PC'. The reviewer of Atlas's book says Bloom is the beginning of the 'book war', therefore Atlas has said something about the book.

I have a lot of pages on my watchlist which I have little involvement with, but which I am happy to offer an opinion when there is dispute. One of those pages is an historical figure. Recently an editor came there and queried our coverage of this figure's 'war record', out text said (approx.) 'XXX spent nearly half of the war well away from the front line'. The editor wanted to know why we expressed it negatively, why not say 'spent over half the war close to the front line'. I could see no rational objection, but the source said it our way. I asked the editor to wait until others (who knew all the sources better than I), weighed in. He didn't, but instead went himself to all the other sources, what he found was that the figure spent nearly half the war 'well away' (ie 100's of Kms), almost as much time 'away' (ie 25-50 Kms) and only a small period 'at the front'. He was happy, our text was not unfair. Had the editor and I gone ahead and extrapolated an 'obvious logical conclusion' from what the source said, the impression left by our text would have been completely false. I am giving this as a two-fold example, firstly of why ANY EXTRAPOLATION is not allowed, secondly of why 'the balance of reliable sources', is the governing criterion. Pincrete (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere is it stated that they are the reviewer's, as he is describing the contents of the book. And like I wrote, it seems like that how it's in the book as well from the academic search engine preview glimpses I've seen. Some words are cut off but it appears apparent that is what he states.

Paglia again says Bloom began the culture wars leading to education forms and PC forces losing their prestige. It's not extrapolation. It's a clear line. And there used to be both Atlas and Paglia quotes and also negative portrayls of the book but they were all shortened to this short sentence. And we're not including their praise because their statements are used to point to it being the beginning. Getting into why the book lead to the debate would mean delving into its contents which would require a lot of time and access to it.

Both they describe that it began the debate in higher education and Paglia even mentions PC. And if you have suggestion for some other sort of phrasing, then offer it. This is the most neutral and apt description I could form.

It's a summary of various different sources. How else would you summarize? Again, offer your alternative summary. And Paglia goes to explain what the culture war was. You do know if in a source there are multiple sentences, we can summarize those multiple sentences. That means we have to take them all into consideration and not just one and few words from it and then ignore the rest. And the reviewer is describing what is written in the book.

And I don't understand the relevance of the end. Is it some sort of a straw man again? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

re: Nowhere is it stated that they are the reviewer's (opinions), as he is describing the contents of the book. Yes, but, nowhere is it stated that they are Atlas's opinions, nor what 'Book Wars' means. In a review/article/book, anything which ISN'T explicitly stating someone else's PoV, is assumed to be that of the writer. You are happy to extrapolate meaning from a book title, and have expected me to prove your extrapolation is incorrect? This discussion has gone round and round in circles, the simple obvious truth is that Atlas didn't say what the text claims. Paglia said something similar, but not the same, and as the quote is so small, why not say what she ACTUALLY said, (if used at all).

I will try over the next few days to come up with some text for the Bloom bits and post it here, rather than fix one sentence.

The reason for my anecdote was to give an example of how the smallest - seemingly logical - extrapolation can be wrong. But it is not a small extrapolation to claim someone said something, which they didn't (even if we think they might have - if they could have done so). Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I have now gained access to the real, physical book, although its 1993 reprint. This is the foreword: "When does an issue become an issue become an issue? Five years ago no one except professional educators paid much attention to what was happening in our universities and schools. Now it often seems as if no one can talk about anything else. The New York Times Magazine runs a cover story on California's textbook debate. Time runs a cover story on multiculturalism. Newsweek runs a cover story on the campus phenomenon of "p.c." —political correctness." It starts off detailing exactly the PC issue. After that it even lists D'Souza and Bush: "Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus, by Dinesh D'Souza, hits the best-seller list" and "Even George Bush has weighed in, decrying p.c. as a threat to academic freedom in a commencement address at the University of Michigan." He goes on and on about PC and relates it to the book wars and the debate.

The actual book begins and I apologize for the long uncutness but this is the very beginning and I believe in this use very much fair use:

In the fall of 1987 I joined the staff of the New York Times Magazine. Within a week of my arrival, a senior editor showed up from the third-floor newsroom to suggest that we do a story on Allan Bloom, a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago whose book The Closing of the American Mind had been at the top of the bestseller list for months. By the end of that year, it had sold close to a half-million copies. Bloom was America's latest intellectual celebrity: He was interviewed in Time magazine and seen on television talk shows. He was also a millionaire, no doubt a rarity among the high-minded members of the Committee on Social Thought.

No one can predict the public's taste. But The Closing of the American Mind has turned out to be more than one of those curious American phenomena, a book that captures a moment and acquires fleeting intellectual cachet, like Christopher Lasch's The Culture of Narcissism or Charles Reich's The Greening of America. Written, its author claimed, to please a few friends, Bloom's book was, and still is, a major even in American life. Five years after its publication, both the book and its author remain objects of intense debate. Bloom was the primary subject at a symposium entitled "The Humanities and the Question of Values in Education" held at Yale in the spring of 1989. A year later, at a symposium in Boston sponsored by Partisan Review, "The Changing Culture of the University," he still managed to draw the most fire. His intellectual presence hovers over Paul Berman's anthology, Debating P.C.: his entry in the index to The Politics of Liberal Education, edited by Darryl J. Gless and Barbara Herrnstein Smith, is large. By now, he's a venerable icon in the curriculum debate, a focus of inordinate attention and often venomous animosity. "To me," marvelled the philosopher John Searle in the New York Review of Books, "the amazing thing about Allan Bloom's book was not just its prodigious commercial success, but the depth of the hostility and even hatred that it inspired among a large number of professors."

It absolutely, 100% establishes the connection to PC and everything in our article. Bloom's debate 100% lead into PC according to James Atlas.

Now that we've also gone round and round about quoting sources exactly and to the word, to the exact words used and nothing else; I've noticed that nowhere does Dinesh "condemn" any of the things mentioned in his book, and he also doesn't even use the phrase "multiculturalism through language." Likewise the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of the 1990s section seem to contain a lot of sentences not stated in the sources. While you're fussing so much about Paglia and Atlas, you might want to rather look at these because these seem much bigger stretches of imagination. What do you think? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It isn't 'to the word' that has been asked for, it's 'to the meaning' (eg dismiss=shrug off, which for some reason you reverted today, one is only the informal form of the other). IF RS say that D'S's book 'condemns Multicultalurism etc', that takes precedence over what you/I/anyone thinks the book is about. Besides it doesn't say that, it says in which he condemned what he saw as liberal efforts to advance (victimization), multiculturalism through language, affirmative action and changes to the content of school and university curriculums. Are you saying D'S didn't condemn liberal efforts to advance these things through these means? (Though there have been so many changes recently, I'm no longer sure what's sourced and what isn't and victimization is your addition, which I've never been sure about). If there is a fairer/more complete summary of what D'S was condemning, propose it.

I need to look closer at the latest 'Atlas', but initial reaction is to say it STILL doesn't say what we claim, it does reinforce what you and I already agree on. Even if you prove to be right, it still doesn't make any sense that you write a text, then 4 weeks later find a source to support it (which, having only read the above, I don't think it does). That shows you are coming to your conclusions, then trying to find the evidence to support them, neutral editing is trying at least to do things the other way round. Pincrete (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well, none of our sources say that about D'S's book. And you ask a question very much like what I've been asking. Do you not see the irony? I didn't think I'd actually prove something to you but I might have. And you haven't even looked at the Atlas and you're already condemning it... And the original Atlas article was more than enough but this is nuking the fact. We could remove the em dashes now. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What you appear to be trying to prove to me is another editor's bias. A) I'm not interested (I'm old enough to form opinions of my own about people) B) How do the sources charcterise D'S's criticisms? Not of liberals? What? I'm not condemning the Atlas, I read it quickly late at night and said I need to re-read it. Very busy today, till late. Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No, what I were trying to prove was the level and similarity of your argument. You yourself argued: "Are you saying D'S didn't condemn liberal efforts to advance these things through these means?" because it's so plain to the view. Yet it's a highly comparable situation and those statements are way worsely sourced. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists, could we please stick to one subject at a time. I still haven't heard what the objection to the description of what D'Souza was condemning IS. I think I asked you to provide a better description weeks ago, (if you object to it). I have some minor quibbles about phrasing, and places where expanding would help clarity, but other than that it appears to me to be a sound summary of d'S's criticisms. … … ps Similar to what? What is plain? If there is any error or omission or unfairness in the description of d'S's criticisms, what is it? If what you are saying is that I ought to be checking other sources, I can hardly comment if I don't know what you claim the fault is with that summary. Pincrete (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Civitas think tank pamphlet.

Regarding this, I don't see why we're focusing on it. It's a random pamphlet by a think-tank; there's no particular indication that it's any more important than the countless other places where the phrase has been used in the past. It's important to keep the article from becoming just a dumping ground for every single editorial, press-release, or news story that uses the term; if we tried to cover them all here, the article would be unmanageable long and unreadable, while highlighting random ones like this is giving them WP:UNDUE weight. --Aquillion (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Like pointed out earlier, we've got segments like the Baa Baa sheep which is only sourced by magazines. This segment among those isn't undue. In addition, what you call "pamphlet" is cited by 22 academic papers. It's a book, 94 pages long. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll improve the refs. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the source for the book and changed from pamphlet to publication. For some reason it was stated to be a pamphlet before. I also added New Statesman and Guardian which talk about it years later. I could have added The Daily Mail which talked about the book's publication soon after, but I don't know if Daily Mail is unwanted as a source. I also found a good scholar review but I'm struggling to find an easily viewable version of the paper. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

New Statesman's focus was the man instead so I replaced it with a selection of press reviews. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion that this is not notable and is an example of use rather than informing about the term. Our text says very little about the term anyhow, mainly saying that 'ethnic minorities are the most prejudiced of all', very possibly true, but so what? How does that connect with 'PC'? … … ps, the baa baa black sheep story is probably the most documented case of British tabloid urban myths about 'PC', if the currently used sources are not strong, that is a reason for improving them, not a justification for WP:Otherstuffexists. Pincrete (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

He writes about something the article has not touched before, about the view of how political correctness has become to be used as a shield by those commonly viewed as discriminated against, when they express prejudiced and intolerant views which would normally be degreed such. I think you could also add Richard Dawkins to this section, as he's infamously against religions and I believe he has at some point described a kind of protection from accusations of intolerance. I'll try to find something about that. And in that case we would best remove the entirety of Satirical use, half of False accusations (Baa Baa) and the entirety of conspiracy theory as well because all of those are more undue than this. Freedom Fries is also very vaguely connected, like pointed out by some editor some time ago. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I added Richard Dawkins talking about political correctness and minority views being protected to the section. I also changed from "change" to "protection," since change wasn't very clear. I think this should satisfy. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

IF the section were from a secondary source detailing the civitas controversy, as you describe, there MIGHT BE a case for inclusion. Basically all there is at present is the claim that 'Black people are more racist, more sexist etc than us'. So what? Even if it is true. I strongly object to its inclusion in its present form. Pincrete (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not about race but religion mostly? The reply is from the Muslim council. And please don't manufacture once again a straw man. The real sentence is fairly neutral and "matter of fact" as they would say. And present your alternative, please. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Instead of presenting an alternative description of his view, you delete the entire section along with Richard Dawkins. This is just plain edit warring. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

How is a quote about 'ethnic minority communities' mainly about religion? Though whatever it were about, it would need to establish importance beyond merely another critical use. The present 'Civitas' section is opposed (my me at least till HUGELY improved). There is a long-standing agreement that the article should not include simply examples of use, such as Dawkins though anyhow, I thought that Creationism was a 'fundamentalist Christian' concoction. Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This is what ethnicity means: "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience." It's not about race, though you could read it that way. But if you read into the sources it's about religion. And again, Dawkins is commenting on the issue of protection — and especially in the matter of creationism — and not just being quoted. Likewise the Civitas book is about the issue of protection. And no, creationism isn't just an opinion of Christians. And again I have to point out the section is surrounded by very much more undue instances of use. Sometimes "other stuff exists" is a valid argument, like the page for the point says. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The quote is explicitly about race, as generally understood. Christians are not an ethnic group, though Dutch Reformed Church/Serbian Orthodox might almost be and Jews are. There are still no valid arguments for inclusion of either Civitas or Dawkins nor any proposed text likely to persuade anyone. Pincrete (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

But I just went through long lengths to explain that there is no mention of race and the sources are about religion. And Christians are an ethnicity because there is such a thing as Christian ethnicity. It's the majority in Western countries which is why you don't hear about it here but say in English-speaking Asia it's more common to hear. And I have provided you numerous valid arguments for inclusion, among which is the fact that this is showcasing a specific modern use which is much more notable than sections Satirical use, As a conspiracy theory and the latter half of False accusations. The only thing that could be improved is the section name. Maybe remove the first part of the quote and keep the end? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think what has been missing from the article is that the modern usage has a section for Right-wing political correctness but no section for Left-wing political correctness. Maybe the section should be renamed as Left-wing political correctness. In fact, the article is generally missing the typical modern usage. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Since Civitas is a UK body, I think it reasonable to assume that they would use 'ethnic minority community' in the UK sense, not as used in a hypothetical English-speaking Asian country. The idea that within the UK, Filipino Catholics and Scottish Presbetarians would see themselves - or be seen - as being part of the same ethnic group, because they both are Christian, is transparently ridiculous. 'Ethnicity' in the UK (including in official Govt. matters), is largely defined by skin colour and or country/region of origin, religion (except in the case of Jews), is not even a factor in 'ethnicity'. If Civitas had meant to say 'religious communities', they would have known how to spell it.

I have spent long enough explaining what MIGHT make the Civitas content acceptable, the group is fairly marginal in the UK anyhow. If some acceptable text is proposed, based on analysis by secondary sources, I might support it. If you feel the text is not being treated fairly, WP:RSN or WP:DRN are open to you. I am unreservedly opposed to anything resembling the present proposed text and ditto the Dawkins example usage. Pincrete (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

What? No, I didn't mean they would be an English-speaking Asian country. Christian ethnicity isn't talked about here. And your definition for ethnicity is pure OR. Here's Oxford: ethnic which even lists an archaic version that was only about religion. And you have not explained in the slightest what would make Civitas acceptable. We have secondary sources, so go ahead. I'm completely confused as to what exactly you want the paraphrasal for their statement to be. I mean if a secondary source quotes them, then that is a quote straight from the Civitas. I don't understand what you're asking for. In fact, the sentence is from the BBC article. That quote is in there. It is from a secondary source. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

How ethnicity is defined is academic, I was merely pointing out how ridiculous it is to claim that Civitas is not referring to 'country of origin'. I don't want the quote AT ALL, paraphrased or straight. It says nothing except 'some ethnic minorities are more sexist, racist, homophobic than us', sometimes true perhaps, but so what? How does quoting that make any connection to understanding the term 'PC'?

I'm not replying further, I don't think the proposed text adds anything except as another example of use. If you don't agree, WP:RSN or WP:DRN are open to you. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't want the quote even paraphrased? You stated you wished so before from secondary sources. And please, stop using straw men to make the sentence seem more controversial than it really is. And you do realize the entire 93 page book is about political correctness. 9 of the 10 uniquely titled chapters of the book contain sthe words political correctness in the title.

This is the full quote from the book:

Since victims are supported not because they are right but because they are vulnerable, critically questioning them is seen as attacking them, and those who do so are vilified as oppressors. In the world of PC, victims can say or ask for anything, not because they are right or deserve it, but because they are safe from public scrutiny or objection. The most overt racism, sexism and homophobia in Britain is now among the weakest groups, in ethnic minority communities, because their views are rarely challenged, as challenging them equates to oppressing them.

It specifically mentions PC in the sentence leading to it. The PC bit was cut by BBC. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

WHAT I SAID WAS shouting intended IF the section were from a secondary source detailing the civitas controversy, … … there MIGHT BE a case for inclusion., not a paraphrasal of the most tendentious bits of a primary source, which is only an example of use. Pincrete (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Calm down. Again, it describes the protection. You can call any quoted or pointed use of the term in the article only an example of use, so it's a tired argument. Of the controversy: we already had the Muslim council reply. Do you want more statements against? Is that it? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not really the issue; none of the sources provided indicate that there's anything unusually noteworthy about this particular pamphlet, at least as it relates to the term itself, so it would be WP:UNDUE to cover it in the article. It's clear that at least there's no consensus to include it here; if you feel that there's a problem, you could bring it up on WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN to get a second opinion (probably NPOVN, since the issue is mostly a disagreement over WP:DUE, which is a WP:NPOV policy.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Uhh, it is a book and it was noted by BBC, The Guardian, Spectator, Washington Times, Financial Times, New Statesman, Daily Mail and Sunday Times. And also, it was added to the article in 2012. You removed it in August. I support the original addition, and am reverting your removal of it. If you want it removed, you can bring it up at WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN. But note: I won't stoop down and edit war. I'll talk it through first. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking for consensus, but all I get in return is the absolute, total removal of 3000 characters. I sought for a middle ground by asking for what kind of asked secondary source detailing is wanted, or what kind of asked more controversy detailing is needed. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You ARE edit-warring if you re-insert, two editors have expressed clear opposition here to its inclusion. It is YOU that need to go to another noticeboard if you are not satisfied that you, or the text are not being treaated fairly. Pincrete (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

But I just wrote I'm not doing that yet, before convincing you. And it was added by an editor other than me so it doesn't matter if you both do. I think I'll just contact him and make him come to this talk page and vote his mind on it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You also wrote: You removed it in August. I support the original addition, and am reverting your removal of it. If you want it removed, you can bring it up at WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN. Which of these is anyone meant to believe? Pincrete (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's called future tense. I claimed I will convince you. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The other is called Present continuous, used with future meaning, to describe an event which is planned in the near future. I cannot read your mind to know whether the threat or the promise were intended. Pincrete (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to because I wrote that I won't yet. Like I wrote, I'll contact the people who've added this stuff in the past. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, that is called WP:Canvassing, contacting non-current editors, particularly if it is done to those whom you have reason to believe are likely to support your point of view. It is regarded as a serious offence (just telling you, you do what you want). Pincrete (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

But in there it lists where it's okay and contacting the person who edited it in would be a perfect scenario of okay canvassing: "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article." I don't know what the word for pointless WP accusations is but I'd use that here. Contacting unrelated people to an ANI on other hand would be truly canvassing. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've contacted the adder but he hasn't responded yet even though he has edited. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, well at least you are honest about it. This message is blatant canvassing, you have contacted selectively someone likely to support your position, who isn't a recent editor of this article, and left a non-neutral message. It is fairly unlikely to affect the outcome, however, since the study is not notable and the quote says nothing about the nature of 'PC'. 'Canvassing' is judged by intention, it is difficult to read this message as intended to do anything other than 'rally support'. Pincrete (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, it's not, because he added it. The rules for canvassing specifically state that it's allowed to contact the adder. He is an editor of this article. And the message is not required not to have my very shortly worded position on the matter as a sidenote at the end. Neutrally worded, yes, but nothing about not sidenoting my position in the matter. You make up rules as you go to fit your view. I took out the "I for one am for it" sidenote from the end since that could be vaguely interpreted as not neutrally worded even though it is, only adding my position for clarification. Also, nowhere did I mention his name, which means you must know him to be the adder as well or you did something worse. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I followed your edit history after I read the above … simple. Pincrete (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that hounding? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It's called hounding, if I was targetting your edits on other articles, (which I clearly was not). Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you are but I just don't know it yet. Greatly discourages me, the fact that I've now got disagreers going through my history. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

see also links

Why is red-baiting there? And logocracy, which links to this article as well, is about government by words, not sure that's appropriate here either. Doug Weller (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I went through the 'see also's in the summer, pruning some. I felt that 'red-baiting' was justified to the extent that the term 'PC' is used to denigrate certain policies and attitudes seen by critics as part of a 'left' orthodoxy. I felt 'logocracy' (a word I had not heard previously), was justified to the extent that 'PC' language is often characterised as a 'newspeak-ish', attempt to alter society by limiting what can be said. To the extent that 'see also's are meant to be related, but not synonomous, I still feel both are justified, though wouldn't get upset if the general opinion was otherwise. Pincrete (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I see your point. Have to think about it. Doug Weller (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Other related articles

There are some more closely related articles that probably should be added and maybe put on watch lists. Campaign Against Political Correctness and possibly Indoctrinate U which reads more like a review than an NPOV sourced article. Doug Weller (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Duology of books?

Re the text; 'conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education duology of books (1991, 1992)' and this edit, My understanding is that there were two versions under this title, the first was a small distribution version, based upon a talk D'Souza had given, whereas the second was the expanded 'best seller'. Hughes book throughout refers to the 1992 book as the bestseller, which is why I chose that date. I'm not denying two versions, merely whether two versions of similar material, under the same title can be called a 'duology' and whether the 1992 (bestseller?) is the one deserving to be described as giving PC 'further currency'. My interest here is clarity, if I am correct about the 1991 being relatively 'small print', and if its impact was not great, is mention necessary? Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the two are entirely different. The second is a 32-page speech-to-text. The first one's the one with the hundreds of pages. The first one was the seller, second one didn't rate anywhere. And I believe Hughes may have just had a typo like so many of our sources. All of the rest of the sources only mention 1991. Oh and I accidentally wrote on the edit reason Wartella even though I meant Hughes. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If they are all referring to 'book', why are we referring to 'books'? Especially if one of the two didn't have any public impact nor sales. I take your word for it that 1991 was the 'big hit'. The sources I've looked at all say 'book', but many don't name the year.

btw, as part of the same 'undo', you moved back 'victimisation'. How do you 'advance victimisation through etc.', isn't victimisation a means rather than an end ? Pincrete (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC) … … ps yes apologies, 1991 was both the big book + big hit. Pincrete (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I've always complained that the 1992 one doesn't really have anything to do with anything but when I tried changing it to the 1991 one I was reverted and the only thing that seemed to work was mentioning both. Like I've written before, the 1991 hit heavily focuses on the term "victim's revolution" and was probably one of the ones which popularized the criticism of minority self-victimization. It barely mentions multiculturalism and mostly uses it as a synonym for pluralism and doesn't really focus on it at all. In the 1992 speech he focuses on multiculturalism more, and he might have changed his stance to criticizing multiculturalism more which is why none of his future books gained bestsellerdom as his 1991 victim's revolution one had. And yes, he uses the term victimization as well but less as he must have struggled with it like you put it that it's a means rather than an end. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the revert of date may have been accidental, it really doesn't matter HERE how many books he wrote (nor even which ones the sources are using), the one that applies to the sentence (gained further currency?), is the 1991 'big book'. … … our description of course has to be a summary of how RS describe the book, rather than 'what is in the book'. … … I changed to self-vict. as in UK usage 'victimisation' is what the victimiser does (ie bully), thus it was implying that liberals were trying to 'advance' ie promote bullying, which was not the intended meaning, which I think is 'seeing/defining' oneself as a victim for strategic reasons. Pincrete (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Should I change it to just the 1991 book then? Mind you the 1992 citation needs to be changed as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, I also moved 'victim' to a means rather than an end, since you appear to agree? Pincrete (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You were supposed to change the 1992 citation to the 1991 one and not cut it out entirely. And it says self-victimization so I don't know the reason for moving. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't need a source that the book was published, though the other sources (in theory) are supporting that publication date, as well as supporting a summary of his criticisms. that's why I didn't bother to replace.

My own feeling about the description of the book (in the body rather than the lead), is that the phrasing is very dense and does not articulate (briefly) what to and why he objected, I think that is also true of Bloom.

The reason for moving 'victim', was that otherwise it implies he objected to advancing 'self-victimisation' THROUGH, 'language, … …and changes to the curriculum'. How do you advance 'self-victimisation', by this means?. Personally, I would not be opposed to a 'list', unless it is clear sources are saying THROUGH (ie by means of). That is the list of liberal efforts he objected to, rather than through (late at night, not very clear?). … … ps there is of course no objection to there being a source for publication date Pincrete (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The norm is to cite the book itself so people can read it - and in the case of URLs, instantly. And I don't think the through language bit is read to include anything beyond the preceding comma seeing as it's part of a list and a comma follows right after as well. With the same logic multiculturalism would be "through" anything succeeding language as in multiculturalism through language, and through so and so on. In fact in that case it would be more confusing. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

'Advance UVW and XYZ, through ABC, DEF and GHI' implies that 'advancing UVW & XYZ' are the objectives and ABC etc are only the means to achieve those objectives. I think the meaning is denser than necessary, and open to mis-reading. That all these measures were objected to is not substantially in dispute. Multi-culturalism also has a particular meaning, I believe, in relation to US higher education debate, (ie changes to curricula etc. intended to make them more reflective of minorities' experience). I don't think this meaning is necessarily apparent to non-US persons, not already familiar with that debate. Pincrete (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Advance UVW through ABC, DEF, GHI and JKL implies that UVW is advanced through all of them. It's more confusing if you put through first. And again, the victim's revolution was the primary focus. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, the format is in 'Advance UVW, XYZ through ABC, DEF and GHI' and not in what you wrote. I have no idea why you had to again distort that as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I also notice what you'd like to be at start you named aptly ABC. And biggest the focus of his book is named either UVW or XYZ from the end of the alphabet. As in the most important part is from the end of the alphabet. Strange word games. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, seeing anything sinister in my choice of alphabetical 'cyphers', takes WP:ABF to new depths of paranoia! Actually what I want is clarity (and brevity in the lead, supported by the majority of RS). The addition of 'victimization' was yours, your edit reason at the time (as I recall) was that is what D'S mainly talks about, you repeat that assertion again above. SAYS WHO?? Because if RS don't say that this was the primary focus of the book, it's simply OR. I personally don't have objection to its inclusion in a list of D'S's objections, though not necessarily in the lead, but present wording is over dense, ambiguous and bordering on being logical nonsense (how do you advance self-victimization through changes to the curriculum? The other way round at least would seem possible). Apart from being not actually what the sources say! Where then are the sources that say criticism of liberal attempts to advance self-victimisation was the primary focus of the book, (or that say that this was done THROUGH, language etc.)?

An additional factor, is that the lead is meant to be a summary of the article. Where in the article is it stated that 'self-victimization' was even an element of his book? Let alone the primary focus of it as it relates to 'PC'? Pincrete (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No, on the contrary: seeing anything sinister in my pointing of your choice of alphabetical cyphers takes WP:ABF to new depths of paranoia. The addition of self-victimization was yours. My suggestion was victim's revolution. And John K. Wilson says so and so does Dinesh's own book whose focus is victim's revolution and not the posited multiculturalism which was added on May 20 2015 by none else but... On May 17 2015 Dinesh was mentioned but once and shortly in the 1990s as a footnote. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I can also add others which state it was about victim's revolution which isn't hard to do: What was political correctness? Race, the right, and managerial democracy in the humanities (Cited by 40). --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I added 'self-' to 'victimisation', since the second is clearly not the intended meaning, as it is a synonym of 'bullying'. The book itself is not a source for what is its own primary subject matter, since that involves subjective assessment from editors. 'Victim's revolution' is almost guaranteed to be understood by no one who hasn't read the book and would therefore require extensive clarification. I cannot access the 'ucsb' (off-line) at the moment, also I couldn't find anything in Wilson that said this is the main criticism made by d'S.

So, the content isn't in the body of the article, (as required by policy), we have one source that (you claim) says 'victimisation' is the primary subject of the book. That is one out of dozens of studies that refer to the book, probably hundreds of reviews/articles about the book, and the clarity of the whole sentence is immaterial as long as Mr Magoo's favourite theory is in 'pole position' in the lead (though Mr. Magoo also thinks d'Souza shouldn't BE in the lead at all).

As I said, my primary interest is clarity, but at the same time, NONE of the books I've read on the subject, put 'victim-whatever' as the primary subject of the book, though I think some of them put it on the list of d'S's criticisms. But what the hell, that's only what the majority of RS say, what would they know?. Pincrete (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This is what J K Wilson says While sarcastically attacking the ‘victim’s revolution’ of minorities on campus, D’S and other critics have created their own victim’s revolution with a new victim: the oppressed conservative white male . That's a source for 'victim’s revolution' being an element, hardly for it being the primary subject. Hughes does not mention it anywhere I could find. Pincrete (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As in you added it. And victim's revolution is by far the most repeated term over any of the others mentioned, which is a quantifiable measure stick of primariness. It's also mentioned firstmost and in all chapters.

The content not being in the main body means nothing. None of the other stuff is in the main body either yet you have no problem with that. Instead of pointing out just one you should point out the entire sentence is missing from the body. Obviously the entire sentence doesn't belong in the lead, only the mention of the 1991 book and not what it contains. Removal of anything but the mention of the book from the lead is what you're arguing for, right? I'm all up for this.

My primary interest is clarity as well, and at the same time most of the books I've read mention it like showcased. You wrote you found nothing in Wilson but then you add after that you did, which means at first you didn't even bother checking it thoroughly before claiming you found nothing and then you went to actually check and found it does say so. And I checked Hughes and he does pinpoint D'Souza using victim's revolution.

Wilson uses the specific term victim's revolution on pages 14, 15, 16, 17 and 152 when summarizing D'Souza's argument with it and this is from the freely available preview so he may mention it on even more pages.

And lastly, please refer to the paper cited by 40 I provided. Here are some more: 1992 SURVEY OF BOOKS RELATING TO THE LAW; II. SPEECH AND DEMOCRACY: ILLIBERAL EDUCATION: THE POLITICS OF RACE AND SEX ON CAMPUS. By Dinesh D'Souza.

Everyone today wants to be considered a victim. By holding themselves out as victims, individuals and groups make a more compelling claim on society to redress their particular grievances. In Illiberal Education, Dinesh D'Souza decries what he sees as a conspiracy by leftleaning university administrators and students to appropriate for themselves victim status: "With the encouragement of the university administration and activist faculty, many minority students begin to think of themselves as victims. Indeed, they aspire to victim status. . . . [T]hey seek the moral capital of victimhood" (p. 242). But in his book, D'Souza attempts to stake out his own claim to victimhood. He argues that university policies aimed at creating a multicultural community victimize all those involved in American education, including those people such policies intend to help.

Under a flag of victimhood, argues D'Souza, professors, administrators, and students have wrought a revolution on the American campus. This revolution's ideology is diversity, tolerance, multiculturalism, and pluralism, and its objective is to implement policies such as affirmative action, speech codes, and new curricula to ensure full and equal participation in academic life by all ethnic groups. These policies, D'Souza laments, have changed the very nature of the university from the provider of equal opportunity to the guarantor of equal results. American universities, he argues, now choose students, teachers, books, and courses not on the basis of academic merit but on the basis of gender and skin color.

D'souza's critics: PC fights back

One of the most fertile sources of recent conflict has been the publication of Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. The book is the most comprehensive indictment to date of the so-called "victim's revolution" on campus.

There They Go Again

D'Souza's signal contribution to the war of words might be his characterization of recent campus upheavals as a “victims' revolution.”

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You can't use D'S as a source, I appreciate that may seem irrational, but there is inevitable subjectivity in assessing what is primary in any book. Also I think the above quote '(flag of victimhood') implies that victimhood is a means or ploy TO an end. HOWEVER, to cut to the chase I WOULD theoretically endorse removing D'S's criticisms from the lead, replacing it with a summary description of the 'trio' of books' criticisms in the lead.

I would also endorse expanding D'S's and Bloom's criticisms within the article, at the moment we say how important Bloom was, but not what he was arguing, ditto to a lesser extent D'S and NYT. I also think there are omissions and weight issues within the body (other periodicals were using the term at the same time as the 1990 NYT articles, in a similar critical manner, inc Newsweek and several conservative magazines and in UK the term had entered use, though more self-mockingly than critically in the late '80s).

Please DO NOT interpret the above as a justification for making edits, a) it is a starting point for discussion … … b) others are entitled to wade in … … c) the article MUST BE fixed before, or simultaneously with the lead, the fact that the two have got out of line is NOT a justification for perpetuating or worsening that 'disjoint'. Pincrete (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You can. Secondary are preferred, but primary are accepted as well when it's a simple matter like in this case. Even then we have the numerous secondary sources. And yes, the quote is talking about victim playing / self-victimization. And Newsweek followed 2 months after NYT, but I've mentioned before I could expand the mention of journals. I'll start something else before the expansion matter. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

'You can' is I assume a response to not using the book as a RS. 'You can't', I'm afraid the second you are engaged in a subjective assessment of content, or what is important about content, it becomes OR. I don't dispute 'victim-playing' anyhow, only that it doesn't fit into the phrasing used at present. Pincrete (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I wrote, there are quantifiable measure sticks of the contents of the book which makes the measuring objective - and the book obviously is extremely RS on the matter of the book itself. And I'm afraid we have numerous secondary sources so that isn't even needed. And the format you tried to push was completely broken and didn't fit even close to how it is now. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

BOLLOCKS! No quantifiable measur(ing) sticks turn a subjective assessment into anything other than a errrrrr subjective assessment, the assessment might be un/interesting, non/partisan, non/balanced, un/perceptive, it might be many things, but it never becomes 'objective'. Persuade yourself otherwise, if you must, but it isn't going to persuade anyone else. The present wording is both logical nonsense AND not supported by the body of the article, which is an ABSOLUTE requirement, nor is present wording supported by the above sources. 'Victim-playing', IS one of the list of criticisms d'S made, that IS supported by sources without needing to hear 'Mr Magoo's quantifiable-measuring-sticked assessment of what the book was saying'. Pincrete (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd ask for you to refrain from using such words. And I did present methods of objective measuring. We list the terminology he uses the most and so simply finding that victim's revolution is used more than four times as much and in all chapters we can objectively see that victim's revolution is by far the most discussed terminology in his book. And you seem to have a problem with victim playing being mentioned at all, as you've written above. It's taken us long to even to get to the point where you're willing to include it but you're still adamant on not featuring it as the firstmost for some WP:OR reason even though most of our sources pinpoint it firstmost. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Mein Kampf does not ever mention anti-semitism, so it is clearly NOT a theme of the book then? These count-use arguments or count-cite arguments are not going to impress anyone on WP and are OR. I have repeatedly said I have NO problem with 'self-victimisation' as one of the list of D'S's criticisms, but present wording suggests primary aim, rather than one of a number of means. If you have to go back to the book and count uses, it shows how little that interpretation is supported by secondary studies.Pincrete (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

For what must be the 15th time you offer a straw man as an argument. If I were to throw a similar back: If you have a book about fish titled Fish which uses the term "anthropod" four times and the term fish a whopping 40 times, it's subjective to assert that the book is about fish and not about arthropods? And it is his primary aim, as proven by sources and objective measurement of his book. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of how many times 'fish', or 'anthropod' are used in this hypothetical book, it's OR to extrapolate the content, however done. If the book is sufficiently notable to have received attention, we assume that someone competent has actually read it and recorded that it is mainly about fish, probably arriving at this conclusion without counting. There would be no reason to record that it ISN"T about anthropods, cats, policemen or martians, therefore no need to count! If someone competent hasn't so recorded, tough!

'Jesus' is probably NOT the most frquently mentioned person in the New Testament, so obviously the book isn't about his life and teachings!. 'Objective measurement' is often as subjective as it is possible to be, but even if it weren't it's still OR. What is difficult to understand? No one is the slightest bit interested in what Mr Magoo's 'objective assessment' of the book is. There are fan-sites where you can argue about that sort of thing. You are simply wasting your own, and other editor's time at present.

This discussion is so pointless, because I acknowledge that d'S's criticisms of the 'liberal policies', included criticism of 'people/groups projecting themselves as victims'. I see evidence of this being a significant criticism of his, I don't see any evidence of this being picked up by most RS as his main criticism, and certainly not of 'self-victimisation' being the aim, for which the other changes were simply means to achieve that aim, which current wording implies. Pincrete (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not when the matter is exactly the terminology used. And we have such instances of people recording victim's revolution. No instances of records of something else.

Again with a straw man... I threw mine to illustrate the pointlessness, not to warrant it as a normal way of arguing. And Jesus appears 983 times in the New Testament, Christ 555 times. God appears only 1354 times.

And I've provided you with multiple secondary RS which pick it up as his main criticism. You haven't provided any which pick up something else as main. They all mention victim's revolution. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Satirical use

Are the specific TV uses (UK and US) notable? The UK source does not even support the specific assertion made (it supports this comic satirising this Daily Mail columnist, but not this columnist's use of the DM cliche 'PC gone mad'). The earlier books and general observations seem noteworthy. Pincrete (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Baa Baa Black Sheep

Do you mean Baa Baa Black Sheep? Yeah, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the term. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, BBBS, is not a TV programme, nor is the story satirical! The BBBS incident (as has been already said several times) is among the best documented 'urban myths' generated by UK tabloids to illustrate examples of 'PC' policies executed by 'loony left' local councils, it is also one of the few points at which the article actually leaves the US. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it has no apparent connection to the term. In that case we should mention any vaguely speech-limiting case outside "False accusations" even when not using the term. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The term was widely used in describing the incident, it is very typical of the UK tabloid use of the term, the incident is extensively documented in UK newspaper and book sources inc. Hughes, no 'speech-limiting' actually took place, it was an accusation of 'speech-limiting' that has been repeatedly proven to be false. Saying that it has no connection is as silly as saying that the US 'higher education debate' has no connection with the US use of the term. NB, the section was created in order that editors could express their opinion on the 'TV' examples, could you please respect that. Pincrete (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Not evidently. Just above you go on about OR but here you practice it yourself. It has no connection with the term. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Which claims in my description here, or in the article content, do you believe are not supported by sources, or are synthed? Pincrete (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The link to the term? No sight of it? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Critics say altering the words of the traditional nursery rhyme is an example of political correctness gone too far. The original 'Sun' story did not use the term 'PC' (anymore than Bloom did, besides, the 'Sun' is not noted for using words with 4 syllables). The 'story' was extensively recycled over the next 20 years in both tabloids and broadsheets, during which the term was attached to it. Hughes covers the original incident (cannot come up with a quote at present, my Hughes is at home). I cannot access the 'Times' (subscription site). This is probably the best documented UK tabloid 'urban myth' about 'PC'. Pincrete (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Where is that in the article? It goes on about everything but the term? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Generally or primarily or something else

Is the term political correctness primarily or generally a pejorative — or something else outside the binary option?

Edit: note that the earlier discussion was about whether it was to be mainly described as a pejorative at all. The current matter is about the following edit: the swap. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Generally Because it's less absolute. "Often" is an alternative as well. First of all I'd like to list all the common definers of words, as in dictionaries:

Dictionaries

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20correct agreeing with the idea that people should be mentcareful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/political-correctness The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against: women like him for his civil rights stand and political correctness http://www.thefreedictionary.com/politically+correct Conforming to a particular sociopolitical ideology or point of view, especially to a liberal point of view concerned with promoting tolerance and avoiding offense in matters of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. demonstrating progressive ideals, esp by avoiding vocabulary that is considered offensive, discriminatory, or judgmental, esp concerning race and gender. marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/politically-correct [T]here is no doubt that political correctness refers to the political movement and phenomenon, which began in the USA, with the aim to enforce a set of ideologies and views on gender, race and other minorities. Political correctness refers to language and ideas that may cause offence to some identity groups like women and aims at giving preferential treatment to members of those social groups in schools and universities. http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/politically%20correct agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people - politically correct language/terms - He later realized that his response was not politically correct. http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/politically-correct If you say that someone is politically correct, you mean that they are extremely careful not to offend or upset any group of people in society. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/287100.html Description of the practice of using speech that conforms to liberal or radical opinion by avoiding language which might cause offence to or disadvantage social minorities. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/politically%20correct https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/politically_correct https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness

They don't even mention pejorative usage.

Secondly I'd like to point out the flaws of the sources being used to point out pejorative. The main one used is by Herbert Kohl — who by the way advocates progressive education as in other words is extremely biased in the matter — and was published in a journal about poetry for children. His field is neither linguistics nor history. It's been cited 4 times and two times by apparently the same Russian person in some Russian, cyrillic context. The rest of the sources only list — most not mentioning at all like the dictionaries above — contexts for pejorative usage, without defining it as the main usage. The main usage defined by them is like that of the dictionaries listed before.

Thirdly, I want to list academic sources defining it clearly non-pejoratively-whatsoever:

Academic sources

Before any of these I'd like to mention that there are many non-pejorative definitions in the article, for example modern usage is full of examples of non-pejorative use. Also go through the first 8 sources as they define it as more than a pejorative, except Kohl. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/319554 This has been cited 504 times. PDF "This paper follows Loury (1994) in developing a reputational explanation for political correctness. Loury summarizes his argument in the following syllogism (p. 437):" http://rss.sagepub.com/content/6/4/428.short 93 times citated. PDF (a) within a give community the people who are most faithful to communal values are by-and-large also those who want most to remain in good standing with their fellows and; (b) the practice is well established in this community that those speaking in ways that offend community values are excluded from good standing. Then, (c) when a speaker is observed to express himself offensively the odds that the speaker is not in fact faithful to communal values, as estimated by a listener otherwise uninformed about his views, are increased. Political correctness: Contributing to social distress? which partly supports the Loury definition as well. In their stimulus article, "Political correctness and multiculturalism: Who supports PC?," Kelly and Rubal-Lopez (1996) address many dimensions of political correctness (PC) including attempts at definition. They start with a general definition of PC as "movements aimed at addressing legitimate concerns about tolerance and equality." They then discuss politicized distortions of the original definition by the far left and far right, and eventually conclude with a definition influenced by Fish (1994) that suggest that PC is the "process of making judgments from the vantage point of a particular ideology," ... something everyone does whether they know it or not. Rethinking political correctness Cited 60 times: These types of events occur daily in politically correct (PC) cultures, where unspoken canons of propriety govern behavior in cross-cultural interactions—that is, interactions among people of different races, genders, religions, and other potentially charged social identity groups. We embrace the commitment to equity that underlies political correctness, and we applaud the shifts in norms wrought by that commitment. We are troubled, however, by the barriers that political correctness can pose to developing constructive, engaged relationships at work. In cultures regulated by political correctness, people feel judged and fear being blamed. They worry about how others view them as representatives of their social identity groups. They feel inhibited and afraid to address even the most banal issues directly. People draw private conclusions; untested, their conclusions become immutable. Resentments build, relationships fray, and performance suffers. Political correctness as an academic discipline Cited by 3. HTML For the last two years I have taught an 8-months senior undergraduate course on Political Correctness in the Psychology Department at King’s College of the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario: PSY 383E: Psychology and Ideology - the Study of Political Correctness. Political correctness and Bequemlichkeitstrieb Cited by 2. The Challenge of Political Correctness in the Translation of Sensitive Texts The concept of “political correctness”, initially used by the American legal system in the late 1700s, has slowly turned into a global linguistic effort meant to promote more tolerant human relationships. The concept was quickly adopted by many cultures... Diverse Orthodoxy: Political Correctness in America's Universities, The The only court that has attempted to define political correctness referred to the definition in Random House Webster's College Dictionary which defines the term as [m]arked by a progressive orthodoxy on issues involving race, gender, sexual affinity or ecology. The Federal Courts and Educational Policy: Paternalism, Political Correctness and Student Expression. Lori Davis, of Southern Illinois University-Carbondale's Women's Studies Programs, defines Political Correctness in a way that seems to support diversity and "respect for the lives and values in a complex, pluralistic world." The focus, she says, is "respect for others through...words and actions." The term Political Correctness has implications for both more expression and less. Advocates of diversity and multiculturalism call for increased awareness and sensitivity and a broadening of education and experience. When efforts to ma-elate respect, fairness and civility lead to sanctions against speech that does not conform to these prescriptions, civil libertarians argue that expression is chilled. Most often discussed within the college setting, PC exists in the public schools as well, as the definition above suggests. The Epistemology of Political Correctness On university and college campuses today there is a movement popularly known as "political correctness." Although difficult to define precisely, I think it is fair to say that political correctness refers to a web of interconnected, though not mutually dependent, ideological beliefs that have challenged the traditional nature of the university as well as traditional curriculum, standards of excellence, and views about justice, truth, and the objectivity of knowlege; while simultaneously accentuating our cultural, gender, class, and racial differences in the name of campus diversity. Towards an Ethical Approach to Perspective-taking and the Teaching of Multicultural Texts: Getting Beyond Persuasion, Politeness and Political Correctness Researchers in the field of communication have created many methods of defining and studying “political correctness.” This section of the literature review will specify four definitions provided in previous research studies that are particularly relevant. This section will also provide information on previous methodologies for studying political correctness. According Bailey and Burgoon (1992), political correctness is an area that, until recently, had yet to have a consensual definition among communications researchers. Bailey and Burgoon (1992) stated that political correctness is a way of exhibiting competent communication. Andrews (1996) wrote that political correctness is the practice of using sensitive language in the public and social contexts, especially in naming, in order to prevent offensive language. According to Feldstein (1997), political correctness was originally brought upon by the suppression of women and minorities, and political correctness now serves to correct offensive language so that the United States can function as a more holistic society. Ayim (1998) explicitly stated that the realm of political correctness encompasses areas including: “policies governing fair language practices, affirmative action in hiring practices, legislation dealing with sexual and racial harassment, and greater inclusion of women and people of Colour in the curriculum” (p. 446). Encyclopedia of Ethics “politically correct” has come to be used to characterize curriculum revisions, campus speech codes, harassment policies, affirmative action in college admissions and hiring, the use of new descriptors for minorities (e.g., African American, Native American, learning disabled), new NORMS for interacting with women and racial or cultural minorities (e.g., avoiding genteel “ladies first” policies), and generally, to any change in language, policy, social behavior, and cultural representation that is aimed at avoiding or correcting a narrowly Eurocentric world view and the long-standing subordination of some social groups. Originating in debates over the content of higher education, the terms “politically correct” or “PC” are now routinely used outside of the academy. That's not funny: Instrument validation of the concern for political correctness scale Political Correctness Beliefs, Threatened Identities, and Social Attitudes Cited by 16. PDF political correctness – ‘the avoidance of forms of expression or action that exclude, marginalize or insult certain racial, cultural, or other groups’ (Oxford dictionary p. 774,) – ‘used by neo-conservatives to invalidate the left and present the left as “witch hunters” to cover up their own hegemonic family values’ (anonymous student, Study 1) – ‘don’t say or write (or think I suppose) anything that could be considered offensive by any definable group except white males’ (anonymous faculty member, Study 2) Check Your Language! Political Correctness, Censorship, and Performativity in Education Cited by 7. “Speech codes” I take to refer to rules about what words can and cannot be used to characterize individuals and groups, especially women and members of minority groups. “Political correctness” I take to mean a set of guidelines about what words are and are not considered socially acceptable to use in reference to individuals and groups, especially women and members of minority groups. A speech code, then, can be considered political correctness codified in rules, presumably with sanctions. Language and Conflict: Selected Issues preview A central issue in this book - the connection between words and reality - takes us to many different contexts of social interaction. One of them is the socio-political domain, where the question arises of what language we should use to acknowledge minorities, avoid hurting other people, and avoid discriminating against the weak and vulnerable. Reality here is real human beings, and words are the medium we use to address or talk about them. This use of language is often discussed under the heading of 'political correctness', the kind of behaviour viewed as correct or advisable to discourage chauvinism and discrimination and to promote equality, justice and fairness in human relations. Political correctness has been defined in many different ways. Some of the proposed definitions and reports on how the term has been used include the following: [...] None of the definitions or perspectives should be seen as correct in some absolute sense. Whichever perspective on political correctness we adopt, however, it will quickly become clear we are dealing with language and conflict. How do the two relate to each other in this case? We may want to pose the question: is political correctness a function of conflict-ridden language, a language-ridden conflict, or perhaps both? An answer to that question is not hard to find: the PC movement appears to be about both. It is quite clear that central to the discussions and reaction to the PC movement are various social conflicts. They can be traded to inequality and intolerance of, for example, racial, ethnic and religious distinctions. Since language is ubiquitous, these social conflicts usually manifest through language. So language plays a major role in how these conflicts arise, develop and possibly get exacerbated or averted. PC is mainly about what we should not say (what topics should not be touched at all), which opinions are acceptable, or what we should put on the reading lists for school and university students. PC is also, however, about how we should speak to promote social justice, what sort of language forms should or should not be used to avoid hurting anyone. The Ideology of Political Correctness and Its Effect on Brand Strategy Cited by 10. Political economy and political correctness Cited by 28. I also found this, which seems to describe it as a sort of a philosophy, but which I have struggle reading because I can only read glimpses of: Political correctness Cited by 8. ...politics (it represents, rather, a new scholasticism), and the translation of a dense and complex philosophy of meaning into simple... Political Correctness Doctrine: Redefining Speech on College Campuses, The Cited by 6. Just what does it mean to be politically correct? The political correctness doctrine has been the center of controversy in the academic arena. To define political correctness (hereinafter referred to as PC) is an arduous task, particularly because it has various meanings to different individuals. Proponents of the PC movement assert that in an academic setting, students who are members of the dominant society - white, male and conservative - should be sensitized to race and gender issues. Achieving cultural diversity in the student population and in the faculty should be a university's primary objective. Thus, the classroom and campus environment should be sanitized and free from speech, attitudes, ideas and conduct that are racist, sexist and homophobic. The basic objective of the PC movement are (1) the demand for greater diversity among students and faculty members; and (2) the need for speech codes to thwart racist, sexist and homophobic language, ideas and attitudes that offend sensitive students. Opponents of the PC movement dismiss it as an attack by liberals on traditionally protected speech and expressive conduct. Foes of the PC movement label it "thought control" and consider it threat to the traditional academic curriculum which focuses on Western civilization and the achievements of whites in our society. Many in this camp believe that the PC movement stifles creative ideas because the movement wants everyone to agree and think alike. The Rhetoric of" Political Correctness" in the US Media Cited by 3. In this article, we will use the term PC in its current public denotation, accepted by supporters and opponents alike--a symbol for programs, initiatives, and attitudes designed to improve the public representation of and interaction with certain social groups, in particular minorities and women. But we do not subscribe to any of the derogatory or self-critical connotations attached to the term by either side of the debate. Many of the issues we will discuss are also labeled "multiculturalism," but we do not consider the term synonymous with PC. Multiculturalism is a part of the PC debate, but not its entirety. Political correctness, euphemism, and language change: The case of ‘people first’ Cited by 10. White Noise: The Attack on Political Correctness and the Struggle for the Western Canon Cited by 16. In medium, but not in message, there is a middle ground of respectable investigative journalism. Richard Bernstein is representative, in his pieces in the New York Times (Bernstein, 1990), and then a book, Dictatorship of Virtue (Bernstein, 1994). But if the advocates of the Western Canon don’t like some strains in late 20th century intellectual life and educational thought, if they are nostalgic for the thought and schools of thought of times past, this does not give them an automatic right to impose their own exclusionary version of political correctness. Meanwhile, in other places within the cultural establishment, political correctness has simply become common sense, and for the most pragmatic of reasons. Elizabeth Frazer calls it a proper political phenomenon in Politics: It is important that discussions of 'political correctness' within the discipline of political studies should not just replicate the crude conceptions of both 'politics' and 'correctness' that characterise the disputes that are gathered under that name. As a properly political phenomenon, 'political correctness' calls for careful and critical discussion by political scientists. Arye L. Hillman in Public Choice: Political correctness is a complex topic, if only because those who hold that something is politically correct are not inclined to be open to critical evaluation of the merits of their political correctness. Such unwillingness to entertain open discourse is a characteristic of all social systems with supreme values Molefi Asante in link Issue Journal of Communication Journal of Communication Volume 42, Issue 2 Political correctness has come to mean expressing views that pass for the common wisdom of the liberal democractic pluralistic society. For example, it is politically correct to be for fairness and equality, but not politically correct to... Here the following matters are talked about: In “The Psychology of Political Correctness in Higher Education,” University of Nevada–Reno professor William O’Donohue and Chapman University professor Richard Redding explore the psychological goals and assumptions underlying diversity programs and political correctness. In the third section, “Different Disciplines, Same Problem,” leading scholars explore how political correctness affects scholarship and teaching across core liberal arts and social science disciplines. In the final section, “Needed Reforms,” practitioners describe the history of political correctness in universities and outline possible ways to reform academia. `She' and `He': Politically Correct Pronouns Cited by 23 other papers and uses the term clearly positively. Color Blindness and Interracial Interaction Playing the Political Correctness Game Again posivitely, cited by 134. The perils of political correctness: Men's and women's responses to old-fashioned and modern sexist views Used positively here as well, don't be fooled by the name. Cited by 109. To Be PC or Not to Be? A Social Psychological Inquiry into Political Correctness Positive, 22 citations. Posivitely and defines it, Cultural Sensitivity and Political Correctness: The Linguistic Problem of Naming. Cited by 24. This essay addresses some of the linguistic concepts that underlie the political and highly sensitive issue of what is referred to by English speakers today as "cultural sensitivity" (CS) or "political correctness" (PC). The current issue of "correct speech," particularly in the real of naming, focuses on how language and, in particular, naming should be used publicly and in other socially determined contexts.

Fourthly, I want to point out an edit in which the generally from the second sentence and primarily from the first were for a moment swapped by me after brief talk here. In the second sentence the primarily would also fit better, because in that instance, in pejorative usage it's clearly more absolute than less absolute. The edit was reverted but I still think it's the best choice.

Fifthly, I'd like to point out it used to say ordinarily pejorative for months. It was then changed by Valereee to often pejoratively. This was then changed back by none other than me to primarily pejorative after objections on talk, albeit in a second sentence. I clearly acted very generously here. Yet this was undone soon after with neither ordinarily nor often there, clearly against two editors' wishes. Soon after primarily was put back but to the first sentence as one of the very first words, still overriding the less absolute terms often and ordinarily and against the two editors' wishes. I made an RfC about whether it's pejorative at all, and it was degreed that that pejorative should be mentioned, but most suggested a compromise of both, with for example less absolute "often" brought back into discussion. Often could be used instead of generally as well, as it's less officialese/bureaucratese than either generally or primarily. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• '"Primarily"'. 166.170.59.238 (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't force push your reply to the front and this just seems to be some regular editor on their mobile phone since it's a mobile phone IP. Do people monitor Wikipedia linguistics RfCs on their mobile phones without being editors? Also note the three apostrophes of the wrong form he typed on his phone in an attempt to bolden his vote, which means he's knows the practice and is used to typing the apostrophes out. And adding a period to the vote itself is what some editors do which means he wasn't simply copying me. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment 1) An almost identical RfC was closed by you Mr. Magoo, about a week ago, as you did not get the result you wanted. … 2)Within that RfC (and elsewhere on this talk), it has been pointed out MANY TIMES that dictionaries are not valid sources, certainly not 'the last word' … 3)Within that RfC (and elsewhere on this talk), it has been repeatedly pointed out that someone USING the term is NOT a definition, and that it is OR for us to extract a definition from our interpretation of the use. … 4) An RfC, should be neutrally phrased this does not even attempt to be so, an RfC should also FOLLOW, not be a substitute for dialogue on talk. I trust that more experienced editors will treat this RfC for what it is, another gigantic time waste, and the 4th RfC you have opened in little over a month, none of which have endorsed your positions substantially. … … ps if you have suspicions about the IP, this is not the place to voice them, I personally see nothing worthy of comment. Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I wrote, that RfC was about whether it was pejorative at all. This is as neutrally phrased as can be. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Primarily Pejorative - for the same reasons I given in the previous RFC on exactly the same question (which, as Pincrete notes, Magoo closed after it became clear that his view was unlikely to gain consensus). Enough of the WP:BLUDGEON, time for WP:STICK. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Question What is the difference in meaning between 'primarily' and 'generally', (apart from the latter being more ambiguous and vague)? 'Ordinarily', 'primarily' and 'generally', CAN all mean 'mainly/most frequently', (they generally go to Spain for their holidays), however 'generally', can also mean 'in a general manner', (they repainted and repaired the house and improved it generally.) What on earth therefore is the benefit of the proposed change, or the justification for starting an RfC without discussion here? Pincrete (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Primarily pejorative per my reading of the sources above; it's pretty clear that most of the term's usage is people criticizing others, and that the bulk of reliable sources that go into depth on its history describe it this way. --Aquillion (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment 2 Funny here how Aquillion was last here 14 days ago and Fyddle 17 days ago but they all appear AN HOUR APART as if they all found at the very same moment that a vote was happening. They must be telepaths. And in regards to the earlier RfC: Yes, it became clear that it was to be listed as pejorative, but everyone not you three voted for "both". I obviously had a strong ground for something less absolute. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment (edit conflict) Some background. I found this new RfC on the RfC page. I didn't read through the previous RfC too much, but glanced at it after Pincrete's comment. I then was bold and combined the two RfCs. This change was reverted and Mr Magoo explained their rationale which I think is sufficient: the two, though very similar, are distinct as, in Magoo's words: "The old one was about whether it was to be listed as a pejorative or not. This is about whether it's generally or primarily."

That being the case, I gave a more thorough glance at the old RfC (still a glance though) and am now unsure about this RfC's assumptions. The previous RfC was not closed, it was withdrawn, and from my glance at it I would have closed it no consensus (but take that with a grain of salt). If there's no consensus as to whether it's pejorative or not, I'm not sure an RfC on how pejorative it is makes much sense. Wugapodes (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

People generally agreed to list it as pejorative but everyone not the above three suggested some sort of a compromise of "both". I have listed a meatpuppet investigation of the three. I think "generally" like here would be more akin to a compromise as it's less absolute. "Often" was also suggested. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the only person to propose a compromise in the previous RfC, (based on RS not personal opinion), was myself. My compromise proposal was to alter the emphasis to HOW the term came to prominence (as an almost exclusively pejorative term between late '80's and late '90's, used to characterise liberal/left-wing policies … evidence is that the term 'burnt out' therafter and was little used post 2005-ish). My proposal also suggested leaving open any post-2005 usage/neutral/private usages, as whilst we all are able to acknowledge that these exist, they are not the subject of study and would be OR to record their existence. Pincrete (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Wugapodes, a little background might help, Mr Magoo, the proposer, first edited here in September. Mr Magoo believes that 'PC' describes a left-wing/liberal political philosophy (he has said so on a number of occasions on talk). All studies of the history of use, conclude that 'PC' as a term came into general use when used by critics to characterise what those critics SAW AS a left-wing/liberal political philosophy/orthodoxy behind policies they objected to. There are genuine 'weight' issues here as to how to characterise that late '80's-2000-ish use of the term. I personally have suggested changing 'IS a pejorative' to putting the emphasis on how/when the term came to prominence (as an almost exclusively pejorative term in the 90s mainly), and leaving 'open-ended' any current uses (which are not documented in 2ndary sources, but which we all acknowledge exist, in public/private discourse). I do not believe that resolving that 'weight' issue is the real reason for this RfC, but rather, an another attempt by the proposer to 'muddy the waters' by drawing attention away from the fact that the term became widely known as an almost exclusively pejorative term used exclusively by critics.Pincrete (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You made all of that up. I have not written anything like that... That's why you didn't provide any diffs even though you usually do. I have in the past called your motive some sort of deeply biased left-wing one but not recently. Back then when we argued about the labels you exhibited such manner of behavior. And the studies of history conclude that it came to be used of education debate. The ones who wanted to stick to old policies called the new ideology political correctness. It is used of an ideology. In that context it's not a pejorative, but a descriptor of a mindset like that of a say conservative. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Some of your comments in above sections, plenty more in the archive: This isn't pejorative. This describes a concept, a movement, a culture, a philosophy. Even conservatives don't use it mainly as pejorative because they use it to describe the kind of philosophy. They attack the movement. They can't attack an adjective. … But you are describing something as pejorative that can't be described as a pejorative. How is a noun a pejorative? It makes zero sense. Political correctness is the philosophy. … one dictionary separates British and American usage and in the American usage it was stated derogatory — in the British it wasn't. In that case we should write to the lead that the term isn't used pejoratively in Britain, but as a description for the philosophy. (ie because Cambs dictionary doesn't say 'derogatory', for UK use, it MUST mean they think the term is a philosophy?)

Whether we talk about a 'philosophy', 'an ideology', 'a mindset' (my term), 'a political orthodoxy' or whatever, it is such defined SOLELY by those who criticise it. Conservative CAN BE pejorative, (so can Mother!), but conservative is an ordinarily neutral term, conservativism has its defenders, adherents, magazines, literature etc. I am conservative musically, most of us are conservative in some respects. No one has ever recorded equivalent usages of 'PC'. A term which is primarily used to characterise those you oppose and whose ideas you wish to denigrate IS pejorative. Pincrete (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

So, you provide three quotes where I call it a philosophy and an ideology. Exactly where did you see anything you mentioned earlier? And you do realize criticism can be both good and bad. Criticism is evaluation. Conservative can be pejorative and so can political correctness but they mainly define a mindset. Political correctness has its defenders like I've proved with numerous examples and sources and secondary sources as well. The article has what 6 different cases of that added. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither of you are helping this situation. In fact, this incessant back and forth makes me even less comfortable forming an opinion as it is clear that there isn't agreement as to the outcome of the previous RfC. Secondly, you both are talking past each other. That just makes uninvolved editors really hesitant to comment on an RfC and reduces the chances you'll actually get outside input. Right now I'm not even sure what you two are arguing about. If you have problems with conduct, WP:AN/I is that way, otherwise try not to keep going over the same points. It's not useful. For what it's worth I'm leaning toward's a discussion of the history of the term as shown by reliable sources, while I believe it's primarily a pejorative now, if there aren't sources to back that up then it's WP:OR no matter what we think. But like I said, I'm too confused to actually know how accurate that belief is. Wugapodes (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)d

We've already been there and a bunch of other places as well. And you do have a great point about "primarily" being OR. I hadn't even thought of it like that. The current matter is about the following edit: the swap. I added it to the intro to make the matter more clear. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I believe I am correct in saying that all studies of the history of the use of the term, describe it as 'pejorative', or a close synonym (derogatory, dismissive etc.). At present we have 8 sources for this (I cannot access all, so cannot vouch for all) there are also other more recent ones not used. 'Ordinarily', (prev.) 'primarily' (present), were inserted because long-term editors recognised that the term is not ALWAYS used negatively, and has not always BEEN used thus (inc prior to late '80s), though non-critical use is often anecdotal, and has not been the subject of study. I believe anecdotal evidence (and some studies) suggest that the term 'fell out of favour' in the early 2000s, this is sufficiently RS-ed to include in main article, but not the lead and does not contradict HOW the term entered general public use, which I believe is RSed as being as a dismissive term.Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You're obviously not as finding sources for "pejorative" is strenuous — again, an opinion piece from a journal of poetry for children is the main one used — where as most sources define it like the dictionaries do and don't even mention pejorative/derogatory. We don't have 8 sources for pejorative. I've already written multiple times that many of those 8 were added by me to counter-proof that it's not defined pejoratively. You have sources that define it in an absolute fashion only as a pejorative, which we all agree is false. You have no sources which define it primarily pejorative. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Often pejorative is sufficient and neutral. No one has a produced a reliable statistical analysis demonstrating that it is "primarily" pejorative (and "generally" would be synonymous with that; both cases imply a strong majority with only a few exceptions). An attempt to do a statistical analysis of linguistic usage on this talk page is just original research.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this stance makes the most sence as we truly don't have any sources for primarily. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• If forced to make a choice Primarily pejorative. The article is about the history of the use of a term and WP is not a dictionary. The term came to prominence circa 1990 as a dismissive term for certain policies and attitudes which were seen as excessive Stalinist, illiberal, humourless etc.. The criticism came predominantly from social, educational and political conservatives. The criticised largely were, or were seen as, part of an excessively 'liberal/radical/left-wing orthodoxy'. This is extensively studied and sourced, as is earlier ironic use and also very marginal 'Communist' use dating back to before WWII, and even rarer 'literal use' before then. This is what sources record, no sources report extensive non-critical use. It is because of that critical (or ironic) use that most of us are aware of the term at all and because of that use that the term has been studied and has an article on WP. That the term may have 'morphed' post 2000-ish into many private and public uses is not largely studied, therefore not citable without OR. I propose a compromise below that allows for our awareness of that 'morphing' - but nonetheless unequivocally reports that the term's prominence, post 1990 and the most studied use, (until the term largely 'burnt out' in the 21st century) was primarily dismissive, derogatory, pejorative. I am unconditionally opposed to the proposed change, which seems to want to 'blur' recorded historical fact, but flexible as to how to present the 'bigger historical picture'.Pincrete (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

That is mostly OR. The stalinistic use was before that, by non-conservatives. The term came to be used of the academic debate of the new kind of education at first, and not even used of say moratorium on commentary of student selection by race like Dinesh later utilized the term. The term has by since the early times lost its bite and become "tame" and boring. By now it's used by both camps to describe the kind of oft politically motivated stiffling of behavior, as shown by the many sources and quotes both in the article and here provided by me. The article even have a large section dedicated only to right-wing political correctness. How does that fit into your view? It doesn't at all, does it? You have a handful of sources which describe it as solely derogatory which is too absolute and which we all disagree with. Those sources are because of this untrustworthy. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

1)What exactly is OR in pointing out what all histories of the term say, and what the article itself says about the term's history? (Many of your 'favoured sources', including phrases.org and NYT record primarily critical use at time the term came to prominence) … … 2)It is OR to extrapolate from uses and dictionaries the prevalence of current use. Those are the sources used at the head of this RfC. Discussions on this page go 'round-and-round' because you claim critics are being factual, not criyical. (who is Dinesh? I'm not on first name terms with any of these people, are you?).Pincrete (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Both mentioned the Stalinistic-like 1970s usage which predates even the 1990s version, with NYT injecting this definition with a "But" leading to the talk about the debate and writing "there is a large body of belief in academia and elsewhere that a cluster of opinions about race, ecology, feminism, culture and foreign policy defines a kind of "correct" attitude toward the problems of the world, a sort of unofficial ideology of the university," as in he ends up defining it as a real, existing ideology. Phrases defines it non-pejoratively and only lists pejorative view as that of the opposers. And the dictionaries were only the first part. The second green folder is chock-full of academic sources — and cited by many unlike "some". Also, the second NYT defines the term like this: "political correctness is a widespread tendency to use censorship, intimidation and other weapons abhorrent to the American political process to support popular demands for measures to enforce sexual, racial and ethnic equality." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Your first NYT quote is not a definition, it is a description of 'what a large body of academics believe'. No one disputes that a large body of 'conservative' (non-political meaning) academics, (and later laymen and women) were very strongly opposed to certain trends in US academia in the late '80s, including curricula changes. They saw an unacceptable threat to academic freedom posing as 'liberal reforms'. This is very well sourced, and I have long said that articulating WHAT their criticisms were (succintly), would benefit the article, (e.g. at the moment the article quotes 4 or 5 people saying how important Bloom was, but no mention of the content of his book). The debate about that 'threat' was what threw the term 'PC' into the spotlight in the late '80s + 90's. Parallel debates about slightly different subjects were the focus in the UK. All this is well sourced.

Here is the definition in the 1990 NYT: 'politically correct' has become a sarcastic jibe used by those, conservatives and classical liberals alike, to describe what they see as a growing intolerance, a closing of debate, a pressure to conform to a radical program or risk being accused of a commonly reiterated trio of thought crimes: sexism, racism and homophobia. The NYT articles are among the more neutral, other articles around the same time are more critical. Let's ignore for a moment the academic studies of the history of the term, a relatively neutral source describes the term as a 'sarcastic jibe' (used by opponents)(this is the article which you, Mr. Magoo, claim was most influental in making the term familiar to the public). How can you dispute that the term came to prominence as a derogatory/dismissive/pejorative term used by critics, to characterise what was seen as a radical orthodoxy? Do any studies of the history of use describe the term being used in this period OTHER than to criticise left-wing/liberal/feminist policies etc.?

I did not mean to imply that those criticising 80's/90's PC for intolerance 'coined' the usage 'Stalinist'. Throughout the C20th, the term almost always meant an excessive adherence to a political orthodoxy, whether used critically, ironically or self-mockingly, though I doubt if 'Stalinist' ITSELF, was a critical term among US/UK Communists, until after his death. Pincrete (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• generally is better than primarily. "Often" is the best option I've seen so far (and can otherwise think of). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of compromise proposal

Responding to this edit reason by Wugapodes. My proposal, which I referred to as a putting a 'date stamp' on the prev RfC, is that, early in the lead, we should say 'the term entered general use/came to prominence as a pejorative term to criticise etc.', (the 'to criticise MIGHT be followed by slightly different uses in US, where it was used mainly to criticise what was seen as left/liberal orthodoxy in higher education and UK ditto but mainly local Govt. and public bodies. This difference of 'target' is RS'd).

The compromise is that we should not use the present tense AT ALL and thus not describe current usage, because current usage is NOT the focus of studies of the term. Anecdotally many editors in the prev. RfC pointed to current usages which were more or less ironical and more or less critical, but which it would be OR to extrapolate from how used in private discourse or primary sources. The compromise also involves stating UNEQUIVOCALLY that the late '80s and later 'heyday' of the term was wholly pejorative/derogatory/dismissive. I made this suggestion on the prev. RfC, but it had neither 'takers' nor 'opposers'. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Current usage is not the focus? What exactly are you saying here? Not much of a clarification. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Present tense suggests current usage. Avoiding present tense and referring to 'came to prominence', leaves current usage unstated, which is an accurate reflection of un-studied. Most academic studies of the history of use focus on its post 1985-ish use to characterise a 'left-wing/liberal orthodoxy', as seen by critics of that supposed orthodoxy. … … What do you think has not been sufficiently clarified? Pincrete (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

So now you claim it's a mainly term about some sort of political ideology instead of a pejorative? Did you just admit to something like that? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

'to characterise a 'left-wing/liberal orthodoxy', as seen by critics of that supposed orthodoxy. I don't use the word 'ideology' at all, though it WOULD happily replace 'orthodoxy' with little change of meaning. .... Why can an ideology not be pejorative anyway? Pincrete (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You didn't use the word but you described it like an ideology. And without getting into absolutes of it absolutely not being possible for an ideology to be used as a pejorative, I'd state that if you describe it mainly as an ideology then you describe it mainly as a non-pejorative. Not talking in absolute terms but mainly. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the semantic speculation. What I wrote I wrote, what I didn't write, errrrr I didn't write. Draw any tortured conclusions you like.

The purpose of this sub-section is to discuss/criticise/improve a proposal. Pincrete (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you removed the more offensive portion of your reply. But the proposal, it's still incomprehensible. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of this sub-section is to discuss/criticise/improve/reject a proposal., Can we assume you don't approve of it? Pincrete (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

History section boldly edited, using WP newspaper archive account

The historical usage of the term section was wrong. In fact, the term has a long political pedigree. Please see my edits and comment or improve if you find them POV. Zezen (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: an IP reverted me right now, quotingWP:PRIMARY. This is what this policy says in fact:

"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them ... Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." 

What is the point in Wikipedia giving us access to accounts in such archives if we cannot use them?

As I do not talk to numbers (see the blocks against IPs done by admins (on my Talk page) why I don't), if challenged by a named account, I can reword it to "the first use of the term in British/US/Australian press was in XXXX year".

Please opine.

Zezen (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:No original research. Thank you. 66.87.80.158 (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The IP has not read the quote from the very same policy that I pasted above when asking me to read it. This note

"Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." 

does not apply here either. Anyhow, before I RR the IPs removal of RS, I invite named accounts to discussion here or there. Zezen (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Which part of "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." isn't clear to you? Adding material about related terms and when the expression entered political discourse -- sourced only to primary sources -- is the very definition of original research. 66.87.83.72 (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Note to named-account Wikipedians: it is not alleged original research, it is a judicious use of primary sources, using a WP-provided account thereto, hopefully adhering to the above policy on their use, as quoted.

For your ease of reference, this is how I had updated this section:

A related term "politically just" was used in 1756 in British political parlance by an "Impartial Briton" in a discussion about the then immigration policy. In 1793, the term "politically correct" appeared in a U.S. Supreme Court judgment of a political-lawsuit.

By 1804 the term "politically correct" was used in in today's meaning in Britain:

In your Paper on Monday [...] you offered some observations to your readers which were evidently well-meant though they were not politically correct.

and by 1811 it was frequently employed in the British Parliament.

The term "politically correct" was used in the U.S. in print from 1832 in Indianapolis Indiana Journal.

By the 1860s it has entered Australian political debates:

For to call it " a new colony " is only politically correct - the stress should be laid on the word "colony".

However, William Safire states that the first recorded use of the term in the modern sense is by Toni Cade in the 1970 anthology The Black Woman.

References

I feel an RfC is due by now... Zezen (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with the IP, deducing what is/is not a related term from primaries is OR, but I would anyway dispute that 'P equal' or 'P just' have been used as synonyms ('correct' always implying an orthodoxy, rather than justice) . Why not politically UVWXYZ? There are instances of UK usage of the actualt term, not currently recorded, and other historical uses (eg Maoists). I would oppose inclusion of this material without 2ndary sources claiming the equivalence.Pincrete (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Judging from these sources, Zezen does have a point. The term is used in these sources like it used today. Sure, you might need secondary sources for some of the claims, but what these citations prove that the current summary of history is complete OR and that William Safire is given too much weight. If the claims are softened it's good to go. It also needs a new summary since this is right after the lead. Maybe something to clarify that the term's historic use is disagreed upon. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Safire is used to record first modern use, numerous other sources also claim the 'Wade' first modern use. 'Modern' might need clarification (=feminist, or New Left orthodoxy?), but historical use from 1800's through CP members is already recorded. In the CP use 'PC'='party line'. I would suggest taking these sources and claims to WP:RSN. Pincrete (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

These sources put Safire to doubt. He seems to be incorrect now. I don't see any other sources or any Wade. CP members are from 1940s and 1950s. I would suggest taking your accusations of OR there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This is all OR, it can't stay in without a secondary RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not because there are no OR claims. Zezen also seems to be in the process of adding multiple secondary RS. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Where? All I see is newspapers, which are not sufficient, especially when the content directly contradicts secondary RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

So you admit that we have numerous, big-time newspapers contradicting with a Safire thus proving him an unreliable source? Again, secondary sources aren't some magical things which override primary sources. Secondary sources are recommended but there are many cases where primary sources override secondaries. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, you are now purposely edit warring. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm confident that my edit is policy compliant. The edit was BOLD, and was reverted, consensus must now be reached before it can be restored. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You reverted a sourced edit twice only stating that it's OR. That's just edit warring. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Fyddlestix's edit has my support, Zezen is happy to discuss here before any of his changes are re-instated. The 'edit-warrior' is yourself Mr. Magoo. Try WP:RSN if you don't agree. Pincrete (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No surprise there. I guess supporting an honest edit is edit warring where removing it multiple times isn't. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll write more and explain why you're wrong below, but I need to be somewhere right now. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe Zezen's edit to have been made in good faith, though I also believe it to be largely wrong and partly OR (it's OR to deduce an 'equiv' term, it's both OR and wrong to 'prove' that Safire was wrong, he wasn't. He had a specific meaning which possibly could be made clearer. 'First CP use', 'first NYT use', 'first TV use' is not contradicted by it having been used completely differently a century before, even less by a 'related term' having been used).

Re-instating several times an edit which you KNOW does not yet have concensus IS conscious edit-warring, regardless of whether the original edit was 'honest' and regardless of the number of sources. Throwing dirt in every direction doesn't alter that fact. Pincrete (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

At first there was only the IP hounder opposing. At this point there was clearly concensus as only a vandal IP was opposing. Then you logged in out of nowhere. At this point it was merely you opposing as the IP couldn't be taken seriously as the IP hounds Zezen. Then even Fyddle logged in out of nowhere. At this point it might have finally become "against concensus" but people really appeared out of nowhere... The goal wasn't to force anything. The edit had multiple sources and it was padding out a stub section. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

For what feels like the 10th time - please assume good faith. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, I'm many things but I am not a vandal. I strongly recommend you read WP:Vandalism, especially the section titled "What is not vandalism". I'm fed up with Zezen and his original research, but my reverts are absolutely not vandalism. 66.87.80.172 (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

In that case you'd use an account. I were just warned for hounding and what you're doing is ten times heavier. If you want his mistakes noted then list them at ANI. They constantly have similar cases and people get blocked for constant OR edits. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll pass. I've been here for more than nine years without registering an account and I don't see any need now. Besides, I've rarely seen any good come from the drama boards. On the other hand, if Zezen hears from enough people on enough Talk pages that what he's doing is impermissible original research, he'll get the message. 66.87.82.73 (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You want me to assume good faith but yet I'm constantly accused of all sorts of things as well. AGF doesn't apply to you? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

1. I am happy that named accounts have finally chipped in, especially if they criticize my bold edit.

2. Mr Safire, much as I respect him, did not have Internet scanned media archives when he wrote it.

3. What do you think of this version in my Draft page, with updated sources, commentless citations and the removed claim about "first modern meaning", which indeed may be OR? As long as these hard-hunted sources be I kept, I am happy to remove any commentaries whatsoever so that Wikipedian may judge for themselves by the (hidden or explicit) citations only and can remove the "politically just" term quote as well. PS. I am repasting, as there was an edit conflict here: I hope I have not deleted smb's contribution thereby. Zezen (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Zezen, Safire (and numerous others) record the 'Cade'. The only dispute here is 'first modern use' (I believe others also describe Cade's use thus). We do not doubt that there are individual uses (the 1793 US judge is usually recorded as the first), these earlier (rare) uses are hardly using the term as a distinct term and are using the words literally. IF it is RS that Aus + UK used the words in this way WAY BACK, a simple phrase added to the reference to the US judge might be justified, but listing every historical use would not IMO. It is well documented that the term went on to be used by Maoists and US Comm party members, both literally and more often ironically to describe 'adherence to official party line'. There are a small number of uses of the term post-1970's being used (mainly by feminists and other new-left), it is in this sense that Cade's is the first modern use,(ie with modern meaning, to describe a 'feminist' or 'left-wing' orthodoxy). I personally wouldn't argue about amending this present text, if 'modern use' is ambiguous. The sources also support that at this point the term is MOST OFTEN being used ironically and self-mockingly, to comment on an excessive adherence to 'feminist/left-wing' positions. Our present wording is not wrong, but may be unclear.

I am totally opposed however to extending coverage to 'related terms', if the equivalence is established by ourselves, and IMO is tenuous. Since CP times, the term's meaning has strongly implied 'adherence to an orthodoxy', the equiv's carry no such implications. Pincrete (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete and other esteemed named accounts:

1. By now, I agree that the "related term" passage should go.

2. There are dozens of such usage cases in 19th century: I selected some most salient.

2. Have you seen the updated list of sources and quotes in my Draft zone, at the link above? See the "Quote sections" in the refs, hereinabove and therein.

They employ one of the modern, self-effacing and ironic meanings of the phrase already in the 19th c, e.g. :

"Yet, if "he is a good master and a good family man, and continues as politically correct in his writings as he has been of late years", we will even pardon him for "his affectation of weakness"" (Year 1810) 

[Note: I remove this quote as I have been rightly challenged about the year:] "One snap of my fingers and I can raise hemlines so high that world is your gynecologist," Patsy boasts. Political correctness, for which "Ab Fab" has only contempt..." (Year 1892)

Here is another case of usage of the term "political correctness" in US Press as early as in Year 1833 there in a similar "don't rock the (political) boat" meaning:

 "We are so well pleased with the good sense, spirit and political correctness of the following editorial in the last Dayton Whig" (1833)

Are yous convinced by now that the term and concept is almost as old as the USA itself?

Zezen (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way - a humble request to User:Gormond and User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker: although you are well meaning, please do not restore my version verbatim if duly challenged by named accounts, without meritorious hermeneutical discussion about this term aiming at consensus on the Talk page. (On the other hand, please do protect it against vandalizing IP hoppers brandishing WP's TLAs only ;) - I have done so myself).

Good night to all. Zezen (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Zezen, you really have to work on your reading comprehension. Ab Fab was a 1990s TV show whose characters included Patsy. There is no way a newspaper wrote about it in 1892. 1992, perhaps? 66.87.82.192 (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You are right, IP - I stand corrected. I strike through this anachronistic quote and add another one from my collection, from 1833, although less "modern".

Nite to all. Zezen (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Zezen, we already refer to the 1793 judge, we record the context in which he made the remark, but do not 'characterise' his usage. I don't understand who you claim is diagnosing the character of use in some of the above, and completely fail to understand 'Ab Fab'. Fat cat has probably been written 1000s of times, that doesn't mean the modern usage Fat cats, is also from time immemorial. I am not averse to expanding (briefly) the 1793/historical use, but why would we quote more than one such usage when we quote few modern uses? I am not persuaded that ANY of the modern meanings, predates the dates we give and most studies of the use of the term, support those dates. If we happened to find the two words alongside each other in Shakespeare, that wouldn't date the use of the term back to him, or imply that he used the term in a modern way. Pincrete (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC) … … ps mildly amusing side-note, various sources comment on what a linguistically grotesque term 'PC' is, criticising it as indicative of the lack of fluency of modern speakers and 'PC people'. Mildly amusing that the word-combination is not modern at all, though it would be OR of course to record that! Pincrete (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with "hermeneutical" discussions here. I have argued with the same person over the most meaningless and well-sourced and well-related and well-proven things for weeks, only finally reaching some sort of bizarre informal armistices in which the war might just pick up again at any moment. Things seem to be sadly mainly decided by reverts on this article, as proven by events of yesterday. I talk with one but vote against three. I don't know why it's like that. There used to be an admin monitoring but even he's taken distance. But, have a go. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been meaning to write about Newsweek but I haven't had time as I've been stuck arguing about synonyms and have the aforementioned editors strongly opposing the use of a less absolute synonym. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

nb 'Newsweek' and 'Forbes' are already in the article. Several other periodicals around the same time are not, but I believe only deserve 'passing mention'. Pincrete (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, where on this talk page do you propose changing 'primarily' to 'generally' PRIOR to opening your RfC? That itself is an abuse of procedure, RfC's are meant to resolve intractably dead-logged discussions, not a means of by-passing discussion. However, it is not consistent to claim that the two are synonyms, but to insist on using one. I believe they CAN BE synonyms in ordinary speech, but the second is vague. Why would we want to use a vague term, when a widely understood specific one exists? Pincrete (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Above, in the old RfC which I closed after the change? Here's the diff. I then waited and asked you again and you were editing this talk page but apparently not caring about this reply. And I've already written that primarily is too absolute, where as generally is less. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As the proposer (indeed any involved ed), you don't get to close an RfC, nor do you require others to prove that your assessment of consensus on that RfC was flawed, prime litigant, chief witness, prosecution, judge, jury and appeal judge don't merge very well as roles.

So the straight forward answer is that there was no discussion about this change. Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Like written above, it was withdrawn, not closed — and proposers are allowed to withdraw. And there was no dialogue but only monologue because like I wrote I suggested it and waited for days, asking again but you were ignoring me. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

withdrawn=withdrawn, not used as a justification for undiscussed change or 'second-bite of the cherry'. Pincrete (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I did try to discuss it but like I wrote, you seemed to be ignoring it. It's a synonym change so I didn't even think there'd be opposition. As of now there is no compromise, only on-going disagreement. This was to be the compromise. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

IF it's a synonym, which term is clearer? Which vaguer? Pincrete (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not about vagueness but absoluteness. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, since the discussion here has veered from its original scope, that is the pros and cons of updating the history section, and nobody commented on the proposed updated version in my draft area, I am going to insert it therefrom, slightly redacted, just quoting the sources, as per the criticisms above.

The WP:Undue or WP:OR arguments, if wielded again, can be counteracted by the following:

1. The article has been tagged as "not a worldwide view of the subject for over a year": I am working toward expanding it thereby by historical quotes from the UK and Australia.

2. The quotes have been stripped from any comments on their presumed meaning.

3. The full context is in the "Quote" fields of the references.

4. The accounts to the newspaper archives has been provided by WP itself, so many other enabled editors can check in the scans if I am not making these up.

5. The other sections discuss who said what in Canada or the USA 30 years ago in way too much detail, see my criticism of one of them below.

So if you do not have reasonable WP-worthy objective arguments, which could have been raised above in the past week, please do not remove these sources by now, using ad-hominems or your subjective take on WP's policies, only edit or add thereto for clarity's sake.

Zezen (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Zezen, the 'bogus' was a recent addition, caused by edit-warring. What is more likely to be the case elsewhere is 'non-aligned' refs. Regarding your re-instate, putting 'however' on Safire IS OR, you are implying the source (and several others which claim the same thing) are WRONG, they aren't. By 'modern use', I presume he means something like 'correct in the context of feminist/left-wing beliefs', the most common modern use. I don't doubt that the UK + Aust examples are authentic, however, who is defining 'how used', and why are a handful of uses in a century worthy of quoting? We have a long-standing consensus that using individual examples of use (and interpreting 'how used' from the primary source), is not worthwhile and is OR. Therefore we rely on 2ndary sources for which examples are notable, and for any interpretation of them. The term is used in many thousands of pieces between late 80's and circa 2005, this is the most commonly understood use of the term, yet we quote almost NO examples, rather relying on 2ndary analysis. Why would we devote so much space to earlier examples, when it isn't even clear what the meaning was at the time, or indeed that there was a consistent meaning?

The 1793 judge's use of PC, MIGHT be paraphrased to 'legally correct', or 'constitutionally correct'. It is impossible to imagine the 'Cade' being paraphrased in the same way, even less those criticising trends in education/society post-1980 saying 'this is just legal/constitutional correctness'. 'PC' had acquired by then a distinct meaning which was more than simply the sum of the two words (which is how the judge appears to be using it). That modern meaning is approx. 'adherence to feminist/left-wing orthodoxy', or 'avoidance of insensitive language', depending on how you define it.

I don't approve of anyone hounding anyone, but I have to agree with the IP, that parts of your re-insert appear to be OR, based on your interpretation of primary sources and parts give undue weight to minor, rare uses that don't really add up to a pattern. I have no objection to adding briefly to 'the judge' to say that the term was also used elsewhere, WITHOUT interpretations of how used, unless those interpretations themselves are RSed.

I agree in part about 'Canadian use', it is unclear why it is there, however I don't know WHICH U.S. use you think is excessive. US use is the most documented, therefore we would be ignoring sources if it did not give 'primary coverage'. There are elements of modern UK use which are NOT included at present, though they are well sourced, that may be true of other places, but I don't think the remedy to that is putting in minor uses from history. Pincrete (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete: I am replying with some delay, due to Real life. Thank you for your comments. You have not addressed my arguments about WP:Undue towards US/Canada in the current version of the article, tagged thusly since over a year by another Wikipedian, with the History section starting now with:

The term "politically correct" was used infrequently in the U.S. until the latter part of the 20th century...

I am thus going to: 1. Remove the "however" word, to get rid of vestiges of imputed WP:OR.

2. Restore my amended contribution which discusses its usage worldwide.

3. Defend it by calling for an RfC about the sources and their use here, if still challenged.

4. Ask you not to remove RS sections, and edit them instead to fix the challenged words or terms only ("However" as per your argument above).

Zezen (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Zezen respectfully, the onus is on you to get consensus on the 'early history', not on me to 'disprove it'. In this edit, you again say Safire is wrong he isn't, nor are the numerous others who claim 'Cade' as the first modern usage in print. Their meaning may be unclearly phrased at present, but they are right, they are talking about use in a feminist/left-wing context (the most common modern meaning, to describe/criticise such policies). I have no objection to altering the text attached to the 1793 case to reflect 'occasional usage in US and other 'English-speaking' countries' (with footnotes to UK Aust etc. sources, as done with the 1793 judge), but why would we quote a handful of uses in over a century, without even knowing how used? We list one or less uses in each later context to illustrate only, at a time when the term was being used 1000's of times each year.

There is material about modern UK use, it isn't in the article because I haven't got round to it ditto 'Maoist' use, ditto other uses. It is a simple matter of fact that the principal modern use arose in the US, and most studies are US, it is inevitable therefore that coverage of US use will predominate, though that of course doesn't justify omitting other countries or including irrelevancies. (I think 'Canada' is unnec, or at least unclear at present)

I was in the process of 'sandboxing' the article, in order to fix MANY things. When I have done so, you are welcome to join in the fixing. btw I am UK, so keen to make the article less US-centric. Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Pincrete here, and I still object to Zezen's proposed addition. I have yet to see any version of it that is not WP:OR. To include this, you need a reliable, secondary source (and preferably a significant number of authoritative sources). Call an RFC if you want, but the content has been (repeatedly) challenged at this point, so you should not be trying to re-insert it without consensus. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Modifying 'early history'

I'm going to modify early history, leaving some tags where work is needed, as my time is limited right now.Pincrete (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC) … … I have done so, I hope tags are clear and will result in 'proper weight' to very occasional use.Pincrete (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Fyddlestix and others, [1] ... nb this change, with tags, if we avoid 'characterising', the early UK/Aust etc. uses, I think OR is avoided. If we put a small number of quotes WITHIN the ref (as 1793 judge), I think undue weight is avoided. I think finding a RS which describes in what sense 'Cade' is first modern use, is achievable and would clarify. Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Appalling state of some sections of this article

As a newbie to this article and its colorful history, I checked some sections, e.g. this one:

A word search of six "regionally representative Canadian metropolitan newspapers", found only 153 articles in which the terms "politically correct" or "political correctness" appeared between January 1, 1987 and October 27, 1990.[12][41]

It is indicative of the poor stage of this article. Why?

1. Ref [41] claims to be

"Richer, edited by Stephen; Weir, Lorna (1942). Milton and the puritan dilemma, 1641-1660. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p. 3. ISBN 0802050255." 

(check for yourself). Hm, what does a work published in 1942 about Milton has to do with statistical analysis of the Canadian press in the 1990s?

Let's click thru and see:

2. The URL leads to another publication:

"Lies of Our Times, Tom 1" from 1990

which in itself does not look RS at all, leaving its content aside.

3. Weirder still, an OpenLib search for this ISBN renders two books, of which the latter, that is:

Beyond political correctness: toward the inclusive university by Unknown author 

seems to be the one that may have been meant here. But maybe not.

So, which one of the three sources is really meant? Are all the refs here of such poor quality?

Has anybody checked where's the beef in the article itself?

4. Much more to the point, why should one care if e.g. a term search in 8 representative Nigerian newspapers from 1981 to 1997 found 1235 articles in which the terms "politically correct" or "political correctness" appeared? Who cares?

There are many more WP:Undue throughout this article, while the term's origins section is ruefully undeveloped - see my modest proposal above on how to expand it.

Zezen (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur with your general observation, recent edit-warring and 'random' changes means that text and sources are sometimes not aligned. Some text ends up being there more by accident than anyone's design or agreement. I still cannot support your 'origins' proposals for reasons given, but a systematic/forensic clean-up would be beneficial. I also have proposals for expansion of history sections.

I also think that SOME reference to number of times used is apt (indicating an explosion in use in the early '90s), however I concur that at present wording is unclear and unhelpful. There also exist RS figures comparing number of uses circa 1993/2000-ish, these show an enormous drop in use by the turn of the century. Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind showing any of these "figures" I have never seen even though I've gone through what 150 papers on the matter now? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hughes refers to 199?-ish 2000-ish usage (big drop off), the other figures are 'yours' in the article. As said, some figures (like Canadian), I don't undersatand why they are there, but some chart a huge increase in use in early 90's. Though current phrasing could be OR in ascribing that increase to one article.Pincrete (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Where does Hughes say anything like that? I don't see such. And I haven't provided any? And if it was used, say an arbitrary number, 10 000 times in the year 1993 and 5000 times in the year 2015, it just means it was more popular when it was new but that it's still a popular term. And recently it seems to have spiked with the number of news about the student protests and with the South Park character. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Of the bad refs I'd like to point out "Media Coverage of the "Political Correctness"" which is quoted to say about Dinesh that his book "captured the press's imagination." Now, through academic source search engine previews I've been able to see that the paper talks plenty of Bloom and Kimball as well. There's a strong possibility that the they are talked about similarly or maybe that sentence refers to all three. No one is able to access the source. It's wholly untrustworthy. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

And "Uncommon Differences: On Political Correctness, Core Curriculum and Democracy in Education" was published in a journal about poetry for children called The Lion and the Unicorn and is cited by 4 and 2 of those four seem to be the same Russian talking about the matter in some cyrillic paper. This paper is almost as noteworthy as some student paper. The author is also a proponent of progressive alternative education and has been cited to have been present at a gathering where Bloom's book was strongly disparaged way back in the day, so the author is clearly very much biased in the matter as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Both of those seem like perfectly usable refs to me. For the first one, a reference doesn't become unusable just because you're unwilling to pay for it; for the second one, The Lion and the Unicorn isn't a journal for poetry, it's an international theme- and genre-centered journal, is committed to a serious, ongoing discussion of literature for children; academic discussion of trends in literature obviously overlaps with this article's subject. It was also published in Kohl's book I Won't Learn from You: And Other Thoughts on Creative Maladjustment, and therefore easily passes WP:RS. But I do agree that the word search needs to go; it's poorly-sourced and poses WP:OR problems if it's used without secondary sources discussing the meaning behind those numbers. --Aquillion (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I've asked multiple times for full sentences from it — especially of the imagination quote — but haven't received any. Why are you avoiding providing anything from it? What is being hidden? You haven't even provided anything to link it with the lead sentence. And Kohl is still cited by only three people, compared with say Morris cited 504 times, and the journal is still of children's literature — only incredibly vaguely linked with the term. Was a review of the newest Goosebumps: Stay Out of the Basement next to him? Even then it reads mostly as an opinion piece. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please remember to WP:AGF; you can pay for it yourself if you want, but either way, "I don't want to pay for this source" is not a valid reason to remove it. Kohl's paper was printed in a reputable journal that describes itself as follows: "...an international theme- and genre-centered journal ... committed to a serious, ongoing discussion of literature for children. The journal's coverage includes the state of the publishing industry, regional authors, comparative studies of significant books and genres, new developments in theory, the art of illustration, the mass media, and popular culture. It is especially noted for its interviews with authors, editors, and other important contributors to the field, as well as its outstanding book review section." A noteworthy author in a journal whose coverage includes "mass media, and popular culture" is a perfect source for an article like this. Beyond that... is your objection to his inclusion that you feel that he is the only source for "pejorative?" He isn't; as I said, my reading is that the majority of sources that you presented supported that description. We're supposed to paraphrase the sources (indeed, we often have to in the lead, since they're not all going to use the same terminology); in this case I think it's a reasonable reading that the vast majority of historians and academics who have gone into depth on the term agree that its modern usage is largely pejorative in nature. I know you disagree, but we can't keep rehashing the same argument forever. Given that you've now gone through two RFCs and several months of discussion on the subject, and have constantly failed to turn up a consensus for your point of view, I think it's reasonable to ask you to drop the issue so we can move on to other aspects of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

How was the question of what is not being provided not AGF? I'd have to throw it back because you don't seem to be assuming good faith yourself. And it's not a matter of paying but providing a short statement from the source since you claim you have access to it. And you quoted their description of themselves, great. It still stated that they're about children's literature and review any new Goosebumps when it comes out. And no, the sources I provided don't support pejorative whatsoever but describe the term as an ideology. Even then my best sources were removed by you back then when you removed all of them from the lead and kept all yours, with me being able to add only a few back. Nigh all of our sources do not mention pejorative. Only fringe cases from obviously biased authors describe it as absolutely pejorative and nothing else and we all disagree with that and you have no sources for primarily. Like written and not by me, the RfC doesn't matter if it's found to be original research. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this section and its bogus source: it looks less WP:Undue by now.

I also encourage the colleagues to fact-check and challenge the other sources, as per the above random find. Zezen (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)