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

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)

I've removed the UK comic (which is not supported by the ref, as prev. cmt). Other 'TV uses' also seem not notable.Pincrete (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Baa Baa sheep is also unnotable and has little to no relation with the use of the term. We should remove it as well... --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2016 (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)

Which article? If you mean our article, we include only a summary as the story is covered in the linked page. My quote is from one of the sources cited. Pincrete (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

What else. I checked the sources and there was mention of political correctness but only used vaguely, with some vague unnamed "critics" apparently saying this is an example of it. There's no direct relation, only vague secondhand mention of the case being an example of political correctness. This is a perfect example of a simple case of it being used without really being noteworthy. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The (long-running) BaaBaa story is among the best known (and best recorded) examples of 'urban myths' being recycled by UK tabloids about supposed policies of local councils being adopted for reasons of 'PC'. There are plenty of others! Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like OR, because you have provided nothing to indicate that. I follow UK media and I've never heard about it. And again, little to nothing ties it with the use of the term. You're ORing its relation to the term. And wasn't it you who wrote that this article is supposed to be from the US perspective, when we talked about that one dictionary with two definitions? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have certainly never said that the article SHOULD have a US perspective, the fact that the modern use of the term originated in US, inevitably means that part is going to focus on US.Pincrete (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You wrote that any article which has established main usage should follow that usage, which you clarified to be US spelling + usage. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Spelling, grammar and language usage WITHIN the article are kept consistent, in the case of PC it's US English. That has nothing to do with content or treatment (ie we don't ignore, or downplay, the US contribution to the 2nd World War in Europe simply because most of those articles are written in UK English !). Pincrete (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It was in that context, yes, but you did still paint with broad strokes after the US perspective tag had been pointed out that "any article which has established main usage should follow that usage". I thought that was what you meant at the time, but I guess not. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2016 (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) 04:20, 29 January 2016 (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. --BREAK-- Some new, recent ones: Creativity from Constraint? How the Political Correctness Norm Influences Creativity in Mixed-sex Work Groups "Using evidence from two group experiments, this paper tests theory on the effects of imposing a political correctness (PC) norm, one that sets clear expectations for how men and women should interact, on reducing interaction uncertainty and boosting creativity in mixed-sex groups." The Ethics of Political Corretness "In this paper, we study the ethics and some of the implications of this political correctness in the university project described earlier, both at the level of the university prmoting the project and the project members working on it. How ethical is this political correctness?" Political Correctness of Medical Documentation --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

• 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 critical. (btw, 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 'PC' 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)

I don't think there's much disagreement about the debate itself so why bring that up? And I didn't specify the first article's definition for politically correct because it's different from the term political correctness. If you want to specify politically correct as pejorative separately from political correctness — like I've suggested before because how exactly do you apply political correctness as a pejorative truly escapes me — then go ahead. And let's not ignore the academic studies but let's look at them and find out only a small portion define it in an absolute fashion as solely pejorative which we all disagree with and none "primarily". As is stands, primarily is OR. And most of all, you seem to agree that over the years it has lost its "bite". I think it has become the general term for "correct PR behavior" whatever that is. Someone else defined the usage better, if I can only remember whom. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's see if we can agree on some things. The term entered 'popular use' around the early '90s. The decade that followed is approx. the period of most frequent use, certainly in 'popular media'. In the '80s, the term was already being used within academia/social sciences to characterise a 'mindset', which was seen by critics as placing an excessive emphasis on gender/race etc. issues. The '90s usage extended broadly the same criticisms into the 'public arena'. There is almost no record during that period of the term being used OTHER than to criticise that 'mindset'. This is what all studies of the history of use describe. To that extent, at the time the term came to prominence, and was most frequently used, its use was almost WHOLLY derogatory or ironic.

Many of your 'academic studies' are simply primary sources USING the term. The Loury appears to be a behavioural study, it uses 'PC' in quotes. It is studying how people behave in a job situation, if they are uncertain of the values to which they are expected to conform, it is almost irrelevant to the study as far as I can see that the values employed in the study are 'degree of 'PC'-ness'. A behavioural psychologist COULD if he wished, call his academic paper' 'PC' among rats', identifying some aspects of rat behaviour which he wishes to call 'PC/non-PC'. His doing so doesn't alter the historical record of how the term has been used among humans. His definition of 'PC' is irrelevant outside his study.

That the term may have 'morphed' and 'lost its bite', becoming a hoary cliche in recent years, may mean it is apt to phrase in terms of 'came to prominence', as I suggest below, it is not a justification for 'whitewashing' the historical record, which is supported by all studies of the history of use, nor is it a justification for extrapolating current use from primary sources. The term came to prominence as a pejorative to characterise 'excessively/inappropriately radical policies'. Pincrete (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter if the term was used many more times then than now. We're not talking about the history of the term in the lead, but the current usage. We've already noted historic usage in the history section.

And many but the most prominent are secondary, defining the term. Loury isn't some behavioral study but study of the term AND the ideology. He gives a vast, well-thought definition for it — which Morris then uses and so do many others. Loury is cited 93 times and Morris 504 times. I have no idea where you got "job situation" or "behavioural study" from. The study of Morris is more akin to that.

And lastly, so you agree the term has morphed from what it was... --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The term MAY HAVE morphed, but those private and public uses are not the subject of secondary studies, therefore it would be OR to extrapolate usage from primary or anecdotal sources.

The article IS about the history of use, but you want to ignore what all sources say about the period during which it was most used in favour of your own analysis of primary sources, to claim precedence of current use. The lead should summarise the article, where in the article is evidence of current use, based on secondary sources analysing such use? We go round and round in circles, you continue to claim that the term describes an ideology, there is no evidence anywhere that the ideology exists, other than in the minds of critics. Who are the adherents? Where are their beliefs laid out? Is PC some sort of 'secret society', that only critics are aware of? That critics claim such a 'mindset' is well sourced, (and I don't object to expanding their criticisms), but that anyone other than critics uses the term is not. Pincrete (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Current use obviously has precedence. For some reason YOU want to ignore current day usage and only focus on the years it first got popular. In that case many of our articles should be wholly different because they should mostly be about the first usage and not current day usage. Likewise we should write this article from the perspective of the Stalinistic usage. No, from even before that. This kind of sentiment makes zero sense. PLAINLY the current day usage has precedence. And about the ideology, you yourself agreed just before that it's used of an ideology, only without using the word ideology. And you yourself have written that ideologies may be entirely defined by people not included in the mindset. And regardless of that we have numerous non-critic positive uses in the article and listed above in the academic sources. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Current use can only be determined by analysis of primary sources, which is both OR and subjective. There are no secondary RS documenting non-derogatory use. Why would non-studied current use based on subjective evaluation take precedence over well documented recent-historical use? There are countless political terms which historical use has primacy over current under/non-use. I know what I have written, please don't rewrite it according to your own preferences. I have no objection to the article saying what critics SAY the mindset is, but an ideology requires adherents, and they simply don't exist. Pincrete (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect. We have current day academic papers and dictionaries with definitions. There are no RS "documenting" derogatory use past or present. Why would vague, unproven historic claims take over modern RS? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The record needle is stuck, dictionaries are not RS nor are editors' analyses of primary sources. Pincrete (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Dictionaries can be RS as written in Wikipedia guidelines. You're following some sort of completely unique and own rules. And even then, like I wrote, academic papers were offered. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The record needle is still stuck, can be is not ARE. Why would a 40 word dictionary definition take precedence over a 400 page study? Look up 'Inquisition' in a dictionary, look up 'final solution', look up any term with particular historic usage, a dictionary won't help much. Pincrete (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What does it matter whether the needle is stuck if I'm right? And "can be" can be the same thing as are. And I have provided 400 page studies. And Friedman and Narveson, our most notable study - not provided by me, defines it SOMETIMES used derogatorily by critics. Again, your most notable study is one page long, cited by 3 people and was published in "The Lion and the Unicorn". The pot is calling the polar bear black. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

People who won't drop the stick, always think that they (and they alone) are right. There is such a thing as WP:DRN if you are not happy with the broad consensus here. Most of us are just bored with going round and round in circles, listening to the same scratched record. Pincrete (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, what does it matter, if I am right? And you alone are opposing me. I talk to one but vote against three. Why is that? It's such obvious meatpuppetry for which I raised the investigation, especially when the other two appear to vote within an hour to you. The investigator obviously did not study the case enough as he thought the ANI had been started by me. I mean even the page itself had both you and me write that the ANI hadn't been started by me. He had bothered to read nothing. — — I also have to point out that quite many have voted for "often". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:50, 26 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)
• "Often" is the most sensible, neutral, and I believe accurate term to use because there is no scientific or objective way to gauge how often people are using this term pejoratively, and therefore determine if such usage is primary or general usage.Kerdooskis (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

There IS an objective way, it is what RS about the history of use say. Evaluation by editors of primary sources I agree is not possible. I have yet to see a secondary source documenting extensive NON-derogatory use. Pincrete (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is: It's adhering even slightly to what all of the dictionaries define the term as. They don't even mention it being derogatory. Even then I provided modern day academic papers defining it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, several very notable dictionaries DO anyway note it as being derogatory. The 'academic papers' are mainly simply USING the term, many in quotes. Pincrete (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I never claimed it was? But it does have articles about terms in which definitions are of huge importance. Can you point to any dictionary defining it as derogatory? I think there was only one which listed differences in UK and US use? And the most notable academic papers define the term. Most use it but the most notable define it non-pejoratively. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The record needle is still stuck! Why would a 30-ish word dictionary definition take precedence over a 300-ish page study of the history of the use of a term? Why would an academic USING the term be admissable at all, when the subject of his/her study is something other than 'PC' itself? An academic can use the term 'final solution' or 'inquisition' and define either how he/she wants for the purpose of their particular research, this does not mean that WP should rewrite their articles on the particular historical meanings of these phenomenon. … … ps Cambridge dictionary lists US usage as derogatory, I haven't checked others, but this does not make a hoot of difference either way! Pincrete (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Is that your only argument? That a needle is stuck? Why would a dozen different mainstream definitions take precedence over A SINGLE PAGE opinion piece written in "The Lion and the Unicorn"? You have no 300-page study. The most prominent of our studies, by Friedman and Narveson, only defines it SOMETIMES being used derogatorily by critics. I have provided numerous academics — cited hundreds of times — defining the term. The uses are just examples of use. And lastly, so you admit that you lied and you only knew of one dictionary which mentioned derogatory use and even then only in US usage, separate from UK. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Why would anyone OTHER than a critic use a derogatory term, (except to talk about its use)? I don't remember which dictionaries other than Cambs, describe the term as 'derog', and it would be irrelevant, if people want a dictionary, they consult one, if they want an encyc article about the history of a concept they come here!Pincrete (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Friedman and Narveson looks like an interesting book, though as far as I can see, it is a 'for-against' debate about the ISSUES/POLICIES characterised in the US in the early '90s as 'PC'. However this is the opening chapter "In the fall of 1990, “political correctness” in the academy emerged as a national news media preoccupation. Political correctness (PC) comprises a host of academic reforms and attitudes that, according to their critics, are destroying higher education and threatening national survival. The alleged culprit is the academic left, a group encompassing feminists, multiculturalists, Marxists and deconstructionalists. In their teaching and scholarship, these leftist academics are supposed to have launched a full-scale attack on western civilisation. They have replaced the classical works of western culture with third world, anti-western trash and have forsaken standards of truth, objectivety and merit of any sort. They have consolidated their academic power by smuggling unqualified women and minorities into positions of academic dominance and by ruthlessly quashing dissenting voices. Their multicultural machinations will soon surely fragment the United States into an intellectual Yugoslavia.", clearly a wholly non-derogatory definition! Pincrete (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

That's the point. Friedman and Narveson — our main source — write it's only in some contexts derogatory. They describe it as an ideology like I've written before. "Conservatism" and "liberalism" could be talked of in the same manner as well yet their articles do not in any way describe them as derogatory. You neatly leave out the follow-up to that bit: "From the standpoint of the left, however, the picture is quite different. The reforms in question are intended to revamp a host of traditional academic practices and attitudes that constitute the real malaise of higher education. The real correctness to worry about, from a leftist perspective, is the "rectitude" of those traditionals who resist the growing cultural diversity of academia today. The policies of the critics of political correctness would return us to the deplorably homogeneous and exclusionary educational world of yesterday. The left has, accordinly, raised critical questions about the quality of everything academic, from esoteric scholarly research to the interpersonal dynamis of daily campus life. Most importantly, the left has challenged..." I had to cut out the rest because it gives the left many more paragraphs. You also left out the preface: "Our topic is "political correctness," a diverse array of the most controversial academic and cultural issues of our day. New fields of study, such as women's studies and African American studies, new disciplinary approaches, such as multiculturalism and feminism, new campus practices, such as speech codes, and new cultural critiques, such as those of truth and of politics-free intellectual inquiry—all these and more have become the terrains of bitter intellectual warfare in contemporary Western societies. In the estimations of some, the survival of those cultures depends on the outcome of the struggle. Our collaboration in this debate is premised on the possibility and the urgency of a negotiated settlement as well as the conviction that genuine dialogue—honest, open, engaged, and mutually respectful—is still too rare a phenomenon when it comes to political correctness." I had to cut it shorter as well. Cutting out all of this context, definition of the term and both viewpoints, is manipulation from your end... --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Point me to the pages please where F&N say it is ONLY derogatory in certain contexts or where they describe it as an ideology. I've only read the first part so far, there it is clear that she ONLY refers to its derogatory use, that is quite clearly fundamentally different to concluding that it is only derogatory in certain contexts. She fairly explicitly states that the left-ist use of the term is/was ironic. She also only refers to it indirectly as an ideology as characterised by critics. To the extent that she refers to the underlying thinking of feminists and other radicals, she chooses not herself to label their thinking as 'PC'. F & N are not our main source, their discussion is explicitly about the issues around higher education which ignited the '90s debate in the US. … … [btw, the person who you referred to as a S. American peasant, (D'S's description?), actually appears to be Nobel Peace prize winner Rigoberta Menchú (p15 of F&N).

I didn't leave anything out, the bits you quote confirm that the term came to prominence in the US to characterise controversial changes in higher education, does anyone dispute that? She puts up a fairly robust defence of many of those changes, and an equally robust refutation of many of the criticisms of those changes. She accepts that those changes are what had become the public understanding of 'PC', but she chooses other , more specific, terms herself in what I have read so far.

Comparisons with 'standard' political labels like 'conservative', or 'liberal' are invalid. In the UK and elsewhere there are political parties that adopt these names, there is extensive literature by adherents and critics of what the core values of these positions are. Even more controversial labels like 'communist' or 'fascist' have or had their literature of belief, written by adherents. There is still no evidence of significant use of the term 'PC', by anyone other than critics, no adherents, no believers, no political philosophy EXCEPT as characterised by those opposed to it. Pincrete (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Pages 48 and 49. And where do you see derogatory use? It is specifically defined as "a diverse array of the most controversial academic and cultural issues of our day" and "Political correctness (PC) comprises a host of academic reforms and attitudes". Where do you see derogatory? It's literally written to be about attitudes, reforms and issues. And where are any of the things you claim? Now you claim it's an ideology as well, only characterised by critics? Why don't we have the article then say that it's often characterised by critics instead of pejorative? And where is that in the book? And what in the world does that peasant bit have to do with anything? That's from mid-October and from a discussion about the amount of political affiliation mentions the article / Dinesh's book has?

And you left a lot out. You specifically left out the preface defining the term and selected a bit from after it. The bit you quoted from also included a left version but you on purpose left that out as well. And so you agree the term is of academical changes instead of being defining as "derogatory"?

Why does a party adopting the name mean anything? Inherently illogical evidence. And convervative and liberal are not strictly defined but only loosely, just like political correctness which has had plenty of literature defining it with the loose definition seen. The term is commonly used non-derogatorily like shown many times. This by the way isn't located above but I found it from the old discussions, not provided by me. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Where do I see derogatory use? Immediately following YOUR quote: that, according to their critics, are destroying higher education and threatening national survival. The alleged culprit is the academic left, a group encompassing feminists, multiculturalists, Marxists and deconstructionalists. In their teaching and scholarship, these leftist academics are supposed to have launched a full-scale attack on western civilisation. They have replaced the classical works of western culture with third world, anti-western trash and have forsaken standards of truth, objectivety and merit of any sort. They have consolidated their academic power by smuggling unqualified women and minorities into positions of academic dominance and by ruthlessly quashing dissenting voices. Their multicultural machinations will soon surely fragment the United States into an intellectual Yugoslavia. Then it gets even more heated. To claim that she does not see the term as derogatory is nonsense, I haven't yet read he. Pincrete (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Uhh, you already provided that quote just above. I gave the left-view following it, as in what immediately followed your quote. What preceded yours was the other, latter "quote" I provided, the preface. And it's silly that you quote your entire bit again even though it's just above, as if to force it through. And after your bit it gets a lot less heated because it gives the other view like I already mentioned. And the preface's definition weighs over them both. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Generally or often because I see it often used without any deeper intentions. --BurtReynoldsy (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

BurtReynoldsy, I think the problem is that whilst we all are anecdotally aware of a wide range of uses, from the mildly ironic to the brutally dismissive, STUDIES of use (as opposed to EXAMPLES of use) tend to concentrate on the use in public political discourse. Here the term is almost always derogatory. A way to represent this without OR is needed. Pincrete (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Interjecting here I have to point out what you wrote is all OR. There is no "study" like that. Your main source is an opinion piece published in a journal of reviews of children's literature. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

How many of the 103 references used were ever published in a 'a journal of reviews of children's literature'? To the best of my knowledge only one, and that makes a relatively uncontroversial claim, and was also (I believe), published elsewhere. What I wrote IS OR (inasmuch as discussing 'anecdotal use' is inevitably OR), which is why it is here and not in the article.Pincrete (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

What? You do realize only the ones after the opening sentence are about the definition and I think even of them only 3 mention it being in some contexts derogatory. So you need to negate 100 from your list. What source are you using for primarily? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there is no source for 'primarily', nor any need for one as the lead is a summary of the article. Point me to the places in the article which record extensive/appreciable non-critical use (based on studies of the use of the term, not on subjective assessments of whether individual examples of use are critical/neutral/positive)? Early use to criticise communist hard-liners, then the term came to prominence as a 'sarcastic jibe' (NYT's description) in debates about US higher eduation, it was extensively used in the UK to characterise 'excessively leftist' local Govt. policies etc. As you know, I have suggested moving the focus away from from what the term IS to how the term came to prominence, but no takers. Do you dispute that the term came to prominence as an almost WHOLLY derogatory term - used to characterise a certain mode of thinking? Pincrete (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

So you admit it. And there obviously is a need for it. And I have already pointed out at the beginning of this RfC: open the green folders. Amongst them are even a few plain studies of use of the term. And you yourself have many times written that the term's use has changed from what it was even in the early 90s not to mention before that. And you keep sticking to the communistic birth story even though that again is only according to one person's opinion and that one person being the same fellow who wrote the infamous opinion piece in the children's literature review journal. Zezen pointed out numerous uses before that. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Admit to what? That the lead should be a balanced, neutral and accurate summary of the article, but that the precise wording used may not be traceable to any single source? That's policy and hardly a confession on my part. I thought it had been made clear many times that there may be no single source saying 'primarily', but if you add up all the sources saying 'sarcastic jibe', 'derogatory','dirty word' (+Stalinist, intolerant etc.), 'primarily pejorative' is a reasonable summary. (To the best of my knowledge there are no sources saying 'often' or 'generally' or 'sometimes' either - your favoured wordings). I have said several times that we MAY all know uses of the term that are not overtly critical (my own experience is mainly of humourous and ironic use), I have also said that the term probably 'burnt out' circa 2000-ish - in public discourse at least. It became a cliche avoided by any but the tired-est of public speakers and writers. Other editors have offered their own experience. The trouble is that this is all anecdotal, which is the point I was making to BurtReynoldsy, we cannot base content on personal experience, even if we can take it into account.

So, the term may have lost its 'bite', but that makes it neutered, not neutral. Ironic use of a term is dependent on user and hearer being aware of the derogatory use. I imagine that Dixie Chicks adopted that name ironically, not because they thought that 'chick' had become an acceptable or neutral term for a woman.

Hughes covers fairly extensively the communist use in 30+40s, he tells a slightly different story from our article, initial use by Chinese Maoists, taken up by Comintern, migrated to 'free world' where it was taken up for ironic use by left-wingers to characterise excessive adherence to 'party line'. The last two parts confirm Kohl. Two thirds of this is not Kohl's or Hughes' or anyone else's opinion, it is historical fact supported by contemporary documents. I believe that there are others recording the term making the same journey. That this happened is not in much doubt, objecting to the source because it was once published in a 'children's literature review journal' doesn't make a lot of sense, especially as the claim is hardly controversial. Are you arguing that hard-line communists didn't use the term or that those close to them didn't adopt it as ironic comment or what?

I have still to see a study of the use of the term, which documents any significant use of the term other than as a derogatory descriptor. Pincrete (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

1. There isn't something like that in the article so it shouldn't be in the lead either.

2. You now have to resort to "sarcastic jibe" to prove primarily pejorative. The derogatory sources define it in some contexts derogatory so they are in fact against your primarily. Dirty word I have no idea where you picked from or even if it exists in any source.

3. Often isn't my favored wording but the linguists editors'. My preferred was generally. But their logic was that often is more neutral than primarily. The sources for it are the ones which define in some contexts derogatory. In that instance it's often but not primarily.

4. The term obviously hasn't burnt out and you offered nothing to indicate that. If you mean its past definition has burned out then yes, you're right. The article is about the current usage, which includes right-wing political correctness as well. It's not limited to left-wing political correctness.

5. That makes it neutered but not neutral? Sound like the same thing to me. Also, where do you live for "chick" to be offensive to women? It's nigh the same as "dude".

6. I read Hughes and he has a brief mention of it and even then it's incorrect because he claims 1930s Mao's China to have been the birthplace and not the popularizer. Like Zezen has pointed out, it has seen plenty of use before that in the US and UK.

7. Again, open the green folders and see an incredible amount of sources. I have yet to see any source from you. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ask a vet to explain the difference between neutered and neutral, ask one of the 'linguists' (???) to explain summary.

Where did you got the idea that the article is - or should be - primarily about current usage? Should the article on 'fascist' ignore Mussolini etc. and leap to the word's modern usage (as a fairly infantile abuse term for authority)? Ditto 'Puritan', modern usage is as a synonym of 'prude' and one could probably find 1000s of examples of it being used thus, why bother with the 16th Century? We aren't a dictionary, especially since non-critical use of 'PC' has not been the focus of ANY studies to the best of my knowledge, whereas the critical usage is the subject of numerous studies. Besides, we change the article, then change the lead to reflect that change, not the other way round, where in the article is there documented extensive non-critical use of the term?

No one says Maoists popularised the term - including Hughes, if he DOES say 'birthplace', I presume he makes it clear that he is referring to its use as 'ideologically-correct-according-to-the-party-line', which was NOT the meaning in Zezen's examples (Nor the 18th century judge, whom I believe Hughes also quotes).

'Dude' and 'chick' are both mainly US - strangely though, I don't often hear Senate debates/scholarly studies/serious newspapers referring to 'a dude called Barack', nor 'a chick called Hillary'. The terms may not be offensive, but they are a long way from either courteous or neutral factual descriptors.

Neither wall-papering the talk page with 100 dubious sources, nor repeating a umpteen times how good the sources are, persuades anyone but yourself. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

But we're not talking about animals here. A neutered word doesn't have its testicles chopped off. I looked at a dictionary and the fifth definition for neuter is simply "neutral".

Because it being about the current usage is how the article currently is structured and the lead should follow the main article and not the other way around. We have history and modern usage and when you specify in the lead "is" and not "was" you're talking about the modern version and not the historic vrsion. Fascist means and has meant Mussolinini; this is just one of your silly fallacy-like comparisons where you compare an orange with an apple to prove your point. I really need to find out what the specific fallacy term for these comparisons is.

But Hughes specifically writes it first emerged there, which it didn't.

Jon Stewart did call Barack Obama "dude" non-offensively in his interview with him.

You just earlier tried to push the article's 103 references as your evidence and now you accuse of wall-papering with sources... --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you are now 'arguing-for-arguing's sake. I'm sure it's POSSIBLE for neutered to equal neutral, it's possible for 'dude' to be used as an affectionately informal way of addressing the Pope, it's possible that someone, somewhere habitually refers to Queen Liz as a 'nice chick' and does so with respect … … … and it's possible for 'PC' to be used non-disparagingly, but no one has ever doubted that.

Hughes says 'political correctness first emerged in the diktats of Mao Tse-Tung, then chairman of the Chinese Soviet Republic, in the 1930s'. If you think Hughes is wrong, argue with him (I don't, because it is obvious he is talking about the modern usage, 'linguistic and ideological adherence to a political orthodoxy', not to any other meanings the two words may have had on the rare occasions that they sat alongside each other in the depths of history … If Chaucer called someone a 'loud-speaker', does that mean Chaucer invented the loud-speaker?). Pincrete (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Silly to say this, but that is what you are doing. Your argument was that it's neutered but not neutral. Semantics at best. I just provided a dictionary which states that neuter's synonym is neutral, nullifying any possibility of "possibly" as it's certain.

And I don't need to prove Hughes wrong because Zezen already did that long ago. And they didn't use it in Mao's China in modern sense so that's just a null point... --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

'If you think Hughes is wrong, argue with him'. Pincrete (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

---Someone on a phone using AT&T Wireless at the same location in Kansas---

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

Primarily Pejorative. 166.172.58.174 (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that neither IP had ever made an edit on WP before. And an IP tried to close this in favor of "primarily".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:47, 23 February 2016 (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)

As of now editors seem to be for "often". It is the compromise. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

An RfC is not a vote, the quality and validity of arguments are assessed by the closing admin, to see if there is a broad consensus. Nor is consensus established by parties to the dispute, which would include you and I. Pincrete (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hah! You are ALWAYS pointing out that "concensus" is against me whenever the numbers are on your side. When they finally are on my side you claim it's not about numbers. Laughably petty. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, a simple 'vote count' would not give a clear answer anyway, but there is a big difference between counting votes, (regardless as to whether they offer any valid arguments), and concensus. … … ps Why is everything your way/my way? The theory is that we discuss with the intention of finding meaningful compromise … … pps Best Wishes for 2016.Pincrete (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Like I wrote, it seemed to be all about the numbers to you in some other discussions we've had, notably the earlier Civitas one. I think you simply listed how many were against me back then (two). That was it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Formal note, I believe that SMMarshall may have inadvertently closed the wrong RfC. I have contacted him on his talk page and informed him, it is up to him as to whether he closes this one. Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, he obviously closed the right one which was about whether it was pejorative at all or not. You had complained about something about me not having the right to withdraw it so he must have thought it best to properly close it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I certainly did NOT complain about you withdrawing your own RfC, I complained about you CLOSING it and interpreting the balance of views yourself.Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't close it, I only withdrew the RfC tag... SM closed and interpreted it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Often Although my personal opinion is that thie term is almost always used pejoratively the source do not seem to support this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Often

It seems like all "linguists" (as in not editors who have simply edit warred on this article in the past months, including me) who bothered to participate voted for "often". I wish to swap it to often this instance but I'd just get reverted because "the RfC is still ongoing". Does anyone have anything to add anymore? Does this RfC need to go on anymore? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Standard procedure is to wait for an uninvolved admin to close the RfC. I suggest all those involved, including admins, steer well clear from closing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that those who preferred 'often' were 'linguists', but I endorse Martin Hogbin's point. No involved editors can close unless there is the most obvious and total argreement, there is not as far as I can see. The proposer can NEVER close. Pincrete (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Because of the language RfC and that I looked at their user pages? And there is seemingly obvious agreement since all of the "fly-by" language editors are of the same mind. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, there is quite obviously no general agreement and atacking the good faith of other editors will not change this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? I attacked good faith by stating that fly-by language editors are of the same mind? Or do you mean the edit war reference which of all the people specified only myself? I'm guilty of attacking myself? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood the situation but you are clearly to closely involved in this dispute to even consider closing it. The default duration of an RfC is 30 days. If after that time it has not been closed you could put a message on the appropriate board asking for someone to close it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries. This RfC has actually been redated once to continue it, back when there was still discussion to be had. The original start date was 28 November, 52 days ago. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Offer to close: I'll be happy to close this discussion if you wish. However, I closed the previous discussion here, so it's possible that some editors might feel I was involved or non-neutral. If anyone does feel that, please say so now before I go to all the effort of reading and considering that a RfC close requires.—S Marshall T/C 19:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I object to the RfC itself, for reasons I give early on, but I have no objection to you closing it. I certainly don't think of you as excessively 'involved'. Pincrete (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

With reservations when it comes to your findings in the last close. Firstly and more notably you posited that it's used ironically by the left-wing, but in the article we have a section for right-wing political correctness, added a long time ago before any of us edited the article. The use of the term has morphed and like even written by the other arguer here it has become neutered — even being used by the left of the right. Secondly, you posited that majority use it pejoratively, even though nothing indicated anything about majority. Again, we have no sources or studies about anything like that to any direction (yes or no) like we have discussed above. To claim so is unsourced. The most cited academic uses of it use it completely non-pejoratively, like Morris and Loury. Why I gave up on the last RfC is that the term is very linked to pejorativeness but to define it primarily is overencompassing so I focused on it instead. I'd also like to note that it used to say "ordinarily" for months. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• The time to question the previous close has passed, I think. I'll take that as meaning that you don't object.—S Marshall T/C 11:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

In that case I do object. We need to clear this out first. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a time limit to questioning closes, so I apologize for only pointing this out now. And I thought closes were "unquestionable" to begin with. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, I am unclear as to whether you do/don't object to S Marshall closing THIS RfC. If you do object, we should probably list it as 'needing admin closure'. Pincrete (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It is already listed and I don't object as long as we clear the confusion about the first findings first. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of there being any confusion. Nor am I aware of any precedent or procedure for re-opening issues on a withdrawn RfC. I am aware that the previous RfC was withdrawn by you, that it was (unnecessarily, post-withdrawal, possibly mistakenly), closed by S Marshall. What 'confusion' is there to clear up and what does it have to do with this RfC? You either object to the offer or you don't.Pincrete (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Now you get suddenly active? There is disagreement over the first's closure explanation, not the closure itself. And you complained loudly about me withdrawing the previous RfC? It was then dead in the water a long time before Marshall closed it, after this had been running for a while. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The closure of a withdrawn RfC is 'academic' at best. If SMarshall WISHES to discuss his reasoning, that is up to him, you cannot make it a condition that he submit to your questioning, and the issue has little place on this talk page. I forget how often I have corrected you on this, but I certainly did NOT object to you withdrawing the prev. RfC, I objected to you withdrawing and simultaneously, unilaterally extrapolating what you (the proposer) deemed to be the conclusion. Pincrete (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It was in no way claimed to be any conclusion to the vote or discussion. The vote was about the word pejorative and I suggested doing what this RfC suggests to the adjective preceding. The action had no effect on the vote's matter except leading to my withdrawal of the RfC since from my point of view it wasn't needed anymore with the outside-of-the-box solution. And about the "questioning": Marshall himself bravely stood up and even asked if anyone has any objections. I pointed out the only case I might have them. I didn't know it was a no-no to talk about closures. You learn something new every day. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Often is the most neutral term. valereee (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

New sources for often

Here are some sources for often derogatory:

Creativity from Constraint? How the Political Correctness Norm Influences Creativity in Mixed-sex Work Groups

"Although the label is often derogatory, the PC norm provides a normative foundation that politeness and sensitivity do not."

Gender in population research: Confusing implications for health policy

"In this paper I discuss some of the health policy implications of an increasing trend in population research and in its interpretation and presentation - a trend to 'political correctness' - defined not in the popular, often derogatory, sense, but as an ideological commitment to certain principles."

These were not presented before now because they mention derogatory, not pejorative. Currently we have 7 editors voting for often, often being sourced and primarily not having any sources. It's pretty much finished in favor of often at this point. I also suggest replacing pejorative with derogatory since only derogatory is sourced. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

These are both examples of use, rather than 2ndary sources studying the term's use. We wouldn't go to 1000 articles in which 'conservative' is used, rather to book's etc. ABOUT conservatism. I personally prefer 'derogatory', because it is more common, the minor disadvantage is that there isn't a WP article about it. Pincrete (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry but no, the first one studied the use of the term as well. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

In passing at best, and it refers to 'PC norm', which is like using 'conservative norm' to define 'conservatism'. They are studying the effect of imposing a 'PC norm' on behaviour of mixed-sex groups (and conclude that imposing such a norm removes uncertainty and improves creative output). This is an example of use from which we must extrapolate meaning, in this instance, I agree the usage is neutral. Pincrete (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, but "norm" wasn't used in the study but just the label "Political Correctness". They are studying the groups' reaction to and use of the term. What you state is just what the intro states as a summary. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The first 30 pages or so use 'PC norm' at least 10 times as often as 'PC'. The references to 'PC' are largely confined in those pages to mentioning a few notable incidents in which 'PC' was invoked as a factor. I grant you that their use is neutral, it's still use. I wish we could get beyond counting 'hits' as to how often used derogatorily, because it's a futile exercise. Are others supposed to find 100 examples in which the term is clearly being used negatively? Even within these studies, they start out from a base that the term is 'often derogatory', even though their purpose is not to examine the term itself. If there is substantial discussion of the term, or its history, could you point me to the pages? Pincrete (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, but it doesn't matter how the scientific results are written but how the experiments' details are written to have taken place with "political correctness" and "politically correct" and without the "norm". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Conservative/Right-wing correctness

nb section heading added retrospectively by Pincrete . Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh and I just noticed that someone had changed the title of the right-wing section in January to conservative if you were wondering about that. I changed it back as it talks about right-wing political correctness below and someone had apparently removed the other source at some point as well. Oh wait, now I noticed it does mention conservative correctness below as well. But below that Paul Krugman talks about right-wing political correctness so I guess Krugman takes precedence. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your restore, 'right-wing' is explicitly political, whereas 'conservative' is not always so. Besides, 'conservative' is within the spectrum covered by 'right-wing'. There are places where the terms might be interchangable, but I don't think this is one of them. Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Frankfurt School conspiracy theory

Generally speaking, we have to go by what reliable sources say about things like this; and all of the academic sources on the subject describe cultural marxism as a conspiracy theory. We can't use editorials from websites like the Daily Bell or vdare to 'respond' to those, since first, those sites lack the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires; second, those are opinion pieces (so we can't generally use them as cites for statements of fact, just for the opinions of their contributors, when those opinions are high-profile enough to be relevant), and third, their opinions here are clearlely WP:FRINGE when compared to more academic or reliable coverage. We do cover their opinion (that's what the section is for), but we have to cover it in a way that respects WP:FRINGE and which makes it clear what the mainstream view is. --Aquillion (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. GAB^Hello! 04:33, 1 January 2016s(UTC)

Just use axel honneth. renegadeviking 2 January 2016s(UTC)

I think that what we have is OK. The view is clearly attributed to 'Some radical right-wing groups'. We might drop the quote though as being too promotional of the expressed view. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think what we have is largely OK and linked. However, I question Buchanan's presence HERE, he is one of many people to have said that PC is inherently intolerant/censorious etc. but is it relevant to Frankfurt School conspiracy theory? Pincrete (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

They have a CT dictionary now. renegadeviking) 23:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Plane art

This seems far too trivial to be on the page. It's not improve by a quote from a regional newspaper - hardly a reliable source for what constitutes political correctness. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. This is giving WP:UNDUE weight to one columnist's use of the words in passing. The article itself isn't even about this subject, as far as I can tell. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It does not only seem trivial, also very tenuously connected to the subject, applying retrospectively a late 20th C judgemental term on an earlier activity. (signature added retrospectively) Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I now went to look at links between pin-up and political correctness and found numerous mentions. There doesn't need to be two images added by OnBeyondZebrax, though. But since our article lacks images, I think one would fit with the text.

Books and a news article

They’ve been exciting generations of men, on calendars and covers, as centrefolds or even on playing cards: pin-ups. What started as an exercise in oils was soon taken up in various media - Pin-up mascots graced the fuselages of American fighters, and became an essential feature of the male world of garages and barracks. And the age of political correctness hasn’t ended their appeal. PAO Cancels 2016 Division Commander Pin-Up Calendar Responses to the announcement were mixed within the military community, as some vocally supported the decision while others cited it as another sign that the Army was caving under pressure to become more politically correct. From of the posters of the decadently erotic slob "pin-up girls" (the likes of Pamela Andersen to actually entertaining the troops in Vietnam (e.g., in Bob Hope's more racy shows), nothing could be less tasteful and more tacky than the contradictive showing of more flesh in a time where what is sexually and politically incorrect is completely unacceptable—yet leally censored—for a more prudish, sexually repressed American society in the act of resurresting a new Victorian Age. Such sexist behavior, politically incorrect or not (officially or reflecting the common concensus), for "wartime" purposes or not, is demaning and embarrassing, yet necessary for such a society built upon lying smoke and mirrors. Such male chauvinism—all for the cause of war morale—is insensitive and downright sexist. It is precisily due to such outrageous views that the world sees the US as an exploitive source. ...Second World War Mustang B-1 7 with politically incorrect pin-up. Rockets fired into today's conflict zones must be "appropriate" and not offend, the US navy has decreed. Both the garage workshop and the office were explored and items of equipment noted, including the 'pin-up' calendar on the office notice board. It is not always easy to explain political correctness to children and keep your host happy at the same time! Author Martin L. Gross, in his article on sexual harassment, notes the irony of harsh workplace sexual harassment laws ina culture that is otherwise satured with such imagery: In sexual harassment, it has ruled that a woman can sue if the work environment is "hostile" because of pin-up pictures, a Puritan concept in a sex-drenched society (Gross, 1997, n.p.). While Gross's article is actually a critique on what he terms "political correctness", it reiterates an important question: i.e., how are pin-ups in the workplace different to the content of billboards? References

--Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The images seem to be (at best) only tangentially related to the article subject. I would support their removal. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

First, none of the above sources are even ON the subject of P.C., but only passively reference it in the course of the authors pejoratively editorializing about what IS their primary subject, so if anything they prove the opposite of whatever MM&M thinks they do. In any case, it would be O.R. to cite them as evidence of P.C. usage any ANY sense short of additional secondary sources characterizing them as such. I rarely ever edit or comment on Wili & prefer just watching controversial articles evolve from the Peanut Gallery, but in all the years of doing so, I've rarely witnessed an editor as inexhaustibly dogged as MM&M at pushing his partisan P.O.V. on an article. The tasks such skills could accomplish are unlimited should he one day ever apply them to viably constructive endeavors. 166.172.59.252 (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Their main subject is pin-up, which is our main subject in this talk section. And you're the same Kansas AT&T Wireless IP who voted TWICE above. And I think you have an actual, regular account but when you need to do dirty work like voting additional times or attacking people personally you can't use your main account. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on compromise on primarily pejorative

A number of comments in the above RfC and at the ANI criticise the article editors for 'quibbling' over one word, why not compromise?

The lead is required to be an accurate summary of the article, which is required to be an accurate summary of reliable 2ndary sources studying the term, (rather than sources simply using the term). Most of those studies focus on the period up to the late 1990s/early 2000s-ish, the period when the term 'PC' was most used and 'hottest'. They are all fairly unambiguous that the term was at that time critical/dismissive/derogatory, had earlier been very occasionally ironically critical and even earlier and very, very marginally 'literal'. It is probably because of that period's use that most of us are aware of the term at all.

It was me who initially inserted the precursor to 'primarily' (ordinarily, 'mainly' or 'most commonly', as I recall). No one at the ANI, nor in the RfC, nor the 'ocassional editors' to the page, has so far pointed to any reliable 2ndary sources, which document any significant non-pejorative use, though most of us are aware anecdotally of other uses, particularly in private contexts. I believe a compromise is possible which avoids OR by placing the derogatory use in historical perspective within the lead and avoiding any 2016 definition until/unless 2ndary sources document such use (ie avoiding the present tense). However compromises 'plucked from the air', based not on the article itself, nor on RS are not the answer IMO. 'Often pejorative' implies that there are a significant number of uses, which are not critical. That could be true, especially in private use, but those uses are not in the lead, nor the article, because they are simply not described in good 2ary sources.

I am making the 'historical' suggestion regardless of the outcome of the RfC, since I believe the term is largely 'burnt out' and an historical approach is more appropriate as well as resolving a present problem.

I was, and remain, unconditionally opposed to changing 'primarily/mainly/ordinarily' to 'often' or 'sometimes' etc., for reasons laid out above. However I have started this section in the hope of finding some MEANINGFUL way out of the impasse, either based on my own suggestion or some other. Suggestions welcome. Pincrete (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• There are quite the large number of sources from that period presented which aren't dismissive. In fact the dismissive seem to be in the minority ever after the very early 90s. If you look at the above RfC, countless sources have been given. You also seemed to offer no compromise here. And as a reminder, "often" is a compromise. It went from "pejorative not even mentioned" to "generally pejorative" to "often pejorative". My trajectory towards compromise has taken 2 steps. Meanwhile your trajectory has been ... "primarily". That's it. Currently 7 people have voted for "often". It's time to compromise. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Could we possibly use this section for its intended purpose, which is to discuss an 'historical' approach and to invite new suggestions. Pincrete (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You mean you want to lead to only be about the historic usage of the term? Not current day? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Until such time as 2ndary sourced studies of the term, or the politics, or similar analyses appear, probably yes. But that's not the purpose of the suggestion, which is to avoid subjective analyses based on primary sources and anecdotal evidence. WP takes the same approach to any term with strong historical links. This example may be 'loaded', but this takes precedence, regardless of how many examples can be found of the two words being used innocuously since. … … btw, I don't personally care a fig whether 'pejorative' is used at all, I think it would be much more informative to say succintly WHO was criticising WHAT and WHY (their objections to the changes). Also at the moment it is nowhere mentioned that gender, race and, to a lesser extent, disability issues were prominent in these disputed changes. Pincrete (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

In that case the lead should state "was", not "is". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If it is stated clearly the context in which the term was being used, everything could be past tense. By context, I mean something like 'came to prominence/was widely used by critics to criticise/describe/characterise'. Then the 'what', which is mainly language and curriculum changes in higher education in the US, mainly local Govt. and public bodies in the UK, in both cases mainly related to gender and race issues/policies/language. Critics objected to these changes for a host of reasons, which could be stated succintly. At the moment they are not stated anywhere. Pincrete (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible solution?

Okay, could moving the article to "Political correctness (pejorative usage)" be a possible solution? I mean, if the article is about that particular usage, then we don't really need to worry about the fact it's also commonly used sincerely and with its dictionary meaning. valereee (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that would run afoul of both WP:NOTDICT and WP:POVFORK problems. It's not WP's purpose to have separate articles on various different dictionarian approaches to a word's usage.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Another idea

How about just stating the facts?

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society. {dictionary refs} It is used almost exlusively in the media as a pejorative term implying that these policies are excessive. {media refs}

This is not a POV fork but a description of how the differenet ways term is actually defined and used in different contexts. It is not up to us at WP to decide which context and meaning is 'the right one'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we are talking the same language here, even if expressing it differently. I agree with SMcCandlish ☺'s comments above and also think that the 'renaming' option above is just 'shifting the problem'. valereee had another idea on her talk page, which she expressed in terms of 'described as', I don't think that entirely works, because everything on WP is only 'described as', however the spirit of her suggestion and the spirit of Martin Hogbin's, does work if we record therafter when used, by whom, against whom, in what context (educational reforms (US), local govt etc policies (UK), in both cases notably about gender/race etc.), ie we are recording how used in specific contexts, in historical order, including possibly modern more neutral use (if sourcable), without ever saying 'it is', 'it means'. Martin's specific 'media' sentence wouldn't work IMO, but is a basis for improvement, eg 'The term has been used extensively (in named contexts? in public debates relating mainly to gender and racial equality issues?)as a pejorative term implying that these policies are excessive. Pincrete (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Why wouldn't his media sentence work? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Would this work: Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society. {dictionary refs} When used by political commenters, it is used almost exclusively as a pejorative term implying that these policies are excessive. {media refs}

The reason I like this better is that 'it is used almost exclusively in the media' sounds like it's only use is in the media. Flipping the order clarifies. I'm not married to 'political commenters' rather than 'the media' but I think it's both broader and more specific, if that makes sense. Broader in that it's not ONLY used in the media, and more specific in that when it is used pejoratively, it's typically being used by people commenting on politics. valereee (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Or this?

'Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society. {dictionary refs} It is used often/generally/[or maybe no qualifier] in the media {media refs} and [other contexts] {[other context] refs} as a pejorative term implying that these policies are excessive. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Quibbles, but the term WAS used extensively WITHIN academia in the US prior to 'going public' (for the same purpose and meaning ... criticising educational reforms). I suggest keeping that sentence very brief (It is often used as a pejorative term implying that the policies are excessive?) and moving the 'meat' till after:- The term had only scattered usage before the 1990s, usually as an ironic self-description, but entered more mainstream usage etc. The etc. meaning who/how/about what.

I don't know how this can be said, but it is the thinking/mindset behind the policies which are characterised as 'PC', rather than the policies themselves.Pincrete (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC) ... ps might identifying the 'main issues' (gender, race, sexual orientation, disability), which have been at the centre of 'PC' fit in after dictionary refs, nowhere at present does the article clearly identify this basic fact. Pincrete (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be in danger of reigniting the old argument about whether it is pejoritave or not. I propose to avoid this argument by missing out the word 'pejorative' in the first sentence then immidiately after giving contexts in which it is/was used pejorativly. So would it not be better to say:

'Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society. {dictionary refs} It was (first) used pejoratively within US acedemia in 19XX as a term implying that these policies are excessive and is still used often/generally/[or maybe no qualifier] in the media {media refs} and [other contexts] {[other context] refs} with that meaning.

This is surely strictly factual, easy to verify, and does not need an argument about whethet it 'really is' pejorative or not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I like the format, 'first used' would have to be 'notably used/widely used' (since first recorded use is 179X and article records 4 or 5 distinct uses 193X-198X, some of which are pejorative) or 'entered mainstream use following' (it went from academia into 'popular use' over about 5 years '87-ish to '92-ish). 19XX would need to be 'during the (late) 1980's'.Pincrete (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• But "used almost exclusively" is an an even more PoV / OR statement than "predominantly"; while the RfC above has not closed, I'd bet good money it will close in favor of more moderate language like "often". That should be sufficient. It's not WP's job to serve as a prescriptive dictionary and style guide combined (a usage dictionary). Media refs demonstrating pejorative usage are examples of usage, not references about the usage; using them to try to prove a point is patent WP:OR; it's a personal WP:AEIS novel analysis and interpretation based on hand-picked sources forming a corpus of data from which a WP editor is trying to tease a conclusion about usage. That a canonical example of OR. The sources on usage are dictionaries, linguistics journals, political science texts, and other off-WP commentators and analyzers of the usage as its own subject, not casual users of the phrase. Ten seconds on Google [1] shows that the term survives in its original meaning, of limiting and self-limiting public discourse for what we would now call memetic or messaging strategy, side by side with multiple distinct pejorative uses (summarizable as "pseudo-liberal hostility to free speech" and "propagandizing by left-wing political interests against messaging they claim is offensive". It's very clear that the "average American" in everyday speech, and thus the average American journalist, probably means one of these pejorative senses. But so what? It's actually a term of art in political science. You're treating low-end news sources as if they're the only sources that are reliable, when they're actually the least reliable in this context. Within my own lifetime, most of the same news sources refered to tsunamis as "tidal waves", and had to be browbeaten by generations of climatologists, geophysicists, etc., into dropping that misnomer (which they still use metaphorically, e.g. a "tidal wave of support for the candidate"). Just because it showed up in a newspaper doesn't make it good English. Newsprint is written with the primary goal of expediency in mind, and the second one of exicting prose that gets people to buy newspapers. Accuracy (of anything but direct quotations), much less semantic fine points, are nowhere near the top of the list of journalistic priorities.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish ☺, I don't understand your main point, 'used almost exclusively' is not being pursued. What Martin Hogbin has suggested, which is a starting point, is mainly HIGHLY sourceable both from academic studies and from legit press (for example the orig NYT articles describing the education 'fracas', which is widely quoted in most studies). I took his (media refs) to be shorthand, not to be 'low-end sources'. I do know the main sources used fairly well after 9 months here and valeree was here last summer and knows some of the problems.

I prefer to wait for a ruling on the RfC, the whole process was so flawed that one may never come, but this is an alternative approach addressing long-term objections raised at the RfC, objections raised at the previous RfC on a similar subject and objections raised by drop-ins. My aim is to make the article clearer and more informative about how used, whilst avoiding a monolithic 'IS'. You don't think it worthy of attention, that the lead (and article body I think), expends 100s of words without ever mentioning that 'PC' is some-what connected with gender and race issues? If there are other uses in science/art insert them into the body of the article and/or propose addition in the lead. Pincrete (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC) … … ps, I do not, and have never cared two figs whether the article says 'pejorative' at all, so long as it makes clear HOW the term was used, in WHICH contexts, to make WHAT arguments, for/against WHAT. I'm talking about broad subject areas of course and using 2ndary sources studying use. Pincrete (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

My main point is that all those all-capped concerns of yours have to come from reliable sources that address those exact questions about this exact phrase; it cannot come from Wikipedians' attempts to analyze usage. Even if sources do address this, from what I can tell they only address these questions in particular contexts. Sources that discuss the usage of "politically correct" as a pejorative thrown at liberals and pseudo-liberals in everyday argument do not address at all the political science uses that take the term at face value as a communist and socialist messaging and conformity-enforcement mechanism. Sources that observe the pejorative use cannot erase those that observe the face-value use. They don't "outweigh" them. A million sources that use "orange" as a color term can never erase the fact that in botanical sources its a term for various cultivars of citrus. The usages are qualitatively different, operating in different kinds of writing. Show me a political science source that says that the term is no longer used in political science, that leftist philosophy has replaced it with something else.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course they do (have to come from RS etc), what makes you think I don't know that? I've been editing at WP for 4 years, I've had to politely cut out oodles of OR on this page alone. This is discussing a sketched format. We/I aren't even remotely interested in attributing textually the relative pejorative-ness(!) of each usage, (though only one usage is noted as explicitly pejorative, others are recorded as literal or ironic), that is part of what I wish to avoid, though normal WP weight applies of course.

I don't know about the uses outside the political/societal meaning, though you have mentioned them a number of times, these, I think have never been in the article. Either those get included (as suggested prev. in the body), or the article is more narrowly defined in the lead as referring to 'political' use. I don't know which is apt.

I'm sorry but I think you are treating us as if we are completely ignorant of P&G, before even a proposed text is formulated. Concrete suggestions to improve/add/cut are helpful, but reminding us that a blue parrot may not refer to a depressed bird isn't. Pincrete (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish and Pincrete, to clarify: There are oodles of sources talking about people using the term pejoratively. If we could assume that the number of sources talking about using the term pejoratively vs. number of sources talking about people using the term literally is an accurate reflection of actual usage, the word "primarily" would indeed be correct. This is the heart of the problem, IMO. It's not that no one is using the term nonpejoratively. It's that when they do, no one comments; it's not newsworthy when a word is used in its literal meaning. So without doing OR, how are we to express what we keep hearing from new-to-this-article editors who keep coming in here and saying, "Wait, what? That's not correct; I hear it used nonpejoratively often." My argument to Pincrete is that we need to do a reality check. His to me is that a reality check is OR. And there is where we get stuck. valereee (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

valereee, there seem to be a few crossed wires here. My argument is to comment explicitly on what we know from RS about use in various contexts (inc any sourceable 'neutral' use) and avoid any monolithic IS, which is what offends people and causes argument. No one disputes (and RS support) highly critical use 198X -??? and occasional similar current use, nor that the term 'went public' then, nor what the main disputes were (gender/race + a few other issues). No one gets offended at being told that the word 'Puritan' was in C16th very insultingly used by critics, that's informative, they might get offended if we said IS, when a more nuanced approach to 'is' is needed. The historical distance is much greater, but I think the analogy works.

I think that the heart of the problem is 'IS'. You are right that RS talk only about certain (mainly critical) use. My suggestion is to talk clearly about uses we know about, place them in historical context and avoid saying anything about things we don't know about from 'RS'. In short, to avoid 'IS' and leave the reader to decide. ... ps although yes, the avoidance of OR is a prerequisite for any text here if it is to get support. Pincrete (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you've lost me -- is IS an acronym or are you capitalizing for emphasis? My point was that we can't source neutral use because no one is commenting about those neutral uses. That is, for us to source those uses as evidence it's being used neutrally in itself constitutes original research. valereee (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

valereee, for emphasis. The suggestion wouldn't apply to what Martin called the 'dictionary ref-fed' opening, it might have been clearer, if I had given an example, something like: Dictionary-like opening as now. The term has (often?) been used pejoratively or ironically (in public debates/in the media/nothing?), both usages implying that the measures are excessive.. The term has been/is widely used in relation to gender and racial equality issues. Then 'The term had only scattered use etc. (as now)'

I've changed is to 'has been', I've added 'ironically', I've added the main 'issue' area (said nowhere in article at present, but highly sourcable and pretty basic info).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 February 2016‎ (UTC)

That could open a new dispute; hipsters' use of the word "ironic" to mean "humorous or sarcastic" is one of the most debated attempts to redefine a word in Modern English history. Anyway, I see what you are getting at, and something could emerge from this. The fault in Valeree's approach is in treating this like some kind of "source vote"; it doesn't matter how many individuals use "politically correct" in a snarky way, it's just a different sense. "Primarily" is misleading because it implies an across-the-board usage shift, when the actual usage shift has mostly just been in vernacular speech and low-end journalism. We could probably find a way to word this that accurately gets at the fact that day-to-day discourse and use in mainstream media is most often pejorative, without affecting the original meaning as a term of art (it may have affected the frequency with which that term of art is employed, however, in academic writing – citation needed). PS: I'm reminding the discussion-at-large that we need sources for things (because of the amount of OR that was engaged in, in previous rounds of discussion) not you personally. PPS: I, too, thought at first that you were referring to WP:IS. Most editors do ''is'', though {{em|is}} is a more accessible approach (it uses <em>...</em> markup for emphasis, which screen readers can detect). 20:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Various 'ironic' uses are covered in the article and are extensively sourced. My reasons for adding it were twofold, firstly simply because these uses are noted in the article, secondly because, while ironic use has (on talk) been argued as a sub-class of 'critical', I think most people distinguish the two. Irony runs the gamut from gentle self-mockery to heavy handed sarcasm, various degrees of that gamut are covered in the article. I'm not suggesting anything that I don't know (poss with mod.) to be fairly widely sourceable.

I'm not sure if I should say this, but actually quite a lot of present text has refs and text which may well be dislocated (caused by editors shifting text around furiously last year). Pincrete (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure who said this: "The fault in Valeree's approach is in treating this like some kind of "source vote";" -- what I'm saying is that we CANNOT treat it as a source vote. What I'm saying is that I agree most sources talk about its pejorative use but that fact doesn't mean it's the primary use. valereee (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it was SMcCandlish who said it, (I had to look in page history myself). On a prev. RfC, editors chipped in with various uses, I recognised some. My own experience is mainly of gentle ironic use. Trouble is we have to work within no WP:OR. My strategy is to be more specific about what we do know, (hence 'in public discourse/in public debates/ in the media/ in (specified) controversy areas), and say nothing about what we don't. I don't think there is much doubt that in the 'political arena', the term has been most often used pejoratively or ironically and it is those uses which are the subject of study. We can make it clearer that it is/was being used in that way, while saying nothing about any other way the term might be used that is not the subject of study. Pincrete (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the best way to do it is probably to summarize the history, briefly, in the lead -- we could easily compress the history of how it began as an ironic self-depreciation and was co-opted into a pejorative term in a sentence or two. Whitney and Wartella say that in early usage, For this group, the identification of anything as “politically correct” was part irony and part sorrow. They then trace the usage to the modern day, saying that "By the time Richard Bernstein, culture critic for the New York Times, writing in the October 28, 1990 Times, referred to a meeting of Left intellectuals at Berkeley, where PC is the agenda of the day, the term had taken on a much more ominious, derisive, and negative connotation" and that "Clearly, by 1990 PC was used by the media and commentators in newspapers and magazines to refer disparagingly to a host of campus attempts to deal with a wide range of issues..." We can cover this (since it's what we have sources for), describing ironic self-depreciation to the current usage in the media. I don't feel we can cover other usages without better sources analyzing them specifically (and they're not really reflected in the article, because, again, we lack sources backing them up) so the best lead based on the sources we have is probably, roughly, "ironic usage in the '80s, followed by pejorative usage in the media" or something along those lines. The issue I think we're running into is that the sources that go into depth on its history all say "it's now used pejoratively by the media", but that some people are reading that and saying "but I've heard my friends use it seriously or ironically!" By making it clear that we're talking about the media, we avoid the implication that it is always pejorative elsewhere without making implicit statements about its usage based on WP:OR -- in other words, the issue shouldn't be "how frequently is it used pejoratively?" but "where do the sources say it is used pejoratively?" --Aquillion (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)