Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:33, 6 November 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Political correctness article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Freedom of speech This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

	Political correctness is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept March 8, 2004 Featured article review Demoted May 12, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted July 14, 2004 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Offensive or just too sensitive?". New Zealand Herald. October 29, 2005.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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: Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/Political correctness/archive2
• Archived discussion: Talk:Political correctness/Featured article removal candidates results

Removing political affiliations

User Pincrete suggested that we remove right-wing and left-wing from the article. Should this be done?

I say no, and I'll explain in a little a bit. But you can throw in your opinion while I gather up sources.

WP:RS states the most defining guideline opposing the removal of mentioned biases:

Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

WP:NPOV states: "controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." The political affiliations are in their way identification and explanation.

And WP:NPOV: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." is applied when proper sources are found. The task at hand is to thus find proper sources to describe Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly as right-wing commentators. If concensus is found, I'll start adding such sources to the article.

On WP:RS it is stated that "The reliability of a source depends on context." Political affiliation adds to the context. It's not reliable if you leave out the context from plain view.

WP:RS also states "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability." Without the political affiliation of the author taken into question, the quotes become unreliable.

In WP:IS Misplaced Pages is defined as "an encyclopaedia which summarises viewpoints rather than a repository for viewpoints."

At WP:V, questionable sources are brought up. In there is especially mentioned sources that "have an apparent conflict of interest". Red flags should be brought up when "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest." In the case at hand the two commentators are used to reflect the American public's opinion at the time of the Dixie Chicks, even though their political affiliation is most related to the matter at hand. Leaving out the political affiliation, one gets the image that commentators all around were calling the Dixie Chicks treasonous. Even recognizable commentator names will no longer be recognizable by most in 10 years, which isn't that far way. Do you remember any similar commentators from before? I sure don't.

If we are to remove mentions to the right-wing, then the two comments by Will Hutton and Polly Toynbee should be removed entirely, because they're just about that. In addition, the two's comments are given undue weight due to their size in their article, in my opinion; like stated in WP:NPOV: "The internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight. " Referring to the earlier WP:V, the two aren't talking about themselves: "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves." And that "They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." And in WP:NPOV, it is stated that "Avoid stating opinions as facts." even though the two journalists opinion was presented in factual fashion. Maybe the two's opinions should be moved to the bottoms as they are not even from the 90s, and WP:NPOV: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." On WP:RS it is encouraged not to use sources "which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."

I also found it odd that it was not applied to D'Souza in the header of the article. In WP:V, it is stated that "All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." You can't adhere this without applying it to D'Souza. In addition, the article has few mentions of the left if the two referring to the journalists are removed, yet many more referring to the right. Many of the "right" and "right-wing" words should be changed to something else to better reflect neutrality. But I am not pro this, as removing all such mentions would neutralize the article entirely.

In my suggestion we should apply the WP:NPOV statement "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." in this article rather than removing all mentions of political affiliation. I'll continue adding and editing this post. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, I have never suggested any such thing as you start this post with, so please don't invent things I haven't said. I and others have SAID, not suggested, that political affiliations should not be stated unless it is reliably sourced that those affiliations are relevant to the subject. We give the simplest, but most accurate and brief description of who someone is, we don't describe Toynbee as feminist, socialist, atheist, former political candidate etc., we don't mention d'Souza's national origins, his christianity, nor a host of other things about him that have no bearing on the subject. Almost no one in the article's politics are identified unless they are clearly relevant to describing who they are or what they are saying. I don't know d'Souza well (I'm UK), therefore I don't know if the description of him is accurate and balanced (and sourced). I do know that describing Hutton or Toynbee as 'left-wingers' ALONE, and describing the SDP as 'a left-wing party', is crude in the extreme (they are all left-wing to the same extent that 45% of populace are 'left-wing', 45% are 'right-wing', that isn't a very helpful or accurate descriptor).Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, sorry for misunderstanding you then, but that's what you seem to suggest once again with: "political affiliations should not be stated unless it is reliably sourced that those affiliations are relevant to the subject"; for this is a political article, aren't the political biases of commentators on the matter are very much related? Then why are you suggesting we remove all of them? And you say you give descriptions, but I believe before Will Hutton and Polly Toynbee had no descriptions? And you think one word more is too much information, when it's very much related to the matter at hand? And why bring up unrelated facts about D'Souza when it's mentioned that he's right-wing which is very much related? "Mentioning his national origins" sounds like a straw man. And I've provided 6 sources describing Polly and Will as left-wing journalists and authors, one of which is Will describing himself as left-wing. SDP isn't mentioned. Do you want me to edit in the sources for Ann Coutere and Bill O'Reilly? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't care either way about Coulter etc. It is fairly obvious from context that their criticisms came from a 'patriotic' base, I think it likely that, whilst conservative critics may have been more vocal at the time of the Iraq invasion, I doubt if these were the only critics. The sentence is anyway only 'setting the scene' for the response that 'there are also right-wing limits on what can be said'. This aspect, in fact the whole section, is mainly US I think, and I have no opinion or knowledge. We don't bother to identify the Australian Labor leader's political viewpoint because it is self-evident, as is Foucault's Marxism. What I am arguing against is needlessly characterising people, and doing so crudely. We don't describe d'Souza as a 'right-winger', we do briefly, and (I hope) accurately, and sourced say what his political position is, which in this instance is very relevant to the WHY he has been criticised by left-wing commentators (which is the whole sentence in the lead).

I don't think this article is very good, the only parts of it which I am responsible for are the opening sentence (which I tidied) and a few copy-edits later. Part of the difficulty is that PC (more so than other political terms), means whatever the user thinks it means, and is used to explain 100 different phenomena, 'lumping them together', as though they were the same thing, or part of the same agenda. I'm afraid it is simply a fact that it is very rare for the term to be used other than by critics (an example of positive use is in the first source of Doug Weller above, but even here 'PC' is being used 'in quotes') and because it is almost always NEW measures or policies that are being criticised, the critics are most commonly those who don't like change (ie social or political or educational conservatives). When was the last time you read an article, heard an interview, read a book that said "this is a wonderfully original and inventive, and politically correct idea/policy"? It doesn't happen, all the adjectives that normally accompany PC are critical or ironic.Pincrete (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't describe d'Souza as a 'right-winger'

What? But the article does so in the summarization bit at the beginning? And if you don't care about the Ann's and Bill O'Reilly's description, why would you then edit it? I don't understand the logic? Is it okay to change back or not if you don't care? And the Labour leader has his political party given, how much more political description can you get? And to be frank I have no idea who Foucault is or about his marxism as you put it. I don't think he's a very household name. Maybe he's more known in philosophy circles. I mostly know what you'd expect: the medieval and antique philosophers. But the point about Ann and O'Reilly being right-wing is that the section is called right-wing political correctness. If you leave out the right-wing and let it just be "some US commentators", it sounds like the political field doesn't matter even though it does in context. Without the right-wing bit the sentence is broken? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

But it doesn't say right-winger, it says 'conservative author Dinesh D'Souza used it to condemn what he saw as left-wing efforts to advance multiculturalism through language, affirmative action, opposition to hate speech, and changes to the content of school and university curriculums'. You yourself say right-left can mean many things, economic, social etc, In this context d'Souza was criticising social and educational trends, which he saw as 'left-wing inspired', he was defending more traditional values in opposition to those changes. a)that's a fairly good definition of 'conservative' b) all sources identify him as such. I have no idea what d'Souza's political affiliation IS. It is quite possible for someone to be economically very left-wing, but socially very traditionalist. In this context it is his social conservatism which is relevant, not who he votes for. The point I was making about the Labor leader, is that this is simply the most efficient way to describe WHO he is, his profession, and it simply isn't true that we characterise all the right-wingers, but not the left-wingers, which you claim.

It really wouldn't matter much whether Coulter etc. as individuals were right/left. The point being made by the paragraph is that there are other forms of 'social censorship', other than left-wing ones. But as I said I have little involvement with that part of the article, apart from having heavily edited overlong accounts of the Dixie Chicks and Freedom Fries incidents, both of which are fairly peripheral to the main use of the term PC. Pincrete (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Read just below that? And the point being made by the famous paragraph is right-wing cencorship, and it breaks the point of the sentence if one doesn't point out the affiliation of the commentators. So if it doesn't matter to you, can I edit it back? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The point is that we have multiple citations discussing d'Souza's positions (and the different ways similar actions are interpreted based on liberal vs. conservative political views.) The fact that he was writing from a conservative position is not normally something we would highlight, but in this case the fact that it's central to the article's coverage of his role in the controversy means we need to mention it; likewise, the paragraph on right-wing political correctness is specifically focused on sources talking about those political labels. The "left-wing" labels you want to add to the article aren't underlined as relevant in the same way; all you've managed to come up with are unrelated sources indicating that someone has called them left-wing at some point, which isn't sufficient to label them that everywhere they appear like this. And looking over the talk page, it doesn't seem like your arguments are convincing anyone else -- you appear to be the only editor here who supports the changes, while multiple people have objected. I mean, we can keep talking as long as you have new arguments, but at this point it feels like you're just saying the same things over and over and not convincing anyone; at a certain point, you have to accept that you're not convincing people and move on. --Aquillion (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

WOW. You kept all right-wing mentions but removed the left-wing ones. You removed 5 academic (and one self-given by the person himself) sources for the left-wing ones and left the right-wing ones without sources but a journalist's blog. There's obviously no concensus for this because you even undid Pincrete's removal of the ring-wing mention. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we keep all mentions from all sides. If Pincrete agrees, I can find proper sources for Ann and Bill being right-wing. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted back to the last stable version, which a reasonable thing to do when there's a dispute and no clear consensus. The sources you've provided don't support your assertion that the politics of the people in question are directly relevant to the topic at hand; otherwise, you could use those sources (which only show that the descriptor is accurate, not that it's relevant) to attach their identity as a disclaimer to everything they say everywhere. Normally, we only attach political descriptors like that when the person's politics is the crux of the topic -- this is the case in the 'right wing ideology' section or for discussion of d'Souza, but it isn't the case for the descriptors you keep adding. And I remain totally opposed to labeling Hutton or Toynbee; you have completely failed to provide any justification whatsoever for highlighting their politics. We could discuss removing some of the others where they are less relevant, but I think it's clear that the labels for Hutton or Toynbee have been clearly rejected -- you remain the only one who has ever indicated any support whatsoever for them. --Aquillion (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, you returned bits not even removed by me. You also didn't revert to anything but you added things that weren't there originally. Also, why does the article have 17 mentions of the right side of politics if the sides of the politics have nothing to do with this political article? And how in the world is ideology central to D'Souza but not to people criticizing not him but anyone who uses the term political correctness? How in the world do you find one just but not the other? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I support Aquilions revert - the sources were only there to support the left wing label, which there's no consensus to include. So really they only thing worth debating here is if Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly should be described as right wing. Personally I think they should be, although maybe we could entertain "conservative" as a possible compromise? Def don't support "keeping all labels" - for reasons we've discussed ad nauseum. Fyddlestix (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not the slightest bit surprising the gang of three support removal of any bias mentioned of left-wing sources, but want to keep any bias mentioned of right-wingers. I've already shown how the creator of Congratulations and Extremely biased/one-sided agree with me, only they're lone editors who get attacked instantly by Aquillion and Pincrete when they wanted to change the 1990s section. Refer to Misplaced Pages guideline mentioned earlier: --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

Your quote says 'should consider', it does not sat 'should include'. We don't as you repeatedly have said identify every right-winger. IF the description of d'Souza was simply 'right-winger', I might agree with you, but it isn't. IF - in your opinion - the description of d'Souza is crude, biased or not supported by sources, suggest a better, but working through the article attaching political labels to everyone is not an answer. Especially since the quote from Toynbee itself strongly implies that she is clearly NOT a right-winger, just as the Foucault quote makes it obvious he is Marxist.

I have already said that I am neutral about ex/including the descriptions of Coulter etc. and happy for those who know the US better to decide the right descriptors. Pincrete (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't think "should consider" is enough? And yes, you do identify multiple people as right-wingers and refer to the right 17 times in the article. And the descriptions of Polly and Hutton aren't just their political affiliations, but their political affiliation plus their profession. Before I even edited their professions weren't even mentioned. They weren't there originally. Yet you're completely fine with keeping added "labeling" like that — because it doesn't point out their bias. And labeling people in a political article is an answer, like shown by the Misplaced Pages guideline. You don't get to make the rules, Misplaced Pages does. And your point about Toynbee's quote implying her affiliation falls moot because so would the the right-wingers, yet they are still mentioned to be right-wingers. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The important thing is that labeling be clearly relevant to why we're quoting them. Their careers (and, I just realized, their nationality, since they're being quoted in the context of the part of the section that focuses on the use of the term in Britain) are important because they establish their expertise. Their politics are something that most of the people here, at least, don't feel is as important, at least not to the point of highlighting it like that -- I suspect that the issue might be that you attach more weight and significance to things like "center-left" as labels. --Aquillion (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I just counted the number of times 'the right' or 'right-wing' are used, about 5 were within quotes and the total I made 16 (ignoring headings and 'the rights' and other meanings), 'the left/left wing' are used about 14 times, 'liberal' and 'conservative' are both used about the same number of times as each other (same criteria in every case, ignore 'liberal' meaning 'generous'). Very few individuals are identified by their political position, the usages are generally 'left wing/right wing critics said etc.' There simply is no significant imbalance in identifying groups or individuals, especially as this article is mainly about a term used by conservatives to criticise mainly left/liberal initiatives. D'Souza is characterised as 'conservative' and it would make nonsense of the sentence to NOT identify that he was criticising what he saw as liberal/left-wing initiatives from a conservative viewpoint.

If you found 100 sources that said d'Souza was Christian or of Indian ancestry, we would be opposed to including the info, because it would be unnecessary characterisation. MOST of the sources on Toynbee/Hutton, give a more nuanced description than 'left-winger' anyway, but, regardless, the info is unnecessary. Why not characterise Toynbee as 'feminist' (at least as relevant to a discussion on PC?), no bad idea, it isn't useful or necessary to understanding her quote. What about atheist? Equally bad idea. As Aquillion says you simply seem to want to attach labels to people, that don't in any way aid understanding, and which anyway aren't very accurately informative. Pincrete (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll change from left-wing to left-affiliated. In addition, you are somehow completely distorting the amount of lefts and rights in the article. The article as per now has 11 lefts counted with CTRL+F (two will be added), and only two mentions of the left-wing. 3 of the mentions are in the origin paragraph where it's stated they began its use as part of the New Left. The article still has 17 mentions of the right of which 13 are of the right-wing with and without the dash. Yes, section titles are obviously to be counted. Also, liberal is used similarly 11 times where as conservative is used whopping 23 times. Those are "about the same" to you? It's so painfully obvious that this article was written and dictated according to the bias of one side. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is about a term used predominantly by social or political conservatives, for which one shorthand term is 'the right', 4 or 5 instances of 'the right' are within quotes. It might be meaningful to find a quote from d'S, or some other critic of PC, in which they use the term PC to criticise 'the left' as an exemplar of its use, but simply attaching labels to people for no reason is pointless.

btw, you accuse Aquillion and I of 'ganging up' on FriendlyFred, Fred's main point was that some aspects of 'PC' were positive, that (for example), changing negatively characterising terms for groups of people to more neutral terms was a good thing. Why was our article so negative, he wanted to know. Because for every instance of PC being used partly positively, there are innumerable using the term critically. Even the example he gave was mainly saying that the term had been 'hi-jacked' by critics. He nowhere says that the article is excessively pro-left or anti-right. Pincrete (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"The article is about a term used predominantly by social or political conservatives"; so the article should be only used to attack anyone who uses the term, without even noting the attacks come from the other major political camp and not some mysterious "majority" of academics like you keep claiming without proving or sourcing your claim in any way? Wow, your logic is impeccable. Or might you simply be utterly biased and corrupt? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• 'Affiliated' doesn't solve the underlying objections above, no. It's even worse, because it implies a tighter degree of rigid affiliation to some party or ideal that isn't really clear even from your sources. As far as your term-counting goes, it's important to remember that we're not supposed to force an artificial balance on an article; we cover things according to their weight in high-quality mainstream sources, academic literature and so on. The academic sources that talk about the origin and usage of this term generally focus more on its origins among conservatives; and sources among talking-heads and the like who use it tend to overwhelmingly be conservatives, so it's hardly a surprise that the term would come up so much. Beyond that, I think it would be easier to discuss this if you would stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you here of acting out of ideological bias. Obviously we disagree on the subject, the sources, and how to present them most accurately, but you have to assume good faith that the differences represent honest disagreement, or we're never going to get anywhere. --Aquillion (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, the article has plenty of mentions of right-wing affiliation, and I believe the "wing" addition is much worse. Affiliated is much kinder and solves your objections. And the only people opposing me are the two who pretty much control the article to fit their bias, easily proven by the talk page where many have raised their voices yet you shoot them down in a group, because groups beat loners. Your editing history proves you pretty much only edit political articles and to a left bias, never even to a neutral bias. Fyddle is the same but I believe he stumbled here on a chance and is possibly unrelated to you two friends. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, though, I don't see how the number of mentions of 'right-wing' or 'left-wing' is meaningful -- if anything, the large number of usages of 'right-wing' would indicate that the article spends a lot of time quoting right-wing voices and citing what they say; you've only identified two left-wing voices quoted at any length. Which, again, isn't something I think is really a problem, since my feeling is that among "talking heads" and the like, right-wing / conservative voices use the term a lot more often. Anyway, I've tried to assay a compromise by folding these two quotes into the paragraph above them about liberal responses (which is, in retrospect, probably what they were originally there for.) I still don't think that your phrasing on their politics is appropriate, but folding them into that clearly illustrates at least the general perspective they're being quoted here to illustrate, which is what matters, more than what people have said about them in other contexts. --Aquillion (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't think they're meaningful? Wow. And the article spends a lot of time quoting left-wing voices but doesn't atribute them to a left affiliation because you keep removing any such mentions. You also undid two editors' edits for no reason; changing back. You ought to be banned from editing this article. At least Pincrete isn't absolutely nuts. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I still don't see the meaning of counting the number of usages; it's not a metric that it makes sense to try and deliberately balance. We use the term "right-wing" and the like in the article many times because the sources specifically discuss that as part of the term's history; we don't, notice, describe eg. most of the people in the Education section as right-wing, even though most people would classify them that way, because in that case that's not the aspect of them that the sources focus on. I did just rearrange the section you're talking about here to place them under the list of examples of left-wing comments; but I don't feel that your "left-affiliated" wording is appropriate for the reasons I outlined above. Also, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF; I know this article is on a hot-button subject, but it's not appropriate to call other editors 'nuts' or make sweeping claims of bias just because we disagree. --Aquillion (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You lied about the numbers, and now you don't think they don't mean anything. You provide no sources for right-wing, I provide 6 for left-wing and of one which is is the person calling himself left-wing. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

At least Pincrete isn't absolutely nuts. ? Damned by faint praise?

Mr. Magoo, I challenge you to write a meaningful brief summary of d'Souza's book (which is creditted with popularising the term PC in the US), WITHOUT mentioning that he was criticising trends in society and education, that he saw as being part of a left/liberal orthodoxy, and his opposition to those trends was rooted in more traditional, socially conservative, values. This is not done to 'label' or demonise him, it is simply a description of his book. A book by anyone MIGHT similarly need to be described such that the purpose and content of the book was clear. Pincrete (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking for and why? I also don't think he mentions the left even once. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

He mentions it several times, accusing someone of being a 'mouthpiece for left-wing ideas', accusing someone else of supporting 'left-wing' causes, and so on. He uses 'liberal' far more often (because it's a more common term in the US), but he does make it clear that he's targeting what he sees as a left-wing bias in academia. But beyond that, numerous reliable sources have said that D'Souza published the book for a right-wing think tank, as part of a larger push by numerous right-wing think tanks to advance that particular perspective. This is central to the term's history; numerous sources document it, and as far as I can tell no reliable sources dispute it. So we do have to cover it somehow. --Aquillion (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Amongst 319 pages there are 9 lefts of the political kind, and 10 regular lefts where someone leaves something. The first one you mentioned is of a peasant Latin-American, where the person is criticizing Western society. Secondly, 6 out of the political lefts are quotes of someone else. Of the remaining three, the first is of the aforementioned peasant. Second is Dinesh listing the biases of different academics, and of which the left-one is quoted to be supporting "Go Left!". Third is the newspaper The Nation, which is stated to be left-wing yet putting to question Paul de Man's collaboration. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Re:What exactly are you asking for and why?, what I am asking for is how we should describe the book by D'Souza (which is credited in a number of sources with popularising the term PC and to some extent defining its usage, particularly in US). "D'Souza criticised some trends in education and society"? Not very informative, what trends and why? Were they not radical enough for him? Why did he think these trends were occurring? Please write a short meaningful, informative, single sentence summary of the ideas in his book (supported by sources) and of the criticisms he was making/solutions he was advocating, suitable for a lead. By your own rules, the sentence may not contain the words 'conservative', 'liberal', or any kind of wing. Unless you can do that, you are just 'carping for carping's sake', complaining about our description, but unable to suggest anything better. Pincrete (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

But those were your own rules? And it was about right and left and not about conservative/liberal? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to the description of d'Souza as 'conservative author', I presume you have therefore now dropped your opposition. I don't object to the description of the 'broad sweep' of the book. You have just replaced that description with your own interpretation of the book, WP:OR, supported by the primary source (the book itself). I have raised the question below as to whether the description 'Right-wing libertarian' is appropriate for d'Souza. The term is mainly a US one, and I am unsure whether it is apt in his case, or supported by sources. Pincrete (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I never talked about the conservative term? What has that got to do with anything? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually you did, on 04:53, 9 October 2015 and 23:48, 30 September 2015 (when you complained about 'conservative' being used more often than 'liberal'), though you do mostly refer to left/right. I'm ignoring you quoting. Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In the first case I don't mention either word, and in the second it's my very first post on the talk page where I mention it alongside right-wing — and mostly because other sections like "Extremely biased/one-sided" had used that term more. Then from thereon I use the term right-wing about a hundred times on the talk page. So, I once mentioned conservative (and never liberal). And you think it's conservative I've been talking about? You must be reading Dinesh's book with the same glasses. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Right-wing libertarians?

Although this is related to the previous discussion, I thought it better to ask this question here. In the lead sentence 'conservatives and right-wing libertarians such as D'Souza, pushed the term … as part of a broader culture war against liberalism.' is the meaning 'conservatives such as D'Souza, and right-wing libertarians, pushed the term … as part of a broader culture war against liberalism'? ie is D'Souza a 'right-wing libertarian' in this context? Conservative he certainly is. I don't know him well, but it isn't a description that leaps out as appropriate for his views here.

Second small point, but in UK English, that would probably be 'cultural war', I don't know about US usage.Pincrete (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: culture war, see Culture War - it has specific meaning in an American context. I'll have to do some research on D'Souza before I can say for sure how best to describe him. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two possible links Libertarian conservatism, which relates equally to economic and social principles, and Libertarianism, I won't add either until the sentence's meaning is clear. I should have checked Culture War, which is less used I think in UK, though the phenomenon is familiar. Pincrete (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

IF there is any doubt about the aptness of the term for d'Souza, might I suggest 'conservatives such as D'Souza, and right-wing libertarians, pushed the term … as part of a broader culture war against liberalism'? . D'Souza is already mentioned in the previous sentence as the populariser of the term and his ideas are discussed in the body of the article. Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead changes!

A WP:LEAD has to reflect the content of the article; the recent rewrite generally didn't do that (cutting out things like the opposition to affirmative action, and adding a bunch of stuff that isn't in the article or, I think, even in its sources.) And some parts were awkwardly worded; I'm not entirely sure what "which prohibit such oppositions" or "...although those who use the term claim that the requirement of being 'politically correct' is used to divert attention from their actual arguments" means, but they don't seem to be reflected in the article or its sources, either. --Aquillion (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of these changes MIGHT be beneficial IF they are in the sources, however others I doubt very much if they are in the sources and are unclear eg "although those who use the term claim that the requirement of being "politically correct" is used to divert attention from their actual arguments." … … since it is fairly well established that 'those who use the term' are predominantly the critics themselves. Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. The article has bunch of stuff not properly sourced already and some silly opinions from journalists, all of which you have no issues with because they add to the hate of the term. The edits made the article more neutral and less obviously critical of the term. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality is about reflecting the sources; if there are parts you feel are improperly sourced, go ahead and point them out, but we have to follow what reliable sources say, not your personal opinion on what's more neutral. My reading of the changes are that they amounted to one editor's personal opinions, without any sources to back them up. --Aquillion (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have said several times, IF there is a suitable quote from d'Souza (or someone else), characterising what he/they say PC is, that might add to the article, but simply adding personal opinions (even worse, interspersing them in cited sentences, thus falsely implying that they are the view of the source). Is NOT acceptable. Pincrete (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked for a source that specifically lines D'Souza as right-wing but haven't received one. The one used for Coulter and O'Reilly is some journalist's blog. I provided multiple academic sources for affiliations of Toynbee and Hutton, one of which is Hutton calling himself left-wing. The other editor edited fairly agreeable things to make the article also better describe D'Souza's view rather than carry a straw man claim that he's pro hate speech. Your edits are obviously not about the sources but about your bias. Reverted back. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

D'Souza is described as a conservative in every source we use for him in this article. See eg. Wilson or Whitney and Wartella; it's something that is constantly highlighted in relation to Illiberal Education. Likewise, the fact that D'Souza opposed affirmative action is well-attested in those sources, not to mention his own book -- there's hardly anything controversial about saying that; he's one of the most famous opponents of affirmative action alive. Even if you object to that, that, you should focus on that aspect, not on other stuff. Regarding hate speech, I think you're misreading what it says. It says D'Souza accused his opponents of trying to advance multiculturalism through language, affirmative action, and opposition to hate speech; that is, it says that he accused them of using those as tools to advance multiculturalism. This is what the sources say, and it's what the article says. It doesn't accuse him of promoting hate speech. Beyond that, the other changes are still unsourced; we can argue back and forth about who has more bias all we want, but we need sources. The sources that we have don't support the altered lead, nor does it reflect what the rest of the article says. --Aquillion (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

But not right-wing, unlike my sources which specify Toynbee and Hutton as left-wing — and again, one of which is Hutton calling himself left-wing. And how in the world is affirmative action of all the things related? And how one can misread a direct statement of him opposing "opposition of hate speech", when his point is opposing overdone opposition of hate speech and not opposition of hate speech altogether? It's a clear straw man used to discredit him. Again, you have no sources for any of this except your few where he's described as conservative. Wow, that proves everything. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

He's described as both a conservative and as part of a larger group of voices from right-wing think tanks weighing in on this subject (he's specifically highlighted as an example of that in Schultz, which traces his political history, his think tank, and the funding for his book in detail.) And, again, that's what the sources say, and more importantly it's what the article says -- leads have to reflect the article. I still think you're misreading the section in question, in particular: It says that D'Souza accused his opponents of trying to advance multiculturalism through language, affirmative action, and opposition to hate speech -- that is, he says that opposition to hate speech is just a tactic people use to advance multiculturalism. (My understanding is that he doesn't believe the term itself is meaningful.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, you lie. It's described as a conservative think-thank by Schultz, not right-wing. You also just repeated yourself and did nothing to note my point about how "how one can misread a direct statement of him opposing "opposition of hate speech", when his point is opposing overdone opposition of hate speech and not opposition of hate speech altogether? It's a clear straw man used to discredit him." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

In the lead: "Public perceptions of "political correctness" obscured connections between scholars attacking "p.c." and right-wing foundations, think-tanks and government officials." It's reasonable to parse the one foundation they go into further down as being an example of this. But, again, if your argument is that it should say "conservative" where it says "right-wing", suggest that change, don't use it as an argument for more sweeping changes to the entire article! That's a one-word difference (though I think the sources support both.) And I still think you're misreading that section; It says he "used it to condemn what he saw as left-wing efforts to advance multiculturalism through..." What the section says is that (according to his argument) these things are tactics people use to advance multiculturalism, which he views as an evil thing; all sources (including his own book!) make it explicit that he is opposed to multiculturalism as a concept, specifically. The focus is not on "efforts to silence opposition to multiculturalism"; the focus is on efforts to advance multiculturalism, which d'Souza unequivocally opposes. That said, I'm not sure he actually talked about hate speech in the book himself, so the simplest solution might be to remove that item from the list. --Aquillion (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The book mentions over a dozen different think-thanks and it especially lines D'Souza's as simply "conservative." And that mention's not "in the lead" but on page 7 and there's a description of conservative ideological atmosphere think-thanks before that. D'Souza's think-thank is mentioned once as a sidenote, way further, on page 33. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, now you removed the mention of speech entirely, instead of changing it. That completely ruins the point for all. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and why do you mention multiculturalism as part of Dinesh's book so much? He does use the term sporadically, but he mostly talks about "victim's revolution" — as in victimization. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the earlier straw man description of his view to that of just the "victim's revolution," a term which in its entirety is mentioned in his book a whopping 28 times — where as multiculturalism is mentioned 9 times and mostly as a sidenote. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

We have numerous secondary sources that highlight opposition to multiculturalism as the core of d'Souza's argument (and which generally support the summary in the lead.) Likewise, the fact that his argument was focused on what he saw as efforts to advance it through changes to school and university curriculums are well-sourced and covered extensively in the article. I'm just honestly confused that of all the parts of the article, this is the one you've chosen to object to; the fact that d'Souza is a fervent opponent of multiculturalism and that he was condemning it in his book just isn't remotely controversial. His own website's summary of the book calls the enemy he is writing "multicultural activism" -- he was to a great extent one of the people who coined the term 'multiculturalism' in its modern usage as a political epithet. Replacing all this with your own personal analysis based on word searches is original research. Beyond one quote in the right-wing section, the article doesn't currently talk about censorship, criticism, or the other stuff you replaced it with in the lead; maybe we can cover those, but we need sourced sections in the main article -- you can't just drop it in the lead with no sourcing; that violates the purpose of the lead, which is to summarize the article. Some of your additions are probably supportable, but if they are, then we need more sources on those aspects specifically so we can go into depth on them in the article; and if you want to change how we cover d'Souza's book, I suggest finding good secondary sources analyzing it to place alongside the sources already there. --Aquillion (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the sources being used and only one of them even mentions multiculturalism together with Dinesh. Most mentions simply talk about his complaints of censorship. One even mentions how he avoided the label of conservative at the time.

But it was Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education that brought the PC backlash to its peak. By having his book excerpted in the Atlantic Monthly, a liberal-moderate magazine, D'Souza consciously avoided the label of "conservative" writer. D'Souza even erased his right-wing past, omitting mention of his first book - a fawning biography of Jerry Falwell - and claiming that he was an editor at the notorious Darthmouth Review "long before the newspaper's most notorious showdowns."

Which goes against your common titling of him being plainly conservative at the time like you always claim. And in the only source that mentions him along with multiculturalism, out of the 8 times he's mentioned it's the sixth, on page 15. Even then it's not attributed directly to him, as it talks about conservative minorities opposing affirmative action and multicultural curriculum. This is an incredibly vague source due to all the points mentioned. Like I've written before, he uses the specific term "victim's revolution" 28 times in his book — which I think is a precursor term to victimization. That is the focus of his book. What you're painting is a straw man. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

And most of all, he's given way too much focus in the introduction. This article originally didn't mention him, because pretty much no one knows about him. His "popularization" of the term is highly questionable. The sources provided to claim that he did only vaguely mention him. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, we can't use your personal analysis of the book to structure the article. We need to go by the sources, which overwhelmingly state that his book was central. If you have sources for other aspects of the term's history, or other attempts to analyze his book, go ahead and add them, but his centrality in the debate over political correctness (and the overarching position he's coming from) seems to me to be utterly uncontroversial among anyone who goes into any serious depth on the term's history. Regarding d'Souza's politics -- we can go into more detail if you want; I wouldn't mind quoting that source on how he "erased his right-wing past" prior to publication! But his political position (and the think-tanks backing his book and others like it) are very well-sourced and uncontroversial. --Aquillion (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

We've just gone through all of this below and you still live in your dream-haze world where your sources still refer to the 1992 political correctness book and not the 1991 one which doesn't mention the term. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment on personal attacks

nb sub-section heading added retrospectivelyPincrete (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT, Mr. Magoo and McBarker, I don't want to weigh in on this one at present because I haven't yet read the evidence. However, I'm fed up with your accusations of conscious bias, of 'tag-team editing', of fellow editors being 'absolutely nuts' and now of another editor 'lying again'. I asked you to remove one of the accusations of 'editing in tandem', you had neither the good sense nor civility to do so, though your 'evidence' was non-existent. Apart from polluting the atmosphere, being very explicitly against WP policies, it's also boring. Can't you make your point without resorting to negatively characterising another editor? Pincrete (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I proved how you two knew each other before this article and how you started editing this article only 4 days apart in May; and you want me to take my accusation of tag-team editing back? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, you proved that Aquillon and I may once have left a comment on the same public noticeboard, (I don't even remember when or the subject). I probably 'know' at least 1000 editors to the same extent. I have no idea when Aquillon started editing this article. If you don't realise how utterly ridiculous these claims are, the behaviour noticeboard is over there, the 'puppet' noticeboard is over there - go and get laughed at if you wish. But in the meantime, the rest of us would rather edit without the abuse thanks. Pincrete (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Left a comment at the same place? That has happened multiple times, but that in that noticeboard case you especially noted Aquillion. Again, it's incredibly peculiar that the two who pretty much control the article now started editing the article 4 days apart in May. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This is utterly offtopic, but for what it's worth, my first edit to this article was years ago, in 2006, not in May. --Aquillion (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems so, and then a year later, but after that you held an 8 year pause of editing the article, only to burst back to fully control it May, Pincrete following 4 days later. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Not pejorative in my part of the world

I think the four citations offered in the lead are biased, and they seem to be carefully selected to support a certain POV whereby the term is used predominantly in a pejorative sense. However, this is not true, at least in the UK. It can be used pejoratively like many terms, but the term in itself is neutral.

Do I have sources to support my claim? Well, that's kind-of asking to prove a negative. What I can offer is that the Cambridge dictionary, which would otherwise place a disapproving tag on a pejorative term, such as loose cannon, does not do that for politically correct. I can find plenty such neutral sources if required. 87.115.6.46 (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, dictionaries aren't considered good sources; see Misplaced Pages:DICTS for an explanation of why -- it's hard to determine the quality or whether it's a primary or secondary source. Academic papers are greatly preferred, especially for in-depth analysis. For what it's worth, though, note that it has a disapproving tag on the US usage... but any discussion of differences in usage between the US and the UK would require a better source than a dictionary, since analyzing the two definitions and doing our own comparison between them is original research. Personally, while they vary, several of the sources in the lead strike me as pretty high-quality (and as neutral as anyone is likely to get on this topic); Ruth Perry's section in Aufderheide's book is a detailed history of the word and its usage, while Whitney and Wartella's paper is an academic paper about it specifically, and so on. If you have other sources, go ahead, but they ought to be at least of that quality (ie. academic papers on the history of the term specifically.) Also, remember, leads have to reflect the article (so you can't just change the lead, you have to change the article to reflect it, so whatever sources you add, they should be good enough to support their own section in the text on that aspect of the term's usage. --Aquillion (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

87.115.6.46, in my experience in the UK, when the term is not wholly pejorative, it is usually ironic. It would be hard I think to find positive uses. … … ps the Camb online gives this as an example use 'We can't ​even use the word "​chairman"! It's just ​political ​correctness gone ​mad!' The example is complaining about PC language as an imposed 'orthodoxy' (and quoting a Daily Mail trope). … … pps, we say 'ordinarily pejorative', because, I agree to this extent, whilst the use is most commonly critical, the term is not inherently or necessarily negative. Though even friendly use, eg "totally visually impaired? You mean he's blind! God you're so PC!" is critical in that an EXCESS of euphemistic 'sensitivity' is being pointed out. Pincrete (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that you stopped short of citing a perfect example of non-pejorative usage from the Cambridge dictionary, Some ​people ​think that "​fireman" is a ​sexist ​term, and ​prefer the politically correct ​term "​firefighter", preferring to cite the Daily Mail trope. However, even the DM trope is proof that the term itself is not pejorative. Would you say, "a loose cannon gone mad"? No, because that would be redundant, "loose cannon" is already pejorative in itself. "Politically correct", by contrast, requires a "gone mad" qualification to convey a disapproving meaning. I think this reference is pretty neutral and should be included:

he use of, or even the definition of, 'political correctness' as seen by the liberal left is strongly disputed by those of other political views (and even by many liberals). Some view the very term 'politically correct' to be pejorative in that it portrays a political stance that they oppose as 'correct'.

87.115.6.46 (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not usable as a source either, no. As far as I can tell, it's a personal website, which means it's a self-published source -- there's no indication that it has any of the editorial review or controls required by WP:RS. Again, what you need are sources of a quality comparable to what's already there -- eg. academic papers or high-quality books examining its history, not someone's opinions on their personal website about phrases. --Aquillion (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

nb edit conflict

87.115.6.46, I quoted what I saw on your link (which ironically included the DM phrase, bit unimaginative of them I thought), but dictionary examples anyway aren't usually 'real speech', they are chosen to illustrate the meaning. 'Fireman' reads like an instance of that, wouldn't someone say 'Some ​people ​think that "​fireman" is a ​sexist ​term, and ​prefer "​firefighter" , or 'Some ​people ​think that "​firefighter" is more politically correct than "fireman"?, (though - in my experience - the second is more likely than the first to be critical or ironic).

Phrase.org would NOT be seen as a WP:RS, Aquillon above gives a brief summary of what would be RS, ideally an academic study of the history of the use of the word. It's very possible you are right that the term may be LESS critical in the UK than in the US, (I only know my own experience in ONE of those) but even 'phrases.org' says 'Some view the very term 'politically correct' to be pejorative'. So what are we discussing here? Always, ordinarily, often, sometimes, never? All the sources agree that it's neither always nor never.

We would need a fairly strong clear source to make the point that UK use was significantly different, (ie not your or my experience, nor your or my conclusions drawn from definitions, that's WP:OR) … … ps by your logic, "A slut who has gone completely off the rails", "slut" here cannot possibly be a pejorative, because if it were, it wouldn't need "gone completely off the rails", some disparaging terms fit together, others don't, it proves nothing. Your argument about the trope, might make sense on the day that it becomes normal for the DM (or anyone) to say, 'this idea isn't politically correct enough, however this other idea has just the right amount of PC' . They don't, because 'PC' and 'gone mad', 'gone too far', etc. belong with each other in the most common usage. Pincrete (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two (relatively recent), relatively positive articles about PC one from the Guardian and one from the US by Dean Obeidallah, but the Guardian one is very much putting PC in quotes (ie "what is called PC"). That doesn't change anything, Fat Cats is ordinarily a critical term, as is 'rogue capitalism', finding any of these terms SOMETIMES used positively, or self-mockingly doesn't alter the ordinarily critical use. Pincrete (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... Hughes, Geoffrey (2011), Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-1-4443-6029-5 says here that what appears to be the first use in the UK (in 1975) called it "perverse and punishing 'correctness'". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It's phrases.org.uk (plural, uk), and if you think that's not a RS, then you should remove the other reference to it from this article - not to mention all other WP articles.

Yes, we are essentially debating "ordinarily", which refers to current use, not historical. I ordinarily hear this phrase at work, the typical context being saying something that is "not politically correct", which is seen as "naughty but between us acceptable". This tells me that being politically correct is considered the opposite of naughty, and in conclusion the term is not ordinarily used pejoratively. There is no mention of this in the lede, which is exclusively describing pejorative and ironic use - much less prevalent nowadays in my experience. The source I offer reflects my experience, and it should be included to rebalance the lede. 87.115.6.46 (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there are any refs to 'phrases.org' in the article. Nothing can be in the lead that ISN"T backed up by what is in the article. Will look at the 'book'. Pincrete (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are mistaken. CTRL+F, then type "phrases.org.uk".

If you don't think that's a RS, I invite you to go through this list as well and get all those refs removed.

Sure, I don't oppose putting this stuff in the body as well as in the lead. 87.115.6.46 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

phrases.org.uk ISN'T used in this article, it probably SHOULDN"T be in the other articles, but they are mostly, 'pardon my French', 'Bollocks', 'stiff upper lip' articles that are hardly contentious issues and maybe shouldn't have articles at all. Pincrete (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We can take this to WP:RSN, perhaps (especially if we want to discuss dealing with it elsewhere.) But generally speaking, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Looking over its usage, most of the usages are stubs and other low-quality articles, which have had little attention, while its one use here was also cited to a properly-published source. And remember that the WP:RS requirements for controversial or decisive statements are higher; you're asking to use this source to rewrite a major portion of the lead. Naturally your sources for that are going to come under higher scrutiny. Finally, remember that your own personal experiences aren't necessarily useful (or typical), or your own parsing of the usage you're hearing might be different from the way an academic would parse or qualify them -- relying on them is WP:OR; we go by experts in the field in published sources whenever we can. If it is in common usage the way you describe, it should be easy to find higher-quality sources than phrases.org.uk going into detail on the history and nature of that usage. --Aquillion (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. Carry on with your cherry picking. 87.115.6.46 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

User:87.115.6.46, sarcasm about another editor's motives (like the above) isn't very helpful. The use you are describing at work IS ironic, 'we have to pretend or perhaps we basically are non-sexist, non-racist etc. but it's fun to use 'naughty words' ... even if we wouldn't do it to someone who would really be offended' is that the meaning? We say 'correct', but really we mean 'boringly correct, prudishly correct'. But anyway your or my experience might be interesting, but wouldn't be a RS.

I read quite a bit of the book you linked to this AM, I see it's on the 'further reading', though I had never looked at it. It appears to be a very good source on the development and use of the term. Much of what it says we already have, it covers both US and UK, concentrating more on the UK. I don't think it contradicts what we have, sometimes it fleshes out or softens what we have, it may well make a case for saying that use is LESS inherently critical in the UK. He draws attention to (post 1990), no one being able to agree who actually uses the word, and what it means. He describes a 1995 book in which Sarah Dunant (in the intro) is saying that PC had already become a 'dirty word', and 'is an insult', Yasmin Alibi-Brown (sp??), says something like 'PC is a good thing' while Melanie Philips characterises it as something akin to Stalinism. (isn't that SD saying its now pejorative, Y A-B using it neutrally and MP using it as a pejorative?).

He draws some interesting distinctions between US-UK. He claims the word had become ironic in many uses by '85 (ie TOO serious, TOO correct). I'm writing all this following a 14 hour gap between reading cursorily and writing, but think the source is v. good and he quotes many others 'describing' or reacting to the term's use. Despite such a brief look, I think there could be enough material for a distinct 'UK' section, which probably record a distinct, but largely parallel story to the US one.Pincrete (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea there could be so many arguments about whether or not 'politically correct' is always vs. only sometimes pejorative. It seems so clear to me that it's used both ways. I support presenting it as sometimes used pejoratively and sometimes not. valereee (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Easy on the reverts please. I've blocked one editor - more reverts may lead to more blocks. This dispute may be a good candidate for WP:DRN. --NeilN 19:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's funny how I get blocked yet Aquillion doesn't, when he's been doing the exact same as I have. You can see the multiple times he has reverted twice per day, stopping before the infamous three reverts. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on this article

nb edit conflict with preceding section.Pincrete (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, you are knowingly edit-warring. Three editors Aquillion,Fyddlestix, and myself have pointed out that there is no consensus for adding the 'left' labels , .

You also seem to misunderstand the need for consensus and the use of sources. No one needs consensus for what is already in the article, WP is predicated on the basis that what has been there for a while HAD the consent of editors, addition, removal or alteration needs consensus. If you are not happy with what is there and cannot persuade fellow editors to change it, WP:RfC or WP:DRN are open to you.

Regarding sources, the existence of a source is a necessary, but not a sufficient reason for inclusion. I could probably find sources that described d'Souza as an adulterous, Catholic, Indian-born divorcee, innumerable sources that described Hutton as a noted academic economist, Toynbee as an atheist, feminist award-winning journalist. Perhaps I could find sources for everybody's favourite food or the Dixie Chicks politics or average bust-size. We would not consider including any of these, because they would be irrelevant to understanding, which is the main purpose of describing people and what they are saying, not to 'label' them.

I was initially reluctant to revert your today edits, because I did not have the time to work through them to see which might be 'legit', however when I realised that you had replaced a well-supported description of d'Souza's book with your own interpretation of it, I had no hesitation. Strangely, we don't rely on editors or authors to write summaries of books, otherwise we'd soon have someone claiming that Mein Kampf is a book by a very nice man, that doesn't mention anti-semitism anywhere!Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I second the call for WP:DRN. I see a number of persuasive arguments on this talk page ignored or reverted, despite reasonable sourcing. 119.81.31.4 (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I've pointed out multiple times the article vastly overlabels anything as conservative and right-wing. But you keep ignoring this. Your points about "favourite foods" and so is an obvious straw man. You once even yourself edited out one right-wing to appease, but then Aquillion edited it back. You accept it, because it leans towards your bias of labeling all of the right and removing all labelings of the left. It can't get more clear than this. I already wrote how nothing I will ever suggest will be accepted by you. I've pointed out how your sources don't have anything like what the article contains. And the change to the introduction wasn't originally mine, but I saw how biased it had been after the edits made it vastly more neutral. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to remove some of the right-wing labels, go ahead and point out which ones you think aren't well-supported or relevant. The one you've focused on (d'Souza) is extremely well-sourced in terms of both its applicability and its relevance, but we can discuss the best way to frame and describe it if you want. --Aquillion (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

All of them, if no left-affiliations are allowed either? The point was that both should be listed. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

'Right' and 'left' (and 'liberal') are mostly used to denote broad groups. Individuals are identified only where context demands. When you 'counted' you omitted 'labor leader' and 'Marxism'. Simply counting isn't much of an indicator of neutrality, especially since the term PC is mainly used by critics, who are mostly social/political conservatives. You say higher above that you have never complained about 'conservatives', now you are again complaining of over-use of 'conservative'. I challenged you above to provide a BETTER brief description of d'Souza's book, which was sourced and imformative.Pincrete (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I also didn't count "libertarian" or "Republican" either. Both by counting and looking at the article, any conservative's or right-winger's affiliation is way more easily noted. I mean the Daily Mail is noted to be conservative twice, but The Observer's affiliation isn't noted! The most obvious missing affiliations are those of Toynbee and Hutton, latter of which described himself left-wing. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing one of the DM's descriptor's. BTW the DM is Conservative, (ie it supports that political party), both Observer and Guardian have no party affiliations and vary from election to election as to who they endorse, that they both tend to be socially more liberal is probably true, but is not a fixed ideological position. They are liberal mainly in the UK sense of the word, in the US the word is almost synonomous with 'left wing'. Pincrete (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The article on The Observer does say they take a liberal plus democratic stance on most issues. Daily Mail seems to be as right-wing as The Observer is left-wing, as long as you don't pay attention at the quality of either journal. And removing one of two is petty, when you add none for the other. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

'liberal' has a different meaning in UK. 'Republican' is used once in the article (quoting a 'South Park' spin-off term). We don't mention either the 'Observer' or 'Guardian' except to attribute one quote and within refs, so why would we characterise them? Do you also want all refs to contain 'political labels'? If we were half as biased as you seem to believe, we would be leaping on your 'liberal plus democratic stance' description. I have already said that both papers are broadly socially liberal, (but not necessarily Liberal), in English usage, liberal is almost a synonym of 'moderate', 'broad-minded', 'reasonable', so I'm not objecting because the word is pejorative, or because it is 'political'. I'm objecting because it does not aid understanding in any way.Pincrete (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Marxist was also used in similarly silly fashion as Republican. I see you removed the mention of The Observer entirely for some reason? The point there was to simply be a brick in the wall of the great countdown of number of mentions of either side, it wasn't particularly notable or important. I enjoy arguing and I'll go on about anything if you let me. In addition to being here I'm also arguing on forums with people who like the Star Wars prequels, bleh. If only there was an article that claimed they were culturally important. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Back to Edit warring ?

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, you know there is no consensus to remove d'Souza from the lead and you have opened a RfC about it. You know there is no consensus to attach labels to Hutton and Toynbee (especially silly ones like 'kin', are they cousins?). We don't attach labels to NYT equally, Why? Because they are unnecessary to understanding the context and because NYT is primarily thought of as a paper, not as a mouth piece of any position.

There were good additions within your series of edits, I hope I or you will restore them during the day, but using them as a 'mask' to edit war is wasting everyone's time. Pincrete (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You were the one who started removing my edits which I have added days earlier and which you agreed with for days? You are the nut one here? There isn't concensus to your additions as both me and valereee oppose your and Aquillion's bizarre changes to the article, even if they happened months back when we weren't around. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, what needs explaining further? One doesn't need agreement to keep the US constitution, you need agreement to add to, remove from or rephrase it. A similar principle applies here. I'm sure Jefferson etc. didn't ask your or my or anyone's permission to phrase it how they did. Your no consensus for what happened six months ago arguments are as silly and as far away from WP policy as my silly example. (I don't recall valereee supporting any of your arguments) Pincrete (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The constitution wasn't written either 5 months or 2 days ago. It was written 227 years ago. The article was created over 10 years ago. Val also didn't support "mine" but I agree with some of Val's, which disagree with yours. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, 5 months ago constitutes a long term stable version on WP. The same principle applies, for fairly obvious reasons, an editor cannot come in and claim 'I wasn't here when this was written, therefore there is no concensus'. It is up to that editor to establish concensus for his changes, the stable version is presumed to have had agreement, (if you are unable to so persuade, there are mechanisms for 'outside mediation'). I'm sure 'Val' is old enough to speak for himself if he wishes, especially since it is stretching any evidence beyond breaking point to claim that he supports many of your 'arguments'.

Recent edits, where there is not a concensus for changes, the 'default position' is to return to the last stable version, lack of concensus cannot be used to revert to your own favoured version, which has never established ANY concensus or even support apart from yourself, as here. I have a compromise proposal, which I have meant to make for several days, which I hope accomodates all long and short term objectors, I have not made it so far, as I am spending an inordinate amount of time explaining BASIC principals of policy.

this edit is what is called a WP:POINTY edit, certainly a 'pointy' edit reason 'Since we're adding off-topic notifications, adding one here as well,' ie 'you can do it so can I'. Instead of answering why there is an entire paragraph (including publicity material from the publisher), with no discernible connection made to 'PC', you leave this tag. Is the tag claiming that the sources do not support the connection between D'Souza and PC or what?

this edit, check out WP:Common names, we don't on WP refer to 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', even less to longer versions of that name, the common name is either UK, GB, or 'United Kingdom'. In the case of book titles, we would almost always omit any sub-titles. Deliberately 'piping' the link in order to include the lengthy sub-title is a perverse variation of policy.

this edit giving this edit reason 'Since D'Souza mostly talks about victimization in the sources, I added it as the firstmost thing' … … this appears to be missing the point 'by a mile'. I matters nothing what D'Souza 'mostly talks about', (which appears to be OR) within the sentence he 'condemned what he saw as liberal efforts to advance victimization, multiculturalism through language, affirmative action and changes to the content of school and university curriculums. Does he condemn victimisation as being due to 'liberal efforts', and more importantly, do the sources say that?

Why development? if you mean more than spread, towards 'how' it was being used/seen, the meaning attached to the term, then what do sources say, otherwise 'development' 'begs a question', which it does not answer.

Incidentally 'Hughes' notes use of the term (with its present meaning) in NYT on May 11, 1986 “There’s too much emphasis on being PC.” In the same period The Independent (UK paper) noted (November 11, 1989): “We thought we’d be accused of not being PC.” He also notes the term being used 'in conservative journals such as Commentary, the New Republic, and The New Criterion, as well as in the national weeklies:' prior to 1990. He also records 'literal use' of the term among 'radicals' (mainly feminists), as I recall, in the mid-'80's. Given all that, I think it would be wrong to place TOO MUCH emphasis on the NYT articles. That they were significant, is I think supported, that they were in any sense 'primary', is not.Pincrete (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

All I added were the em dashes. Other than that the version stood there for months. And the second's not pointy because I learned about the off-topic mention for the first time there. If we can add such things then I'm adding them as well. For the third you linked "common names" which is ridiculous, for the book has no commonly accepted name. The full name was used in the critic source. The subtitle is also a good description on its own. By the fourth point I notice your arguments are getting worse and worse. "Do the sources say that?" Yes, I wrote in the edit description they do. Anything else? After that you only mention something incomprehensible about development. You also point too much emphasis on NYT after you quote NYT to have again been the popularizer of the term. Don't you see the illogicality in your arguments? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Dinesh D'Souza is not the popularizer of the term

I just now realized that a lot of editors have mixed up two books of Dinesh D'Souza. He has two books titled Illiberal Education, with the political correctness one released in 1992. The 1991 book doesn't contain the term even once.

I have multiple sources which use the term in 1991, before he ever did:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/05/us/political-correctness-new-bias-test.html "Published: May 5, 1991"

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/political-correctness-and-the-suicide-of-the-intellect "June 26, 1991"

In fact, the popularizer of the term is most likely the 41st president of the United States, George H. W. Bush:

http://www.springerin.at/dyn/heft_text.php?textid=1599&lang=en

So when the U.S. President George Bush, Snr., declared from the right in 1991 that »the notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land« (Aufderheide, 1992: 227) left activists were puzzled, affirming no such notion or noun.

The NY times article above also refers to this speech by the president.

The sources referring to Dinesh D'Souza talk about his 1991 book. In the main source used, Schultz, Debra L. (1993). "To Reclaim a Legacy of Diversity: Analyzing the 'Political Correctness' Debates in Higher Education," the book being referred to is:

Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Class on Campus (1991)

The 1992 book is 32 pages long and only seems to be based on a speech of his. I think this is the entirety of it: http://ashbrook.org/publications/illiberal-education/

Here are some other sources that used it in 1991 or before:

http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1921&context=law_lawreview "January 1991 - Political Correctness and the American Law School - Steven C. Bahls"

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/28/weekinreview/ideas-trends-the-rising-hegemony-of-the-politically-correct.html?pagewanted=all "Published: October 28, 1990"

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the introduction to prove fit. I don't think anyone will question this edit when it was the president himself who popularized the term — a year before Dinesh D'Souza used the term. The 1990s section will also need major work done. As it stands it claims Dinesh D'Souza's 1991 book had anything to do with the term, when again it doesn't mention it even once. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you're confused? d'Souza's own website, here, says that the book is about political correctness, and we have numerous sources (not just Schultz) saying that Illiberal Education: The politics of race and sex on campus was the book that ignited the debate. See Whitney and Wartella, say, which are quoted in the article. See also Phyllis Schafly explaining it here: "This is the original book that explained Political Correctness (P.C.) on college campuses. D'Souza shows how P.C. produces closed-mindedness and intolerance, which is to say an "illiberal education." He explains how Political Correctness opposes the teaching of Western Civilization. The P.C. advocates demand that professors give prime attention to race and gender issues, and abolish the classics of Western civilization." Are you relying on searching it in Google Books or Amazon Search Inside for words? That's unreliable (since they don't have the full text), and it's original research besides -- we need to go by what the sources say, and they overwhelmingly say that d'Souza's 1991 book is the source of the term and concept in its modern usage. Now, he wasn't the only person writing such books (the sources mention several others funded by the same or similar think tanks around the same time), so we could mention some of the others. But his is almost always highlighted as the most successful of them -- as the one that captured the popular imagination. --Aquillion (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What in the world does some website have to do with anything? That description was probably written in the last 5 years and by someone else than him? Again, the book doesn't mention the term. Your sources talk about the 1991 book with same title (different subtitle), and not about the 1992 "Illiberal Education: Political Correctness and the College Experience" one. None claim that he popularized the term. We haven't seen your Phyllis Schafly source before and it's an incredibly dubious random webpage, and likely confused by the titles of the two books as well; because again the 1991 book doesn't even mention Political Correctness. I can't believe

you. All along you have been talking about two different books as one and adding references talking about two different books. You haven't even corrected any of the mistakes in the article about claims of the 1991 book. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to again point out the source stating journalists hadn't heard of the term before the president used it in his speech. If that isn't the most obvious case of popularization I don't know what is. The 1991 NY Times article states the term had been popularized in academic circles in the fall of 1990, a year before even the first book of Dinesh — which again doesn't use the term until the second version in 1992. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Magoo, you need to chill out just a bit here (when you find yourself bolding entire paragraphs, etc, that's a sign you need to step back and take a deep breath). Now: FWIW, I've been doing some reading, and I agree with you that the lede probably puts a bit too much emphasis on D'Souza as "popularizer" of political correctness during the early 1990s - there are other sources and other people that were using the term at around the same time. But your claim that he never mentioned it appears to be - if not wholly incorrect, then at least misleading. There are tons of very high quality sources that characterize his book as an "anti-PC" book. To argue that it's anything other than that is just silly. And again, please remember to assume good faith.

My 2 cents are that D'Souza still needs to be described as a popularizer of the term (he was) - but maybe not singled out as the only person to popularize it. this is the kind of source that the article should be relying on, and it makes clear that you're both somewhat "right" here - the term certainly became popular in the early 90s, and while D'Souza wasn't the only or even the first person to use the term, he clearly played an important role in that popularization. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Like written by the NY Times article, the term was seemingly popularized in the academic circles in the fall of 1990. They describe it as anti-PC, because that was the hot new word. As it happens, the book doesn't have the term. And you have no sources stating that he was even top 5 popularizer of the term. Going down this rabbit hole and finding out who popularized the term in the academic circles in 1990 you'll find the top culprits, let alone the president a bit later. Again, our first instance of Dinesh seemingly using it is from 1992. Dinesh can be mentioned as a minor sidenote in the 1990s. That's all he is. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your source states this article to one of the main popularizers of the term: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/28/weekinreview/ideas-trends-the-rising-hegemony-of-the-politically-correct.html?pagewanted=all

Last weekend, a meeting of the Western Humanities Conference in Berkeley, Calif., was called " 'Political Correctness' and Cultural Studies," and it examined what effect the pressure to conform to currently fashionable ideas is having on scholarship.

In fact, this article is already used a source in the Misplaced Pages article, bizarrely enough. Have you simply ignored it all of this time? The writer of the article is RICHARD BERNSTEIN. He should be given the title of the popularizer. New York Times should be given the title of the popularizer. The Californian academics should be given the title of the popularizer. And most of all, the president, albeit almost a year later. All of these should be given the title of the popularizer before some random conservative who didn't even use the term until 1992. I'm not assuming good faith from any of you three. I believe all you simply want to color the term as some neonazi terminology, tie it with "multiculturalism" and such. It's been incredibly well proven how little Dinesh had to do with the term, yet you still insist he's important and that his "opposition against multiculturalism" absolutely has to be mentioned. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I went back in edit history and discovered that the one who added Dinesh D'Souza to the introduction of the article is none other than Aquillion himself on May 20 2015 when he returned to edit the article after an 8 year hiatus. 4 days later Pincrete came to edit the article as well and to support Aquillion's decision. After that they've controlled the article ever after. Aquillion isn't defending "the way the article was," but his own edit! --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Aquillion is also the one who added pejorative to the introduction! This article is pretty much word-to-word his view on the matter! --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

nb edit conflictPincrete (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There is some curious logic here, we don't reject the evidence of an official US presidential website because 'Obama probably didn't type it'. All sources about the 'spread' of the term, credit d'Souza's book with a significant role in igniting debate, specifically in the US with concerns about 'illiberal policies' in education, (a UK study says much the same) which were characterised as 'PC'. Maybe there's a better term than 'popularize', though I don't see a problem, 'taking the term out to a broader public' is all it means. Maybe G Bush took it to an EVEN broader public, so what? GBush played no role in defining its use or meaning, before or after that quote. That info would at best be in the history, though I think it actually proves that the term was almost universally understood by the time of his quote and any ascription of a role of his would probably be OR. Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

In all of the sources Dinesh is a sidenote on later pages! Even then it's got nothing to do with popularization of the term, because the 1991 book — which they talk about — doesn't feature it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Nearly everything you claim is OR, the 'British' source above describes a significant role for d'Souza in provoking debate. Find a better form of words for that role than 'popularizer', but you are using quibbles and OR to take out everything you don't like.

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, final formal warning, unless you remove the section below, (or start an WP:ANI or WP:SPI if you feel you have a case), you will be reported for persistent personal attacks, here and on your talk page. You have 12 hours to decide which you would rather do. Pincrete (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

But the total opposite? The British source is about the debate. Then it mentions the term and its origins, listing in a single large sentence its many uses in the short period. Then after that in separate sentence, obviously in different context it mentions Dinesh's book rose to the best-seller list, without the term in this sentence anymore. After that sentence it mentions some symposium and a conference, again without the term anymore. The initial long listing-sentence listed the popularizers of the term. The rest of the sentences are about the debate. Where as I provided a source which specifically states the journalists hadn't heard of the term before the president used it, along with the other sources. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not what your source says, no. It says that Bush used the term for the first time after months of academic debate (which were following the publication of books like d'Souza's and others.) Nothing in that editorial indicates that Bush had anything to do with popularizing it, merely that he commented on it after it was popularized by others. Likewise, as I've said, your analysis of things like word-counts is still original research; we have many sources saying that d'Souza's book was crucial in sparking the debate. --Aquillion (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

But it says the academic debate had began in fall last year, as in 1990? Likely influenced by the NY Times article. And it does say the listeners heard the term for the first time from Bush, and it also makes perfect sense because they aren't academics... --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not what it says; it just says that that was the first time President Bush used it. In other words, there's nothing particularly noteworthy about him using it there beyond the fact that he hadn't used it previously. We have numerous sources detailing the history of the debate and the term; trying to use an editorial with one quote (and no broader analysis or context of the term's history) to replace that is original research. --Aquillion (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

But that is what it says? It doesn't say it was the first time Bush had used it, but the first time the people had heard it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

nb edit conflict

I don't object to some use of the 'Bush' though some amendment of first use/popularise seems called for (for which I don't have time right now). I would point out your refs say 1) The debate on campus over political correctness has generally pitted conservative scholars, who uphold the classics, Greek philosophy and European history, against multiculturalists, who argue that the standard canon is incomplete and slanted because it ignores the contributions and works of women and non-Europeans. … … 2) One of the more elusive polemical tags of the lC20, political correctness (PC for short) can be an insult, an accusation, a joke, or the name of an effort to change a society—in particular, its ways of handling power relations of »race«, ethnicity, gender, class and sexuality—by means of wide-ranging but often small-scale cultural reform. »PC« is primarily a negative term for the ideals and actions of others. Designating an attempt to fight social discrimination by changing everyday speech and behaviour, and to enforce such change through public pressure on individuals as well as legal or other institutional sanctions to regulate group conduct, it implies that these measures are petty, rigid, humourless, intolerant, even totalitarian in impulse. Politically correct is then a judgment disguised as description; deflecting attention from the substance or value of the reforms in question, it expresses a dismissive attitude to those who advocate change. The latter in turn may reclaim the phrase as an ironic self-description.

So your sources say 'conservative scholars … against multiculturalists', … '»PC« is primarily a negative term for the ideals and actions of others', … 'Politically correct is … a judgment disguised as description'. You say elsewhere about YOUR experience of the word, we can all discuss how people we know use it, in my case it WAS mainly ironic, but personal experience of private use isn't a RS.Pincrete (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The first is about academics. Academical political correctness is entirely a matter of its own. You removed quite a bit to simply pit conservative versus multiculturalist, which have different meanings in regular life. In this context, it was about Classics versus New History. And this was in 1991.

The second states:

There are signs in recent usage that political correctness is reverting to a simple term for orthodoxy. In liberal democracies it still generates ironic spin-offs, such as economic correctness (a hostile term for neo-liberalism) or professional correctness (Fish, 1995, defending disciplinarity). Its meaning in authoritarian polities is classical. The present writer can attest that in 2000 the expression »the Chinese mainland« was more politically correct than »mainland China« for usage in Hong Kong.

If you check a dictionary it's not listed as simply pejorative:

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

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

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

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

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

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/politically-correct

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

1) dictionaries are not RS … 2) Cambridge anyway lists use as 'derogatory' in US, most say 'can be derogatory' (from memory), … 3) nowhere in the article does it suggest 'only' derogatory (look up 'ordinarily') … … 4) since when did 'academic' use become a seperate subject (especially when talking about higher education)? … … finally,) you are using arguments which might be valid for there being a more nuanced account of the use of the term (which I might broadly agree with, esp. in UK), for removing/sanitising everything you don't like . I have other things to do and won't reply further today. Pincrete (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That Cambridge point about it being "disapproving" (their term) only in the States shows that the article is currently edited to a US version like someone pointed out earlier on the talk page. In fact many IPs from Britain have seemingly pointed out the same. And the academic part is important is because people usually affiliate conservatism and multiculturalism with things other than history education debates. One could be a liberal in real life and a conservative in this debate, if you want to teach about Copernicus or something. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a label on the article saying it's US-centric. To the best of my memory only one IP has claimed use in UK was SUBSTANTIALLY different. His main evidence? How the word is used at his work. There are subtle differences in the history of UK use, I've read a lot of the 'UK' source, but am waiting for the full version, it's strong on the history of the term, a bit shaky when he gets into 'essay mode'. In UK there have been no major books, such as d'Souza's, the term is mainly used in newspapers in UK. A 1995 book of essays he quotes has one writer saying 'PC is a dirty word' 'intended to demonise', another saying 'PC is a good thing', a third saying, 'PC is tantamount to censorship' (from memory). Discussion in UK about PC hasn't centred on higher education so much as local govt. policies, (and a huge number of the newspaper uses have been proven to be 'fake'). The 'UK' writer repeatedly says that there is extensive argument about whether there IS such a thing as PC, or whether it is just an insult. There is probably a justification for creating a UK section, as I say to the IP above, but expanding the coverage isn't the same as excising what is already there. Pincrete (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Only one clarified Britain but if you do IP checks, every single one who complained of "not here" was from Britain. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: every single one who complained of "not here" was from Britain, I've no idea whether that is true, I can only remember one IP making that point. If it is true, and if they are right, then do the hard work of establishing HOW EXACTLY the history was different in the UK, sourced, balanced, etc.. Pincrete (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is pretty much editor Aquillion's own word-for-word view on the matter

User:Aquillion returned to edit the article on May 20 2015 after 7-8 years of not editing it. He then added pejorative and a large bit about Dinesh D'Souza to the introduction. 4 days later on May 24 2015 User:Pincrete came to support Aquillion on editing the article. The two have controlled the article ever since. They have removed large amounts and added and modified it to their liking. Through their group power they have bullied any disagreers into submission.

Dinesh D'Souza obviously does not belong to the introduction. In order of importance in popularizing the term, he doesn't even rank at top 5. I believe some editors may be trying to color the term Political Correctness as being directly linked to neonazi ideas like opposing multiculturalism, even though it enjoys massive mainstream usage in describing sensibilities of all kinds of matters — for example normal people politely inform each other something's not politically correct, not as a pejorative.--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I've been saying, you need better sources, not word-counts, original research, and editorials. The fact that debates over political correctness in academia also focus heavily on multiculturalism is well-sourced and uncontroversial -- the people who are most vocal about accusing academia of "political correctness" are also very vocal in connecting it to multiculturalism, as, again, the article's sources go into depth on. Beyond that, opposition to multiculturalism isn't a fringe or neonazi idea by any stretch of the imagination -- it's a major plank of large areas of right-wing thought in America, especially among academics. Among that area of intellectual thought, it's nearly as much of a dirty word as "political correctness" is. I mean, yes, I've edited the article a lot, but I've provided strong academic sources for all of my additions; there's always room to add more, but you need better sources and histories of the term to cite, not just a broad argument that you feel that I'm biased. The things you're focusing on right now (like arguing that d'Souza isn't an opponent of multiculturalism, or that he's not one of the major voices that pushed this debate in the early 90's) are just not supportable; they contradict nearly every source in the article that touches on them. --Aquillion (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I have provided numerous sources which state the affiliations of the two journalists plus the popularizers of the term. I have pointed out the massive flaws of your sources, as yours only mention Dinesh and never clarify him to be the popularizer of the term. You also lack sources on pretty much everything else. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm open to expanding it; I agree that d'Souza's book was not the only factor (and the article doesn't present it as such.) But most sources agree it was central, so I'm opposed to removing it entirely (and particularly with replacing it with one Bush quote based on a single editorial!) Wilson says that "...it was Dinish D'Souza's Illiberal Education that brought the PC backlash to its peak." Schultz said that it revived an academic debate that had previously been ignored, and that it (and works like it) were what lead to the sudden increase in usage in the media. We can talk about some of the other writers who contributed as well, but we need sources for that. And you haven't (as far as I can tell) provided any sources at all on who else contributed to the term's history, just one editorial that mentions in passing that Bush used it in a speech after the debate had been started and expanded on by others. As far as the journalists go, I thought we'd reached a decent compromise...? The current version makes it clear that they're being quoted as an example of a liberal viewpoint on the subject, at least. But we should focus on one thing at a time. --Aquillion (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the first time you've been open to anything. And no sources link it to the popularization of the term. Some mention it alongside when talking about the academical debate. One as a vague sidenote, barely about the matter. And no affiliations were added for the journalists, because you removed any affiliations I added? I only now noticed you added "such" yesterday, but which you didn't give Will Hutton. And it seems like you're still trying to mask her affiliation entirely by making it so covert. I think two simple words of affiliation should be added for both. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I think two simple words of affiliation should be added for both. WHY for God's sake? You persist in your obsession that the purpose of descriptions is to 'label' or 'demonise' the person. It isn't, Toynbee was writing about religion in one of her pieces, why not describe her as 'atheist'. Hutton was criticising the then Home Secretary, why not describe him as 'Govt critic'. Answer, because neither is necessary or helpful to understanding the context. D'Souza (etc.) were criticising what they saw as 'illiberality' in higher education, defending more traditional values. Short of devoting a whole section to the book, it is necessary to 'describe' its contents briefly. Perhaps the description isn't perfect, but you seem to want to sanitise it in pursuit of a 'false neutrality'. Pincrete (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason anything else is labeled as right-wing/conservative/libertarian/Republican? The article is full of that. Then two mentions of left-affiliation and it's the end of the world for you. Again, the article has 12 mentions of right-wing with and without dashes, 4 mentions of the right and 19 mentions of conservative. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Now you removed my addition of the president popularizing it, and moved your own Dinesh up past it in front, and understated the president's speech. We've just been through a moderator warning not to do stuff like this, yet you love it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, I quote:

So when the U.S. President George Bush, Snr., declared from the right in 1991 that »the notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land« (Aufderheide, 1992: 227) left activists were puzzled, affirming no such notion or noun.

and the numerous mentions of the term in 1990 and 1991 by magazines, yet you still adhere to the view that Dinesh popularized it in 1992 with his 32-page book. No, wait, for some reason you provide the 1991 one — which doesn't even mention the term — as a source. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, we have multiple sources that say that d'Souza's book (and others like it) were what pushed the debate into the mainstream. We don't have any sources saying that the editorials and GWB quote had anything to do with it; you can't just cite them and claim yourself that they popularized it based on the date, that's original research. Also remember WP:LEAD; the lead has to reflect the article, so if you want to alter how it talks about the term's history, you need to find good secondary sources discussing which usages were important when. Citing things like those editorials and claiming that they popularized the term is using them as a WP:PRIMARY source, which doesn't work here -- you need someone else saying "this editorial was a key part in popularizing the term". And, generally speaking, it's reasonable to revert someone who tries to drastically rewrite the lead of a controversial article with no attempt to get consensus! Your rewrite was WP:BOLD, which means reverting it if I object is a normal part of the WP:BRD cycle. As I've said, I'm not opposed to going into more depth on the term's history, and I'm not opposed to the argument that d'Souza, specifically, is given more focus than he should compared to other authors (although I still think he belongs in the lead in some form); but we need sources that talk about the history of the term and its usage specifically. Right now, it feels like you're just digging through news archives for any old usages of the term and putting them in the lead as the popularizer, which is original research, especially for a topic like this that has attracted a huge amount of attention from numerous academics detailing its history. The only sources, at the moment, that discuss who was most responsible for the eruption of debate in the 1990s focus on d'Souza and particular on his 1991 book. If you want to elaborate on that, you need more sources that describe its history, not random examples of usage. --Aquillion (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You claim there are no sources for the NY Times articles or GHWB (note it's senior GHWB and not junior GWB), but Fyddlestix himself provided a credible source. Let alone all the articles which specifically mention the term, which Dinesh doesn't. You have sources which talk about the academic debate of academy freedom, but not about the term. This article is about the term. The academic debate is a sidenote — a historic. Also, the debate erupted way before Dinesh. I have the 1987 Allan Bloom book The Closing of the American Mind which has a massive article on its own on Misplaced Pages and which Dinesh himself talks about and which is talked about for 32 pages by the Robinson source along with Dinesh's book, and then we have many articles like A Case of Academic Freedom from 1986 and The Campus: “An Island of Repression In a Sea of Freedom” from 1989 and I think there was a third article from 1990 as well? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Add this source to that as well: Political Correctness in Context: The PC Controversy in America which talks about a NYT article popularizing the term in 1988 and this cover of the 1990 December Newsweek. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with 'moving Bush down', I wouldn't object to his use going to the history, or indeed going. Bush using the term is notable for the term having 'arrived' as a generally understood term, his use ISN'T a significant part of the 'education debate', which is the main purpose of the paragraph. Precise wording as to what that debate was and who the key players were, and their roles is legitimate, but at the moment 'quibbles' are being used as an excuse to fundamentally rewrite the content. Pincrete (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe Bush was commenting on the debate there. And he was at the time the most influential and powerful person on the planet... But to appease I made it clear that he gave it at a university and not via a TV broadcast or similar. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes Bush was commenting on the debate, NYT was reporting on the debate, others WERE the debate. The contents of the debate itself are however what is important, Bush saying 'all across the land' indicates that the term had 'arrived'. Clearly 'popularised' was always slightly the wrong word, but the character and contents of the debate that brought the term into common currency are what is important. Pincrete (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

But again, like I wrote below, it's about the term. Bush's commentary on the debate is portrayed in more detail below in the article in the history section. The introduction one is a different quote, where he uses the term. The debate in a way is almost completely unrelated to who came up with and popularized the term. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Who 'popularised' the term is inherently unprovable. When did the Beatle's become popular? When they were well known in Liverpool, when they featured in the music press? Their first number one? When they took US by storm? That is why my phrasing tried to avoid the term (or equivs). Who the significant players were in the broadening of the use of the term from a handful of radicals, to academia, to press articles, to virtually every conscious US adult having heard it IS verifiable. As are the contexts in which the term was used. Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You sound like you're talking about a general figure whose speeches are reported and recorded round the globe and whom a major portion of the population looks up to without question. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Should Dinesh D'Souza be removed from the introduction of the article entirely, only to be mentioned in the 1990s section?

NOTE: RfC discussion on this topic is in the section below link added by:Pincrete (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Should Dinesh D'Souza be removed from the introduction of the article entirely, only to be mentioned in the 1990s section?

As it stands, I think so, and I believe it's claimed mostly by WP:OR that he popularized the term.

I realized earlier that a lot of editors have mixed up two books of Dinesh D'Souza. He has two books titled Illiberal Education, with the political correctness one released in 1992. The 1991 book doesn't contain the term even once. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment 0 Alright, I have multiple sources which use the term in 1991 or before, before he ever did:

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/28/weekinreview/ideas-trends-the-rising-hegemony-of-the-politically-correct.html?pagewanted=all "Published: October 28, 1990 - IDEAS & TRENDS; The Rising Hegemony of the Politically Correct - Richard Bernstein"

But across the country the term p.c., as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities.

Last weekend, a meeting of the Western Humanities Conference in Berkeley, Calif., was called " 'Political Correctness' and Cultural Studies," and it examined what effect the pressure to conform to currently fashionable ideas is having on scholarship.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/05/us/political-correctness-new-bias-test.html "Published: May 5, 1991 - Political Correctness: New Bias Test? - Robert D. McFadden"

What has come to be called "political correctness," a term that began to gain currency at the start of the academic year last fall, has spread in recent months and has become the focus of an angry national debate, mainly on campuses, but also in the larger arenas of American life. Abhorrent Tools, Worthy Goals?

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/political-correctness-and-the-suicide-of-the-intellect "June 26, 1991 - Political Correctness and the Suicide of the Intellect - Harvey C. Mansfield"

Political correctness, you all should know, is a term that seems to come from students, not from faculty.

http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=192context=law_lawreview "January 1991 - Political Correctness and the American Law School - Steven C. Bahls"

In fact, the popularizer of the term is most likely the 41st president of the United States, George H. W. Bush:

http://www.springerin.at/dyn/heft_text.php?textid=1599&lang=en

So when the U.S. President George Bush, Snr., declared from the right in 1991 that »the notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land« (Aufderheide, 1992: 227) left activists were puzzled, affirming no such notion or noun.

The 1991 NY Times article above also refers to this speech by the president. Other magazines have referred to the NY Times article.

The sources referring to Dinesh D'Souza talk about his 1991 book. In the main source used, Schultz, Debra L. (1993). "To Reclaim a Legacy of Diversity: Analyzing the 'Political Correctness' Debates in Higher Education," the book being referred to is:

Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Class on Campus (1991)

The 1992 book is 32 pages long and only seems to be based on a speech of his. I think this is the entirety of it:

http://ashbrook.org/publications/illiberal-education/

Some may argue against this. Note that the attribution of Dinesh in the introduction was edited in by one of the arguers. Their common argument will be providing sources that don't attribute the term to D'Souza, but simply mention that he had a book about censorship at campuses. They won't mention the 4 notable books that did this before. If not that, his website which says he talked about political correctness in 1991, except he didn't use the term.

Okay, discuss. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment 1 An RfC is supposed to be clearly and neutrally phrased, this is neither.Pincrete (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment 2 What specific points are being disputed and therefore what is the question of this RfC? Is it the word 'popularised', then suggest another that more accurately reflects the role d'Souza's books played in the 'PC in education debate'. Is it that d'S was not the only 'critic' of 'illiberal' trends in US higher education, suggest a broader phrasing then. Is it that the 'education debate' ITSELF was not a significant feature of the widening of the use of the term 'PC' in the US. It matters little whether he himself used the term once, if it was widely used to 'summarise' his criticisms, by both his 'friends and foes', though in that case a better description should be found. At present you want to include G Bush's 'one-off' use of the term in the lead, but remove any description of the 'education debate', that Bush's use was a response to, despite that 'education debate' featuring prominently in virtually every source you cite. There may be flaws in the present wording, but they are not remedied by simply excising the content. Pincrete (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment 3 Alright, I made it more neutral. But note that only the first 3 lines are the RfC. Anything after that is pretty much a single huge comment, except I didn't wish to input a dozen different comments for it. I noticed how others had done similarly on the RfC, making the actual RfC bit short and sweet and then adding a much more detailed description following up, obviously of their view. I added "Comment 0" to make it more clear. Note that the beginning should also contain my view on the matter, so even the first 3 lines can't be absolutely neutral. Dinesh D'Souza may have had to do with the debate, but so little that he doesn't belong in the introduction in my view. For there are many who are more influencial than him: The New York Times, the journalists and the president himself, most notably. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment 4 I took up on your suggestion and kept Dinesh D'Souza in the introduction, but removed the word popularized. I noted that he influenced the term using similar language. In addition to the president, the sources have constantly stated the NY Times articles to have been the most important popularizers. I also noted the constantly appearing The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom, which is even mentioned by Dinesh multiple times. It kept appearing in our sources. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Who is 'you', which suggestion? Don't answer that, it is intended to point out that an outside editor coming to this RfC is almost guaranteed to find the content incomprehensible and will leave without contributing. Pincrete (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Where are the sources that state that the NYT articles are the most important part? That's the key part of this entire argument! Those are the sources you need to present. Currently, you've only linked to the NYT articles themselves, not to anyone saying they were important; all they say is that GWB used the term, not that he sparked the debate. --Aquillion (talk)

It was posted earlier by Fyddlestix but yeah you're right I should add it as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment 5 I found an incredible source which claims The New York Times to have popularized the term — just like the Berman book says — as far back as in 1988. The journalist is the same as in the 1990 one, Richard Bernstein: Political Correctness in Context: The PC Controversy in America

The first articles on political correctness in the New York Times appeared at the end of the eighties. John Wilson notes that an article by Richard Bernstein in 1988 "compared a conference on liberal education at Duke University to the tyrannical 'minute of hatred' described in George Orwell's 1984." The mass media use of the term "PC" is generally attributed to this article...

There are now two books which explicitly claim The New York Times to have popularized the term. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

First use does not equal popularise. The article itself notes many uses prior to d'Souza (et al), if you object to the specific term 'popularise' (which is anyway a vague one = took out to a broader public), suggest a more precise phrasing of the role d'S took in the 'education debate' and the role the term 'PC" took in that debate, and the role that debate took in 'popularising' the term. Pincrete (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker , by making this into a confused-off topic mess, which never even identifies the question, you have virtually guaranteed that no outside editor will bother to comment. If you want to discuss matters OTHER than the RfC, please do so in the relevant sections.Pincrete (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It states that PC term in wide use is generally attributed to the New York Times article and its writer Richard Bernstein, who also made a similar article two years later. And the Berman book states that the whole national debate began from a New York Times article. The New York Times articles are also the earliest wide use examples of the term in use to be easily found. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That is ONE source that attributes to NYT, numerous sources put d'Souza (and others) at the centre of the 'education debate'. The debate itself is anyway the key issue, the character of that debate, the issues being discussed/argued over, and the effect it had in introducing and defining the term. This isn't a 'pissing competition' about who was first/most central. The whole issue is easily solvable by phrasing 'passively' eg 'the term entered mainstream use as a result of (description of debate and key players and when). Nobody to my knowledge has ever put G Bush as a major contributor to that debate, he belongs in 'history', at most, marking a point that the term had acquired general acceptance (as he himself says). Pincrete (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

One? There are two books which attribute it to NYT but of which only the incredible one specifically investigated who came up with the term itself, and the articles again are the earliest example of wide use of it we can find — obviously being evidence of popularization as well. You have a single source which places only D'Souza at the center and it's the tiny paraphrasal on the Phyllis website — which isn't even used as a source in the article. The rest first mention it on like page 10 after mentioning numerous other things before. Your main source, Schultz, mentions Bloom foremost, after which it mentions two other books before D'Souza, which finally it says was as talked-about as Bloom. Only as talked-about as Bloom, who came 5 years earlier. You don't think Bloom is more the center of this? I also noticed that Bush is mentioned in the history section by someone else before. I didn't edit that in. They also used a source I haven't used. That's how notable Bush's speech is, because it was noted before. I went back in edit history to find out when exactly it was added. It was added in 2006! The introduction originally didn't go into specifics about who came up with the term, which is why it likely wasn't added to the introduction before now. If you remove the origin specifics from the introduction then that includes removing D'Souza. I also noticed you put in clarification needed behind NY Times mention for the subject, which is already mentioned to be political correctness? Isn't the declaration needed entirely pointless when the subject is already mentioned? But for now I think the Schultz source should be moved up a sentence because it foremost mentions Bloom. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh and note that the GHWB quote in the history section is another quote, but from the same speech. The one in the introduction is him using the specific term political correctness. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I also think the "more" mainstream you added is extremely clumsy. I mean "more mainstream"? Really? It was underground before and now it's entered "more" mainstream? You don't think it just entered mainstream? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

'More' was intended to avoid any (pointless) disputes about defining PRECISELY WHO was responsible for, and at precisely which point the word became 'mainstream'. More sources draw attention to the role of the books than to NYT, so NYT would probably lose that competition. Possibly they draw attention because NYT was reporting the debate, the books were influencing the debate.Pincrete (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

But the sentence is about the term, on which none draw attention to the books, but the articles. The debate's in books, yes, but not the term. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Re:The debate's in books, yes, but not the term, yes that is why I tried to avoid any suggestion that they used the term ('response to'). My phrasing may be improvable though. Pincrete (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment 6 Many of the new sources aren't mentioned in this RfC. Maybe it's time for a new section. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

talk You should close (and'hat'?) this RfC. Otherwise you guarantee confusion to any new editor coming to the discussion. Where are they expected to reply and about which proposal? Pincrete (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The RfC said that if you need to close it, just remove the tag. I'm not sure if the noticeboard close is meant for RfCs. I also looked at the RfC page and this disappeared from there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker apologies, yes you have effectively 'closed'. I still think that it is going to be confusing to 'incomers' who will simply read the section headings at the head of the page. I suggest something is done (hatting?) to point people in the right direction. If you don't know how to do that, I will do so for you with your 'say so'.Pincrete (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Why bother, these sections are on the fast track to the archive. It won't take long before what began all of this is in the archive. I removed the RfC from the title, no one even commented here. It's basically our normal discussion with "Comments." And personally, the purple messes up the text on my monitor, making the text hard to read. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

'leaning' vs. '-wing'?

I wonder if we could possibly use left-leaning and right-leaning or something else less...I dunno, judgey-sounding than left-wing and right-wing? Those -wing labels are so often used as negative descriptions to label people as being extremist. valereee (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of the uses of 'left/right wing' are actually characterising 'the whole spectrum'. When we use the term of individuals, we are (or should be) using sourced, widely accepted descriptions, we can't change these to be 'nice'. Whenever possible we avoid such descriptors at all if they are irrelevant to understanding. Many of the uses are also in quotes, which we obviously cannot alter. Pincrete (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not 'nice' I'm looking for. It's neutral. -wing is not neutral. -leaning is equally widely accepted but is a more neutral description. valereee (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Edit to add: it looks like three of the 13 are quotes. How about we change the ones not in quotes to a more neutral but still widely accepted term? valereee (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

nb edit conflict

Which SPECIFIC uses are not neutral, or not supported by strong sources, or in quotes (or unnec.)? It's a bit difficult to refer to an entire spectrum (which I think is the predominant use) as 'left-leaning', there are 'generic' terms such as 'left-of-centre' but their use would be clumsy IMO. -wing is neutral when it is the most common descriptor for that individual or group. Pincrete (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Just made an example in the lead -- see what you think. valereee (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I've partially restored, this is a fuller version of my edit reason: (1) I am neutral about 'describe', though criticism was what most was 2) 'politically' is superfluous since in US 'liberal' is almost synonomous with 'left wing' + sources don't use the term 'pot-lib'. I leave other editors to judge which those criticised were 3) Right-wing is apt here, since that is the term used by the sources, (and I've never heard of a 'right-leaning libertarian') though I removed d'Souza's name since it may be wrong or unnec, see talk section above 'Right-wing libertarians?'). Pincrete (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

How about 'characterize' rather than 'describe'? Seems still more neutral than 'criticize' but more specific than 'describe'. valereee (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

My response to your suggestion above (how about removing?) is that it is not the way forward. Like it or not, this is a very left-right issue, while we should be spare in our characterising of people, we should decide on a case-by-case basis which descriptors are necessary and accurate (ie widely sourced). It is for such reason that 'conservative' for example is used for d'Souza, since in this context, he is an educational and social conservative, which party he votes for is irrelevant and not stated, however, some of the think-tanks who funded his work are generally described as 'right-wing', so we describe them thus. 'Left-leaning', ordinarily means 'centrist with slightly left-politics', when critics were criticising them, they were hardly criticising them for being 'slightly left', ditto the reverse. Blanket changing of the term IMO would be neutering, not neutrality. Though each use should be judged on its merits. Pincrete (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hm...I think the issue is important, but it's not the only thing going on. The term means something, literally. It's being used by some people -- not all -- pejoratively. That doesn't mean the article should be about the issue, unless the article moves to 'Political correctness (pejorative)' or something, which I don't think would be helpful. valereee (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

My response to your 'cit needed' on 'ordinarily' tag is that this is a thorny issue, sources agree that over time the term has become more and more used critically or ironically (when did you last hear someone say 'what a good PC idea?'), but sources are unclear as to HOW OFTEN it is pejorative, I'm responsible for the 'ordinarily' compromise. Pincrete (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC) … … afterthought, citations are not generally required for the lead, since the lead is a summary of 'the body'. If 'ordinarily' is not supported by the evidence in 'the body', suggest an alternative that does accurately summarise 'the body', of how frequently the term is used pejoratively.Pincrete (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Some sources. The political-right rhetoric, certainly, and media reporting on same. But there are other reliable sources than the political right and the media. valereee (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Which sources are you querying? And which use of them? Whenever possible we are using academic studies when using WP's voice (about history for example). Pincrete (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

valereee, please don't 'break up' other editor's comments. I realise it is sometimes the easiest place to reply, but it makes it difficult to follow the thread. I've added signatures to above to remedy.Pincrete (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

As the subject's the affiliations: I think "such" should be added to Will Hutton as well, like it was added to Polly Toynbee. Aquillion added the such, but not to Will Hutton whom I wanted given an affiliation with Polly. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I may have been mistaken for some odd reason, but now Pincrete removed it? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, sometimes it's hard to figure out whether for a response to a lengthy post what would make it easiest -- all the different indentings can be difficult to follow.

I'm actually not querying a particular source -- I think the sources are valid ones. I'm just querying whether we're cherrypicking. For a topic like this one, media sources that are all saying similar things can be easy to find -- the term is use pejoratively a lot and that's reported on a lot. But there may be reliable sources using it in nonmedia publications, and the noise from the media and the rhetoric is making them hard to find. valereee (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of the article was in place before I became involved, but wherever possible we are using published academic sources when using WP voice. They tend to confirm PC = pejorative or ironic, at least since early/mid 90's, some say sometimes, some say often, some say always. 'Right wing' and 'socially traditionalist' (sometimes not the same thing, certainly in UK) souces don't tend to define the term at all, simply use it. At the moment, we lack a definition (except G Bush Snr, added recently), of what critics say PC is, which I'm afraid is one of the most common complaints (why doesn't the article say what a terrible thing PC is?). I appreciate you are being sincere, but your suggestion below is OR, finding instances of the term being used 'sincerely' are anyhow fairly rare, and the judgement that the use IS sincere, would be ours based on a primary source, whose weight would need to be taken into account. We need secondary sources (preferably academic studies or similar), charting the sincere/literal use, ideally charting as part of the bigger picture. There IS a fuller picture and a more nuanced history, including (in the UK), a brief period when the primary use was not hostile, but rather either literal or ironic, this is sourced. Unfortunately no one (inc. me) has been willing to spend the time or energy writing it.Pincrete (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That's because you cherry-pick your of the cherry-picking of sources. You can find many academic sources which began this whole debate which simply use it to describe certain kind of idealism than as simply "pejorative." Here's one from Stanford University, 1995 which simply describes it as certain kind of idealism: Political Correctness. What if the article was based entirely on this book? That would cherry-picking, wouldn't it? Seems like it's being done but with sources that only declare the term pejorative. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, the source you provided the other day explicitly states '»PC« is primarily a negative term for the ideals and actions of others', many of the sources you have provided say similar things. Cherry-picking is also ignoring the bits of sources you don't like, but wanting to use the bits you do like. Finding ONE (2,3?) (primary?) source that doesn't mention 'negative', doesn't invalidate innumerable secondary sources that do. Perhaps we should change 'ordinarily' to 'primarily' and use the source you claimed was 'bona fide' in all respects.

You might get a lot further in your arguments (and waste less of your and other's time), if you spent less time denigrating the motives and actions of others.Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The same source also states that the usage is changing. The meaning is becoming watered down. As an example provided by me: a daughter might inform her mother that the word the mother used isn't politically correct. The example provided in the source was about the naming of Chinese mainland in Hong Kong. And I already provided one where it's not used as a pejorative, but the ones which don't refer to it as pejorative only mention it like dictionaries do. They don't explicitly go all the way to declare that it's not a pejorative because that would be such a modern thing to do and something we might only be seeing in the future. And I half-mindedly wrote you when I meant whoever had put the source in the article. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Providing examples of use to illustrate a point is OR. It is you/us that are drawing the conclusion from a primary source. Pincrete (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I also provided an example the source used right after that, but I like by daughter example better. The same principle in both, really. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"politically correct" used sincerely with its literal meaning

An example of the term used sincerely: B for Business: A Complete English Course for Students of Business She says, "The use of Ms. is politically correct and becoming standard."

Also: I can tell you that in my household, the following type of exchange is not uncommon: Mom, watching a news clip of rioting: 'These people are thugs.' 20-yo daughter: 'Mom! That's racist! Only black people get called thugs!' Dad chips in after a puzzled pause:'No, it's not. Plenty of white people are thugs.' Daughter:'Well, it's not politically correct.' Mom (adjusting her vocabulary):'Oh.' Dad:'Oh.' Edit to add emphasis: Now obviously I'm not arguing that this in any way represents anything that can be used as a reliable source, but I'm trying to make a point -- if we're using it sincerely, I'm sure there are many many people doing the same. The fact that the pejorative use of it is more reported on in the media is not necessarily evidence that this is the only way or even the ordinary way it is used. We need to look at scholarly uses, business uses, etc. in addition to looking at how it's being used in political rhetoric and how the media is reporting on it. The media may be reporting on this use more often because this use is more newsworthy, not because it's more frequent.

At minimum, we need a section that provides the literal meaning and explains that this use is still current. That section needs to be reflected in the lead, and really, the first sentence of the lead probably should be where it is reflected. It's the literal meaning. Edit to add: though it looks to me like the terms 'bias-free language' and 'bias-free communication' are lately becoming a common way to express the concept -- might be a good idea to research, as the likely cause of this change is the pejorative use of politically correct.  :) valereee (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This is all OR. There is probably room for expanding (especially in relation to UK), that the term WAS used neutrally in public discourse, briefly, in the early '90's, it still is ocassionally (though usually in quotes ie 'what is called PC'). There are other details missing from 'history'. My own experience of the term is primarily being used ironically (ie TOO correct) or self-mockingly, but we can't base an article on your/my/anyone's private anecdotes about use in private. It is precisely its use in public discourse that justifies the article existing at all. Pincrete (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm not saying we should put this together ourselves and somehow find "the truth." I'm saying that if there are scholarly publications and business publications that are using the term sincerely, we may not be finding them because when we google 'political correctness' so much rhetoric and reportage of that rhetoric are making them hard to find. NOT original research. Just a question: are we looking everywhere, or are we just going for the low-hanging fruit? valereee (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

New section on 1980s

I added a new section on the 1980s, because stuff from the 1980s keeps appearing. I think I'll add Allan Bloom to the 1980s section later, which requires reworking of the 1990s section. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I also apologize for my numerous comma and period edits, because according to US rules they go inside the quotation marks no matter what. I didn't know that in Britain they don't necessarily. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

'Hey the article's US' was correct. Any article, once the 'main usage' is established, follows that main usage, this article is established as US spelling + usage, BUT we don't alter quotes. Hence I write -ised on talk, but -ized in the article. Pincrete (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

But it does say that the article should be improved and the issue talked about on talk page, after mentioning that the perspective is from the US? That's why I removed the hey. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I was just explaining 'norms', not 'getting at you'. The article's usage is US Eng, but it's subject matter shouls aim to reflect 'outside US' as well. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment. The whole article is about a term, and the uses of that term. Early days I know, but simply noting the use of the term in the 1980's without (RS'd) analysis of the use of that term (who/how/what context?), is a bit pointless. The 'Geoffrey Hughes' does I think, go into that, he claims (from memory) that the term was predominantly in use among US radicals, notably radical feminists AND as an ironic. He also claims that the term was widely used by Maoists (in China, much earlier) and 'picked up' in the US, where it quickly became ironic. Pincrete (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm adding Bloom there. In addition, I might fluff what exists up a bit. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

1980's first, the unintended consequence of moving Bloom, is to detach him from the remarks made about him and d'S, 10 years later which make the connection with PC, this is fixable.

Second there are quite a few 'generalisations' in the '80's section, which don't appear to be supported by the sources. Apologies if I am wrong, but claims like 'Many critics have argued it to have been the beginning of the modern debate' is supported by one critic + a book I don't have access to. 'Mass media use of the term is generally attributed to' is supported by one ref from a source I have never heard of before, a study published by 'Universidad Almería', written by a modern language graduate. Several other claims in that section are also attributed to that source (the database search seems fairly trivial anyway, there are other sources saying who/how the term was used at approx same period).

The 'academics abusing Bloom' at Duke University story, is actually (according to the source given) written by 'Andrew Ferguson from "The Weekly Standard', reporting something Bernstein is alleged to have chronicled, (no dates/location) and the source is Maarten Maartensz's personal website. Plus what is the connection to PC? Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

University of Almería is a Spanish university. You don't think they peer-review just because they're Spanish? They're not from Mexico or the like. Spain is a highly-developed European country, a member of the EU. I also added more sources and quotes. I also don't know why I linked to Maarteenz's website instead of the article itself, fixed. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I know where Almeria is. You are missing the point, sentences like 'generally regarded' require either that the majority of writers on the subject have conluded thus,(ref)(ref)(ref) OR that a small number of highly regarded experts (this happens on history subjects), have so concluded, this appears to be neither, several of the 'noted' writers on the subject don't mention Bernstein, so who is 'generally'. It is possible you are right on the 'critics' (I couldn't access one source). I am inviting you to rephrase if the balance of sources don't support these generalities.

You don't respond to how a personal website, quoting a journalist, quoting another journalist (without saying where or when orig. journo was printed) is RS? Nor what the connection to PC is. So, some unnamed academics were allegedly pretty loutish about Bloom in his absence. So? Pincrete (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems like we're back to the "your sources aren't enough, you need at least 15 sources to prove your claim" mantra. I found yet another source which claims it was Bernstein's article that popularized the term, will be adding it. Also, your sources don't talk about the origin of the term but the debate. When they mention the debate they foremost mention Bloom. The ones that investigate the term mention The New York Times. It can't get more simple than this. And I did respond by changing the source from the website to the article? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Jeering story: So, we are now one step closer, one journalist quoting another, without saying where the orig was printed. It still avoids the central question, what is the connection to PC? The answer is none as far as I can see, it MIGHT be relevant on a page about Bloom, but I doubt if it would be given that much weight 'unnamed academics allegedly jeer at Bloom when he wasn't there'. Arseholes some of these academics, no sense of decorum. The connection to PC?

'Sources mantra', no, just informing you of policy and practice, 'generally' generally requires evidence that the belief or description is 'general'. Claims made by a single individual aren't 'general' unless that individual is HIGHLY regarded in their field, otherwise it's 'person X claimed that, assertion Y'. The sources writing about the history of PC aren't many, to the best of my knowledge, none of them has the kind of 'authority' that often accrues around individuals writing about other subjects. I don't know the 'Almeira' source, but if broad claims are being made by her, we expect them either to be attributed to her, or 'backed up' by other sources. The books I was able to check last night didn't mention Bernstein, though they give extensive coverage to the NYT articles of that time.

I don't understand the relevance of your point about term/debate. Is it not correct that the NYT used the term in relationship to a debate (primarily at that time within academia) about higher education? Pincrete (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I might try finding a better description and place it where you removed the jeering story. And Bernstein pretty much is NYT. If you checked books and they had NYT then that means Bernstein. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed 'jeering story' for the reasons given above. I also question the relevance of this But Lorna Weir, in a word search on the database Informart of six "regionally representative Canadian metropolitan newspapers," found no less than 153 articles in which the terms "politically correct" or "political correctness" appeared between January 1, 1987 and October 27, 1990. refs Heteren+Weir. This is an overlapping time frame with the NYT articles, so they could just have been reporting those. I don't doubt the facts of the research necessarily, but what is the point? Also why 'But' as though it contradicts something earlier. The only earlier it partially contradicts is that NYT first used the word in mass press. Is that a sufficiently important distiction to make, and if it is, could it not be made more concisely? Pincrete (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The point is to introduce a differing opinion from the get-go. If you have a better one then provide it. This bit also chronicles the few times it's used which in comparison to the following information in the 1990s fits nicely. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Different in what sense? About who first used the word in print? But the time frames overlap and is it important if we don't know what the papers were writing about?

You posted this after, so I'll respond here — please add a tag above as well. And it's differing in as to who exactly came up with the modern use of the term. With that there it specifies that it was used a few times before him, so he's not the inventor per se. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Re:this tag 'clarify | date = October 2015 | reason = The source also mentions Bloom and the NYT article, so why is D'Souza being singled out?' . That is what I meant above about 'unintended consequence' of moving Bloom. The sentence was originally attached to both names, which also established Bloom's connection to 'PC', a term not in wide use at the time his book came out. This is fixable, but I suggest not simply by repeating the sentence in '80's. Pincrete (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Different section, don't post this here. And if Bloom wrote in the 80s, that's where he belongs. And can you produce the exact sentence from the source, please? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I was explaining why 'D'Souza is being singled out' , because you moved the text that attached him to that description. You can hardly blame anyone but yourself for him being 'singled out' in the remaining text. Page no etc. of the source are in the cite the library assistant has a day off today. Pincrete (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Bloom wasn't there before? And I still need it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies you are right, Bloom's name wasn't attached to the quote before, (there have been so many 'random' changes recently, it's hard to keep track of them) it could be now. If you need it (the text), I suggest a public library, (though your tag implies you know the contents of the quote). Text-on-demand is not a WP principle. Pincrete (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

My tag implies what? That makes me suspicious! What do you mean? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Your tag says 'clarify|date=October 2015| reason = The source also mentions Bloom and the NYT article, so why is D'Souza being singled out?'. How could you know what the source says if you do not have access to it or haven't read it? I haven't read it in a long time, and took it on trust that you HAD. Now you appear to be saying that you put the tag on without actually having read the source. Pincrete (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Glimpses of the source are available in which the two are visible. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant?

I have no objection to a 1980's section but the bulk at present (whole first para) is:

1987 saw the publication of Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, Synopsis accompanying the 1988 Simon and Schuster republication: "Bloom argues that the social and political crises of contemporary America are part of a larger intellectual crisis: the result of a dangerous narrowing of curiosity and exploration by the university elites." Roger Kimball called it "an extraordinary meditation on the fate of liberal education in this country." David Rieff wrote that Closing was a morally corrupt book that “decent people would be ashamed of having written.” Many critics have pointed to it as the likely beginning of the modern debate. James Atlas wrote in 1988: "'The Closing of the American Mind' has provoked a fantastic amount of debate. Even now, 10 months after its publication, large-scale attacks continue unabated." Critic Camille Paglia called it "the first shot in the culture wars.

There clearly is a connection between Bloom and 'PC', but at no point is that connection made, a small amount of this might be appropriate as 'background', but at what point is the connection to 'PC' going to be made? At present it is not made at all (unless 'modern debate' is meant to imply the connection). It seems Bloom's connection to the use of the term is either zero, or so self-evident that we don't need to record it at all.

Also, at present we have some Sim & Schust blurb and some very negative comments, but little info about the relevant content, (ie content relevant to the term 'PC").

How is any of D'Souza's stuff related to PC yet mentioned multiple times in the article? The two are highly alike. You're pretty much arguing against your own precious D'Souza. You don't want any D'Souza stuff removed and in fact you want more added, but any contender you'll find a threat to your precious D'Souza. Nigh all of your sources and quotes and blurbs about D'Souza talk about his 1991 book which doesn't feature the term. Then one talks about the 1992 book which does and you consider that justification for the cherry-picked blurbs from the 1991 book. Again I have to mention multiculturalism is briefly mentioned a few times in his 1991 book but "Victim's Revolution" is constantly talked about, as in victimization. In fact, I added it as the firstmost blurb. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The present text does nothing to establish what Bloom's connection to 'PC' was. What elements of his ideas featured in the PC argument and what effects (sourced!). A load of pointless blather about 'your own precious D'Souza', doesn't remedy that. Nor does it address why a publicity blurb is used as a source. You don't seem to have noticed my 'There clearly is a connection between Bloom and 'PC'. What is it? This is largely at present a 'cut and paste' from the book's own page. Some people hated the book, some loved it, yes, true. How/why did it feature in the debate about PC?(sourced!). Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, you could use all of those same arguments of D'Souza. But to answer: Bloom began the entire debate. He is described as conservative on his article, which you can add if you want to. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am NOT interested in YOUR opinion, any fool could offer their opinion of the connection. I am interested in the article reflecting what RS have said the connection is. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? WP:CIR is rapidly coming into play here.

In the case of d'Souza, that connection is made. Not 'his granny thought it was a lovely book, someone else thought it was horrible while his publisher described it as … ' all of which might belong on other pages, or 'a snippet' as background. I see you still haven't removed the three-mile-long book title. Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The article already has books referenced. Didn't you just a moment ago write: "Text-on-demand is not a WP principle." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

And no connection is made with D'Souza. His 1992 book uses the term, yes, but not his 1991 one isn't which is what the sources talk about. Only one mentions the 1992 one and you won't provide any details about that source. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The d'Souza connection which is made, is which aspects of his ideas were connected with the use of 'PC'. They are from sources discussing PC, equally valid would be books about d'Souza, specifically addressing 'PC' as an issue. There probably IS a connection between Bloom and PC (Bloom is one of three names highlighted by Hughes, from a longer list of about 9-10 prominent US commentators, but nothing I have so far read would tie him EXPLICITLY to PC, rather than traditional/conservative writings and views, but I'm fairly certain the connection exists). The d'Souza text doesn't say much, ('caught the imagination'?), about how loved or hated he or his book was, it focuses on identifying which of his ideas featured prominently in the use of the term PC.(sourced) Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr Magoo, it's you who is anxious to establish Bloom's pre-eminence within the 1990's US debate, I dispute his pre-eminence, but am happy for his book to be included as ONE OF the foci of discussions. All I'm saying to you, is that the first experienced editor who comes along is going (rightly) to remove most of what is presently in the 1980's section about his book, since the sources don't establish any connection to PC or establish what/why the book's contents became involved with that term. I have other things which I would much rather be doing (such as finishing reading the 'UK story'). If you want your text about Bloom to have a 'hope in hell's chance' of still being there in a few weeks time, you might want to try to fix that. Pincrete (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Likewise "The Bloom connection which is made, is which aspects of his ideas were connected with the use of 'PC'." All you have directly linking D'Souza to PC is something like "a mention of PC on page 3 and a mention of D'Souza on page 15 in the same book." Very same happens in every Bloom source as well (which are pretty much the same sources as used for D'Souza because they mention Bloom foremost). I thought D'Souza was featured because of the debate. The very debate Bloom began. If the debate doesn't matter then D'Souza should be removed ENTIRELY from this article. Every single mention of him gone. The importance of Bloom to the debate has been incredibly well sourced. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Afterthought, responding to earlier posts. You are possibly right to this extent, that the D'Souza TEXT could (briefly) make the connection to the spread of the term and the debate surrounding his book, at present the connection is mainly made in the sources, with the general assertion 'caught the press's imagination' (or whatever it is).

Responding to this post, do any of the 'Bloom' sources EXPLICITLY make the connection to 'PC'? They look like a lot of 'person A loved it, person B hated it, Paglia C said this about it twenty years later, the publisher wrote this on the dust-jacket'. None of that establishes ANY connection to the term 'PC', (nor even the ideas in the book which caused it to be part of the PC debate), merely that it was a very controversial book, which was significant in the broader 'culture war'. Pincrete (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I forgot to add refs from the lead to the subsection as well which were the ones to point out the connection. I must have thought it didn't need to be repeated or something. I'll start adding those to the subsection. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of the TEXT is still off-topic. Also the refs are simply attached to the claim that the book was published, not to any claims about content or role. There is no justification for publisher's 'blurb' for almost any purpose. One or two brief descriptions of reactions might be justified as 'background', but that is all there is at present. Pincrete (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

All of the text is on-topic and the refs attached don't simply claim that but do also talk about its role. And where did you get the rule of no publisher descriptions allowed? Made it up on the spot? It happens to be an excellently succint summary, so it very much has use. We've also pinpointed how the book was the most important point in the origin of the debate, so any less information wouldn't be justifiable. In fact more would be needed. I also noticed you removed the subtitle without any concensus even though I've told you not to. You're basically stomping on others' edits. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the 'relevant' tag, I don't who did the fixing, but the text now addresses PC. HOWEVER, I'm not so sure that text and refs align, specifically the refs attached to Paglia + Atlas, I don't know what they are supporting, other than that they wrote criticisms. I'm also not sure what the refs attached to the book title support, it's publication?

I can't access all of the refs, but I hope that 16 + 29 support that Paglia and Atlas SPECIFICALLY, have pointed to Allan Bloom's 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind as the likely beginning of the modern debate about political correctness in higher education.. Otherwise some copy -editing is called for.

What I think is still missing is some account of the content, why the ideas were controversial, in this context, what was in the book ?(from a reasonably neutral observer, ie not the publisher).

Re; sub-title, See WP:Common name, you can't 'tell me' to override policy and practice, without some good reason. Pincrete (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

NYT, Bush and Bloom in the lead

I am starting a new section to avoid further confusing the above.

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, regarding this edit: Seperating Bloom and d'S is fine, but it would be better to say briefly WHAT Bloom's book said, which is WHY it aroused controversy as per d'S.

The (lazy/tired) clarification tag was for similar reasons, NYT was reporting a fierce controversy (at that point mainly within academia). I hope to post more detail (and a suggestion) later, but briefly, the character of that debate is more important than the mere fact that they used the word. I have to go, but will try to post later.

I don't think Bush needs to be in the lead, it's a minor milestone in the use, but not one that contributed to how 'PC' is defined/used. Pincrete (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Bloom's book has its own page, so I think its fine on its own because people can simply click through the hyperlink. You've got to think in Web 1.0 terms, grandpa. I also added "on the matter" to clarify that they were talking about this matter. Bush originally was supposed to have the other parts of the quote there which says the listeners didn't know the term beforehand. Maybe I'll try to add that somehow. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I added the bit the source stated which was so spectacular. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Bush, I think only deserves to be 'history'. 'On the matter' is very vague. Will post later, hopefully.Pincrete (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC) … … ps relying on links is not how it is done, a link is 'for fuller picture' or clarification. The text should be coherent in its own right, in this context, stating briefly what Bloom's book was about relative to PC, or attaching the text to the d'Souza description, if apt.Pincrete (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I just added an incredible quote which cements his place in the introduction. We could always remove all the excess fluff; meaning it, Bloom and Dinesh, though. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh and I think the NY Times articles were simply variedly about political correctness. Not necessarily this or that subfactor, but the whole rainbow. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The chances of you getting consensus for 'removing fluff like Dinesh' are about zero. Several editors have already expressed that. I would need to hear a very strong case for doing so, which so far I haven't heard. Pincrete (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think he belongs in the history section. But it seems like editors have decided to add a lot of history into the introduction. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

What editors have added to the lead are 'key milestones' that 'defined' the use of the term, and which have been extensively written about subsequently. Bush isn't one of those, the addition means the account isn't even coherent: 'NYT took the term into 'mainstream use', (with a series of articles about a fierce debate inside academia), but the next year half the audience (of academics), didn't recognise the term' (not NYT readers obviously!). The article is about the term, how used/by whom/what context/when/what results? I am neutral about 'NYT' but devoting a great chunk of the lead to Bush using the term once, is WP:Undue. Pincrete (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You must have really stretched the limits of imagination coming up with "key milestones" and "editors" when it was Aqu who edited Dinesh in 5 months ago. There wasn't any talk about it. And just because it wasn't contested at the time doesn't make it right, because no one was contesting anything done to the article. Bush is a lot more notable than some second-rate backyard-baseball tier author with a book as notable as the biography of John Dow Fisher Gilchrist. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and he didn't even use the term in his source-noted 1991 book. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I've no idea why/when 'd'Souza' was inserted, nor by whom. I know what and why I am in favour of keeping now, (and broadly what views other editors have expressed). This looks a lot like an attempt at deflecting the fact that even YOU think 'Bush' belongs in history, but are determined to make some point, by putting him in the lead. The point is lost on me. … … … ps 'editors' should have referred to current editors who have expressed an opinion on d'S, and the purpose of the lead, all of whom (apart from yourself) have been willing to discuss amending/adding to the text about him, all of whom have said he should not be removed from the lead. Pincrete (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

What I wrote was that editors have put a lot of history in the lead. I think the origin past NY Times could be cut — maybe keep Daily Mail at the end for the UK. But in terms of history of the term, Bush comes before D'Souza. I mean he really does use it before. And again there are no "editors." It's bizarre how Aqu isn't even "mentioned" because I write his name with three letters without a link yet he appears instantly when he's even tinily, vaguely mentioned in the huge masses of text we write. And I apologize but I couldn't but help notice how before, Aqu used to use the single quote marks ' like you do instead of the double ", but then he changed it up some days ago and now he uses double. Why the bizarre similarity before? Why suddenly change it? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

What went on here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3APolitical_correctness&type=revision&diff=686728639&oldid=686713077 ? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If you mean the 'prev'. I posted here several paras which should have been in '80's, then moved them up.Pincrete (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Closing of the American Mind is definitely an important book in the history of the debate, important enough to put in the lead, but we do have to be careful about the terminology we use for it. Obviously d'Souza is still noted as central by multiple sources and belongs in the lead as well. I don't think the Bush quote belongs in the lead, though, and I especially think there's no need to put the actual quote there (that's the sort of thing that belongs in the article body); and "people were puzzled by the use of the term" (which feels mostly like purple prose by the writer of an editorial; his insinuation is clearly that they knew what the word meant but were denying it was relevant) feels like WP:SYNTH in the sense that it's being present to lead the reader to the conclusion that the Bush quote is important without really saying it. Even with better sourcing, though, I don't see the reason to put the quote itself in the lead; "the notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land" doesn't do anything to summarize the article. The important milestone in the history here is that by that point it had become well-known enough for a President to use it in a speech; what he actually said about it doesn't seem important (especially not the part that is just "there is a controversy about it.") --Aquillion (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

All of these belong in the history section, but editors have unanimously decided to but a lot of history into the introduction. In ranking of importance to the term, Bush comes before D'Souza, as does Bloom. It's not just the quote but also the description of how the audience members had not heard the term before, which showcases how new it was at the time. The quote is only a few words long, meaning it can be showcased without taking much space at all. And you don't think "has ignited controversy across the land" doesn't describe the situation perfectly? It encapsulates it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I added another ref for the Bush quote, again which mentions it before D'Souza. Also note that the same source on later pages describes the debate having began from Bloom, but it began its timeline from the NYT article which appeared after Bloom. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

They have not 'unanimously decided' anything. The onus is on you to convince of the need to change, no one has to justify the stable version of what is already there, even if we personally don't like it. This has been explained before. I am unclear as to whether some of the 'Bush before X' remarks are referring to time or importance. We don't think Bush's remarks are important enough to feature in the lead, how did they define the use of the term? Was there some huge controversy about what he said. Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

But earlier you mentioned "key milestones." And this is new information the article didn't contain before which sublimely outranks in importance D'Souza which stood (still stands) in the introduction. The president used the term before D'Souza. He was the most powerful person on the planet at the time and he used the term before D'Souza. He's got an entire library that records everything he says and this is included there. His speech was noted by the press and historians of the term. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The sentence was 'key milestones' that 'defined' the use of the term, and which have been extensively written about subsequently'. Bush meets one of those three criteria.Pincrete (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Bush meets all of them? Key milestone, defined, and written about subsequently. And most of all he used the term unlike D'Souza. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed 'Bush' from the lead, since there seems no consensus to keep it.Pincrete (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I've similarly removed other extra history from the lead, since there seems to be no concensus to keeping it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Before things get lost, Bloom seems to have everybody's ok in the lead, the NYT series of articles appear to have no objectors. In both instances, simply naming them is a bit pointless without stating their 'role'. In the case of the NYT, the articles were reporting a controversy, which at that time was largely within academia over a wide series of policy, curricular and other issues. Bloom, I have no idea what his distinct role was, nor whether it could be covered wholly/partly by the d'Souza description. My own wording (ascribing importance of their role in 'popularising' the term PC, without implying they necessarily USED the term PC in the books), may be pretty 'clunky', so suggestions for improvement welcome. Pincrete (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources we have put more emphasis on Bloom than D'Souza. The main source being used, Schultz mentions Bloom foremost and that D'Souza was only as talked-about. Even D'Souza himself attributes much to Bloom. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Does it matter which is MORE significant? Pincrete (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Obviously? To you probably it doesn't because you can tell Bloom is more important than D'Souza. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Bush doesn't belong in the lead - and we shouldn't decide what is notable. "Hence" obviously means causation and shouldn't be used either. The source for the term becoming popular in the UK doesn't say that at all. Nor is it a reliable source for such a statement. Since I removed that from the article body I've removed it from the lead. I really don't understand why Bush would be in the lead. How does that meet WP:LEAD? Doug Weller (talk)

Doug, now you removed the Bush quote entirely from the article, even though he was the first notable person to use the term. That quote is no longer in the article. It's also in my opinion a lot more notable than D'Souza now that we've established how much more important Bloom is than D'Souza. Both Bush and D'Souza can be footnotes in the history section. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it belongs in the article, but not the way it was. It also misrepresented the source. "Listeners" is not a synonym for "activists", the word used in the text, and IMHO that's an opinion needing a quote and attribution. No comment on the rest of the lead. Doug Weller (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I wrote listeners, because I had a hard time understanding or finding out what the activists were and why were they at a commencement ceremony. I felt it would have required an explanation, which I couldn't offer. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe the source uses "activists" to describe academic activists as in debaters. As to what debates/debate, unsure. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I think the original text (in the book) is too confusing/obscure to be usable. Doug Weller (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've found multiple sources which mention it right after the magazine articles when chronicling the the term, though. I think such use places importance as an attributor in the origin of the term. And his use of the term is quoted in at least a half a hundred books. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: many of these are unusable as sources though because they mention that "news articles" popularized it and then Bush used it, which is as unspecific as it can get. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I found one I could use as a source for Bernstein: "The deployment of the neo-conservative PC was initiated by Richard Bernstein's 'The Rising Hegemony of the Politically Correct,' published in the New York Times in October 1990, and promulgated further in President Bush's addres to the commencement ceremony at the University of Michigan in March 1991." but it again only says Bush "promulgated further." I'll add this to some Bernstein bit, though. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"The 1990 article by Richard Bernstein was quite influential: "

And this comes from where? "Quite"? This needs to be dealt with by attributed statements. I can't find it in the first source, although I can find it in the 2nd (the web version of an article) However, van Heteren says "The first articles on political correctness in the New York Times appeared at the end of the eighties. John Wilson notes that an article by Richard Bernstein in 1988 “compared a conference on liberal education at Duke University to the tyrannical ‘minute of hatred’ described in George Orwell's 1984."*2 The mass media use of the term “PC” is generally attributed to this article, but Loma Weir, in a word search on the database Infomart of six “regionally representative Canadian metropolitan newspapers”, found no less than 153 articles in which the terms “politically correct” or “political correctness” appeared between 1 January 1987 and 27 October 1990.’'The 24 December 1990 issue of Newsweek appeared with the words “Thought Police” on the cover as a foretaste of the content of a lengthy inside article by Jerry Adler under the title “Taking Offense: Is This the New Enlightenment on Campus or the New McCarthyism?” This article is often cited as the starting point for the use of “PC” as a derogatory adjective, as it is used twenty-nine times to condemn various manifestations of political correctness, although as Weir has demonstrated, its use had been current in the media for at least three years."

In other words, the idea that the article was quite influential is challenged but we state it as fact. Doug Weller (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll modify it to be attributed statements then. Please also read after that because you split a sentence into two and only read the first part. The challenge is to the 1988 article, not the 1990 one. The 1990 one blew the bank. The Newsweek one also appeared in December. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Good point, but my main point still stands as you seem to realise. Doug Weller (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the sentence and just left in the Nexis citations sentence. I can try to find an attributed statement. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I now understand what the problem is. I didn't remember why I had added the other two sources there behind the Nexis sentence, so I moved them up ahead and latched them behind the first part. But it seems the source for the Nexis citations also states the article to have been influential. It uses that word. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

On another page, I forgot to add. I had noted only a single page but a different one had also talked about the article. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion, but have put a 'clarification tag' on this sentence. 'Influental' is very vague, if the meaning is simply 'spread the term more widely', could the point not be made within the previous sentence. Otherwise the 'character' of the influence shouls be stated, which includes becoming 'derogatory'. Other sources also claim that these articles took the term outside academia, though that is not necessarily endorsed by the 'word search'. There is a flaw in the 'word search' argument, which is that the timeframe overlaps with the NYT articles (but that's OR on my part of course and I state it only as 'background'). Pincrete (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

What word search are you talking about? If the first one, it counts 153 from many years. Pay close attention to how it stops at October 27, because October 28 blows the roof apart. It's of course the date of the publication of the 1990 Bernstein article. After that it jumps to 1500. Coincidence? I don't think so. The influential is also used in this context by the Crossroads source. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'm taking up the suggestion of removing the previous sentence. I'm moving the 1991 NYT article mention to just before the quotes appear. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: What word search are you talking about?. The one referred to at the end of the 'van Heteren' quote given by Doug W above, and partially used in the article. Pincrete (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As in the 153 one like I talked about. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think 'influental' is meaningless unless the nature of the influence is noted. I also think that Weir's 'word search' is meaningless divorced from the point that Heteren is making. My reading of the two is that Heteren is arguing towards This article is often cited as the starting point for the use of “PC” as a derogatory adjective giving Weir's search as evidence that it previously was not derogatory. I am neutral as to whether this point is worth making, but very un-neutral about misrepresenting Heteren's argument or OR by borrowing bits from it while leaving its overall substance 'on the cutting room floor'. I have already noted that due to 'time overlap' and not comparing like-with-like (NYT & provincial Canadian papers), Heteren/Weir's 'proofs' are more indicative than conclusive (we can bear that last point in mind, but not include it in the article). Pincrete (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll add influential in what way tomorrow. And your bit about "derogatory adjective" is talking about the later Newsweek one and neither of the Bernsteins, please read through more carefully. There also is no time overlap but on the 1988 one because the search ends October 27. Weir is well-sourced and worth mentioning. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Re 'derogatory', apologies you are right, Newsweek not NYT. I still don't understand the point of including 'Weir', nor 'influental' without context. There IS a time overlap if the 1988 NYT is counted, though as I've said, it would be OR to point to it.Pincrete (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep writing influental? You've seen me write it influential numerous times? The word in the article is influential???? And I wrote I'll add the context tomorrow. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Typing error noted. Pincrete (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Should Dinesh D'Souza be removed from the lead, only to be mentioned in the main article? 2.0

Should Dinesh D'Souza be removed from the lead, only to be mentioned in the main article?

The man's importance to the term is dubious. The term's had widespread use before he wrote the first Illiberal Education in 1991, which doesn't seem to even use the term. The second one isn't that notable, a mere 32 page speech-to-text. Obviously he should be mentioned in the article, but in the lead? I don't think so. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This is the current wording of the lead:

The term (Political correctness) had only scattered usage prior to the 1990s, usually as an ironic self-description, but entered more mainstream usage in the United States when it was the subject of a series of articles in The New York Times. The phrase was widely used in the debate about the 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom, and gained further currency in response to conservative author Dinesh D'Souza, who condemned what he saw as liberal efforts to advance multiculturalism through language, affirmative action and changes to the content of school and university curriculums.

Virtually all sources identify D'Souza's writings and views as being pivotal to the debate about higher education within the US in the 1990's, during which the term 'PC' entered popular use. Whether D'Souza actually used the term himself in his book is largely academic, and we do not imply that he did. A similar number of sources identify the ideas in Bloom's book as influential in the 1990's debate, around which use of the term 'PC' coalesced. The current phrasing of the lead is 'work in progress', since the distinct role of Bloom and distinct character of his books is not currently identified and should be. Bloom and D'Souza's books, are frequently spoken of 'in the same breath' in relation to PC, such as the comment that their two books "captured the press's imagination" in popularising a debate about 'PC'. In order to justify removing D'Souza from the lead, I would need to be persuaded that D'Souza's writing did NOT significantly contribute to the 1990's US public debate about 'PC in higher education', or that that debate was not central to 'defining' the modern use of the term. No evidence is provided of either. Pincrete (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No, they don't. They identify Bloom foremost, like the most central of your sources, Schultz does. Even D'Souza himself attributes much to Bloom. And the "captured the press's imagination" is fairly unsourced as I asked for the part where it's mentioned and whole sentence, yet haven't received it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The lead does not give pre-eminence to the role of either, (which is a 'was it John or Paul who contributed most to the Beatles success?' question, ie much more fruitful to identify what the contribution of each was) neither should the lead give pre-eminence unless sources are fairly overwhelmingly clear about that. The argument that you are NOT making is that D'Souza's contribution was NOT significant. 'Less significant', is a detail, which (if very clearly true), could be covered by attaching a single 'especially' to either's name. Pincrete (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

When you read an article on 9/11 you don't see all of the terrorists names in the lead because that would be cluttersome. Only Osama is mentioned in the lead. The ringleader and a pilot Mohamed Atta isn't. The mention of Bush was removed from the lead of this article for the very same reason. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists, I've no idea why Atta etc. are not named on that lead, but doubt that it is AT ALL related to why G Bush is not in our lead. I've seen sillier analogies, but not recently. Pincrete (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The point was that Dinesh's only importance noted by the sources seems to be his 1991 book which doesn't feature the term. Bloom's 1986 book also doesn't and has been stated in most of the sources to have begun the debate. Bloom is much more important to the debate. Dinesh's only link to the term is his 1992 32-page speech-to-text which is sidenoted in a single source. By that time everybody were using the term anyways, like proven by the sources. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

How many times Bloom (0) or d'Souza (a few) actually used the term 'PC' is a detail. The lead says 'in response to' ie the term was being used in discussions, articles etc. by those discussing these books, the ideas in them, and the broader debate about higher education. Every source (I have read) discussing 'PC', identifies a significant role for d'Souza. Whether Bloom or d'Souza were pre-eminent is a seperate (and IMO fruitless) discussion. You cannot coherently use the argument that Bloom was MORE significant, to assert that d'Souza was NOT significant. Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and D'Souza only used it after it had already spread all over the country and was in use by the conservatives. Even George H.W. Bush used it a year before D'Souza. With this logic we should add Bush back to the lead, shouldn't we? And about Bloom: every D'Souza source in the article mentions Bloom foremost, with the possible exception of the one whose full quote you're not willing to provide. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Since we do not claim that d'Souza was the first, second, nth, main or sole user of the term, what is your point? What we claim is that both Bloom and D'Souza's books and ideas were central to the debate in the 1990's in the US, principally about education, during which 'PC' was much used as a term. Every book on the subject (which I have read) makes that point, varying little in how they make that point. Pincrete (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't but it's still central as to who had a hand in the origin. From Bloom sprout both the debate and D'Souza himself. From the debate sprout the NYT articles, mind you before D'Souza. The 1988 article also focuses on Bloom, so Bloom was also likely central to the early NYT articles; meaning they sprouted from him. D'Souza is like a third wheel to Bloom and NYT. If I were to exaggerate a bit it would be like mentioning Donald Trump or Ben Carson. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

So, all of the sources have got it wrong is your argument? And I imagine than when they refer to D'Souza's book, Errrrr, they are referring to his book, the one that topped the best-seller's list, not a speech he gave or anything else. Or did they also get that wrong? Pincrete (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That's the opposite of what I'm saying. And the references are again to his 1991 book but not the 1992 one which actually features the term and is a 32-page speech-to-text. Also, Bloom was the top best seller for four months. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

'How many times Bloom or d'Souza actually used the term 'PC' is a detail. The lead says 'in response to' ie the term was being used in discussions, articles etc. by those discussing these books and the ideas in them.' The 'Hughes book' refers to D'Souza about 70 times (mainly quotes from his book), Bloom is cited hardly at all. Pincrete (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by detail? And likewise "in response to" Bloom, who came years earlier and began the debate. And I checked the Hughes book and it mentions Bloom many times. In its beginnings section it begins with Bloom and then goes through 2 other books before finally mentioning D'Souza. It keeps mentioning Bloom before D'Souza. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What I mean by 'detail' has already been explained and is obvious. The number of times either used the term themselves, is clearly irrelevant to how frequently the term was used by others, when discussing their books and ideas. Even if you could prove that Bloom was MORE important than D'Souza, that would not be an argument for D'Souza not being significant. You are right, Hughes' first and second mentions of their names both put Bloom first, that is for the simple reason that the first mention is a chronological list and the second an alphabetical one, and 1987 was before 1991 and B comes before S.

I won't be posting any more in this thread, since it now goes round in circles. Clearly, there are NO valid reasons for removing D'Souza from the lead (ps I overestimated how many cites there are to D'Souza in 'Hughes', not that it is important, since there are many more than to Bloom and I don't think who is MORE significant is either answerable, or important) Pincrete (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It's clearly relevant, because the article's exactly about that. The article's not about the debate in the higher education. If you want to create an article for that, then be my guest. Even that would mostly star Bloom. And I already have. All of the sources do. Bloom's book is so important it had its had its own article for 13 years. Dinesh's book is mentioned on a few books and even then its not directly linked with the term, being mentioned 10 pages apart at best. All of the Dinesh sources point out Bloom. Dinesh himself points out Bloom. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"The term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena"

From:

The rapid progress from only appearing in academic context to being paraphrased in all steps of life is notable:

to:

The term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena:

is an incredibly silly change. It was being noted how in the two quotes the use changes from academic to all life, and the new intro completely nulls that. The new introduction is seemingly simply talking about the first quote along with the second, even though it was supposed to talk about the difference between the two quotes. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My edit reason We can't say 'notable' ... the 'context' is still academic (ie about higher education ... clarification tag ... CAPS are normal on dust covers, but SHOUT on the page

'Notable' is OR ... you don't mean 'academic context', since the subject was still 'higher learning', you probably mean 'within academia', but I didn't have a source for that(though I'm sure they exist) ... how is/was the term being 'paraphrased', do you mean repeated/used/applied to new contexts? The orig. sentence doesn't make sense and is barely grammatical.Pincrete (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned above that I'll try a maneuver where I'll remove the first sentence and merge it with yours, also pointing out the difference at the same time. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Funny for you to claim the end of the paragraph is OR when it's your own text bit. All I added was that the two quotes are different. That's all I added. That's apparently OR to you. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Everything must be verifiable, not necessarily verified. So, are you disputing that the term 'entered the public arena' or what? If you dispute the 'public arena' fact, I am not opposed to its removal, though it is very verifiable.

Your replacement is pure OR, the difference between two quotes from the articles showcases how the term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena, is written like an essay, with you 'pointing to' a conclusion. What is not I think disputed by anyone (and is sourceable) is that before the articles, the term was primarily being used within academia (certainly in relation to higher education, not necessarily other circles, feminism for example), after the articles it enjoyed a 'bigger audience'.

I personally have no objection to ONE of the two quotes (they aren't very different so what is the 'difference' which is being 'showcased'). The second seems clearer and fuller anyway.Pincrete (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, I didn't replace anything. I added the different bit to the sentence. And "term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena" is the core of the sentence, which you added. I added that the difference between the two quotes showcases this, because they follow up right after. Without that addition the whole sentence is just meaningless. And the quotes are incredibly different and if you actually dispute their importance then wow. Also, you claim my addition is OR yet it's not disputable? Didn't you just go through with how your bit isn't OR because it's verifiable? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be drawing a conclusion from the evidence and 'showcasing' it. That is OR, that is what one does in an essay. The central facts we agree on, the term left academia, entered the public arena (already sourced)- quote confirming the point (why two? I don't see the 'big difference' which is 'showcased'.) … … 1) Across the country the term p.c., as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities … … 2) What has come to be called "political correctness," a term that began to gain currency at the start of the academic year last fall, has spread in recent months and has become the focus of an angry national debate, mainly on campuses, but also in the larger arenas of American life.

One sentence says 'across the country', one says 'mainly on campuses, but also in the larger arenas of American life'. The second sentence is fuller, the first adds that the debate is about curriculum. Perhaps I am very stupid today (it happens), but a) I don't see any obvious difference b) unless someone else has recorded the 'meaning' of the difference (not you/me) it's OR. If they have it should be attributed.

I think all that is needed is 'entered general use' + quote 2 (just noticed, no. 2 says 'public arena', so we should find a synonym or put it "in quotes").Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

So do you with your sentence "term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena"? Are you simply acting simple right now? Pointing out something from the source isn't OR, like you yourself wrote. And the first one doesn't say "across the country" but "across the country in debates over what should be taught at the universities." You're simply distorting what it said. The second sentence specifically points out it's now being used outside the debate. The difference is vast, very much worth pointing out. Other sources support the change during this time. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: 'Pointing out something from the source isn't OR' . Yes it is! Unless the source itself EXPLICITLY pointed it out, in which case it's simply reporting their observations and conclusions, see WP:SYNTH. Pincrete (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Which is done? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to a source that THEMSELVES points out the difference and say what conclusion they come to? If you can't its OR. It can hardly be OR on my part to use the very expression in the 2nd quote that follows, though I admit I was initially paraphrasing. Pincrete (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to a source that states "term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena"? If you can't it's OR. This is how silly you sound. And the latter article specifies "recent", "become" and "also" — meaning change. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Drawing your own conclusions , from sources (or appearing to be doing so, by the manner of phrasing) is OR, if you cannot (or will not) understand that, you need to go 'back to basics' on policies and practice, see WP:SYNTH.

It really doesn't matter whether the conclusion is, (or seems to be), so blindingly obvious that a ten year old could arrive at it, it's still OR, (which is completely different from accurate, neutral paraphrasing or summarising).

It is the manner of presentation here, as much as the content, which is OR (if the reader looks at quote 1 and compares it with quote 2, an appreciable difference will be seen, which only we have hitherto noticed). In this instance the OR is doubly unnecessary, since the change that occured is fully reported in quote 2, which omits only the 'curriculum' elements, which could easily be incorporated in a single word into our lead-in text to quote 2, which itself need be only a single short sentence. Pincrete (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No conclusions were drawn. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Update The OR element is now largely fixed in the presentation. There are typos though and clunky phrasing, 'is described as influential to the term.' do you mean 'was influential in spreading the term', the sources support that …… 'At time time it's mainly mentioned in educational context' is I presume two typos + 'educational context' is wrong, you possibly mean 'in academic circles/within academia' since the term continued to be used in 'educational context', throughout the '90s (ie in discussions about higher education). … … 'The New York Times had a follow-up on the topic in May 1991, according to which the term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena only 7 months after the previous article' the second half (after 1991) of this is almost a repeat of the quote that follows, so why have both? Your words and NYT's words? I still think that devoting so much text to the NYT is unnec. detail though. Pincrete (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

How are those typos? Maybe clunky but not typos. I'm also not entirely sure if the NYT article was influential only in spreading the term as Bernstein might have been among the very first to use it in this context, which is a lot more than just spreading. I'll try to describe it better. I also don't think educational context is the same as "academic context" because academic can mean an academic commenting on society even though it was academics commenting only on education. And I think even more focus should be brought to this crucial time period, with light shone over other magazines as well. NYT didn't do all of the work on its own even though it's pinpointed at the beginning of the avalanche. Newsweek for one used "politically correct" in very late 1990 as well and I've been trying to gather sources to mention it in the bit as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

'At time time it's mainly mentioned in (an/its/pluralise?) educational context' … … 'academia' is a loose term in UK which refers to 'the world of academics'. If that usage isn't general in US, 'academic circles'? 'among academics'? … … used 'in an academic context' means used 'when discussing academic matters/acadamies' ie when talking about higher education/places of higher education . It is PRECISELY in the context of discussing 'higher educational matters', that the term continued to be used in the US into the mid 90's at least. What you mean is something like mainly used within the academic community. Possibly the term was ALSO being used later about non-educational, broader social matters(source), but your wording suggests that it ceased to be used when discussing higher education, after the NYT articles. Difficult proposition to sustain I think.Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is from the US perspective so you can throw that UK perspective right out the window, goodbye. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean this is the excuse you've used many times so it's only logical that it applies to you as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the last two posts at all, what I'm mainly commenting on above, is the lack of clarity in the text. Pincrete (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring, time to stop

I'm involved so won't take any Admin action, but both of you are at or over 3RR. I'd advise a break until tomorrow. Talk here, don't edit. I'm not saying they aren't good faith edits, but 3RR applies to good faith edits. Doug Weller (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No war is happening right now. There's basically concensus on these minor matters, which no one even really cares about. There was a brief throwdown earlier about the lead when you suddenly stepped in, but it didn't even go over a single revert. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That is misrepresenting the situation, there is on your part repeated 'sneaky' addition of political 'labels', (which was seemingly settled some time ago, that they served no useful purpose). Repeated removal of d'Souza from the lead (where he has been for months and whose removal three long-term editors have expressed opposition to). The same absurd argument is repeated, that there is no consensus to KEEP d'Souza (+ variations on 'if I can't have Bush, you can't have d'Souza). The RfC is open and that is the place to put your arguments (and another one about 'labels' if you wish).Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Repeated repeated repeated and nothing you do is of course repeated. I feel like the pot is calling the kettle black. And everything was declared in edit summaries. You add edit summaries like "ce" and then edit a bunch of stuff. You don't think that's sneaky? Again, the pot calling the kettle black. I placed no arguments here; just shows that any venue you find you'll go badmouthing me. You also remove a lot of stuff often without any concensus. I add without concensus but with sources, you remove without concensus and without sources. Also, I don't see any of these other editors. Are you going to call one to come toot your horn now? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Point to one instance of me repeatedly inserting content which I had good reason to believe did NOT have consensus? Or removing content whose presence I had reason to believe DID have consensus. Pincrete (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You've added sneaky-beaky changes like this to the lead which completely change the meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_correctness&diff=prev&oldid=665442797 The removal I don't even have to bother with because that took place even today. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean if it "disadvantages" someone it's more like libel and lawsuit material than the matter of political correctness. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear me, you went back to June to find that! Can you explain to me what the difference is between 'upsetting' someone and 'offending them', the former is a pallid version of the second and is almost a tautology. Do you seriously think that 'to not offend or upset any group of people in society' is better or more accurate than 'to not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society.' Policies about ensuring equal access to public services etc., (whether you agree with those policies or find them 'excessively calculated'), for the disabled, for women, for particular races or other social groups, are designed to ensure these people are not 'upset' are they?

So, I take this as a 'no', you can't point to any instance of me edit-warring against consensus. Apology accepted. Pincrete (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That was one I wanted to point out. You've had plenty of similar others. And you can't disadvantage someone without it being pretty much libel and lawsuit material. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Another case I'd especially like to point out is one where Pinc removed Aqu's edit which I supported. Aqu had added a such for both Toynbee and Hutton, after I had argued for much stronger labels. Pincrete then removed the latter, obviously against concensus. About the labelings: Now, I had originally read the article and found it very badly written. At first I thought it were due to all the labelings I saw and then Toyn and Hut missing them, which is why I fought so much for them. Later due to some random editor's (who by the way obviously supports my view on the matter) lead edit, I noticed it was mostly the lead that was badly written — though parts of the main article as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

As has been said many times, if you feel you have a case about the behaviour of other editors, WP:ANI is the place to go. If I have misunderstood the concensus about the 'labels', I will remedy the situation. The compromise, as I understood it, was to attach a 'such' (ie such a critic), to Toynbee. I am strongly opposed to labelling anyone, unless it is necessary to understanding the context, especially when the labelling is 'crude', such as 'left-affiliated'.Pincrete (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources provided mention the word "pejorative"

None of the sources provided mention the word "pejorative." Pejorative is completely unsourced. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a paraphrase of the larger text of the five sources already there, all of which describe it in terms that make it clear it's pejorative. Nonetheless, if you want sources that use the term 'pejorative' specifically, I've added two. I can get more if you want, but it's already the most extensively-cited part of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The second one you added doesn't have the word, and the first one is an incredibly biased source because it writes that many critics use the term to encompass a wide range of matters but then it tries to argue against this, so that only the pejorative connotation is retained. In fact, it seems like the writer of the article would like to it that even though the term is not solely a pejorative, he wants it forced to be so. I also notice you brutally edited against concensus and removed the "ordinarily" entirely. Valereee questioned the pejorative use (and added the citation needed) and so I have. Many others on the talk page have also questioned the pejorative. I will obviously revert this edit. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I also find it funny that you two appear 15 minutes apart, and after I mentioned yesterday you've been gone long and that I don't see anyone supporting Pinc around. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources provide the citation requested. From Stark: "Unfortunately, "Political Correctness" has become a pejorative label — even when used to describe..." From Roberts: "Of one point, though, we can be certain: the ferocity and breadth of the assault has given 'political correctness' an unquestionably pejorative connotation..." Objecting on the grounds that you don't agree with a source's logic is unreasonable; even if the source were WP:BIASed, we can use biased sources, but in this case you're essentially just saying that you don't want to accept a source because you disagree with it. Regardless, since you insisted, I've added another source (Vincent, "What is “political correctness”? The origins of the term are now rather hazy, but it is clear that, whatever the original meaning of the term, it is now used in a pejorative sense.") You can't remove sources simply because you object to what they're saying or because you disagree with their logic; if you feel that they're making a mistake, find other sources that disagree, and we can cover the disagreement, or determine which side in the debate is more mainstream and which is WP:DUE more weight. --Aquillion (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with 'pejorative', though the most frequently used descriptor is 'derogatory', which is also more generally understood. If a change were made, I suggest 'derogatory' with a piped link to 'pejorative', since we don't have a 'derogatory' page. Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed the "is an ordinarily pejorative term" doesn't sound like proper grammar. I added em dashes to properly point out the break in the sentence. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh and the style of usage I learnt was that the breaker is always an em dash and never an en dash, and comes with spaces. Depending on your location in the States this varies. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

'A ordinarily' is better is it? It's usually 'an' before a vowel. The dashes are unnec, commas would suffice, though I don't see the need for either. The sentence is perfectly grammatical in UK usage (what is the grammatical difference from 'Michael is an uncommonly fat boy'?). Do US editors feel the change is an improvement? Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Because it's a parenthetical statement, it's not spoken normally but with a pause. If you look at em dash usage you wouldn't use an here. Commas aren't really meant to be used like this even though you sometimes do see it from people who don't know em dashes are used for it. They know such a possibility of sentence formation exists but they don't know how exactly to mark it so they use commas instead. In the boy example the uncommonly fat is the focus itself while in our sentence the focus is that it's the "a term that is X" as in the subject and its follow-up description. The addition of ordinarily pejorative is a quick mid-sentence sidenote. I tried switching ordinarily to other words like commonly in my mind but it still seems broken without the em dashes. Which is better, ordinarily or commonly? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

In the rating description here you can see an alternative style with double en dashes used in a similar situation. I just happened to stumble upon this. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead changes

Valereee removed the "excessively" and replaced ordinarily with often and removed the em dashes I had added. This means without excessively it can mean something simply calculated not to offend, not only excessively. This should satisfy your hate for the em dashes, right Pincrete? This seems like a fair trade-off so I support this. Don't tell me you're not fine with fair but you want it all. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are some of the dictionary definitions for the term:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://en.wiktionary.org/politically_correct

Wiktionary notes it sometimes being used as pejorative. It has stood like that for years. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

'Seen as excessively' is what it said. So, critics didn't think these policies 'went too far'? Critics thought that if I wanted to call my lecturer a Cunt or a fellow student a Nigger to his face, there should be no college rules against it? You clearly don't even understand why the word 'excessively' was put there but are in favour of removing it. Pincrete (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The point was to not to have one view shine too much. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

See section below, we all know what the dictionaries say, and if they were the last word on a subject, there would be no need of our article. 1000 dictionary definitions would not make the smallest difference, as has been explained before.Pincrete (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed amendments to definition in lead

This is the most recent edit of the definition. My criticisms of this version are, by omitting 'seen as being excessively calculated', a) it omits the 'excessive element' which is often central to discussion (of course I'm in favour of people X having equal treatment, but this goes too far!) … … b) by omitting 'seen as', it 'defines' the intentions of a broad range of policies, rather than 'how they are seen', which is more definable … … c) by omitting 'calculated', it omits the 'Orwellian social engineering', element to criticism. Though today's wording is simpler and seems a workable compromise for now, though sources suggest much stronger than 'often'.

I was about to propose my own compromise, based on a number of my own, and previous objections to the 'long term stable' version. My criticisms of the stable version are:

1) Present text possibly emphasises 'pejorative', by placing it before definition, this is perhaps saying 'it's a bad word' before saying 'what it is'.

2) Present definition covers 'not offend or disadvantage', which is a reasonable summary of 'outlawing epithets' and 'practical policies to ensure access or equality', it doesn't cover attempts to 'reflect diversity', or is at least stretching 'disadvantage' to cover those attempts. 'Attempts at reflecting diversity' is a key element of arguments with regard to 'multi-culturalism' and other curricular matters, which seem to be at the centre of US debates.

The 'long term stable' was arrived at about 5 months ago, it was mainly a 'tweak' of what was already there, 'ordinarily' was one of my contributions (previously no frequency qualifier ie simply 'is a pejorative term'). We are not obliged to source ANY individual words in our definition. We ARE obliged to make it a reasonably balanced summary of the evidence presented in the article. There is very ample evidence that the term (since circa 1990/5), has MAINLY been used to dismiss what is currently being discussed (as a pejorative or derogatory term), there is ample evidence that the term has been, and continues to be used ironically, (that irony varies from gentle self-mockery to heavy-handed criticism. Though no evidence EXPLICITLY makes that distinction, as far as I know, whilst irony can be pejorative, it is not inherently so). Historically, the term has been used as a non-pejorative, (it is occasionally so used now, but almost always "in quotes", and anyhow, any reference to use, based on examples, would be OR).

Stable version:

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is an ordinarily pejorative term used to describe language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society.

Proposed version:

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

1) I'm not completely happy with my own 'claim to be intended' … … 2) We might take 'who see these policies as excessive' and expand to 'who see these policies as an excessive infringement of individual rights', or some other identifier of what the 'excess' is. Pincrete (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the main thing to remember is that the lead, overall, has to reflect the article; and the definition at the top of the lead has to reflect the way it's described and used in the rest of the article. If we're going to imply that there is meaningful non-pejorative use in the present day, in other words, the article needs to cover things from the perspective of reliable sources documenting that usage. Nothing in the current body really talks about anything concerning its usage "not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society, and to ensure those people are adequately represented and reflected in all walks of life" except from the perspective of people like eg. Bloom and D'Souza (who are cited as using the term as a catchall pejorative for things like affirmative action in education). Given that it's largely an epithet in current political usage (as attested by those numerous sources), and given that literally all our sources for post-1980's usage seem to agree that the term's current usage was coined by political opponents of everything they use it to describe -- essentially, as the "first shot in the culture wars", as one source describes Bloom's book -- I don't see how we can provide a neutral, meaningful description without at least touching on that in some fashion first. I've seen a lot of people argue with the description of the lead based on "but that's not how I use it" or "but I've heard people...", but I haven't really seen anyone citing any detailed histories or any sort of detailed analysis for that usage. (My personal suspicion, based on both what I've seen and the way it seems to be used in the sources, is that a lot of people use the term self-deprecatingly, ironically, or humorously, and casual listeners hear that and don't read it as pejorative. Those usages, though, fundamentally depend on it being pejorative -- that's where the self-depreciation, irony, and humor come from.) In any case, what we need if there's a dispute over the term's modern usage are more papers that go into depth on that usage and its context -- who is using the term, what they're saying with it, who they're applying it to and so on. --Aquillion (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Oft but not always. And this is the best option that satisfies all parties. If you have the excessive bit then the front should be changed, which can't be agreed with. But I'd be more interested in your alternatives. You should rather try them. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll try the proposal and look at what it looks like. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I have now edited the proposal in for a try run. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The main point is that we need sources (not just dictionaries, but ideally things like academic papers or books covering the usage of the term.) I mean, you did find good sources that Bloom was the ultimate source of the current culture-war over the topic, which I totally think improved the article; but you gotta find good sources for other usages of the term, too. Currently I feel we have a pretty good history (which covers how the term went from ironic usage in early usages up to the 1970's, followed by its adaptation by conservatives as a culture-war rallying cry in the 1980's and onward. That doesn't leave room for much serious non-pejorative usage -- most modern usage seems to be based on an academic debate in the 1980's and 1990's (where conservatives used it to denounce aspects of academia at the time that they disagreed with) which gradually seeped into popular culture as talking heads used it along the same lines. --Aquillion (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes sources don't provide everything on a platter and instead editors have to duke it out amongst themselves and their opinions. I think the best modern use sources we have are articles and such: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/22/fear-lies-at-the-heart-of-opposition-to-political-correctness http://www.astateherald.com/opinion/political-correctness-should-be-used-for-positivity-not-bigotry/article_f7b93802-7864-11e5-89b5-238e9e7997fd.html http://www.theage.com.au/comment/perth-advocate-says-shunning-political-correctness-promotes-discrimination-20151021-gkeobo.html --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

From the opposition camp it's mostly pejorative: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/21/ben-carson-dept-of-education-should-police-extreme-political-bias-in-colleges.html http://www.dailytitan.com/2015/10/trumps-words-on-political-correctness-show-he-has-no-time-for-diplomacy/ --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That first article uses the term in scare quotes, which pretty clearly indicates that the author sees it as an "enemy" term (an accusation thrown at her by her opponents, which she disagrees with.) And it seems to state that the current usage is pejorative, too: "The reality, though, is that the term “political correctness” has been co-opted and redefined, eroded in meaning to the point that the kindest interpretation merely implies being “oversensitive”, which is still dangerous and stunted." The third one also seems to be saying that current usage is pejorative (saying that it shouldn't be, but recognizing that it is.) Anyway, ultimately those are just opinion pieces; we have numerous detailed histories discussing its use as a pejorative, so given the level of attention and discussion the term has gotten, it ought to be possible to find similar histories for any other usage. But even if we were going to try and read into those pieces (which I think would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, mostly) my reading of those is that they recognize the term's current usage as pejorative. --Aquillion (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if the quote marks mean that, because she writes right after that Trump and his fans have attacked it. This was the first result in google. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Second and third are pretty vehemently pro it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The second result in google uses the term very non-pejoratively about the first's subject and then is surprised at some college thinking it's become a bad word: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/24773/ --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, virtually every word of your last 4 posts is WP:OR, you are wasting your own and our time making your own interpretation based on primary sources. Pincrete (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I wrote, sometimes sources don't provide everything on a silver platter and thus editors have to solve it through other means. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

'Like I wrote' it's OR, and your indifference to that fact means that you have gone beyond 'newbie excuses' of not understanding, to blatant disregard for policies. Knowingly wasting other editors time is also frowned on very heavily here, it's covered by WP:NOTHERE. Pincrete (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You do realize OR only applies to the article itself and not to talking on the talk page. Sometimes I feel like you're always trying to find fault in other editors; WP:NPA. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course I realise that, so what is the point of discussing here who uses the term + or - UNLESS it is usable in the article? It isn't even addressing the proposal made in this section. Are you arguing that the proposal puts too much emphasis on 'pejorative'? Find RS that substantiate that point, put it into the main body, then come back and argue about the balance of the lead. Pincrete (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

nb edit conflict, reply to Aquillion

I acknowledge that this definition isn't sourced to particulars, especially in respect of what the 'PC' policies criticised are. Nor was the stable version, these are an attempt at a neutral description of what (even the critics have claimed), are the intended outcomes of such policies. An alternative strategy that has occurred to me is to allow the term to be defined by the critics ie what they say it is. I know of several such definitions, put into 'their voice' of course. I am not averse to moving 'pejorative', especially if it allows us to more fully identify what is objected to. I think most people would distinguish 'ironic' from 'pejorative', though they do overlap. I'm not asserting that there is 'neutral use' in my proposed definition, simply claiming mainly pejorative and ironic, both of which are born out by the article, I agree 'neutral use' is very scant post 1990-ish.Pincrete (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, we leave the present, fairly neutral but incomplete definition and expand the particular cases in order to 'define' the use of the term. What concerns me is that 'pejorative' is very sourced, and we end up with 'PC is a pejorative term', without identifying what is being criticised. Pincrete (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "critic?" Could this be classified as a "critic": Political Correctness? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

nb my intention was that this proposal be discussed here for a few days, not that it be 'tried out'. Aquillion seems to have objections, and 3-4 other editors have not expressed any opinion yet. I wish to make it abundantly clear that this new version was NOT inserted by me. Pincrete (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, you disagreed with the last version so I inserted your version word-for-word and you're still unhappy? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand the word 'proposal', it means I wanted the input of others making constructive suggestions, or even telling me WHY it was worse than what we presently have, which is quite possible. Had I been fairly sure it was an improvement, I have been editing here long enough to know how to insert it myself. I take it that, as YOU edited it in, you approve of this proposed version? Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposals move quickly here. For the moment I think making two sentences was a good idea though your refs due to formatting make the term seem like just a pejorative because there's a massive gap with the rest of the sentence. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The main problem I have is that, by putting 'pejorative' in the second sentence like this, it gives the impression that there is significant non-pejorative use by other people (ie. it reads like "Political Correctness is a neutral term that means this, which some people have used pejoratively like that".) That isn't what the sources say; I think what you mean to say is that "political correctness is a pejorative term used by to mean ." I'll try a tweak to correct this, but if there's further dispute, we should go back to the last stable version until we've hashed something out that everyone can agree to. --Aquillion (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

At some point, we may need to check that sources haven't got moved around so much, that they no longer support the text they are attached to, I haven't kept a close enough eye on changes to know whether that is the case. Pincrete (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

But there is? Most of the sources talking about derogatory and pejorative use also mention it's used in other contexts as well. I also had 4 sources proving it's used in non-pejorative way as well. You completely ignored those. You're BLATANTLY ignoring facts and sources and everything acceptable and forcing untruth to affect the use of the term. In addition you have completely ignored my and valereee's objections. The original proposition was also done by Pincrete. This is pretty much 3 vs 1. Even if Pincrete changes his mind from his proposition it's still 2 vs 2 and you can't just make up the lead entirely on your own in such a situation. I have to point out how awful this edit was from you. You should be obviously put on ANI for this kind of behavior. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Both Simple Misplaced Pages and Wiktionary describe it like the current proposition does. Are you saying those consensuses are completely wrong as well? All the dictionaries are wrong? All the sections made by other editors complaining in this article's talk history are wrong? All of the world is wrong except your couple obviously biased sources, which apparently are also wrong to you because they mention it has other uses? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No need to shout. wikipedia and wikitionary aren't sources for our purposes here. We use actual, reliable (ie, published) refs to decide what the article should say. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

He originally didn't even have any sources stating it's pejorative. He had to google to find any sources describing it pejorative. That means he was originally operating without sources. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I added another source to the first sentence where it's plainly described as a concept for not offending rather than "pejorative." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant. Large numbers of very reliable sources do describe it as a pejorative term - you can add all the examples you want of it being used non-pejoratively, and you can (but probably shouldn't) disparage other editors all you want - it doesn't change the fact that the most reliable sources we have make it abundantly clear that this is almost always used as a pejorative (at least in an American context, and over the past 20+ years). Fyddlestix (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. So no matter how many sources I provide which showcase and describe it not being used pejoratively in the current day and past, you won't be convinced? And your sources are neither reliable nor abundant. Your sources also mention it's used in other ways as well. Again, they originally didn't even specify pejorative until these sources were added. Originally it was just an added opinion, unsourced. Mind you the current lead written by Pincrete still has the primarily, but that's not enough apparently. People want it written in stone that it's a taboo word that cannot be used. They want it become comparable to the N-word or something. This drive is very clearly politically motivated. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am already convinced that some people don't interpret or use it pejoratively - I never said otherwise, and you don't need to convince me of that. I maintain, however, that the pejorative use should be described as the most common use and meaning of the term. That is what the most reliable, most high-quality sources say, so we are obliged to say that in the article as well. And BTW, no one cares, nor does it matter, if someone had to look up sources or not. We focus on content not contributors here - so what matters is that the sources exist. I remind you again to assume good faith and stop accusing others of making politically motivated arguments/edits. Fyddlestix (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

All your sources define it exactly like the first sentence does as a concept of not offending and then add that it's often used as a pejorative. Exactly like the current lead, written by Pincrete. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact I found a great academic source registry and NONE of the sources even bring up pejorative/derogatory. I'm only at page 2 and I've gotten like a bunch of academic sources. This means it's not even used primarily as a pejorative. It's only primarily used as a pejorative by those who "see these policies as excessive, or ironically to suggest such excess," just like the current lead by Pincrete says. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

My 'lead' was explicitly put here as a proposal, a discussion point to test reaction, suggest improvements, reject entirely. I have made it clear that I did not wish it inserted until/unless it wa:s seen as an improvement and had been itself improved. Pincrete (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, what do you think of my edits to it? I think that this captures the parts you're talking about while addressing my main concerns. The core issue is still that the page lacks any real sources or discussion of any non-pejorative modern usage. --Aquillion (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Aquillion, just to make it clear that I endorse your return, to what is (approx.), the long-term stable version. Whatever quibbles any of us may have about what precise wording is justified by the body and gives a 'full picture', the matter should be settled here by discussion, and the focus should be on improving the body. Pincrete (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

He added a bunch of stuff that wasn't originally there and removed so many sources. You only "support" it because he put primarily pejorative back into the first sentence. He didn't just remove/change your and my edits, he removed/changed a crapton to his liking. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This that's in reference to the lead; but if you have objections to other edits, please raise them specifically. Making a sweeping revert like that isn't constructive -- I gave reasons for each change, so if you object, you need to address those reasons specifically (and bring them up on talk, ideally!) In any case, regarding the lead specifically, it's clear that the new version here doesn't really enjoy any consensus at the moment -- at this point, you're the only person still pushing for it! So we need to step back and hopefully find more sources on the other uses you want to talk about. --Aquillion (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm at work so can only weigh in briefly, but: I support Aquillion's changes, and strongly oppose any blanket revert of them (or the re-insertion of all the same material over multiple edits). Pincrete is right, we need to take our time, come to a consensus, and do this properly - there's been an awful lot of throwing in everything but the kitchen sink source-wise lately, all in aid of a specific point of view, but in my opinion this has not improved the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This is starting to taste a lot like a person with two sockpuppets. You post on two different accounts that you "support Aquillion's changes" which changed your material as well. Aquillion has also largely abandoned the article, leaving it to Pincrete. Pincrete is obviously the person's main account and he's using Aquillion as his revert puppet. Aquillion most likely has too much bad history to operate as the main. That's why Pincrete's page is also the most decorated. I already pointed earlier how both Aquillion and Pincrete used to both use single quote marks in place of normal quote marks in every single instance. No grammar system operates like that. Then Aquillion changed it a little over a week ago, after he probably noticed it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want, you can request a check at WP:SPI, but please remember to assume good faith otherwise. --Aquillion (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Means nothing when you use a VPN. The only evidence is bizarrely similar grammar use which isn't enough. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Magoo, you've been repeatedly asked/warned to AGF. This is getting old. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to assume good faith when you see Aquillion's kind of vandal editing happen and then two who constantly randomly appear to support each other also appear to support his obviously bad behavior. In fact Pincrete pretty much never ever removes or criticizes anything Aquillion does. This one time he changed one of Aquillion's edited words to a different one, that's the best I can remember. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The Lede

Is a total mess right now. Y'all need to read WP:OVERCITE and WP:CITELEAD. Aquillion made this point above already but it bears repeating: the lede is supposed to summarize the content of the article. Right now people seem to be arguing endlessly over the lede, over-citing, and going off on tangents there because they can't agree on the wording. That's not the way to go about this; if you want specific content to be in the lede or be removed, then you need to change the prominence of that content in the article body. The lede can only summarize what the article actually talks about. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

But the current lead does summarize? Just because it's used in different contexts doesn't mean that all of the contexts don't agree on one definition, which is the first sentence. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added more material to the article. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I notice that you removed some 1980 text on your own which "didn't mention the term" but which specified how important Bloom was to the debate. Should you by that logic remove D'Souza's book as well? I mean it doesn't use the term and the sources don't connect political correctness directly with it. Why is the 1992 book still being used as a source in the lead when it's not the one the surrounding sources talk about? Why don't you do anything about this? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a comparable situation at all - the sources we cite for D'Souza speak to his role in the "PC" debate specifically, the sources on bloom that I removed say nothing about the subject of this article. They're about bloom, not political correctness. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The same debate Bloom began? The debate the quotes obviously talked about? That asked for a "clarification needed" and not a complete removal. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The tag was a 'relevant' tag, not a 'clarification', and there is a section above about it in '1980's', the text I think is now largely fixed.Pincrete (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really used as a pejorative

Just think about it: What would you call the modern culture of being careful not to offend groups and especially minorities? There is no other term but political correctness. 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. It's only really used as a pejorative when it's added as a label to something, for example someone is "PC" as in politically correct and not "political correctness" — the former is more common as a pejorative but the latter isn't; the latter is the philosophy. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of sources from the first 2 pages of academic sources search for the term. None of them describe it as pejorative/derogatory. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be pure OR. 100 sources that happen to not use, or describe the term as pejorative, does not negate those who do. Not every sentence that describes the Dalai Lama is going to mention that he is a Tibetan Buddhist Unless these sources EPLICITLY state that its main use is neutral, this is pure OR.!Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. This article cannot be written based on a laundry list of people who happen to use the term, and Magoo's personal interpretation of what that means. RS that are about political correctness itself (IE, about the term) should be the main type of source that we're using here. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

How is basic logic OR? The final sentence is the only possible OR part and it's just an afterthought. But the first sentence can't be claimed to be "OR" when it's a simple question: Again, which term do you use? And 100 sources do negate "primarily." And when they describe as "Tibetan Buddhist" then they don't need to add that they just described as "Tibetan Buddhist." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

'Basic logic' is OR, when the individual editor is establishing what is/is not pejorative from a primary source, and/or deciding why the source did/did not describe it thus. Were other editors to find 10,000 sources which use the term critically/dismissively, they would not be admissible for the same reasons. The rules are in place because what appears to be self-evident to you, may not be so to others. Pincrete (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

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. Politically correct is the pejorative. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

What if we change the second sentence to "politically correct?" I'll try it out, you can change the wording if you find it odd. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean the sources I looked at which mentioned political correctness in a positive light and used it gratuitously didn't really use the adjective politically correct as much. The noun's used in a positive light but not the adjective? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: How is a noun a pejorative?, Nigger, faggot and idiot are clearly not pejoratives by that logic. … … re The noun's used in a positive light but not the adjective? Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You are coming up with words that can act as both noun and adjective. Thusly they are adjectives in this instance. Political correctness can't be an adjective. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments (apart from being unsourced) are grammatically ludicrous. 'A pejorative term' is using pejorative as an adjective, the 'term' can be any part of speech it wants to be. 'A/an' anything is always attached to a noun, therefore the question How is a noun a pejorative? is nonsense. 'A pejorative', is necessarily a noun. Not of course that I imagine that you do not already realise that.

There is a general philosophy on WP called WP:ROPE, it means that we point out to people when they are wrong about policy/practice. We explain a few times their mistakes, we try to be patient and WP:AGF, but basically we give people enough rope to (have 5 minutes of fun before they) hang themselves with it by demonstrating that they are WP:NOTHERE. Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments are the ones that are "grammatically ludicrous." Pejorative is a noun/adjective as well. But a pejorative isn't the same as the word pejorative. I can't even understand how you managed to get confused by this. Your absolutely bizarre reasoning to oppose the repair of an obvious mistake is WP:NOTHERE. You just reverted the article back to nonsense. You are describing something that is only a noun as an adjective. And lastly, do you really need sources for basic grammar? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

'A pejorative term' uses pejorative as an adjective, the term can be any part of speech it wants. A pejorative is a word (or short phrase) intended to denigrate, it too can be any part(s) of speech. The citation needed tag is for YOUR claim that 'The noun's used in a positive light but not the adjective?' Says who? I sometimes make basic mistakes (I'm human and get tired), I try to have the good grace to admit it and not waste other people's time. But on this occasion, I'm right, there is no good reason to think the noun, adjective or adverb any more or less positive than the others. Pincrete (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You repeated that the word pejorative is an adjective/noun, we get it. And the latter part was a question if you didn't understand. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

A question implies that one intends to wait for an answer, which would inevitably have been, who says?.Pincrete (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I also find it incredibly silly that I allow you to stomp on all of my earlier messily sourced edits but when I remove something simply unsourced you hurry to revert it without adding sources. You didn't think of adding sources and then adding the text back? The text also repeated the same sentence 3 times with different words. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am in the process of removing repetitions.Pincrete (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, in your hurry to hit the revert button, you even restored a cite error! There are partial repeats which are fixable, which bits are uncited in your opinion? Did you check all the sources, because often several sentences are covered by a single ref.

btw we aren't playing a game here, edit reason: As a measure of good-will, I'll remove the relevancy tag since you removed yours. I didn't put the tag to 'score points', and I removed it because the section was now relevant to PC, though oddly ref-ed (see above 'relevant'). If you put your tag on or removed your tag for any other reason than that you were/were not persuaded of the relevance, you don't yet understand what we are doing here. Pincrete (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I took that into consideration, because the original citation was in the lead but you removed it. I then returned it. And I guess the motion of goodwill was lost on you, and so is the concept of agreeable concensus. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for any concensus for removing great chunks of text because they PARTIALLY repeat, (and they mainly repeat because of the addition of NYT at the beginning). I don't object to 'pruning' for ce reasons, indeed was doing so myself. I DO OBJECT to these removals wholesale, and apparently to an agenda. 'Goodwill' might have been you recognising that there is not concensus for these removals. If anything appears uncited (taking into account that it might be the paragraph, not the sentence), leave a tag, or raise it here. I intend now to restore the long-term version, but attempt to ce repeats, which will be much harder now than it would otherwise have been. Pincrete (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You remove clutter but not clutter you like. There were 3 big sentences that began different paragraphs and said the same thing. You still left them back in only slightly changed, as if that changes much? You could remove most of the text in them, maybe keeping "Culture Wars." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that they simply repeat, they also represent a progression, make distinct points, and maintain readability. There may be room for further tidying however. Pincrete (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

'Why is D'Souza being singled out' tag

There isn't anywhere to post this so (sigh) another new section. This tag: 'clarify| reason = The source also mentions Bloom and the NYT article, so why is D'Souza being singled out?'. which is attached to this text: but it was Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (1991) which "captured the press's imagination." . I don't know the answer to the 'tag question', because I don't currently have access to the source, but if you are certain NYT, Bloom as well as D'Souza are described as "capturing the press's imagination" in the source, modify the text accordingly. Pincrete (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Glimpses of the source are available and it seems to mention Bloom, NYT and possibly Kimball as well, so one has to wonder what the original sentence was and in what context (perhaps the sentence was referring to all three authors). --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

IF it clearly identifies others as 'capturing etc', (ie the specific quoted text), it is easily fixed, eg 'was among those described', 'along with X and Y was described as'. If other's names are not attached to that quote, it isn't 'singling out'. Regardless, I think the point being made (fairly concisely), is that d'S (and others?) caused an exponential increase in coverage of PC + PC issues. Pincrete (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If the are mentioned just before in similar context, then it is singling out. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

So, let me understand this, you add a claim of d'Souza being 'singled out', but you haven't even read the source text? Why does thst not surprise me?Pincrete (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, Bloom was mentioned by the same source in the brief glimpses of text I saw and Kimball seemingly also. You haven't read the source either yet you defend it fervently. Just before an admin encouraged against the use of a bad source we could not trust. Same principle here. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Editor Aquillion removes 3000 characters worth of sources and then when it's reverted he reverts back and writes "don't make sweeping reverts, talk about it on talk page first"

Like the title says: Editor Aquillion removes 3000 characters worth of sources and then when it's reverted he reverts back and writes "don't make sweeping reverts, talk about it on talk page first"

He's obviously not obeying his own rule? This is pure vandalism, isn't it?

He made the edits without writing anything on the talk page first. He then wrote this:

Anyway, what do you think of my edits to it? I think that this captures the parts you're talking about while addressing my main concerns. The core issue is still that the page lacks any real sources or discussion of any non-pejorative modern usage.

He's obviously just messing around, isn't he? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Which sources did I remove? The lead aside -- which is discussed extensively above, and clearly doesn't have consensus for the fairly sweeping changes you imposed -- I paraphrased several quotations, but I didn't think I removed any actual citations, and virtually all the changes were to very new material which you didn't really discuss before adding. It's fine to be WP:BOLD, but you have to expect people to have their own contributions and suggestions when you make so many sweeping changes to a long-stable, controversial article in such a short period of time. --Aquillion (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not vandalism. You made BOLD edits, and they've been challenged. Now we discuss. It's sometimes annoying and it takes time, but that's how things get done here. Read WP:BRD if you doubt. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Which sources did not you not remove? All of those you didn't like. And yes, you paraphrased, which you have constantly fought against before. You've demanded direct quotes and not paraphrasals. And much of the changes were to old material. And the bold edit was the lead. If you wanted to edit it, reword it, don't remove a bunch of sources. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been requesting sources, not quotes. The different is very important. Sources (especially WP:SECONDARY ones) provide in-depth analysis and discussion, which we then use to cite the statements in the article. Quotations are sometimes useful when a particular statement is very significant or when we really need the exact words, but otherwise, it usually makes more sense to use the Misplaced Pages voice; we don't need to quote sources directly in order to cite them. If you don't feel my paraphrases were accurate, go ahead and change them, but (again, aside from the dispute over the lead, which we've discussed extensively above and where you currently seem to be the only person arguing for implementing your preferred version), I didn't remove anything you added. --Aquillion (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

But the quotes are in the sources that follow. You were the one to add paraphrasals now. And you removed a bunch of material... --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing the fact that the quotes are real. The issue is that you put in a quote for nearly every source you used, which isn't generally an encyclopedic way of writing. I didn't remove the sources or the gist of what they were saying, I just switched to paraphrases to avoid an unencyclopedic wall of context-free quotes. And aside from the reversion to the lead, I don't think I removed very much at all; most of what I changed was simple rewordings. --Aquillion (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The quotes themselves were encyclopedic on their own. You removed all of the mentions of the term from them, for some bizarre and petty reasons. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If you object to the fact that the paraphrase doesn't use the words 'political correctness' enough, revise it to use it more often, and we can try and find a version we both agree to; or bring it up on talk with a proposal. It's not necessary to revert every change I made to the entire article over a one-word dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You change timeslines, something that happened early is now mentioned later because you hurry to mention conservatives. You change direct quotes to paraphrasals worded by you to fit your view. You change terms to your liking. You remove what you don't like without explaining why. And you complain of me adding quotes? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to object to that, it would probably be more productive to start a section on it rather than trying to cover absolutely everything at once. But yes, I moved up the summary of the 1990's section, because I feel that it's important to summarize the section initially; the timeline of usage that you added is valuable, but starting with it is burying the lede, so to speak -- the gist of how the term was used in the 1990's is well-covered, so we should lead with a summary of that and then discuss the details of how that usage spread further down. --Aquillion (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a small (and should be much smaller because it contains the same sentence written three different ways) history section which is worthless to "summarize" when the summary bit is as big as what happens. And you didn't even "summarize" anything, you just swapped the places of events. You basically just turned two events around in a hurry to mention conservatives. Now whoever reads it thinks your swapped bit happened first. It's wholly wrong now. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a summary of how universally all sources that discuss the subject cover the history, though: Scattered usage of the words prior to 1970's, ironic usage in the 1970's, followed by conservatives co-opting the term as part of a larger culture war in the 1980's and 1990's and using it as a line of attack against liberals. You haven't really presented any sources for significant usage outside of that context. You added a lot of stuff to the section, but all of them still fundamentally agree about that core history, so it's important to get that point across. --Aquillion (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You mean your cherry-picked sources and not the ones that you forcefully edit warred out of the article. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, if you have better sources discussing the term's history, go ahead! Even the ones you've added, though, generally refer to the developments in the 1980s and 1990s as an adoption by conservatives eager to use it as part of a culture war against their political opponents. That is the history, as far as I can tell -- there isn't really any controversy over that. Conservatives say that their arguments are valid (that the media and academia are actually biased, that efforts to expand multiculturalism and affirmative action are bad for society as a whole, etc), while liberals say that the term is being used to try and silence people its conservative advocates disagree with; but few sources disagree that the term itself has become, largely, a conservative talking point in the ongoing culture wars in the US and the UK. That doesn't mean there is no other usage, but there is near-universal agreement on all sides of the spectrum that that is the history of the term and the debate surrounding it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

But I had, and they don't. All you do is based on lie and manipulation. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Not having yet looked at every detail, and already thinking that one or two worthwhile content points may have got lost (Wade, first noted modern use), NONETHELESS, I think Aquillion has done a very good job of producing a crisper and more coherent text as a basis for discussion. Pincrete (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC) … … Dugggghhhh, no wonder I couldn't find it, it's Cade not WadePincrete (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If not the same person with a proxy (most likely), you're just tag-team editing at the moment. He's now editing incredibly silly edits; for example one of the sources accidentally wrote 1991 for the Bernstein article (there was no Bernstein article in 1991) so he changed all the of the 1990 dates to 1991. He's basically completely destroying any semblance of reality in the article. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I was commenting on the broad outline of 'readability' and coherence. If there are faults they can be fixed, with no need to personalise everything. Pincrete (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Re:Bernstein article 1990/1991. Aquillion is right that the source used (Schwartz) dates the article to 1991, Mr. Magoo appears to be right that the article was actually October 1990. We have to stick to sources, so cannot use Schwartz as endorsing 'influental in spreading', unless we accept his date. I suggest looking for another source for THAT particular article being important or going with 'the series', which I believe a number of sources support. We cannot fix Schwartz's apparent error. Pincrete (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Something that like asks for a . It's a typo. I'll add some more sources tomorrow from the academic source registry I found. I also restored most of the article to a time before Aquillion's edit war and added back the about 10-13 sources he removed without explanation. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, you are using 'restoring sources' as an excuse to restore the entire article to a state that has no one's support but yours. Aquillion's version has the support of 3 editors as a basis from which to work. Please discuss here any changes, when Aquillion asked you 'which sources' earlier, you did not reply. Do you even mean 'sources' or 'text', much of yours, I have to say, is carelessly written, and at times barely comprehensible. I have restored that preferred version, if there were good things among your 'blanket reverts' I apologise, You have been asked several times today alone to discuss things here first. Discuss btw, involves waiting for an answer for a day or two, not 2 seconds.Pincrete (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Misplaced Pages articles aren't decided by majority but by higher means. The change to Bernstein's NYT being dated as 1991 is ridiculous and the fact that you support it only proves that you're the exact same person. And I did reply when Aquillion asked that, I answered the ones he removed... --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Education: Hah, you're telling me you incidentally saved the entire page as it stood as of Aquillion's last edit, and not your own? I have pointed out your numerous peculiar similarites... The other editor is you yourself... Also: added and. That is a personal attack, about the 300th we have had to endure. It's also crap since it was Aquillion's version I restored. 1991 is what the source says, until we find a better, it stays, or we remove the 'influental' text. and the fact that you support it only proves that you're the exact same person try arguing that at WP:SPI, or WP:ANI. Pincrete (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You do realize NYT's website itself states it to be 1990 and there are multiple sources already and I told you I'll add more tomorrow from simply going through the academic registry. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course I realise that, that's why I said you were prob. partly right, but we can't 'correct' the sources factual error, even if it prob. is that. I'm sure there's a way round it, but it's late and I should be in bed. CORRECTING THE SOURCE is NOT an option., finding another or rephrasing is. Pincrete (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the 1990s section, I think the best solution is to merge it with the 1980's section you added earlier. There's no significant distinction between the two eras in most sources (they both encapsulate the culture-war usage), and separating them leads to oddness like Bernstein being covered twice. --Aquillion (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree, or link the text such that attention is drawn to the series, and poss expand on what the content of the series was.Pincrete (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no logical reason for that. Bloom happens in the 1980s, and I were going to add another earlier 1980s author. And judging from the sources Bernstein came up with the modern definition, so he'd even be entitled to his own whole section. He's not a sidenote, but one of the most important people in our timeline. The 1988 and 1990 articles are also wholly different. One of you was also the one to add the mention of 1990 to the 1980s section, not me. Before that it had the 1988 article mentioned and then lead to the 1990 article just after. The only reason you want to merge them is that you want to write the incredibly biased and unsourced "summary" of the massive period. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring yet again!

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, several editors (inc. me), have directly, or indirectly said that they thought Aquillion's copy edit, was a sound basis to work from BY DISCUSSION (that's where you leave a comment, give it a day or two to see whether other's agree/disagree, wish to modify, then make your change).

'Edit warring' isn't simply pressing the revert button, it is also editing stuff in that you KNOW has no one's agreement. It isn't hidden very successfully by making changes under multiple edits, it isn't hidden by spurious edit reasons ' Changing timeline to be more accurate' (how can a sentence starting 'during the 1990s', ie an overview of the decade be OUT of timeline in a section called '1990s'? For coherence, it represented a good overview of what followed

Mr. Magoo , in your determination to get YOUR version of the text back in place, you restore grotesque, and at times meaningless English eg The October 1990 New York Times article by Richard Bernstein is described as influential in the term's development. At time time it's mainly mentioned in educational context: 1) 'is described as influential' do you mean 'was influential'? If 'described as', by whom? … … 2) 'the term's developmement', in what way? Bernstein is simply reporting how others are using the term (in academia), do you mean 'spreading'/ 'entering general use'?. … … 3) 'At time time' is self-evidently wrong … … 4) 'in educational context' , what does 'educational context' mean here'. Is the whole sentence meant to mean that AFTER Bernstein's article, the term was being used in some other context, agricultural? economic? military? What I think is meant, what is in the sources and quotes, is that AFTER the articles, the term was being increasingly used/understood by people outside the academic world, but that the 'context' of its use was still, at that time, higher education. I & Aqu, fixed things so that the meaning was clear(er), despite me feeling that undue weight was being given to THIS one article, and that most sources mention the whole series, which were cumulatively important, rather than this one article.Pincrete (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

All this has been patiently eplained several times above, but in your determination to write what YOU WANT, you are happy to restore incomprehensible English. There are other examples 'in academia and education', OH, so in higher education, as well as errrr education. You changes the sentence 'previously obscure term' to 'previously liberal term', is that what the source says? Because there is little evidence in the article that the term EVER was (apart from briefly and obscurely in the 70s and mainly 'new left'), a 'liberal' term. But what the hell, we mention conservative later in the sentence so why not mention liberal in it (regardless of the evidence? regardless of clarity?)!

One good thing about the article being locked, is that I am not going to feel obliged for a while to look at thirty edits every day, to see if there might be good stuff among the blatantly PoV/off-topic/barely coherent. I endorse what Aquillon said elsewhere today (and I have said numerous times myself), identifying what Bloom, Kimball etc. thought and said (and what was said about them) in the context of PC would 'flesh out' the article. As would expanding UK, but most of this is just edit-warring for no sound reason, just, 'I WANT'.Pincrete (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe the only other editor other than you was Fyddle and he supported the lead change and not the bizarre changes after that. The lead changes weren't reverted. And you and Aquillion are pretty much tag-team editing. Some few days ago Aquillion had reverted twice so he couldn't revert a third time anymore so you stepped in and reverted the third time. Not only did you revert but you had saved the entire page as it had stood at Aquillion's edit and not yours. And not only at Aquillion's major edit but two edits after that where he made a clear error. It was obvious he had simply passed the text file of the article to you. I also pointed out earlier that you never ever remove or change any edit of Aquillion's, only this one time changing a word of his to a synonym. You also shared a similarity of using apostrophes for any use of quote marks some time ago, until Aquillion stopped using them that way and for some bizarre reason changed to normal double quote marks. Oh and many other editors greatly outnumbering you have opposed the definition as primarily pejorative, one of which is valereee. You have not cared. You remove and ignore sources which don't define it pejorative. You have written that even if I provide 100 sources which don't define it pejorative you won't budge. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean for some bizarre reason he changed a normal sentence into this mess and let it sit for 20 minutes. At that point I couldn't change it back because it would have been more warring. He also makes changes like this — which all the sources but one with a typo scream against — just to force the mention to the bottom of the section because it was now mentioned in 1991 and not 1990 and can be thus mentioned later in the 1990s section. When that plan didn't seem like working he started pushing the bizarre summary angle when he didn't even write any summary, but just changed the order of events. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

re:It was obvious he had simply passed the text file of the article to you, WP:ANI and WP:SPI, await those with the courage of their convictions, but of course, you don't even believe your own theories about 'socks', 'tag team' or any of that. It's all pointless argumentation and deflection, why answer a simple specific question, address a specific issue, when one can sound off in every direction accusing everyone of everything?

Is it POSSIBLE for you to imagine, that Aqu changed the year because errrrrrr, that's what it says in the source used? (No that wouldn't work as an idea, no conspiracy theory/bias involved). Is it POSSIBLE for you to imagine, that a solution was possible, like rephrasing slightly or using a different source? (No that wouldn't work either, that might involve collaborating and compromising a little, even waiting overnight, why not go for the instant gratification of restoring mangled, muddled English that has no one's support?).

The article is locked (I thought of asking for it yesterday, but the 'calm down' calls looked briefly as if they might be working). Now I don't have to wade through 30 edits a day working out which (if any), MIGHT be within a mile of policy + practice, MIGHT be a reasonably neutral account of what the source ACTUALLY says and MIGHT say something worth saying about the subject, that MIGHT be capable of getting support from me and others. Pincrete (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If someone uses a VPN then any investigation is pointless. It's as simple as that. I could only go forward with some sort of tag-team editing accusation. And Aqu has seen a bunch of sources for the article and the Schwartz wasn't even the first in line at this particular section but the second out of three. And yes, I always asked for a rephrasal suggestion (like you always say: suggest on talk first), but you kept edit warring the year date without saying anything on talk, which no one in the world could accept. Aqu wrote "what do you think of my edits" one minute after he changed everything. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed something funny. On October 29 the last edits were at 5:09 on talk page and at 6:16 on article by me. You appear at 12:09 on talk page. You also write a message on the talk page at 12:18 just as Aqu enters his massive 12:18 edit, which is when he appeared. That huge edit must have taken more than 10 minutes to make. Aqu then writes his "what do you think of my edits" a minute later at 12:19. You both also appeared 4 days apart in May 2015 to start editing the article daily like I've written earlier. Aqu had edited the article last in what 2007? And you have had proven contact before the May edits, on the noticeboard vote where you refer to him by name. You're obviously massively tag-teaming and messaging each other outside Misplaced Pages. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

actually there was one cite when Aqu made his edit, others were added later, but do they ACTUALLY support this assertion that the specific Oct article was notably influental? I'm afraid I have to ask the question because up to now you have shown no sign of understanding that idea.

I couldn't even be bothered to read the rest of your post, nor penetrate its tortured logic. Pincrete (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That's because he had himself removed the refs earlier. They had been there for 2 weeks before that. Add that to his collection of absolutely bizarre edits. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

IF you are right about sources being removed a), it's hardly surprising with all the random 'moving around' … … b Could you not have asked Aqu a short civil question and wait for a response … … c why didn't you answer his specific question two days ago about which sources had been removed? Too easy? Maybe there were very good reasons for removing, maybe he would have apologised and reinstated them. I don't know and neither do you. You always seem to find time to bless us with your latest conspiracy/bias theories, but strangely avoid giving clear answers to simple questions and taking other simple steps.

I find Aqu's edit coherent, (even when I don't wholly agree), his edit reasons ditto, and he is always offering to discuss rational objections. Your edits seem random, WP:pointy, and the edit reasons and posts indicate your determination to WP:Battleground everything. I hardly dare partially agree with anything you write, for fear of the next day finding a capriciously distorted, selectively edited, partial version of my qualified agreement misused in a completely different discussion. Most of us have got better things to do than argue for arguings sake.

You've wasted acres of talk page, destroyed 4/5 of the goodwill due to you, gone round and round in circles with the same arguments, which display a patent inability, or unwillingness, to assume good faith and to operate in a reasonably cooperative manner. My one consolation is that now this article is locked (in a barely coherent state), I at least don't have to waste my time here for a while. Pincrete (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I already wrote that I did answer. And in response to your WP:PERSONAL attacks: Aqu's edit is as coherent as this talk page. His and your edit reasons fueled by a political agenda. Offering discussion like "what do you think of my edits" a minute after massive edits. My edits are sourced and neutralness-driving, and my "pointiness" like the removal of the "clarification needed" I added is just good faith. Sometimes I hope you'd stop being a troll, and those times I try to have good faith once again. But you on the other hand turn even the tiniest of change into a battle because Aqu wrote it takes the spotlight off apparently the criticism of the term. In his view that should apparently fill 95% of the page. And you're the biggest buddies. You're just tag-team forcing a political agenda here. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Excessive quotations.

A lot of recent additions to the article rely on extensive quotes; generally speaking, this is generally undesireable -- see WP:QUOTEFARM. When a quote can be better-summarized in a paraphrase, we generally should do so, and when we do use a quote, we should try and focus concisely on the most important aspect. --Aquillion (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I particularly think that the Glenn Loury quote that was just added contributes nothing to the article; all it essentially says is "the term is controversial", which is already well-established elsewhere. --Aquillion (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It explains controversial how. This was missing from the article before. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't, though. All it says is that the right and the left disagree over the term, which is well-established. The McFadden quote has similar problems; all it says is "there was a debate". It's not expressing any significant opinion or adding anything to the section. --Aquillion (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't established at all before, but now it is. And using some sort of biased sources is unwanted because of WP:NPOV. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite right on either count. First, we have extensive sources discussing the left-wing and right-wing disagreement over the term, what it means, and its purpose. Second, you should review WP:NPOV; WP:BIASED sources are entirely usable, and in fact in many cases they are often some of the best ones to use. On a controversial subject, our duty is to reflect all major strains of thought and to give each opinion WP:DUE weight according to its weight in reliable sources, not to attempt to force a false balance by declaring some sources 'neutral' and relying exclusively on those. --Aquillion (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If you have sources somewhere, add them and their quotes to the article. They don't exist right now. And nowhere does it say biased sources are "often best," it only says they are sometimes usable. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

From WP:BIASED: "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." The sources are all there in the article; there's a huge number of sources in the paragraph on liberal criticism of the term, for instance, while we cite many of the most prominent conservatives who have used it directly. Quoting someone saying "there is a controversy over the term" adds nothing when we are already describing the most prominent views in the controversy directly, with sources to many of the most prominent writers and speakers. --Aquillion (talk) 08:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It also warns against biased sources and so does WP:NPOV. And it says not required, just like I wrote that it's sometimes possible. And instead of your "often best to use" it says sometimes best ABOUT DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The gist of it, though, is that we can and should use potentially-biased sources to illustrate a view, as we're doing here. What you're suggesting is that we should remove everyone who has a particular view and instead replace it with a generic quote from someone who doesn't, simply saying that it is controversial; this is a violation of WP:NPOV, since it effectively denies a viewpoint WP:DUE weight. --Aquillion (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

We can but we should avoid, and use neutral as often as possible; just like WP:NPOV instructs. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh and I've tried to add paraphrasals in the past but you constantly attack them as not being sourced. The only thing possible anymore is quotes. Then you attack them as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, while I put it back in for now, I should point out that the Toni Cade Bambara quote is actually referenced twice (once at the top of the section and once in the 1970's section.) I'm not sure this is necessary, since its status as the first recorded use in the modern sense is essentially trivia. --Aquillion (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent revert-war issues!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The centre of the revert war!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discusion of content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of political correctness

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Language and linguistics Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

Comment 1 I'll let the sources speak for themselves:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/319554

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

PDF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://en.wiktionary.org/politically_correct

https://simple.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_correctness

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

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

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

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

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

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class Freedom of speech articles
• Unknown-importance Freedom of speech articles
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment