Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:15, 22 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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of political correctness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PDF

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

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

PDF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://en.wiktionary.org/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."

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

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

Moving my other sources here to clean up the length:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Language and Conflict: Selected Issues

preview

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

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

Talking sense about political correctness Cited by 9.

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

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

Political economy and political correctness Cited by 28.

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

Political correctness Cited by 8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PDF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HTML

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

Political correctness and Bequemlichkeitstrieb Cited by 2.

The Challenge of Political Correctness in the Translation of Sensitive Texts

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

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

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

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

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

The Epistemology of Political Correctness

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

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

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

Encyclopedia of Ethics

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

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

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

Political correctness: Contributing to social distress?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is David Morrice in the journal Politics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nb edit conflict, response to above

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She does:

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

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

This is how it goes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me quote you again:

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to Mr. Magoo's post on ANI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civitas think tank pamphlet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the full quote from the book:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

see also links

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

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

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

Other related articles

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

Duology of books?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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