Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:32, 30 January 2016

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. Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business 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. 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

Definition of political correctness

On the basis of the discussion below, it has not been possible for me to determine a consensus in favour of any particular wording. However, some firm conclusions can be reached, which are as follows:-

Q: Is "Political correctness" a pejorative term?
A: Yes, the majority of people who use it nowadays mean it in the pejorative sense.

Q: Is it a concept of avoiding offence to marginalized or minority groups?
A: Yes, particularly in the academic literature.

Q: What does it mean when said by a right-winger?
A: Typically this is a direct attack on the convoluted language, and sometimes the convoluted thought, to which it can give rise.

Q: What does it mean when said by a left-winger?
A: Outside the former communist countries, typically it is used ironically.

Q: What does it mean in the scholarly papers cited in this discussion?
A: Generally it means language and behavior aimed at avoiding offence to minorities or marginalized groups.

Q: How then shall we produce a pithy, concise definition suitable for the lead of an encyclopaedia article?
A: No consensus.

Unfortunately this is a less positive close than I might have hoped for. Editors cannot agree on a definition, and they have gone to RfC to break the logjam, so a "no consensus" outcome puts us right back where we started. So although I can determine no consensus in favour of any particular wording I will add my personal opinion in the hope that it helps.

Axiomatically, Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Our sister project, Wiktionary, is one, and you could do worse than borrowing their phrasing, which is succinct and clear, if less nuanced than our own. Thanks for an interesting and generally well-conducted RfC.—S Marshall T/C 15:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)
• I agree that it is usually pejorative, though it is sometimes used in a descriptive way by academics or by activists to seek to reclaim the term. I oppose any attempt to remove the reference to it being a usually perjorative term. Neljack (talk) 01:10, 8 December 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)

Closing this RfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Satirical use

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

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

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

Baa Baa Black Sheep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was in that context, yes, but you did still paint with broad strokes after the US perspective tag had been pointed out that "any article which has established main usage should follow that usage". I thought that was what you meant at the time, but I guess not. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Generally or primarily or something else

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

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

Edit: note that the earlier discussion was about whether it was to be mainly described as a pejorative at all. The current matter is about the following edit: the swap. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

They don't even mention pejorative usage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, what does it matter, if I am right? And you alone are opposing me. I talk to one but vote against three. Why is that? It's such obvious meatpuppetry for which I raised the investigation, especially when the other two appear to vote within an hour to you. The investigator obviously did not study the case enough as he thought the ANI had been started by me. I mean even the page itself had both you and me write that the ANI hadn't been started by me. He had bothered to read nothing. — — I also have to point out that quite many have voted for "often". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• generally is better than primarily. "Often" is the best option I've seen so far (and can otherwise think of). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• "Often" is the most sensible, neutral, and I believe accurate term to use because there is no scientific or objective way to gauge how often people are using this term pejoratively, and therefore determine if such usage is primary or general usage.Kerdooskis (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone on a phone at the same location

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

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

Clarification of compromise proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political correctness in post WWI German newspapers

My reverted edit uses secondary newspaper sources which quote a US General's report on crime statistics and analyze German newspapers PC-language when they were dealing with race issues:

During post-WWI occupation German papers were suspended for accusing "French colored Colonial troops" and for having "employed certain terms and expressions which they might better have omitted" due to the current political climate of "exaggerated accusations" against these colored troops and the paucity of independent sources... (plus the ref)

Why is it "wholly off topic" or "original research" then, Fyddlestix? I do not quote German newspapers. Is there a WP policy on using only tertiary or quaternary sources? Please do not revert such sourced edits before discussing it here first.Zezen (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Please get off your high horse, Zezen. Nobody has to clear it with you before they revert your original research.

Why is it that so many other editors recognize your edits as the original research they are, but you can't? Please, please read the policy carefully and ask questions on its talk page or at WP:NOR/N if you don't understand it. 66.87.115.75 (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd put it quite like that, but... from my quick reading of that source, I didn't notice it using the term "political correctness" anywhere. It could be mentioned on political censorship, but I don't see how it belongs here. Implicitly asserting that it's related (and that it's eg. an example of political correctness) is original research unless you have a source saying so specifically. Even listing explicit uses of the term is tricky (because it's original research to collect a bunch of usages and use that to try and research the history yourself); the best sources are academic papers or published books by historians or experts on culture and the like that explicitly detail the history, use, and meaning of the term. (Since this is such a hot-button topic, actual histories that mention it explicitly are not hard to find! There's no need for us to try and do our own original research anyway.) But listing examples of political censorship definitely doesn't work; we need, at the very least, some source connecting it directly to the concept of political correctness before it belongs here. --Aquillion (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Aquillion - Thank you for your civil discussion. You convinced me that a scholarly source is needed here, given that it is a red-hot topic. I will not insist then on it here then.

Non-dear IP or WP:Meatpuppet. Stop wikihounding me to here from the your recent WP:Personal attacks there abusing your anonimity. Zezen (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Read as biased against right-wing

I removed the below section that read extremely biased to me but it was reverted.

Scholars on the left have said that conservatives and right-wing libertarians pushed the term in order to divert attention from more substantive matters of discrimination and as part of a broader culture war against liberalism. They have also said that conservatives have their own forms of political correctness, which are generally ignored.

@Pincrete: can you elaborate on your revert message?

Undid revision 695604893 the text covers the bias and is well sourced in numerous accounts of use 

I do not see where it covers the bias. Also, just because something is well sourced doesn't mean it isn't biased (as I'm sure you're aware, just clarifying) and without a counter I don't see how it helps the article in a meaningful way other than to bait an argument.

nb above message left by Jay Phelps

As an encyclopedia, part of our mission is to report major strains of thought on the topic; that paragraph is well-sourced and clearly represents what a significant number of academic sources have said about the term. That is to say -- it's what those people actually say (and it's a common and wide-spread enough view in academia that it's not WP:FRINGE), so simply reporting it isn't biased; beyond that, it's entirely acceptable to use WP:BIASED sources to cover their point of view. It helps the article because it informs the reader about a significant viewpoint on the topic within academia (with, note, an indication of whose view this is; that is probably what Pincrete meant when he said that it 'covers the bias'.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I endorse what Aquillion says, also how is this biased? It is well sourced as to what numerous commentators on 'the left' have said about PC. The 'antidote', were any required, would be to say more fully what 'right-wingers' say PC is, not to neuter both. The lead should reflect the article, and were any change needed, it should be made there first. Pincrete (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO it is biased because it only presents one side, implying through omission that it is likely a true statement since no notable counter is mentioned. Jay Phelps (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It should stay. It is sourced and is a significant point of view. Doug Weller (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The text should stay. Are conservatives really that offended by the text in question? 147.153.168.23 (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I disagree with the outcome, but such is life. Cheers. Jay Phelps (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The remedy for article content which is perceived to give undue weight to a viewpoint with which an editor disagrees but which are supported by cited WP:RSs is not removal of the presented viewpoint, it is additional presentation of differing viewpoints similarly supported. See WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree Wtmitchell, in particular, one of the things that I think the article lacks, is a clear statement of what critics of 'PC' say it IS. Pincrete (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this paragraph should remain but it could be made more neutral. Many commentators are scholars but I think using that word gives that paragraph undue weight.

How about, 'Commentators on the left have said that what they call conservatives and right-wing libertarians pushed the term in order to divert attention from more substantive matters of discrimination and as part of a broader culture war against liberalism. They have also said that conservatives have their own forms of political correctness, which are generally ignored'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to the scholars/commentators switch (in fact not all of those referred to in the article are 'scholars'), but why 'what they call conservatives'? Political and social conservatism is a generally used, neutral description and does not need qualifying any more than 'on the left' does. Pincrete (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking more of 'right-wing libertarians'. It may not be that that the people who use the term 'political correctness' can in fact properly described as 'right-wing libertarians'; that could be just what the left wing call them. I suppose that does apply to conservatives too.

To put my argument in a more direct way, I do not think it would be for WP correct to say, 'people who use the term 'politically correct' are right-wing libertarians'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with your last point, but we don't say (or, I think, imply) that. I'm not entirely sure why r-wing libers are mentioned anyway, they are simply a distinct group of conservatives and I'm not sure that they are especially notable for using the term. Within the article, the commentators making this charge, mainly use the terms 'conservative' or 'right-wing', rather than 'libertarians'. 'Right-wing libertarians' is not a common term in the UK, though the phenomenon is a familiar one. Pincrete (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Posited protection (removed section)

Following on my comment regarding WP:DUE in the preceding section, User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker (herinafter Magoo) contacted me on my talk page and called my attention to the removal of this section by User:Pincrete in this edit. After looking at Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification, I don't consider this contact by Magoo to have been WP:Canvassing (Pincrete may disagree).

The edit summary of the edit removing the section says, "These are simply examples of use based on primary sources + there is opposition to this section expressed on talk." The article talk page section referred to there seems to be the one headed #Civitas think tank pamphlet. I don't think that discussion established a consensus for removal, and I see that the article contains a cite of this BBC article headed, "PC thinking 'is harming society'", and subheaded, "Britain's institutions are infected with political correctness which is damaging society, according to a book published by a right-wing think-tank." That article discusses the viewpoint presented in the book and also discusses an opposing viewpoint put forth by Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain. This seems to me as if it goes a long ways towards meeting the requirements of WP:DUE. See also this article in The Guardian.

Regarding topical significance of the removed material, I think that it tried to throw a light on something deserving of mention—described by Magoo in the discussion as "the view of how political correctness has become to be used as a shield by those commonly viewed as discriminated against." In the discussion, Pincrete said, "I strongly object to its inclusion in its present form." I don't like the removed content as it was presented either, though probably not for the same reasons. I would suggest a rewwrite to widen the scope, perhaps including material growing out of this townhall.com article headed, "Neighbor Didn't Report Suspicious Activity of San Bernardino Killers For Fear of Being Called Racist" and including material saying, "This is the same politically correct culture that lead to the Ft. Hood shooting when Nidal Hassan, who had been spouting violent Islamic propaganda to neighbors on post and reaching out to Al Qaeda, was ignored for fear of 'Islamaphobia' accusations." and/or this cnsnews.com article headed, "Cruz: AG’s ‘Ban on What She Calls Anti-Muslim Rhetoric’ Producing ‘Chilling Effect’ in War on Terror" and including content saying, " noticed the couple 'doing a lot of work in the garage,' but didn’t want to profile them. It turns out the couple left behind a stockpile of ammunition and explosives." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, first let me correct you about something, to the best of my knowledge neither the 'Civitas' material nor the Dawkins quote have ever been part of a stable version (not in the last 9-ish months at least), therefore the onus is on you or 'Mr. Magoo' to establish consensus for inclusion/re-instatement. I and at least one other longish-term editor (Aquillion) objected to the inclusion.

My reasons were primarily that the term 'PC' has been used many tens of thousands of times on TV, in newspapers, books and pamphlets etc. In the article we do not include primary sources USING the term except where they are especially notable (eg Bush Snr. using the term indicates its general acceptance in early '90s). We cite only a handful of instances of persons USING the term and largely rely on secondary studies commenting on use of the term. Civitas's use is NOT such a milestone use IMO.

Some of what you are suggesting would also IMO be OR, going into the issues behind the term rather than the term itself.

Aquillion (if I remember correctly), further objected that 'Civitas' is not an especially notable organisation, nor is this publication very notable, given the innumerable times the term has been used.

You appear to have read the discussion, so you know that I also objected to the particular Civitas quote (which to my mind says nothing about political correctness, the quote basically says that UK ethnic minority communities themselves are sometimes racist, sexist and homophobic, very possibly true, but so what?).

Contacting an editor who has not been involved for many months in order to support my position, is not something I would do without very good reason, though technically, since you DID insert the material previously, it is NOT canvassing. Besides, you are here now so that issue is academic. Pincrete (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, I would suggest a rewrite of the removed section rather than a simple unrevert to restore the section in the form it had prior to its removal. The rewrite need not necessarily feature the Civitas think tank source to which you objected as a primary source. Instead, it might assert that it has been posited that a culture of "political correctness" is responsible for damaging society by protecting some groups from having their stated views or, in some cases, their actions challenged (I don't state that well; I'm not much of a wordsmith). I described and linked four secondary sources above (, two which had been cited in the removed section and two others which I dug up) which seem to me to support such an assertion. It seems to me that such a subsection would fit well as a subsection into the Modern usage section as the current As a conspiracy theory and False accusations subsections. My purpose here was not to champion the inclusion of such a subsection, however. It just seemed to me after the removal of the section had been called to my attention that the removal had been premature, and I chimed in to say so and to invite more discussion about that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Civitas was added in 2012, removed this August by your tag team buddy. Compare the state of the article from May 20 2015 to September 23 2015. The two made over a hundred edits to the article in the meantime and never edited or undid each other's edits. I believe there were possibly two times where the other's grammar was fixed? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, I see the season of goodwill has not affected your gift for making absurd claims about the other editors on this article (in the hope of influencing newcomers to the page?). this is what the closing admin had to say at your last attempt to blacken the name of 3 long-term editors on this page 'This is a baseless report brought by an editor who failed to obtain the results they wanted at ANI and then came here. The filer's spin on the evidence they've compiled is remarkably long but devoid of quality. Closing.' Pincrete (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I retorted in this way only because you outright and knowingly lied above about Civitas not having been part of the stable version for 2-3 years. And like I wrote above, he hadn't even bothered to read the filing. He thought the ANI was started by me, even though two people had written the opposite. And even then they mostly deal with SP investigations and not MP. I didn't see a single other MP investigation there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, I really don't give a shit about your pathetic defence of repeatedly made but wholly discredited accusations. Learning to apologise might be more constructive than trying to defend the indefensible. However, you compound matters by repeatedly accusing me/anyone/everyone of lying. My post said: to the best of my knowledge neither the 'Civitas' material nor the Dawkins quote have ever been part of a stable version (not in the last 9-ish months at least). Where is the untruth in my statement? Where the lie? If it is significantly inaccurate, I will happily apologise to the editor it was addressed to. Learn to read please.

Your SPI was rejected because there was zero evidence and there was zero evidence because there was zero 'crime'. I've no idea what the admin meant about the ANI, but do recall that you ended that ANI by promising to STOP making accusations. I have never communicated with any other editor of this page, and I have never knowingly lied (I can make mistakes, like anyone). Your repeated accusations achieve nothing, except advertise your taste for WP:Trolling. Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Calm down. Like I wrote, he hadn't even bothered to read anything so hardly discredited. And it was an MP investigation which he isn't used to. MP investigations are directed to the same place as SP investigations but I didn't see any other there like I already wrote. The Civitas had been removed in August by your friend and had been stable for 2-3 years before that. Not only that but only an hour after that removal you yourself made whopping nine edits to the article. And I promised only to accuse when bad behavior is overt and not covert. When you all appeared within an hour — with the other two having been gone from the article for 14 and 19 days — to vote in the last RfC: it was overt. Again, I talk to one alone for months but vote against three within an hour of each other. Anyone would think this to be meatpuppetry. On WP:MEAT it says that only circumstantial evidence can be relied upon. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I gave you the oppurtunity to apologise for repeating an accusation for the n00th time for which you have zero evidence. I gave you the oppurtunity to apologise for TWICE in two days calling me a liar, when you are demonstrably wrong. You chose not to do either. Pincrete (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You did obviously lie about Civitas? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It might be more useful to inform me of my error than use words like 'lie' again and again and again. It might even be quicker!Pincrete (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I wrote "lie" a whopping two times and not in the first reply where I pointed out the incorrectness. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

While "political correctness" is not among my major concerns, Pincrete's reasoning about the sources seems rather surprising to me. You are purposely excluding newspapers? But this article is not about the use of the term in purely academic sources.

Per Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources about news sources: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it." "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

"For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. Many news organizations rely heavily on press releases from the organizations or journals involved. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context."

Which would suggest that the relevance of any given source primarily depends on the context of its use in the article. Not necessarily on being scholarly or not. Dimadick (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Dimadick, quick reply, nowhere, I believe, do I say we are excluding newspapers, indeed we do use them. What I said (or meant), is that we largely exclude instances of papers, books, sites, TV etc. USING the term (as opposed to writing about the term/concept). Partly because it would be OR to extrapolate significance and also because there are far too many thousands of instances of use, that such use would need special significance in order to be justified. An article on any political term would need to take a similar approach, we would not extrapolate the meaning of 'conservative' for example from the millions of times the word has been used to describe this or that person or action. Pincrete (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

If we are to exclude simple mentions then we would be double encouraged to remove the entire Baa Baa sheep bit which doesn't even mention the term (which you have argued for and opposed removal of). But he's right, you have a history of purposely excluding any sort of a source which you personally disagree with and including bad ones you agree with. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

There is already a section above about 'Baa Baa'. Where does Dimadick accuse anyone of "purposely excluding any sort of a source which you personally disagree with and including bad ones you agree with"? I couldn't see that bit! His remarks seem based on a good-faith, but nonetheless inaccurate, reading of my posts, his intention to inform, not accuse. Pincrete (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Which you had ignored for over a month before you finally replied now. And I didn't claim Dimadick claimed anything like that. I can now see how you could read it like that but I wrote he's right and then wrote about your reasons for it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC).

Frankfurt School conspiracy theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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