Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:49, 14 February 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. Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Gender studies This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Linguistics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samuel12992 (article contribs).

	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

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)

• 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 'PC' almost always meant an excessive adherence to a political orthodoxy, whether used critically, ironically or self-mockingly, though I doubt if 'Stalinist' ITSELF, was a critical term among US/UK Communists, until after his death. Pincrete (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dictionaries can be RS as written in 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 using AT&T Wireless at the same location in Kansas---

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

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

Clarification of compromise proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Often

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative/Right-wing correctness

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

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

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

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)

Plane art

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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
• Unassessed sociology articles
• Unknown-importance sociology articles
• Unassessed Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• Unassessed Linguistics articles
• Unknown-importance Linguistics articles
• WikiProject Linguistics articles
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment