Talk:Political correctness/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Lead changes!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment on personal attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not pejorative in my part of the world

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

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

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

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

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

[T]he use of, or even the definition of, 'political correctness' as seen by the liberal left is strongly disputed by those of other political views (and even by many liberals). Some view the very term 'politically correct' to be pejorative in that it portrays a political stance that they oppose as 'correct'.

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

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

nb edit conflict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dinesh D'Souza is not the popularizer of the term

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nb edit conflict

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

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

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

The second states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"politically correct" used sincerely with its literal meaning

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

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

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

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

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

'leaning' vs. '-wing'?

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

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

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

nb edit conflict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, I quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NYT, Bush and Bloom in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)Bush doesn't belong in the lead - and we shouldn't decide what is notable. "Hence" obviously means causation and shouldn't be used either. The source for the term becoming popular in the UK[1] doesn't say that at all. Nor is it a reliable source for such a statement. Since I removed that from the article body I've removed it from the lead. I really don't understand why Bush would be in the lead. How does that meet WP:LEAD? Doug Weller (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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